Since the recent passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, those of us working for social justice in the United States have a rare opportunity to register a particularly effective form of protest. The inherently unjust nature of this legislation presents conscientious individuals with a real chance to go back to what many might say civil disobedience was originally intended to do: promote the repeal of an unjust law by openly and nonviolently breaking the law itself.
This is what has come to be known today as direct civil disobedience. It is distinguished from indirect civil disobedience, where the law being broken is not itself the target of the protest. Not many would argue, for instance, that a law prohibiting people from sitting in the middle of the street is unjust. When used to draw attention to an issue of social importance, however, violating this law with a willingness to accept the consequences may be an effective tool. Although the merit of such tactics can vary depending on any number of factors, to score a direct protest by violating an unjust law is very likely to be viewed as more legitimate.
The distinction is useful because in recent years we in the United States haven’t had to worry much about severely repressive, overtly dictatorial laws. Not so very long ago, in certain parts of the country, violating an unjust law was as simple as ordering food at a lunch counter, sitting near the front on a city bus, or going swimming at a public beach. More common in the US today we find people courting arrest by blocking entrances to buildings, occupying government offices, or chaining themselves to fences, seeking to address an injustice more or less unrelated to the law actually being transgressed. Since these injustices don’t always allow for direct, public defiance, we try to create that tenuous link between issue and protest method as best we can. But while indirect civil disobedience always beats inaction, from a strategic standpoint, if the opportunity is there, direct beats indirect every time. And with this new Arizona law, the opportunity is definitely there.
Indeed, not since the end of the draft in 1973 has there been a law in the United States that seems to render itself so well to direct civil disobedience. Arizona SB 1070 requires non-citizens to keep registration documents on them at all times, and forces police officers to inquire about immigration status during any kind of arrest or routine stop if they encounter “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be in the country illegally. In addition, the new law gives police leeway to arrest someone solely on the basis of there being probable cause that they may be undocumented, at which point they’re to be turned over directly to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
This basically boils down to the police in Arizona having new license to stop anyone looking remotely Hispanic – for no other reason than that they look remotely Hispanic – demand papers from them, and take them into custody if satisfactory documents are not immediately produced. Predictably this has led some people, such as Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger Mahony, to draw parallels to the lives of those in Europe forced to live under the Nazi régime. Additionally – and this concerns all of us – the new Arizona law makes it a crime to “transport or move”, or “conceal, harbor or shield” undocumented immigrants, reminding me more of something out of the Fugitive Slave Acts from this country’s dark past. Against such blatantly unjust, potentially far-reaching legislation, at least we’re armed with a chance for everyone to participate in its direct disobedience, instead of just abandoning our undocumented brothers and sisters to their fate.
In a relatively short amount of time, Martin Luther King, Jr. became somewhat of an expert on unjust laws. In a speech he delivered before the Fellowship of the Concerned in 1961, King defined an unjust law as “a code that the majority inflicts upon the minority, which that minority had no part in enacting or creating, because that minority had no right to vote in many instances.” Although close to 50 years old, this definition holds up in modern-day Arizona quite well. The undocumented minority, having virtually no recourse to its voice being heard, is at the mercy of the majority – in this case that of the Arizona Senate – 60 percent Republican, and 100 percent white.
King places upon his definition one condition: that the law the minority is compelled to obey is not binding upon the majority. This indeed rings true again, as one would have a very hard time imagining members of Arizona’s white community consenting to being stopped because of their skin color, questioned by police, and immediately forced to prove their legal status under penalty of detention. On the necessity for civil disobedience when faced with such a law, King writes in his Letter from Birmingham Jail that:
(A)t first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
While it’s difficult for me to speculate as to exactly how this unjust law should best be disobeyed, the inspiring example is already there of the five students and community organizers who staged a sit-in at Senator John McCain’s office in Tucson after the bill’s April signing. Remarkably enough, three of the five were undocumented and knowingly subjected themselves to possible deportation, finally undergoing arrest, then detention by ICE, before thankfully being released the next day.
Nobody, of course, could ever expect anyone else to risk such drastic consequences, although the power and moral suasion of such a protest among the general public would be staggering. This most extreme example of civil disobedience to the new Arizona law is only practicable by a small segment of the population – the ones with the very most at stake. But direct civil disobedience in this case is not just for the undocumented, nor only for those of Hispanic descent; if we can put our heads together and strategize, I think we’ll find that Arizona SB 1070 gives all of us the opportunity to figure out a creative, nonviolent, and effective way to break the law, in hopes that someday soon we can see it taken off the books.
