With the many ridiculous comparisons in todays political world between certain

governing bodies in our country and Nazi Germany, the following statement loses the
serious tone which it is intended to bear; what is happening in Arizona is, at the very
least, reminiscent of Nazi Germany- police are able to pull people off the streets and
demand their paper documenting citizenship and identification. That said, it is a simple
moral issue to a liberal audiencehowever, it is more complicated in the eyes of the law.
Should a state be allowed to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants? The short answer is
quite obvious: yes. In the case of Arizona however, a more appropriate answer is, yes
but not by the states current means of doing so. The reasons for this are entirely
constitutional.
In 1823, the Supreme Court declared that Freedom of Movement was a
Constitutional right. In 1869, The Supreme Court defined freedom of movement as a
right of free ingress into other states, and egress from them. This guarantees the rights of
free movement about the country. In Arizona, a law was recently passed which ordains
the failure to carry immigration documents a crime, and gives the police broad power to
detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. This is explicitly illegal; it is a
violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendments Due Process clause states that
state and local governments may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without
certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. The Equal Protection Clause requires each
state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. The
14th amendment, essential to the civil rights movement, inherently ensures that citizens
cant be targeted or persecuted because of their race. The 4th amendment uses and
explains a termprobable cause. Protection against search and seizure without

warrant, etc. This was part of a design that would make sure that the police and other
offices of the law obtained evidence in ways that would not violate citizens rights.
The 4th and 14th amendments alone express that it is illegal to discriminate
because of race. Ones race may not be used as evidence, and more importantly, without
evidence, (probable cause), or a warrant, a citizen may not be detained by the police. To
violate any of these implications is to attack a persons liberty unfairly, and without proof
of guilt of any crime.
Now, back to freedom of movement. Passports were not required for entrance into
the United States before 1978, thus the issues of Immigration before that date were
different. Earlier than 1978, one could presumably enter the country, and live as a noncitizen. They would not be protected by the law the way that citizens would, and would
not have the advantage of certain government programs, but they could nonetheless work,
pay for living space, and if they had a child born in the country, that child would have
both citizenship and rights. However, it is now necessary to have a passport in order to
enter the country. A member of another country with a passport from their homeland
could enter and live as described previously, however the majority of immigrants to this
country who come across the southern border into places like Arizona are not bringing
passports. It is illegal to come into the United States without a passport or documentation.
This creates a difficult issue; what is to be done with illegal immigrants? This question
has become increasingly difficult to answer due to our understanding that it truly violates
the Constitution to pull people off the streets and detain or interrogate them because of
their ethnicity or race, as is being done in Arizona.
Suppose that there is a better, fairer, way to determine the legality of a possibly

illegal migrant population. What should be done about it? There are very important
economic and moral considerations that must be made; it is an issue that must be viewed
as both a politician and a humanitarian. While it is legal to deport immigrants who are in
the country illegally, it is very expensive to do so. Extensive forms of transportation by
either plane or bus would have to be paid for with tax dollars. John Morton, the ICE
assistant secretary said the agency lacks resources to deport more than 400,000 illegal
immigrants a year less than 4 percent of the estimated total of 11 million illegal
immigrants in the United States and therefore must prioritize. They do not target
illegal immigrants who do not pose a threatin other words, who have not been
convicted of a crime.
In addition, the case must be made that while not able in many cases to obtain
citizenship, there are in fact many illegal immigrants who live in the country, who have
bought property, pay sales, income, and property taxes. The fact of the matter is that it
would be incredibly inefficient and expensive to seek out and deport the illegal
immigrants now living in the United States. Furthermore, the economic implications of
removing an enormous low-income level workforce could be devastating for the
economy.
The ethical issues at hand are in many ways more complex. The first, of course, is
that as humansdespite pride and loyalty to America, we do feel compassion. It is a
cruel, merciless act to force any individual to return to an unbearable and poor quality of
life. Others however, argue that there are many Americans in this country who live in
poverty, whose jobs are taken by these illegal immigrants. This is truly an unanswerable
debate, however, President Obama had some sage words relating to the query; he

explained that the Arizona laws threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that
we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is
so crucial to keeping us safe. His words express the idea that while the issue of
immigration is one that must indeed be solved, it is also fragile. We should not seek to
correct it in any dangerous way that might cause serious strife, mistrust, or disharmony.
The American people seem to have a common opinion about this issue. According
to a new Gallup poll, when asked to choose among three options -- deporting all illegal
immigrants, allowing them to remain temporarily in the United States to work, or
allowing them to stay permanently and become US citizens after meeting certain
conditions -- a majority, 59 percent, chose permanent legalization. Fifteen percent
favored the temporary-worker option. Just 24 percent supported deportation.
The truth is that it is very difficult to transform these primarily non-English
speaking illegal immigrants into American Citizens. It is however, the most reasonable
option, and what will hopefully become the goal of our countrys leaders. Rather than tear
apart families and communities, and create a further racial divide in the country, those
functioning members of society should be allowed to integrate. In other words,
citizenship should become more accessible to all immigrants, thus allowing them to
become a productive part of American society.
While it is clear that Arizona should not be able to discriminate and profile
according to race, the question of the legality of the deportation of illegal immigrants
seems simple: the deportation of illegal immigrants is legal. One may argue however that
it is entirely subject to the priorities of the country as a whole, including foreign relations,
and the status of the economy. Although this is true, there should be validation for states

such as Arizona to establish laws, which seemingly bypass ones individual rights granted
within the Constitution of the United States.
Americas history is one of change and a continuous fight for freedom. In 1850, it
was legal to hunt down escaped slaves and required that they be returned to the terrible
and inhuman circumstances under which they lived. In the late 1930s and early 40s, Jews
were pulled away from their communities and forced into concentration camps. Today,
Hispanics flee from poverty to find refuge in the United States, only to be dragged back
to the undesirable lives which they so desperately escaped. In Arizona, this shameful
process is initiated on the basis of stereotypes and racial profiling, thus undermining
ones constitutional rights. How can the United States of America continue to reign as
the land of the free and the home of the brave, if one is denied the basic rights for
which our founding fathers so heroically fought?

Works Cited
"Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination | The Heritage Foundation ."
Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation .

N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-arizona-immigration-lawracial-discrimination-prohibited>.
ARCHIBOLD, RANDAL C.. "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News &
Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html>.
"Arizona Immigration Enforcement Bill Stirs National Debate - FoxNews.com ."
FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. N.p., n.d. Web. 3
Jan. 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/arizona-immigrationenforcement-stirs-national-debate/>.
"Arizona passes tough illegal immigration law | Reuters

." Business & Financial News,

Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63I6TU20100419>.
"Arizona's immigration law sb1070: what does it do? - CNN." Featured Articles from
CNN. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Jan. 2011. <http://articles.cnn.com/2010-0423/politics/immigration.faq_1_arizona-immigration-law-reform-sb1070?
_s=PM:POLITICS>.
"FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution." Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys,
Law, Legal Information - FindLaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/>.
"Will Arizona's Immigration Law Survive? - NYTimes.com." Room for Debate NYTimes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2011.

<http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/will-arizonas-immigrationlaw-survive/>.