Community letters are written by contributors who work or live in the Mission District. They do not represent the views of the news site.
As the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals prepares to hear oral arguments today for United States v. State of Arizona, Latinos in California will be watching closely. The case will address the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070 law.
SB 1070 is one of the broadest and strictest immigration enforcement measures ever enacted by any state in our nation. The court’s decision will send a strong signal not just to Arizona but to the 13 other states that are now considering similar laws.
As an immigration attorney and a first-generation Mexican American from Orange County, laws like SB 1070 remind me of how much history repeats itself. Every day, I see families face deportation for minor encounters with the law. When a broken taillight is used as a reason to stop, overcharge, and deport an individual, then something is seriously wrong with our law enforcement priorities, our laws, and even our morals.
After the Great Depression, Operation Wetback, a strategy enforced by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services, expedited the deportation of 80,000 “Mexican-looking” Americans, including many Mexicans and Latinos born in the United States and Native Americans.
The movement by states to enact immigration laws and to scapegoat Latinos started in California with Proposition 187. Passed in November 1994, Proposition 187 sought, among other things, to require police, health care professionals, and teachers to verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children.
Well-funded anti-immigrant groups like FAIR created a blueprint for states and cities to become immigration law enforcement agents. In light of the discrimination that ensued — even though Proposition 187 was ultimately found unconstitutional — many view this period as one of the worst moments for Latinos in recent California history.
We Latinos in the U.S. must beware: Laws that aim to deport the undocumented will result in the violation of the civil rights of all Latinos.
In the wake of SB 1070, other states are attempting to pass similar or more extreme laws at an alarming rate. Republican state legislator Randy Terrill, who co-authored Oklahoma’s strict 2007 immigration bill (HB 1804), has promised to pursue an even stricter second version of the bill that he has called an “Arizona-plus” law. He is undeterred by the fact that key provisions of HB 1804 were ruled unconstitutional by the Tenth United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
Arizona’s Republican State Senator Russell Pearce recently announced that state legislators will propose a bill to deny United States citizenship to children born of undocumented immigrants. Even though many, if not all, of these bills will be struck down as unconstitutional, they testify to the current anti-immigrant — and anti-Latino — climate.
There is little political will for immigration reform. In fact, both the Democratic and Republican parties see Latinos largely as a source of votes but show scant interest in ensuring that the law treats our community fairly.
Even President Obama, who during his race for the presidency promised to bring the change we can believe in and co-opted the United Farm Workers’ slogan “Yes We Can!” has turned his back on us. Obama has earned the label Deportation Czar. Under his watch, more immigrants have been deported since Operation Wetback. As long as the nation lacks comprehensive immigration reform, laws similar to SB 1070 will continue to be introduced in states across the country. Right now it is up to our judicial branch to uphold the United States Constitution. We Latinos who can must vote for those whose track records show a commitment to fairness for our community, regardless of party affiliation.
“We Latinos in the U.S. must beware: Laws that aim to deport the undocumented will result in the violation of the civil rights of all Latinos.”
I agree with SFmissionman. Your statement overreaches by a huge margin. How is enforcing immigration law inherently a violation of civil rights? Your argument lost me right there.
How about my mom, who immigrated to America legally? She worked four years to pay for her plane ticket, applied to and was accepted for a full ride scholarship for undergraduate school.
She would have been better off just overstaying a tourist visa, having children, and then fighting against deportation because it would be “unfair” to deport her now that she has a family. Such a crock of bull.
What about us Hispanic people with NO college education? The illegal people are taking jobs WE NEED. This is NOT fair to us or our children. Our grand parents came legal, they should all ONLY come legal.
“We Latinos in the U.S. must beware: Laws that aim to deport the undocumented will result in the violation of the civil rights of all Latinos.”
Lydia, the Ninth Circuit will be looking at the constitutionality of the Arizona statute, and thereby very well may strike it down. As it should. But I think you’ve overreached somewhat here by stating that our federal immigration law itself is a violation of the “civil rights of all Latinos,” if it demands the deportation of illegal aliens. There is no such “civil right.” And to the extent that Latinos assert that there is – and this would have to include any and all ethnicities, not just Latinos – with a clear majority of American citizens strongly disagreeing – I think you are recommending a point of view that is both legally and politically unsupportable.