Research Paper on Water Resources Development Act (for Hifsa Shaukat)

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

Arizona SB 1070

May 1, 2011

EMPA 302

Spring 2011

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

Introduction

The last Untied State President that tried to push for immigration reform was President George W. Bush in 2006-07. “The failure of bureaucratic agencies to implement a policy properly not only brings confusion to the intent of the policy but also helps to rekindle the political debate initially responsible for the policy action” (Gerston, 93). The fail attempt by President Bush left the nation in limbo with an ineffective act of enforcement when come to immigration laws. “The fragmentation of a policy system affects the stability of the agenda within that system” (Kingdon, 121). The end result: many states, especially Arizona, are “the victims of a knee jerk reaction to the federal government’s failures” (Constitutional Alliance, 2010). Many citizens agree that the country must develop probable solutions to deal with the illegal immigration problem; however, Senate Bill 1070 of Arizona may have struck the cord of many residents in and around the state of Arizona.

To few historians, SB 1070 is just a number that is assigned to a legislative bill. However, to many citizens in, around, and beyond Arizona, SB 1070 is a front row clash of discriminatory policy. SB 1070 of 2010 in the Forth-ninth Arizona Legislature authorize law enforcement agency to freely inquire immigration status and warrantless detention when there is probable causes. Arizona legislators face a dilemma: “even if government policies doe not succeed in eliminating [social issues]…the failure of government to try to do these things would be even worse” (Dye, 336). As a conclusion, the legislators passed “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”. The politicians in the state of Arizona created new state immigration crimes and expands the authority and capability of law enforcement (Arizona Education Association, 2010). Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (2010, April 23) made a public announcement support and authorized the new law as “another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix…” (p. 1). With the stroke of the pen, Governor Brewer signed into law a highly contested and controversial amendment that aims to protect all Arizonans. The entire nation is watching Arizona: for imitational guidance and the opportunity to pounce at the first mishap.

Literature Review

In a nation where it is believe that twenty-eight percent of immigrants reside without legal authorization (Congressional Research Services, 2010, p. 2), Arizona is placed at the forefront of the influx. The Department of Homeland Security reports that of the 31 million foreign-born residents living in the United State, there is approximately 10.8 million were unauthorized, in which half originated from Mexico (Chin, Massaro, & Miller, 2010, p. 2). In their article, The Mathematics of Mexico – U.S. Migration and U.S. Immigration Policy, Arenaza and Cabrera (2010) list arguments for “negative signs of immigration” as net economic losses, negative effects on labor economics, and higher crime rates (p. 11 – 13). The argument put forth by John Cranford (2010) states that “illegal immigrants cost the U.S. at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy” (cited by Arenaza & Cabrera, p. 12). Professor George Borjas (2010) published his finding that shows “that immigration lowered the wage of native workers, particularly of those workers with the least education” (cited by Arenaza & Cabrera, p. 12) because undocumented immigrants “work for far less money than U.S. citizen workers and on regular basis” (cited by Arenaza & Cabrera, p. 12). Although the researches are mixed, anti-immigration advocacy groups push forward the idea that “there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime” (cited by Arenaza & Cabrera, p. 13). Therefore, border counties and states along Mexico are advocating reforming the current ineffective U.S. immigration laws. Some jurisdictions went as far as implementing stricter rules and regulations as a response to detour illegal immigration.

In Arizona alone, between 2004 to 2009, the federal government deported between 320,000 and 500,000 undocumented aliens back to Mexico (Chin, Massaro, & Miller, 2010, p. 2). As a response, on April 21, 2010, Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed in to law the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act (SB 1070), declaring the violation of state crime if residents of Arizona fail to apply or carry appropriate immigration document (Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 3). Trailer bill HB 2162 was enacted shortly afterward to provide “crystal clear” guidance to SB 1070. The bill added language that make racial profiling illegal (Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, 2010, p. 4). In addition to the new law, the act grants local law enforcement broader power to stop and detain individual suspected of unlawfully present in the State of Arizona (Mabrey & Noorani, 2010, p. 3). According to Arizona Congressional Research Services Office (2010), SB 1070 is to “work together to discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United State” (p. 1).

