On July 6, 2010, the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit to challenge the move by the state of Arizona enacted recently. The racial profiling law (SB 1070) threatened to legally perpetuate a racial stereotyping culture of certain social groups thereby contravening the federal immigration policies. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, who also filed a lawsuit last month challenging the constitutionality of the law, the enacted policy infringes on the rights of vulnerable groups whose rights to contribute to the state’s decision making is put at stake. The policy does away with their rights to political freedom (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010, para 2).
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
The strength behind the ACLU’s position that complements the federal law agents to challenge Arizona’s policy, emphasized that the law seeking encourage racial profiling would degrade and degenerate the American values responsible for justice and fairness. While the countries founding father dreamed of a nation-state comprising of people with diverse cultures and identified living together harmoniously. The racial profiling policy would highly prejudice against races and stir up animosity amongst people already living in peace.
In the view of Linton Joaquin, the policy appears to target immigrants and colored people to limit if not deny them civil rights. This may draw us back to the president’s debate of “who belongs in America”. In America, just like every other democratic nation, civil liberties form the core of human freedom and Arizona is not an exception. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights seek to guarantee every individual in the country his or her basic rights. This mainly focuses on protecting the rights of politically vulnerable groups of people. The case shows the federal government’s effort in protecting the rights of every American citizen. Besides, the federal government’s jurisdiction upon each state or region as marked by the role of DOJ in this lawsuit indicated their commitment to continue the liberation of American immigrants from policies intended to undermine their existence (Inguli & Halbert, 2006, p. 148).
Based on the current ACLU advocacy, the United State policies aimed at protecting human rights through upholding people’s liberty in the country. On the other hand, the racial profiling law poses the risks of creating a major divide between the judicial system and the community in Arizona. This would be marked by mistrust and between the Arizonian State Police and community their by leading to serious incoherence in the administrative criteria especially as pertains to law enforcement agents. When the state of Arizona undertakes the initiative to enact this policy, it sends a strong message of racism as an aspect of people’s lives in the state. Measuring this analysis against minorities and endangered communities such as the Latinos who have suffered salient racial profiling in Maricopa since the history of the state, one may never fail to admit that the policy is a tool for social disintegration (Lively & Weaver, 2006, p. 159).
As America believes in the principle of unity in strength and equality amongst its people, the policy negates the principle of human rights and dignity embodied in federal immigration policy. In essence, the policy has a higher likelihood of scattering the various communities further apart than drawing them closer for the state’s common good. Similarly, the contention created by the policy touches on sensitive issues of social nature that shake the entire community of Arizona. While this is the fabric that binds Arizonians together, it makes it extremely challenging for the state law agents to enforce it.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2010). U.S. Department Of Justice Files Lawsuit against Arizona’s Racial Profiling Law. Immigration Rights. New York: American Civil Liberties Union.
Inguli, E. & Halbert, T. (2006). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment (6th Ed). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. pp. 147-53
as little as 3 hours
Lively, D. E. & Weaver, R. L. (2006).Contemporary Supreme Court cases: land mark decisions since Roe v. Wade. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 158-164.