Terrific analysis, Will. Thanks!
“social justice”? Oh yes, a crusader for property/income redistribution. THAT is not justice.
“This basically boils down to the police in Arizona having new license to stop anyone looking remotely Hispanic – for no other reason than that they look remotely Hispanic – demand papers from them, and take them into custody if satisfactory documents are not immediately produced.”
– Have you even READ the SB1070? It’s clear from reading the inaccurate analysis in your article that you have not. Your argument about SB1070 is just a series of strawmen.
– The law clearly states: “may not solely consider race, color or national origin”
– When you are pulled over for speeding, the officer asks for your driver’s license. AZ only allows legal residents to have a driver’s license; if you have a driver’s license, you are presumed to be legal. This is not an undo burden.
“Arizona SB 1070 requires non-citizens to keep registration documents on them at all times”
– Since 1940 it is federal law for aliens in the United States to carry documentation of their status. 8 USC 1306(a), 8 USC 1304(e).
Here you go, it’s only 17 pages: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Frankly, it’s annoying that opponents of the bill cannot use facts to debate it.
I like your analysis.
You are a troll.
I’m curious as to how the average Arizona police officer will interpret and enforce this law with or without training.
Here is the important section:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
What qualifies as reasonable suspicion? A caucasian lady in her 40’s driving an Escalade with no license or accent probably won’t get asked for her alien registration card. But a Hispanic male in his 20’s driving a pos civic that speaks little to no english but also has no license? It’s a high probability that the fuzz pulls his card based on his race/ color/ national origin alone. Hence the “unjust law”.
Silva, thank you for actually making an argument using the actual law.
Reasonable suspicion is well establish legal precedent in 4th amendment jurisprudence (Terry v. Ohio, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada).
During a traffic stop in a known smuggling corridor, an overloaded van is stopped and no one has identification and the driver is acting evasive. The officer would then have reasonable suspicion. During another stop, a driver produces a valid driver’s license. The officer would not have reasonable suspicion. Race has nothing to do with it.
As with any new law, I’m confident that law enforcement personnel will be well trained in enforcing it properly.
The likely results (that the majority of arrests under the law will be Hispanic) does not make it unjust. The majority of illegal immigrants in AZ are Hispanic. Illegal immigrants from Canada or Germany in AZ will receive the same treatment as one from Mexico.
First I want to state that I will be in Arizona to protest the enactment of this unjust law and am willing to participate in direct civil disobedience. My comment is in regard to Martin Luther King’s definition of an unjust law as it pertains to immigration reform. “King defined an unjust law as ‘a code that the majority inflicts upon the minority, which that minority had no part in enacting or creating, because that minority had no right to vote in many instances.'”
Are you implying that because undocumented immigrants have no voting rights in America that all laws created regarding immigration are unjust? Every code that is passed regarding immigration also fails the condition that King stated “that the law the minority is compelled to obey is not binding upon the majority.” If so, what then would constitute a just law in regard to immigration?
A law in which all citizens are required to carry proof of citizenship, a driver’s license does not do this. Some states until recently did not require proof of American citizenship to obtain a drivers license. So are you suggesting that a national identification card be carried by all citizens? This idea has a rather nasty after taste that comes with it.
I see a dilemma in using MLK’s definition in this situation. There needs to be, in my understanding anyway, another condition that would indicate that a law is unjust as it pertains to immigration. And while SB1070 attempts to address it, as our friend D Killion quotes the law above that the officer “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.” The training video used to train officers in enforcing SB1070 belies that consideration by looking at the ability to speak English, the type of clothing worn, and the places the person is found hanging out at as a means to come to conclusions of reasonable suspicion the person is undocumented and here illegally.
There is a problem with using these three criterion to avoid race, color, or national origin profiling. Now while it may be safe to assume that the majority of undocumented citizens are from Mexico and parts south, this law does not account for the undocumented citizens that may indeed be from English speaking nations such as Canada, England, Ireland, etc. All of which speak English very well, wear clothing more in line with middle class America, and may indeed hang out in places where, well, middle class America hangs out. It has been argued elsewhere that it would be safer for the 40K undocumented Irish living in the US to be in Arizona now than at any other time. Based on the training video and the language of the law itself, it is safe to state that this law was indeed formulated not to be aimed at ALL undocumented immigrants but rather a specific group of immigrants. And therein lies an injustice.
