Misunderstandings, lies, and deceit surrounding SB 1070

An open letter to Kirk Adams, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, in response to the following article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702527.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


To the Honorable Kirk Adams:

While I appreciate your efforts to explain the rationale for Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2162 in your recent Washington Post article, I would like to express to you my understandings of the issue and hope to better explain some of the rationale in opposition to these bills.

As a longtime Arizona resident, a child of legal immigrants, and above all a proud American, I find SB 1070 and HB 2162 with great conviction to be unconstitutional, un-American, and without a doubt the greatest incursion upon civil and human rights in our nation's recent history. I am appalled that majority support for such measures can be used to justify the suppression of the minority. I remind you that the citizenry of this nation do not yet fully grasp the invasiveness and demeaning nature of these bills. Many do not feel they could be directly targeted by these laws and thus feel little consequence in supporting them. I also remind you that the majority of Southerners were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws to some extent or another, but the beauty and glory of our nation and its Constitution is equal protection under the law, including for minorities; due process; and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

Despite the revisions made in HB 2162, the primary concerns still remain. This bill, by singly out only individuals that could arouse “reasonable suspicion, 1) legitimizes profiling and identity politics, 2) sets the stage for a police state, and 3) presumes guilt before innocence while providing no basis or guidelines for assessing guilt, not to mention the fact that 4) the legislation is completely ineffective at catching most illegal immigrants, 20% of whom are not Latino, and many of whom can adjust their lives, detrimentally so, to accommodate such tight restrictions.

With all due respect, your defense of "reasonable suspicion" is most objectionable. No standard for reasonable suspicion can be created that fairly assesses behavior or actions alone. Such "suspicion" inherently involves an element of profiling, be it racial, socioeconomic, or otherwise, since it is widely accepted that being of European, African, or Native American descent bars one from, or at least severely reduces, any suspicion. This is a horrifying testament to the unequal protection afforded those individuals. The current "reasonable suspicion" course being developed for law enforcement contains no content other than the admonition to refrain from racial profiling. The only quasi-guidelines provided thus far by Kris Kobach are remarkably ill-conceived and ill-willed: people who “speak English poorly” (many citizens don’t speak English that well and have accents), “appears to be in transit” (would my drive home from San Francisco to Phoenix make me seem illegal?), “out of place in a specific locale,” (is it illegal to be brown-skinned and poor in a white neighborhood?), and “indications from dress, appearance, and demeanor” (is standing on a street corner in workboots suspicious or criminal?). Russell Pearce is proud to proclaim that being Latino can increase scrutiny. Joe Arpaio is known for his abuses of the law and of those in his custody. In essence, it is and should remain impossible to assess legal status without performing a background check.

There is nothing more painful than to be judged as any less American than anyone else. This is the core pillar and dream of our society. I as a second-generation Asian-American understand this pain more intimately than some. Asian-Americans were barred from obtaining their rightfully-earned citizenship (Ozawa vs. US, 1922, where Japanese were ruled as “non-whites” and thus “unassimilable” and ineligible for naturalization) until the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952. As I’m sure you are aware, minorities’ fights and struggles in this nation to fulfill our American dreams have been long, hard, bloody, and disappointingly recent. To assign any minority group a second tier of Americanness simply because of how they look is remarkably insulting, mean-spirited, and dangerous to every American, for we are all minorities. In the last century, we have set tremendous examples to the world and have gained their profound respect for our civil rights and women's rights work, and our deep-seated belief that ethnic origin is of no consequence in being American. We cannot even in the most indirect way to begin chipping away at our foundation.

I am aware of the frustration surrounding illegal immigration and illegal entry into the US, particularly by those with maleficent intentions. I agree that these hardened criminals must be stopped. I agree that immigration reform is urgently needed and that it is important to reduce illegal immigration, be it via hard-lined prosecution or realistic and compassionate measures such as increasing the number of visas, guest worker programs, or amnesty for children brought here illegally. However, we must make a distinction between classes of infractions. We need to remember that illegal presence in the US is a misdemeanor, and we should not distract our law enforcement from tracking down real crimes in pursuit of individuals enduring severe hardship with great determination and tremendous devotion to their loved ones. These are individuals that should be protected; we simply cannot scapegoat all undocumented individuals for the more heinous crimes of a few.

Nor can we see illegal immigrants (in contrast to illegal enterers) as takers from our bread basket. We must remember that each individual in our economy contributes to it, and we must consider the contributions made by many laborers who make it possible for us to enjoy a thriving economy, an economy built on thrift and production that cannot in its current state be maintained by our native-born residents alone. Corporations and private individuals require cheap labor, and their willingness to look the other way, even seek out undocumented workers, should be punished far harsher, for they as people with means can afford to uphold the law and hire individuals whose wages are protected by the law.

I thank you for providing the Washington Post readership with your views, but I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues re-evaluate your original understandings and assertions. We cannot let fear and a desire for heavy-handed law enforcement stand in the way of fixing the fundamental problem or of upholding equal enforcement of reasonable laws, our values, our Constitution, and basic human dignity. We cannot allow such disgraceful acts to occur under our sovereignty and in our home state, acts that the United Nations has condemned as serious human rights violations. Let us continue to be a beacon of freedom and hope for the world so that we can make it a better place.


With high hope and great faith,


Elisa Zhang