SB 1070 did not come out quietly. The Gallup Poll shows about half support the new law, one-third don’t support such law, and the remaining are unsure (the Rasmussen Report has similar figures) (Wikipedia.com). Threw massage media coverage, protectors’ voice of concern was carried throughout the nation. Why is SB 1070 in Arizona stirring up controversy? Federation for American Immigration Reform (2010) and the Senate Research (2010) of the State of Arizona summarize the key points of SB 1070 as warrantless arrest by law enforcement officers if there is probable cause, illegal to transport, harbor, or encourage illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., prohibit the hiring of day laborers that impedes traffic, subject to arrest if aliens fail to carry proper document, employers must verify employment eligibility through E-Verfiy, legal residents can sue local jurisdiction if the agency fails to enforce the law, law enforcement officers may pursue immigration status of individual who they reasonably suspect to be an illegal aliens, and declares attrition through enforcement to be the official policy of state and local government agencies in Arizona.

Cabrera and Correa debunk earlier arguments of negative impact by reporting on the positive impact of immigration. Immigrants have “contributed as much as $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year” ( Cabrera & Correa, 2010, p. 13). Although immigrant does compete for low wage positions, “the age profile of immigrants, who tend to arrive in the prime of their working years, makes them large net contributors to the Social Security and Medicare program” (Cabrera & Correa, 2010, p. 14). Most importantly (and non-arguable truth) is that “immigrants mostly do jobs Americans don’t wants” (Cabrera & Correa, 2010, p. 14) and “increasing immigration levels have not hurt employment prospects for American workers” (Cabrera & Correa, 2010, p. 15).

What has happen since the approval of SB 1070? Immediately after signing into law by Governor Jan Brewer, states/local/international agencies along with advocacy groups around the nation announced boycotting the state of Arizona. As a result, there is a projection by the Center for American Progress (2010) that Arizona will lose “$253 million in economic output and more than $86 million in lost wages” (Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 11). The Perryman Group estimates that “if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billions in gross state product, and 140,324 jobs” (Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 10). In a Denver Post report, the BBVA Bancomer Research Institution repots that “there may be 100,000 fewer Latinos in Arizona” and 23,380 Mexicans returned from Arizona to Mexico” (Denver Post, 2010). The American Immigration Council (2010) reports in a press release that the City of Phoenix along stands to lose $90 million in the next five next as a result of SB 1070. The Council (2010) continues citing a University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy that in 2004, $44 billion was attributable to the economic output by Arizona’s immigrant workers (American Immigration Council, 2010). Trade off: “laws like Arizona’s are a wasteful distraction and a blemish on a state’s reputation” (Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 11).

Let alone the cost and distraction, legal challenges at the individual and federal levels have postponed the implementation of SB 1070. Nation Public Radio reported on October 28, 2010 that:

hundreds of pages of campaign finance, lobbying, and corporate reports indicate a surreptitious effort to draft and pass the Arizona Senate Bill [SB 1070] by the private prison industry – an industry that would benefit directly if the law is upheld (2010).

Beyond the current finding, the U.S. Government brought suite in District Court against the State of Arizona, Governor Janice Brewer, and SB 1070. The court paper filed July 6, 2010 calls for the declaration of “invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of SB 1070” (pulled from www.scribd.com). The court, under U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, issues a preliminary injunction on July 28, 2010 enjoining the following provision of SB 1070:

Section 2 of S.B. 1070 - requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 - creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien

registration papers

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 - creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070 - authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

That is where SB 1070 currently stands, at the one year anniversary when Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a controversial and maybe unconstitutional immigration reform act.

Policy Philosophies

Government does many things and is involve in all sorts of avenue, so public policy is viewed through what they do and do not do (Dye, 1998, p. 1). In his book Public Management and Policy Analysis, Barry Bozeman (1979) puts forth six policy philosophies that attempt to explain the “set of values about the purposes of government or the most desirable means of achieving purposes” (p. 61). The six policy philosophies are protectionism, rationalism, brokerism, pragmatism, transferalism, and egogism. What is the value purpose of SB 1070? The philosophies behind Arizona SB 1070 can best be explained through protectorism and rationalism.

Bozeman defines protectorism as the policy that “exists to protect people from one another and from themselves (p. 61). SB 1070 is meant to protect Arizonans from the activities and crimes that associate with illegal immigration. The best protectorism is to have governmental entities to protect their citizens from themselves. According to Governor Jan Grewer (2010, April 23), SB 1070 is inactive to “protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in out state lawfully” (p. 1).