“Are you implying that because undocumented immigrants have no voting rights in America that all laws created regarding immigration are unjust?”
– Don’t quite understand what you are getting at here. Did you mean just instead of ‘unjust’? I find our national immigration laws and the AZ fair and just. I would like to see our immigration system streamlined for skilled workers and an guest worker program revived.
“The training video….”
– I don’t see the problem with the instruction. The police officers in AZ know better than we do what to look for with regards to illegal aliens. It would be safe to assume that an illegal Irishmen would be given the same treatment under the law as an illegal Mexican.
“A law in which all citizens are required to carry proof of citizenship, a driver’s license does not do this….”
– AZ DOES require citizenship for a driver’s license. If in the course of a lawful stop, you don’t have identification of any sort one can reasonably understand that law enforcement would want to know who you are. There is nothing Big Brotherish about that. Virtually everyone does carry some sort of identification with them, and legal aliens are required to.
No where in SB1070 does it target one group over another. Any talk of race, color, ect is a strawman.
Regardless of how anyone feels about how just or unjust the new Arizona law is, why is it that all these protesters don’t feel that the appropriate action is to protest Mexico for their terrible treatment of their poor?
The majority wouldn’t be coming to the US if Mexico took care of its own. But instead Mexico Decries the US for being hard on Mexicans illegally emigrating. If we had the laws Mexico has for dealing with aliens people would go ballistic.
Protests should focus on getting the US to push Mexico to fix their laws and help their poor… Instead, the protesters ignore the real problem completely, and get mad at the people forced to deal with the mess made by the problem.
“Regardless of how anyone feels about how just or unjust the new Arizona law is, why is it that all these protesters don’t feel that the appropriate action is to protest Mexico for their terrible treatment of their poor?”
“Protests should focus on getting the US to push Mexico to fix their laws and help their poor… Instead, the protesters ignore the real problem completely, and get mad at the people forced to deal with the mess made by the problem.”
AMEN. Very well said.
True that, the Mexican government is corrupt as all hell.
And they make sure no one can improve their lives in Mexico by standing up for themselves. How many people have died trying to do so?
I can’t speak for all activists but I can say that there are plenty of us here in the US who find it appropriate to fight femicide in Juarez, union-busting in the Cananea copper mines, freedom of speech and assembly in Chiapas, teachers rights in Oaxaca… the list goes on…
Protests are organized to support those movements and to pressure the US government to push the Mexican government to reform. Do you want to know more about those? Maybe join up with them? If you have an idea of what the real problem is, take some action.
Last week in Phoenix, two Hispanic-appearing men were stopped by a police officer, who thereupon informed the two men that while they would not be asked for documentation at this time, after July 29 “we will be sending you back to Mexico.” The police officer apparently assumed that the men were undocumented. This does not seem to me to be a good sign of what the future holds in terms of racial profiling.
Was this a first person observation? What were the circumstances? Did you speak with the officer and ask him what he was ‘assuming’?
A few months ago a rancher in AZ was shot dead by an illegal alien. 11% of the AZ prison population are undocumented. This does not seem to me as a good sign of border security.
Oh, well then, perhaps this does:
Neo-Nazis Nab Migrants in Desert
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/07/neo-nazis_nab_more_migrants_in.php
Or this perhaps:
Illegal Immigrant Shot in Back, String of Attacks Continues
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2010/07/09/news/doc4c3741f96c38f394832544.txt
I feel more secure already.
As a Canadian travelling to the US, I am required to have my passport to cross the border. I also have identification with me at all times.
I fully expect when travelling to the US that I might be asked for that ID while I am there and I am prepared to do so, as I am a guest in your country. I don’t have a problem with that.
Why should visitors from elsewhere be required to do the same? How is this social justice issue? Visitors should obey the laws of the country they visit.
Where’s the social justice to American citizens who have to pay the additional education, health, crime, security and other costs in dealing with illegal immigrants?
With your country and practically every state running budget deficits, the last thing your country needs is more people using its social services without paying.
John McCain followed his father and grandfather, both four-star admirals, into the United States Navy, graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973. McCain experienced episodes of torture, and refused an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer. His war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations.”;..;
http://www.healthmedicine101.com
My web site