Welcome to Arizona: I Will Need Your Papers

Does the Arizona law raise a civil rights issue or is it exclusively an immigration issue that easily passes constitutional muster? Although the motivation behind the law was a border problem, I believe that Arizona’s solution to the immigration problem raises more of a civil rights issue. Here’s why:

Louis and his family are traveling from Massachusetts to vacation in Las Vegas. As they pass through Arizona, they are pulled over by a police officer.

Police Officer: Sorry ma’am, you’ll have to get out of the car and come down to the station. Please exit the vehicle and turn around so we can cuff you.

Brown Skinned Person with imperfect English: Why?

Police Officer: A) Because your out-of-state driver’s license doesn’t prove you’re legally in the U.S. Seven states still issue driver’s licenses to those without authorization to be in the U.S., including our “neighbor” New Mexico. Your driver’s license doesn’t prove anything to me.

B) Because you don’t have a driver’s license or U.S. Passport on you.

C) Because you don’t have a driver’s license…it doesn’t matter that you’re not driving. Our law says I must make you prove that you’re here legally if I’m reasonably suspicious that you’re not in the U.S. legally. I am suspicious.

D) Because the baby in the back seat doesn’t have any legal papers showing where the baby was born. How do I know where she was born?

E) Because you have a Mexican thing-a-ma-chig hanging from your rear view mirror and that causes me to be somewhat suspicious right there (as would a Brazilian bumper sticker). I want to see whose name the car is registered under. If it isn’t yours, everyone in the car is coming with me.

One night or day on the street, the following legal stop occurs,

Police Officer: You’re loitering, which is a crime. This is a legal stop. Let's see your papers.

Brown-skinned person who’s English is imperfect: But…but… I’m just standing here. I’m not, I… was it littering or loitering you said I did?

Police Officer: Don’t give me flak. Do you want to be taken in for disturbing the peace, too? How about resisting arrest? We now have the authority to finally kick your asses out of here and get control of this situation. [Recently, upon pulling over, by a Marlboro Policeman, a Brazilian driving his car without a license a Marlboro Policeman, reportedly said to the driver’s pregnant U.S. Citizen wife: “Criminals like him your husband should all be deported, you just wait and see…” Yet, the person had never been accused or convicted of any crime.]

Brown-skinned person with imperfect English responds: But officer, I wasn’t loitering or littering I was only:

A) Leaving the movies with a friend.

B) Looking for work.

C) Heading home from school.

D) Leaving the club.

E) Trying to defuse the conflict before it became a fight.

F) Trying to break up the fight.

G) Making out with my girlfriend on the park bench, it was my friends who were horsing around.

These possible anecdotes were mostly taken from real-life events that occurred before or after the Arizona law passed.

Is the threat of those unlawfully present in the U.S. really so grave that U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, legal non-immigrants and those unlawfully present in the U.S. all need to be subjected to this kind of police inquiry, questioning or interrogation?

If this were done to those who live near the Canadian border, those of us who look like we might be Canadian, I think the answer would be clear.

So, that there is no mistake about the matter, within 100 miles of any U.S. contiguous border, the U.S. Border Patrol has the authority to stop anyone it wants, at any time, for any reason, to ask for someone’s papers. Arizona’s law created the crime of trespass, for people unlawfully present, so that pursuant to a legal stop, all “reasonably suspicious” people, anywhere in the state, could be charged with that crime.

As a matter of public safety, we’re much better off having immigration investigations and border patrol agents (even if we need more of each) identify and catch people without legal papers and have those without such papers still be able to call the police when they are victims of domestic assault, theft, mugging, house invasions, or are witnesses to such crimes. Let police be police, let immigration officials be just that.

Why should Worcester City Council take up the measure?: First, to show states like neighboring Rhode Island that we find this to be a civil rights issue. Second, to the claim that we have a federal justice system that will decide the case, so why should we get involved? What if during the five years or so the case takes to get to the Supreme Court, the court does not issue a stay of the law going into effect? What if it actually goes into effect until the Supreme Court decides to overturn it? How will the Worcester City Council feel then? We should take up the Arizona measure as a matter of choice, because we can.