Rationalism is “rooted in the faith in Man’s reason and the assumption that problems or governance are amenable to solution through scientific analysis (Brozeman, 1979, p. 63). Through such analysis, “a rational policy is one that achieves maximum social gain” (Dye, 1998, p. 24). Immigration reform through SB 1070 was the result of the most rationalized policy that Arizonan legislators can agree to. Arizonans were stuck between a ‘rock and a hard place’: increasing illegal migration into the state and a failed federal system that suppose to deal with illegal immigration. Governor Jan Brewer (2010, April 23) “listened patiently to both sides…[and] considered the significance of this new law long into the night” before approving the law (p. 1). Thus far, Arizona SB 1070 is the most extensive, comprehensive, and effective reform measure to address the immigration issue.

Dr. Bill Buhl (2011 Spring) devises the concept of Democraism to explain SB 1070 through the argument of “a desire for local control over policies intended to provide a sense of fairness and justice” (Lecture 1). One philosophy behinds SB 1070 is very much the desires of local state of Arizona to be able to develop, implement, and control enforcement policies regarding to illegal immigration. Equality, fairness, and justice were never rooted out of the plan, as we saw with the approval of HB 2162, an attempt to curve allegation of racial profiling. HB 2162 amended specific languages in SB 1070 to distinguish the fact that the law “make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal” (statement by Gov. Jan Brewer, 2010, May 1). HB 2162 went on to ensure just fairness through language that reads the illegality “to consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement” (House Bill 2162, 2010, p. 5-9) of SB 1070. Governor Jan Brewer attempts to coil the sour relationship; however, as good as the intention, the attempt to correct the error came after the facts; after minority groups voiced against offensive language.

To get a better look at policy SB 1070, Dye (1998) proposals viewing SB 1070 through an institutional, process, incremental, and elite models (p. 14). Model, in term of studying policy, is used to explain public policy and predict consequences (Dye, 1998, p. 14). Institutionalist, according to Garston (2010), is concern with the formal, observable building blocks of government (p. 5) under the institutional model. SB 1070 is a public policy tool that redefines the rules and procedures of illegal immigration in the state of Arizona. Alien status verification provides a ‘check’ while detention/deportation attempts to ‘balance’ the policy. The check and balance of SB 1070 are formulated and carried out by the legislators of Arizona.

Regular citizens are ill informed and require the elites to shape the mass opinion (Dye, 1998, p. 21). Also know as actors, “public policy issues gain their status when they reach the eyes and ears of government actors (Gerston, 2010, p. 9). The symbolic issue of illegal immigration reached the eyes and ears of Arizona politicians; therefore, “changes and innovations in public policy come about as a result of redefinitions by elites” (Dye, 1998, p. 23).

Arizona SB 1070 is a notable instance of incrementalism. Arizona has a long history of adopting and implementing controversial immigration reform laws. The reason is that the battler to combat illegal immigration is an evolving game. SB 1070 is a “small, incremental, marginal adjustments in that current behavior” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 79). According to Dye (1998), “incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past government activities with only incremental modifications” (p. 27). The policy of SB 1070 got to it current reading through gradual small steps. SB 1070 is “not so much my mutation, or the sudden appearance of a wholly new structure, a by recombination, or the new packaging of already familiar elements (recombination of old elements more than fresh invention of new ones” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 124).

SB 1070 must have followed the Process model to explain it legislative passage. According to process model (Dye, 1998, p. 17-18), SB 1070 identifies the problem to be continuing illegal immigration into the state of Arizona. The legislators set the agenda of how to stop the economic and social impact of illegal immigration. Policies were formulated to grant addition authority and power for local law enforcement agencies to inquire and detain individual’s residential status warrantless. SB 1070 was debated and eventually signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. However, litigations have prevented police implementation and program evaluation. The theory behind SB 1070 is complete and legitimate but just controversial.

Policy Formulation

Policy formulation is the development of a “policy proposals to resolve issues and ameliorate problems” (Dye, 1998, p. 32). There are many mechanisms and factors that lead to the formulation of public police to counter social problem. Like Arizona SB 1070, a tool to combat illegal immigration. SB 1070 is not the first, nor will it be the last attempts to reform immigration laws. Trying to figure out why and how Arizona developed SB 1070 as a solution to illegal immigration is the work of policy formulation. Understanding the precursor and the content of SB 1070 helps public administrator to establish successful implementation mechanism.

