SB 1070; Is It The Right Law or Not?

Immigration is a problem some people are trying to solve in a non-violent and non-violent way. In most cases, people think that the government has not taken measures to solve immediate problems. "The state is responsible for its civic rights, illegal immigrants directly infringe some of these rights" (the police should). Police and other police groups must promote the protection of the rights of citizens. In addition, illegal immigrants will use the system by "acquiring privileges such as work and securing safety, school education, medical care, and other US funded services". (police

In the immigration examination caused by SB 1070, there is concern that the impact of this law will be evaluated from an economic point of view, not from the perspective of national and federal rights. Is Arizona's implementation of this bill effective? If so, the provincial government will spend more or reduce expenses. In the fact sheet of 2012, the American Immigration Reform Association stated that the total cost of Arizona education, medical care, and imprisonment for illegal immigration was $ 2.6 billion (USA Immigration Reform Association, 2004). However, the Immigration Bureau does not believe that S.B. 1070 will be subject to cost-benefit analysis. The position of the center is that full implementation of this measure will weaken Arizona and arrest small-scale immigration offenders with state funds, while leaving indemnity for local violent criminals

The establishment of the Arizona State Senate Act 1070 Act in 2010 is known as law enforcement and a safe community law and has caused political discussion about illegal immigration in our country. Controversial State legislation, SB 1070, authorizes law enforcement officials to identify illegal immigrants, prosecute and exile. Nonimmigrant supporters praised the strict attitude of illegal immigration of the bill, while supporters of immigration reform laughed at laws to discriminate against Hispanic communities. In addition, this bill reveals the differences regarding the immigration reform between the state and the federal government concerning the state's right to enact its own immigration law, mainly replacing the power of the federal government. This leads to a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the federal court.