UUSC Statement on Arizona's Immigration Policy

Immigrant Rights are Human Rights —
UUSC Decries Arizona's Anti-immigrant Law

Tens of thousands of immigrants, faith leaders, union organizers, and community activists filled the streets of Washington, D.C., on March 21, 2010, in perhaps the biggest grassroots mobilization since the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. This march powerfully demonstrated the broad-based support for a reformed immigration policy rooted in human rights and represented a call for Congress to place reform at the top of their agenda. Less than a month later, on April 16, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law.

Under the law (Arizona S.B. 1070), law enforcement officials carrying out a stop, detention, or arrest in the enforcement of any law or ordinance must determine the immigration status of any person they "reasonably suspect" is undocumented. In response to concerns that this law effectively legalizes racial profiling, the bill was amended (under H.B. 2162) to state that officials cannot consider race, color, or national origin in implementing the law ("except to the extent permitted by United States and Arizona Constitutions"), and Governor Brewer issued an executive order requiring training for law enforcement to ensure civil rights are not violated.

UUSC is gravely concerned about both this law's misguided approach and the flawed premises underlying it. We are equally concerned about the anti-immigrant hostility it expresses. Notwithstanding its lip service to rights protection, there is serious reason to doubt that such measures can be implemented without opening the door to a range of human-rights violations.

In coming months, courts will determine whether the law passes constitutional muster — under the due process and equal protection clauses, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, and preemption by the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration, among others — or must be struck down. But even in advance of this ruling, it is already clear that by leaving "reasonable suspicion" open to interpretation, this law creates many opportunities for abuses, in particular profiling based on language and appearance.

Moreover, we are concerned that the law's extension to include local ordinances was intended to maximize its potential to be used as an instrument for harassment, by requiring officers to question people even when stopped for minor offenses, like driving with a burned-out taillight.  

We find especially troubling the law's goal of "attrition through enforcement." That is, the intent to encourage undocumented immigrants to leave Arizona through sustained harassment sufficient to compel them to give up their hard-earned lives in the United States. Unfortunately, this strategy is more likely to sow fear and confusion in immigrant communities, even while Arizona residents rely on members of those immigrant communities to build their homes, process and serve their food, and care for their children. And while the directive to increase training for law enforcement is well intentioned, we have reason to doubt that this is adequate to prevent abuses, especially in light of past failures of other programs, like the 287(g) program (see sidebar, "How Arizona's Law Violates Human Rights and Undermines Public Safety"), that entrust police with discretion to enforce immigration law.

UUSC's practice of analyzing issues through a framework emphasizing the roles of race, gender, and class raises obvious concerns about the individuals who will be profiled under this law, particularly since the bill's title erroneously implies that undocumented immigrants undermine law enforcement and threaten neighborhood safety. But our analysis also makes us concerned about other impacts of the law. For example, as noted by the Border Action Network, while the stated goal of this law is better enforcement, the climate of fear it creates will likely lead to decreases in crime reporting, cooperation, and safety while crime and mistrust of police increase. And if this law further reduces immigrant women's ability to report domestic violence or workers' ability to report wage theft, public safety will not be promoted and justice will not be served.

Perhaps most alarming for many social-service providers, the harboring and transporting clauses of the law make it unlawful to transport or attempt to move an undocumented immigrant or to shield an undocumented immigrant from detection anywhere in the state. This could expose to criminal liability faith leaders, social workers, or other community advocates who drive undocumented immigrants to appointments or invite people to their offices to provide support and assistance. And it could place at risk religious communities — many of them UU congregations — participating in the New Sanctuary Movement.

The misguided and dangerous approach taken by S.B. 1070 serves as one more urgent reminder of our country's need to develop a just and humane immigration policy, particularly as a dozen other states and numerous municipalities around the country are working to introduce anti-immigrant legislation inspired by S.B. 1070. Moreover, the current economic crisis should make us realize that across borders we all are part of a global system whose fluctuations create serious consequences for everyone. These are the same global economic forces that push people to migrate. Yet, instead of standing in solidarity and extending empathy, ordinary people are pitted against each other by polarized political and economic interests. They are compelled to see their neighbors as competitors rather than as participants in shared struggles. In this context, UUSC reiterates our call for both legislative reform as well as concrete steps toward building community by ensuring good jobs for all workers in the United States and by combating structuralized racism, classism, and xenophobia to remove the barriers that prevent people from fully realizing their rights.

In the vitriolic and abusive media debates on this topic, human rights are too often forgotten at the expense of political polemics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' principles of equality and freedom from discrimination remind us of what we give up when we allow such harsh measures to be implemented. These are echoed in UU principles that urge "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations," "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," and "the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all." UUSC urges our members to follow the call of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu and bring such human-rights principles back into their rightful place at the center of the immigration debate.  

The lack of clarity around Arizona's S.B. 1070 has created fear and dismay in a broad range of communities. The alliances we build to take action in response need to be equally broad and diverse. Many of us at UUSC have family members, friends, and colleagues who could be harassed under this law. UUSC partners' work with Muslim and Arab Americans who face profiling has shown the gravity of potential abuses. It also underscores the need to prevent isolation of marginalized communities and ensure their voices are heard — thereby increasing our collective impact and power. We call on our members to join these alliances and work in tandem with the Unitarian Universalist Association to declare "No Anti-Immigrant Law in My State" under its Standing on the Side of Love campaign to stop oppression.