It was a state mood, rather than a nation mood, that called upon Arizona political leaders to revisit the topic of illegal immigration in 2010. The mood among citizens of the state of Arizona has changed. Although border violence has decreased in the last six years (Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 10), support of immigration reform has increased during this economic downturn. Politicians’ understanding of constituents’ mood is important because “mood is one thing that creates the fertile ground” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 147). Government’s success in implementing new policy relies heavily on the mood of the citizen because “attitudes toward government…affect the administration’s success in making new proposals” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 147). In the year where there is double digits unemployment percentage rate and state budget deficit of more than one billion dollars ((Mabery & Noorani, 2010, p. 10), scapegoating illegal aliens as a factor is acceptable. Out of frustration of weak federal immigration law, the climate was right for SB 1070. As a result, multiple opinion polls show that half of Arizonans support SB 1070 (Rodriguez, 2010, July 26).

What might have triggered the mood, according to Gerston (2010), “most triggering mechanism on the public policy process is ascertained post hoc by observing reactions to an event itself” (p. 23). The recent national recession may have a play as to why support half of Arizonans support SB 1070. Illegal immigration is a critical set of events that converts a routine problem into a widely shared, negative public experience” (triggering mechanism) (Gerston, 2010, p. 23). After years of fail immigration reform attempts by past president and weak federal policies of immigration, 2010 is the policy widow that Arizona legislators needed to enact strength in state laws. Gerston would agree that illegal immigration is an internal (domestic) triggering mechanism because the belief of economic impact from illegal immigration “interface with the social and political arenas of life” (Gerston, 2010, p. 31). In addition, the Arizonans attitudes have been altered in regard to the values, behavior, and government obligations of illegal immigration (Gerston, 2010, p. 35). Triggering mechanism shaped the state mood that catapulted illegal immigration onto the public agenda because the four elements have been met. Illegal immigrant affects all residents in the state of Arizona, directly or indirectly (scope); illegal immigration became a hot topic as scarce resources and jobs dwindled during the recession (intensity); and the climate and time are right for reform (time); and the cost of not enforcing immigration laws is too great (resource). In addition, there is some truth that SB 1070 is reinforcing “some preexisting perception of a problem, focus attention on a problem that was already in the back of people’s minds” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 98).

Knowing the why, the next question is how SB 1070 came about. One important piece of the puzzle that brought SB 1070 into law is the many actors that were involved in legislating the changes. Agenda builders include public officials, public bureaucracy, media, and interest groups. Actors involved in the formulation of SB 1070 include Governor Jan Brewer and the state legislators. Actors include judge that can “affect the public agenda as a result of their decision to examine, or not examine, cases brought to their attentions” (Gerston, 2010, p. 52). In the case of SB 1070, the law was enjoined by District Court Judge Susan Bolton on four provisions right before it was to be effective. “Political appointees come and go, but the bureaucracy endures” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 33); therefore, bureaucrats are the experts and can consult legislators on past immigration reforms. Author of SB 1070 Russell Pearce is an Arizona State Senator and a long proponent of immigration reform. Sen. Pearce proclaims that the immigration system is not broken; however, the law must be enforced (Political Correction, 2010, May 26).

In addition, the media played a huge role in promoting the debate over constitutionality of SB 1070 after singed by Governor Jan Brewer. After passage and signed into law, there was “an intensive period of sensational coverage, with the policy community riding serenely about the media storm” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 58). SB 1070 was on all news reports throughout the nation. SB 1070 was a big ‘media event’, where activities were “arranged primarily to stimulate coverage and thereby attract public attention to an issue” (Dye, Public awareness and hype lead to direct protect and boycotting Arizona as a result. These all came out as the media “have a long-standing reputation for placing issues on the public agenda” (Gerston, 2010, p. 54).

Interest groups have played their role in SB 1070, both in favor and in objection to the new law. Gerston (2010) identifies interest group the ability of groups to “marshal enough support to attract the attention of public policy makers” (p. 56). Most importantly, Kingdon (2011) states that “interest groups often seek to preserve prerogatives and benefits they are currently enjoy, blocking initiatives that they believe would reduce those benefits” (p. 49).

