Why sb 1070 was created

Follow: Facebook : facebook. SB is Arizona's controversial anti-immigrant law The Supreme Court has upheld SB 's notorious "show me yours papers" provision, deciding that it is not preempted by federal law. SB 4 Main Provisions Considered Before the Supreme Court Police demand "papers" and investigate immigration status if they suspect a person is undocumented. Police arrest individuals without a warrant if they believe they are a deportable immigrant.

Immigrants who fail to carry federal registration papers are guilty of state crime. Immigrants who seek or accept work without authorization are guilty of state crime The Supreme Court's decision. For Arizona: Provision 1 was upheld Provision 2 was struck down Provision 3 was struck down Provision 4 was struck down Federal courts have blocked major provisions in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.

Illinois HJR calls upon the Arizona Legislature to repeal SB and asks Congress and the president to act quickly to enact comprehensive immigration reform. The joint resolution was introduced May 4, adopted by the House on May 7, and is pending in the Senate. In Michigan, HR urges repeal of SB and asks Michigan businesses and public and private organizations to refrain from doing business with or in the state of Arizona.

The resolution was introduced on May Michigan HR expresses support for Arizona's new legislation regarding immigration and opposes any boycott of Arizona businesses.

The resolution was introduced on June 9. New York SR denounces policy that encourages racial profiling and asks cooperation on all levels of government to enact immigration policies and laws. The resolution was adopted on May 4. Tennessee HJR commends Arizona on its upcoming Centennial and salutes the initiative of the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer in their actions to protect their citizens and the border.

Three individuals two law enforcement officials and one researcher and the Coalition of Latino Clergy filed the first challenges to the law based on equal protection, due process and preemption under the Supremacy Clause.

The lawsuit states that SB violates the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law, and Article II, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.

The lawsuit was filed May 17 in the U. District Court for the District of Arizona. On July 6, , the U. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the U. District Court for the district of Arizona seeking a permanent injunction of SB The civil action states that SB is preempted by federal law 8 U.

On July 15, U. On July 28, Judge Bolton granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction. A key safeguard of public health is a robust immunization program that protects all residents against diseases such as chicken pox, measles, polio, and even the flu. But if parents are afraid to get flu shots for themselves or their children, even though the law technically says that lawful status is not required for immunizations, our whole society is put at risk.

States have no authority to deport immigrants from this country—that power falls solely to the federal government. At best immigrants either leave the state for a friendlier one or go deeper underground. The Supreme Court decision will pit pro-and anti-immigrant states against each other by creating hostile versus welcoming environments for immigrants.

Continuing to target foreign nationals may also impede international cooperation on efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, and human trafficking. We will continue to organize until our communities are free from racial profiling practices by law enforcement officials, and are able to live in our communities without fear of deportation.

As an organization we remember the legacy of resistance we were able to create 10 years ago to fight SB and continue to honor the organizational growth and community empowerment that has stemmed from our state. We mark the last decade as a monument to how far we have come in the fight for human rights in our state.

As an organization we will continue to fight law enforcement officials who comply with ICE and who use racial profiling tactics to intimidate and separate our communities. We will continue to organize and build the community we need to fight against and repeal this policy.

The passage of SB represents a moment in Arizona's history where communities and organizations across the state came together to fight one of the nation's most egregious anti-migratory laws. Republican Senator Russel Pearce introduced SB to the Arizona state legislature with the intention of streamlining statewide police state practices, whereby local law enforcement would be allowed the discretion to ask any person to disclose their immigration status based on reasonable suspicion.

SB served as the nation's catalyst law to enforce a statewide attrition through enforcement strategy. This meant passing a law so flagrant that it would restrict the rights and liberties of migrants, forcing them to self-deport or end up in the crimmigration pipeline. SB was one of the most adverse immigration laws the United States had seen at the time; it would become the blueprint model for other anti-migrant states to follow.

Our community refused to accept the passage and implementation of the law -- we fought back. As a human rights organization, we developed multiple different tactics to fight SB Arizona citizens and residents that opposed federal and state anti-migratory policy were given the opportunity to show solidarity with immigrant communities though non-compliance.

Anti-migratory law SB depends on the compliance of citizens to perform the duty of carrying identification at all times in order to validate their citizenship status in the country. On July 29 th , the same day that SB came into effect, the Puente Movement launched a campaign of non-compliance that encouraged all individuals who were in opposition of SB to protest the law by not carrying any state issued identification such as a driver's license or state identification card.

Non-compliance is the practice of refusing to abet immigration policy by refusing to comply with state orders to report immigrants, deny help to immigrants, and carry identification.

A key strategy in fighting against SB was developing organized communities. We established over 35 CDB communities across Maricopa County and trained other community organizations across the state with the model for local implementation. In , when other states like Georgia and Alabama adopted and implemented their own versions of SB copycat laws, Puente would also share this model to help defend communities across the nation from the Poli-Migra pipeline to deportation. Our Community Defense project would eventually transition into the creation and development of our Curso de Defensa Community Defense Course.