Arizona Law Already in
Effect for Some Immigrants
By Valeria Fernández
PHOENIX, Arizona (IPS) - It's not the
law yet, but for undocumented immigrants
like Ismael Palafox and his family, SB
1070 is already a reality.
The controversial new Arizona law that
is making headlines internationally will
take effect at the end of July. For the
first time in U.S. history, it makes it
a state crime to be an undocumented
immigrant.
Palafox was questioned by the Apache
Junction Police in front of his family
in connection with dumping trash in the
wrong place and turned over to
immigration authorities. He is now in
the Florence Detention Centre facing
deportation to Mexico.
"I can't believe this is happening to
us," Socorro, his wife, told IPS in
Spanish. "Why are they enforcing this
law if it's not in effect already?
They're abusing their power."
The nightmare started on May. 22. It was
a regular Saturday morning and Palafox
was doing yard work for Stephen Welker,
a long-time acquaintance who lives in a
remote area in the Arizona mountains.
Palafox brought his wife and 13-year-old
son. Palafox had sustained an injury on
his right arm, limiting his movement,
and needed help.
After they were done landscaping, Welker
asked Palafox, 41, to go with him to a
deserted area three minutes away to dump
the trims. On their way back, a private
citizen, who had called the sheriff's
office, followed them. The sheriff left
without asking any questions, Welker
said, and decided to drive around the
neighbourhood to see if they were still
around. He didn't want Palafox to be
fined for something that was his idea.
When he returned, he said the Apache
Junction Police had showed up at his
doorstep asking questions about illegal
dumping.
"I admitted to dumping, and that I've
done it a dozen times, always with
organic items," said Welker, 57. "They
said we're going to give you a warning
at this time. We are going to cite you
but we will have to talk to your help. I
said: 'He had nothing to do with this,
if you want to fine somebody you can
fine me'."
Then the officer told him there was
reasonable suspicion to believe that
Palafox was in the country illegally.
Ina Welker said Palafox's 13-year-old
son had to be an interpreter between his
father and the police. They asked
Palafox if he had a driver's license
from Arizona but he didn't. They also
asked him if he was illegally in the
country. His son translated the question
in between sobs.
"They were really pressuring him to say
something," said Socorro, 40. "They
don't have a heart, they saw my son
crying and they didn't care."
Palafox was taken in one patrol car to
the police station and his wife and son
in another.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) released his wife and child for
humanitarian reasons, she said.
"Unlike the police, they were
compassionate," she said.
But Ismael was taken to the Florence
Detention Centre, where he faces
deportation.
The police didn't fine Welker for
illegal dumping and didn't file charges
against Palafox. They didn't file a
police report on the incident either,
which made it harder to trace exactly
what happened, said Captain Thomas
Kelly.
The new state law would allow local
police departments to question someone
over their immigration status for a
civil offence like throwing trash on the
street - similar to what happened to
Palafox.
The current Apache Junction policy is to
question people about their immigration
status when they come into contact with
the police for a serious crime, said
Kelly. When asked if his officer
violated the policy, he said the
department would look into it.
Kelly said that Ismael volunteered the
information that he was undocumented.
And that he willingly agreed to be taken
to the station for farther questioning
by ICE about his immigration status. His
wife and the people who hired him tell a
different story.
"Willingly?" she said. "I was there. We
were told we have to go with them and
that ICE was going to decide."
Welker and his wife believe this was an
unfair arrest and part of an
anti-immigrant climate caused by SB
1070.
"They didn't even see him dumping
anything," said Ina Welker. "I feel
shame for how this unfolded, that this
has to happen to people," she added.
Welker had been critical of the new law
in the past. She is Jewish and can't
help but to draw a connection to the
persecution faced by her family in Nazi
Germany.
Palafox's wife is desperate. Her husband
was in a construction accident last
October, breaking his right arm and
wrist. He had several operations and is
still in pain.
"He can't move his arm to even lift a
spoon," she said. "He is in pain."
Cooperation between local police and
immigration authorities is not new. For
years several law-enforcement agencies
in Arizona have worked in conjunction
with ICE, turning over undocumented
immigrants by contacting a call centre.
But most agencies have policies focused
on questioning people involved in
serious criminal activities.
The Phoenix Police Department, the
largest in the state, has a policy that
protects victims and witnesses of a
crime from being questioned about their
immigration status. Officers are not
expected to interrogate an immigrant for
a traffic stop or a minor offence. And
they have to call a supervisor for
approval before they call ICE.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat who
opposed SB 1070, arguing it would hurt
community policing and discourage
victims of crimes from contacting
authorities, has been receiving a number
of calls with similar stories. In some
instances, they relate to U.S. citizens
who were questioned about their
immigration status by the police or
harassed by other individuals who
wrongly believed they were illegally in
the country.
"We know this is in direct result of SB
1070," she said. "People feel emboldened
to behave like this."
Sinema is encouraging others to come
forth with their cases and document them
to create a database that can help
identify a pattern of practice in
certain communities. She thinks the U.S.
Department of Justice may choose to file
a lawsuit against this law because it is
unconstitutional and "because of some of
the things we have already seen, even
though there's no lawful authority to
apply it". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