Hardcore anarchist of SB 1070 tires to preserve the law of the land while pro-immigration attempts to promote work permit and amnesty as a better solution. Actors, regardless of the ideology, have contributive factors that may move the progress forward. It is the coalition of networks that has shaped the two fronts (for and against SB 1070). Guy Benveniste (1989) argues that “the art of getting things done consists in finding who they are, knowing them, and getting them to act” (5th paragraph). The media assisted in conjugating opponents to rally and protect SB 1070. The network of support expanded as cities and counties across the state cut tied with Arizona. Private organizations pulled investments and commitment as a result of fears of association. Networking can be an essential tool for support and promoting causes.

Most important is the survivability of the policy once public opinions are involved. Kingdon (2011) develops a criterion for survival: they include but not limited to technical feasibility, value acceptability, tolerable cost, anticipated public acquiescence, and chance for receptivity (p. 131). SB 1070 is the result of recombination and adjustment to currently existing policy; therefore, the new law has been worked through and ready to go (Kingdon, 2011, p. 131). “Proposals that don’t fit with specialists’ values have less chance of survival” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 133). As for SB 1070, this is the reason why there are protests, demonstrations, challenges, and litigations to the new law. Arizona may have entered the realm of unacceptability. In his argument, Dye (1998) calls for policy formulation as the development of an alternative (p. 41). However, the attempt has met with intense disagreement.

Policy Implementation

Since SB 1070 is currently in litigation, it is difficult to assess implementation mechanisms that may have been utilize. However, Garry Brewer, Thomas Birkland, and Paul Sabatier provide some viable options that the Arizona legislators may consider to ensure bureaucrats implement the law as originally stated and intended. The concern with SB 1070 is that the Arizona law is charting into federal jurisdiction. Where there are multiple agencies interacting at multiple levels of implementation, the challenges increase (Gerston, 2010, p. 99).

To best implement a controversial law such as SB 1070, bureaucrat must consult all levels, top managers to line staffs, to ensure proper implementation. Birkland (2010) identifies the all encompass approach as the hybrid model of implementation (p. 187). Birkland (2010) discusses the benefit of a hybrid model as bureaucrat ability to “look both forward [top-down] and backward [bottom-up], we can understand that top policy makers can make choices of policy instruments or tools to structure implementation while realizing that the motivations and needs of lower-level implementers must be taken into account” (p. 187). For SB 1070, the concern of racial profiling, lack of funding, unconstitutional have already been voiced; therefore, implementers must listen and consider all concerns to ensure equal and fair development of implementation policies that are best suited for the state and constituent.

Upon implementing SB 1070, implements must have a firm grasp of instrumental policy learning, social policy learning, and political learning to ensure integrity of the law. SB 1070 implementation designs must be viable (instrumental policy learning) (Birkland, 2005, p. 193). In addition, the construction the implementation process must be done socially (social policy learning) (Birkland, 2005, p. 196) to gain allies for the law. Finally, Birkland (2005) concept of political learning is essential for bureaucrats and politicians. The elites must be able to effectively defend SB 1070 in policy debate (p. 196).

On the other hand, Garry Brewer (1983) argues that “program success is related to the existence of able and committed leadership, clear objectives, and initial success” (p. 265). Once concept that Brewer proposes is support for the policy. In order for SB 1070 to accomplish its goals, support of the law must come from more than just one political party. Governor Jan Brewer must use her political position to amass allies to support the law. Governor Jan Brewer “willingness to use this power to assist a policy implementation” (Brewer, 1983, p. 269) will paint a firm stand on the law intent and goals. In her press release, Governor Brewer (2010, April 23) made it clear, that “respect for the rule of law means respect for every law (p. 3). Such position will propel the law forward, through challenges and litigation. On condition of Sabatier (1996) is to have leader that possess “substantial managerial and political skill and are committed to the statutory objectives” (p. 387).

Paul Sabatier’s sound theory wound support Brewer’s argument for clarity of the policy. To ensure successful implementation of SB 1070, the specific language of the law must be stated because “the more likely the policy will be implemented in harmony with the original intent and possibly the more likely it will be implemented” (Brewer, 1983, p. 267). Sabatier (1996) adds that policy implementation should be based on sound theory because it will increase the likelihood of creating changes “in target group behavior to the achievement of the desired end-state (p. 383). SB 1070 will only achieve true immigration reform if the migration of illegal aliens would to come to an end. As it current stand, SB 1070 has strong languages that would allow achievement of objectives. However, the languages are so specific that it challenges federal discrimination laws.

