Arizona and Imigrants
The article regarding Arizona versus United States on immigration clearly settles the argument that the case did, indeed, involve racial profiling. The results more than proved how un- American racial profiling is. The reason for this is because officers were required to detain people that were suspected to be undocumented, and the only way they could do this, is to go by their skin color and their accent. In Alabama, were the law was passed we can see the documented results of this law. Crops rotted, people were afraid to leave their homes, children were held back from school, and neighbors questioned each other’s legal statuses. Because of this, other states didn’t pass such a law. Not only was it bad for business it undermined our constitutional rights of commitment to fairness and equality.
Critical Analysis:
In my analysis of the article on, “Arizona and Immigrants,” that went to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice G. Roberts, Jr. and the Government’s lawyer were presumptuous to suggest no racial profiling was involved. The reason for such a law was obviously to evict Latinos from the United States. Alabama passed the law and serves as an example of how not to do it. To enforce such a law, officers were compelled to stop people only based on skin color and their language. Neighbors questioned each other. Even citizens were afraid of leaving their homes, crops were lost, etc. The results were so detrimental to society, that no other state sought to pass such a law. Clearly, this demonstrated how un-American racial profiling is. This proved, that going against basic human rights, affected the equilibrium of society’s flow. In short, undermining our society’s commitment to fairness and equality never pays off.
Opinion:
In my personal opinion, regarding the article on “Arizona and Immigrants,” the argument at the Supreme Court level regarding Arizona’s “show me your papers” law did involve racial profiling. Both, the Government lawyer, and the Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. were clearly wrong. Such a law is un-American, and it goes totally against our Constitutional