On April 24, Arizona's governor signed a highly controversial immigration bill into law. The law requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone who may seem to be illegal citizens. As such, it also requires immigrants to carry all alien registration documents at all times in order for the police to ensure they are here legally. Before, police officers could only check the immigration status of someone if they were suspected in a separate crime.
How does someone look like they're illegal? No matter what sort of anti-racial profiling rhetoric the governor may use in support of this new bill, how can any reasonable person not think that this bill will become largely used for racial profiling? What, besides race, language and possibly socioeconomic status, may allude to someone being illegal?
This law not only allows for racial profiling but encourages it by requiring officers to check immigration status. The previous protocol, to allow an officer to check immigration status if someone is suspected in another crime, seems perfectly reasonable. Now, however, perfectly law-abiding citizens can be harassed by police because they're of Hispanic descent.
I do believe that there needs to be immigration reform, but this seems like a step in the wrong direction - one down a path leading to racism and increased distrust of police officers and government.
Michael Jones\nCLAS I
Read More
CLIPPINGER: Take a Women, Gender & Sexuality Course at U.Va.
By Grace Clippinger | 17 hours agoFar from a mere ideology, gender studies provides a critical framework for engaging with a variety of real-world issues.
DUTTENHOFER: Higher education should not reset every four years
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 2 days agoA growing pattern of political interference and upheaval is quietly destabilizing the foundations of both academia and the University itself.
WETMORE: A justification for Gov. Spanberger’s appointments
By Celeste Wetmore | 3 days agoThe Board continued their search without pause in the face of these checks on their operations, demonstrating the detachment of its agenda from community wishes and concerns — and providing clear justification for Spanberger’s actions.