One complication that can arise during policy implementation is the lack of funding. Gerston contents that the lack of funding that can impact policy implementation: “inadequate funding is a virtual guarantee of programmatic disappointment at the point of implementation (Gerston, 2010, p. 107). According to Brewer (1983), money and time are (resource allocation) (p. 273) are key factors that affect policy implementation. In regard to SB 1070, many local law enforcement agencies voiced concern over the new mandates. Many chiefs are concerned that their jurisdiction does not have the financial means to implement the new law. Cities and counties law enforcement agencies are already stretch thin. With less manpower and resources available due to cutbacks and layoffs, there will be a gap in implementing such law. Most importantly, law enforcement agencies will not be able to defend self in citizen suite, as the law “allows legal residents of Arizona to sue if they feel a government agency adopts a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws (FAIR, 2010, p. 1). With additional funding that comes with implementation, local law enforcement agencies may ill implement the intent of SB 1070. Policy implementation is all about “the conscious conversion of policy plans into reality” (Gerston, 2010, p. 90). If SB 1070 is implemented “without an application consistent with its intent, policy has neither substance nor significances” (Gerston, 2010, p. 92).

Policy Evaluation

Policy evaluation, as describes by Dye, “is learning about the consequences of public policy” (333). While Gerston states that a simply define policy evaluation “assesses the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of its perceived intentions and result” (112). A hybrid definition of program evaluation, in term of Arizona law SB1070, can offers as the effectiveness of new immigration reform laws in the state of Arizona due to current insufficient federal policies on immigration. Gerston summarizes public evaluation best in term of the “feedback to what has occurred and the extent to which the commitment has been fulfilled as intended” (113).

One common denominator between Dye, Gerston, Smith and Rossi is the importance of measuring program impact/outcome during the program evaluation phase. Rossi argues that “outcome is the state of the target population or the social condition that a program is expected to have changed” (204). Smith went a bit further and cites that outcome refers to public policy “impact[s] on society” (1). Drawing upon Rossi’s Program Impact Theory, that “the outcomes of social programs as part of a logic model that connects the program’s activities to proximal outcomes that is expected to lead to other, more distal outcome” (209), represents assumptions of the ultimate benefits of SB1070.

Program Output	Proximal Effects	Distal Effects
Attrition through enforcement	Warrantless detention during lawful stop to determine immigration status	Decrease unlawful aliens in the State of Arizona
	Transfer unlawful alien with conviction immediately to federal custody
	Sharing/exchanging with governmental entity
Trespassing by illegal aliens	Guilty of trespassing if present on public/private land in the state and not carrying alien registration card or has willfully failed to register	Decrease unlawful aliens in the State of Arizona. Promote lawful migration.
	Grant access to law enforcement officer to verify/ascertain immigration status
	No suspension/commutation of sentence until sentence is served
	Associated fees are the responsibility of the detainee for jail cost and fine of $500 (first violation) or $1000 (second violation)
Unlawful stopping and solicitation of work	Motorist to blocks/impedes normal traffic to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work	Detour employers from hiring/recruiting known illegal aliens
	Unlawful for illegal alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in public place
Unlawful transporting	To prevent the transportation, conceal, harbor, or shield an unlawful person in Arizona	Prevent illegal migration of illegal alien
	Unlawful to knowingly encourage/induce alien to come/reside in Arizona
Investigations of employers	Investigate employers who knowingly/intentionally hired unauthorized aliens	Detour employers from hiring known illegal aliens

Arizona bill SB1070 is expected to change the atmosphere in Arizona. Any Arizona immigration laws will have direct impact on communities within the state. However, SB1070 is currently tied up in federal court. Judge Susan Bolton of Arizona District Court granted a preliminary injunction to majority of the provisions of SB1070 until further review. Although the Arizona law has been temporary suspended, the psychological fear of lawful detention by law enforcements has yielded measurable impacts in Arizona.

