'We are legal residents. We need not worry about a law against illegal immigrants,' is the attitude some Indian community members take about the new immigration law in Arizona. Guru Roop Kaur Khalsa, a Sikh activist and filmmaker in Phoenix begs to differ.
"The law may be against the illegals. But ultimately it could affect anyone, especially those looking different in skin color," said Khalsa, who is a Sikh.
The law allows state authorities to question individuals based on the mere suspicion that they may be undocumented and requires individuals to prove that they reside in the country legally or face criminal penalties. Those found without valid immigration documents can be sent to jail for six months and fined.
"This effectively allows the police to apprehend any individual who looks 'foreign'--regardless of immigration status--simply based on their appearance," said Priya Murthy, policy director of South Asian Americans Leading Together. "This is not the right law to solve the problems we face in Arizona. It has a strong potential for being abused. Many said they are now already being stopped and questioned for no reason," said Rano Singh, commissioner, Citizen's Finance Review Commission, Arizona.
Activists are worried that the legislation may spawn similar measures in other parts of the country. "Several other states have already indicated considering similar measures, including Colorado, Ohio, and Utah. In addition, state and local governments across the nation, including areas with significant South Asian populations like parts of Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, have already instituted policies that raise similar concerns," Murthy said.
"The idea that the police can determine who is here illegally is absurd. Exactly what will this determination be based on? Obviously, it makes anyone who has brown skin a target," Khalsa said. "We have made some strides in this country racially and it is a national shame that a law like this was passed and signed by Governor Jan Brewer."
According to Murthy, "Even a US citizen of South Asian descent could easily be pulled over by law enforcement and asked to prove their status. The impact on South Asians, along with other communities of color, is very real as we are an immigrant community and have routinely been perceived as outsiders in this country. This law makes the consequences of that misperception even more severe."
Rano Singh felt Congress has to take steps to give legal status to many millions of law-abiding, hard-working non-status people already living here. "They are positive contributors in the communities in which they live, and a net plus for the United States," Singh said.
Khalsa said that in 2007, Arizona passed a bill enforcing penalties for business owners who do not check into their employees' legal status. Supporters of that bill and the current bill say that it is already working. Between 2008 and 2009 there was an 18 percent drop in illegal immigrants in Arizona. Both the law and the bad economy played a role in this.
"On the one hand, illegal immigration is against the law and it costs taxpayers a lot of money in services each year. On the other hand, illegal immigrants are undeniably woven into the economy in this country. Latinos and Asians are an integral part of Arizona's economy and tax base, as well as a growing share of voters in the state," Khalsa noted. The purchasing power of Arizona's Latinos and Asians totaled $37.1 billion in 2008. If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in expenditure, $11.7 billion in economic output, and about 140,000 jobs, she said, citing reports. "America has a nasty habit of building itself up on the backs of poor people without fair compensation. Now the bill for services rendered has come due (in the form of services) and we don't want to pay it," she said.
President Barack Obama opposed the law and said it threatened 'to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between the police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.' Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security and a former Arizona governor, also opposed the bill, saying it might hinder federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens.
Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer connected to the Migration Policy Institute, said law might be unconstitutional because, with a few exceptions, immigration enforcement is the sole responsibility of the federal government.
According to the bill, 'For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.' The term 'lawful contact' is ambiguous and often defined differently depending on the interpreter's political bent. But the bill is certainly discomfiting when it discusses profiling: "A law enforcement official may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.'
This raises the possibility that a combination of those ethnic factors could be used to detain visitors on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.
The officials can be mollified by showing them a valid Arizona driver license, a valid Arizona non-operating identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or a valid federal, state or local government-issued identification. Such identification will not allow for foreign passports or identification issued in states that does not check for immigration status before issuing them.
More seriously even, anybody who finds any laxity in enforcing laws against undocumented people can take the official or agency to court. A first-time arrest could call for six months in jail, and a fine of up to $2,500. After that, the Arizona bill is deemed a felony.
Tourists and guest workers will need to carry more paperwork than residents with them, failing which they risk detainment and arrest.