The fear factor (lawful detention) has generated unintended consequence among legal Arizonans. Dye defines unintended consequence of public policy as the “spillover effects” (344). The spillover effect is the “impact on situations or groups other than the target” (Dye, 334). Although the constitutionality of SB1070 is in limbo, targeted group of Arizonans (legal and illegal aliens) is leaving in mass quantity. BBVA Bancomer research found 100,000 fewer Latinos living in Arizona in the wake of the new law (Noorain and Mabery, 2010, 9). Center for American Progress (Elliott Pollack and company) estimates losses from meeting cancelled, following the approval of SB1070, to be $141 million in direct spending (Noorain and Mabery, 2010, 11). Smith puts it best by stating that “there is no single straightforward model of control” (8) for impact of public policy. Such feature that emerges through some process that is not part of the program’s design and direct intent makes spillover effect difficult to anticipate (Rossi, 213).

Although not clearly define in the senate bill, the general consensus is that SB1070 is meant to target immigrant of Hispanic decent. Obviously, this must be the target group that Dye mentions as “part of the population for whom the program is intended” (334). However, specific reading of SB1070 can lead reader to generalize so. At the same time Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, she singed HB2162, to amend provision of SB1070 to read that “state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement” (azleg.gov). After reviewing the law, there are no direct statements that support racial detention. Instead, program evaluation is summarized by the US Federal Government (challenging provisions of SB1070).

SB1070 has never been officially implemented because it is in litigation. Challenges to the provisions of the bill were brought upon by the US Federal Government, Nonprofit groups, and individual Arizonans. Preliminary injunction was granted to the US Federal Government. On the basis of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, US Federal Government contends that SB1070 is preempted by federal laws. US Constitution “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… [to] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. SB 1070 second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the US despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains. SB 1070 interferes with US affairs priorities and rejects any concern for humanitarian interests or broader security objectives (will harm a range of US interests). SB 1070 would interfere with federal policy and prerogatives in the enforcement of the US immigration laws (US of America v. State of Arizona).

These challenges brought on by the US Federal Government will yield SB1070 unconstitutional. Searching for common ground, trade-off, mutually beneficial outcomes, compromise, and bargaining (Dye, 347) will not wok between Arizona’s immigration laws and federal laws. This issue at hand is what the best policy is; rather, who has jurisdiction. Symbolic as it may be, SB1070 is unconstitutional. Dye states “even if government policies do not succeed…the failure of government to try to do these things would be even worse” (336). SB1070 tries to solve the problem of illegal immigration; thus, creating new problems (Dye, 348). Arizona has it right, to protect the vast interest of the Arizonans, but legality limits Arizona from take federal law into their own hands. Dye went on to states that “societal problems may have multiple causes, and a specific policy may not be able to eradicate the problem (349).

Conclusion

United State District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction to four statues of Arizona’s SB 1070 (pulled from www.scribd.com). SB 1070 is a direct violation of the Supremacy Clause put forth by US Congress, and the Arizona law “suffers from serious constitutional infirmity” (New Your City Bar, 2010). Continue litigations will expel excessive costs to the State of Arizona, in time where structural state budget deficit is projected to be $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2011/2012 (Mabery and Noorani, 2010, p. 10). Arizona has exceeded it constitutional authority, and the law will impede on the state’s road to recovery. Federal government is likely to succeed on the merits of its arguments that specific sections of SB 1070 are preempted by federal immigration laws (Congressional Research Services); therefore, it is economical to leave it to the federal government to enact and enforce immigration reform.

References

Allen, S. (2010, May 1). I Want to Explain Why SB 1070 is Needed. Word Press. Retrieved from http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/i-want-to-explain-why-sb-1070-is-needed-by-arizona-state-senator-sylvia-allen/

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (2010). The Constitutionality of Arizona SB1070 and Other State Immigration Laws. Washington, DC: Chin, G.J., Massaro, T.M., & Miller, M.L.

American Immigration Council (2010, April 21). How Much Will Arizona’s Immigration Bill (SB 1070) Cost? Retrieved from http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/how-much-will-arizonas-immigration-bill-sb1070-cost

Archibold, Randal C. (2008, February 12). Arizona Seeing Signs of Flight by Immigrants. New York Times, pp. A13.

Arizona Education Association (2010). Frequently Asked Questions about Arizona’s New Immigration Law. Phoenix, Az. Gartell, A.F.

Arizona State Senate – Senate Research (2010). Fact Sheet for S.B. 1070. Retrieved from http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

Beneveniste, G. (1989). MASTERING THE POLITICS OF PLANING, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Birkland, T. (2005). The Policy Process. M.E.Sharpe, New York.

Brewer, G (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. The Dorsey Press, Chicago.

Brewer, Jan (Governor of Arizona). (2010, April 23). Statement by Governor Jan Brewer. [Press Release]. Phoenix, Az: State of Arizona Office of the Governor.

Bozeman, B. (1979). Public Management and Policy Analysis, St. Martin's Press, NY.

Broder, D. S. (2001). DEMOCRACY DERAILED. Hartcourt Inc., San Diego.

Camarota, Steven A. (2010 April). Center for Immigration Studies on the New Arizona Immigration Law, SB 1070. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/announcement/AZ-immigration-SB1070

Constitutional Alliance (2010). SB 1070 – Does the Arizona Legislation accomplish anything?. Constitutional Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38:sb1070-does-the-arizona-legislation-accomplish-anything&catid=1:articles

Constitutional Rights Foundation Educating About Immigration (2010). Arizona’s SB 1070 and State Policing of Immigration. Retrieved from http://crfimmigrationed.org/index.php/stuff/arizonas-sb1070-and-state-policing-of-immigration

Correa-Cabrera, G. & Rojas-Arenaza, M. (2010). The Mathematics of Mexico-U.S. Migration and U.S. Immigration Policy. Retrieved from http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~aeikenberry/Papers/Correa-Cabrera%20%26%20Rojas%20Arenaza%20(PAT-Net2010).pdf

Cronin, T.E. (1989). DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Harvard University Press, London,

Del Pureto, L (2011, January 21). It’s Famous Now, But Arizona SB1070 Used to be a Nondescript Bill Number. Arizona Capitol Times.

Dye, T. (1998). Understanding Public Policy. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Editorial (2010, May 17). Arizona Burning. The Nation, 290, 3.

Eig, L.M., Garcia, M.J., & Manuel, K.M. (2010). State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B. 1070. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from www.crs.gov

Federation for American Immigration Reform (2010). Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act Summary of Arizona SB 1070 as Enacted. Retrieved from http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ariz_SB1070_summary.pdf?docID=4761

Freeman, H.E., Lipsey, M.W., & Rossi, P. H. (2003). Evaluation A Systematic Approach. SAGE, London.

Gerston, L. N. (2010). Public Policy Making Process and Principles. M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Hird, J. (2004). Controversies in American Public Policy. Thomson/Wadsworth, US.

Immigration Policy (2010). The Legal Challenges and Economic Realities of Arizona’s SB 1070: A Resource Page. Washington, D.C.

Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman, N.Y.

National Immigration Forum (2010). Deficits, Lawsuits, diminished Public Safety: Your State Can’t Afford SB 1070. Washington, D.C., .Mabery, D. & Noorani, A.

New York City Bar Committee on Immigration & nationality Law (2010). Report on the Constitutionality of Arizona Immigration Law S.B. 1070. Retrieved from http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20071951-ReportonArizonaImmigrationLawSB1070.pdf

O’Toole, Molly (2010, November 2). Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 Engineered by Prison Industry, According to NPR. Latin American News Dispatch. Retrieved from http://latindispatch.com/2010/11/02/arizona-immigration-law-sb1070-engineered-by-prison-industry-according-to-npr/

Rodriguez, G. (2010, July 26). Fervor Fueled by Hate. Los Angeles Times, pp. A15

Riccardi, N (2010, January 1). The Nation; New Ariz. Law Worries Immigrations; Some are Avoiding Hospitals and Other Care, Even for Children Here Legally, Out of Fear They’ll Be Reported. Los Angeles Times, pp. A16.

Sabatier, P (1996). The Conditions Of Effective Implementation, Public Administration Concepts And Cases, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Smith, P. (1996). Measuring Outcome in the Public Sector. Taylor and Francis, London.

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, SB 1070, Forty-Ninth Legislature, Second Session (2010).

The Denver Post (2010, November 12). Fewer Latino in Ariz.; law, economy cited. The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_16591373#ixzz1JpY0PP9C

The United States of America v. The State of Arizona. Case 2:10-cv-01413-NVW. (US District Court, District of Arizona, 2010).