Thank you, Arizona

As Birmingham, Ala. became the flashpoint for sweeping civil rights legislation in 1964, Arizona is becoming the locus for events that could force the federal government to finally fix its dysfunctional immigration system.

Arizona has been tempting federal action for some time, and now by enacting SB 1070 it may have crossed a line. The law will allow authorities to demand proof of legal entry from anyone merely suspected of being in the country illegally. Even if no crime or violation has been committed, police will be able to stop an individual and demand proper paperwork.

Arizona officials, of course, are not authorizing racial profiling, but it seems awfully close. On what grounds, other than race, ethnicity or accent will Arizona police be able to discern who should offer proof of being in the country legally?
As Arizona State Representative Bill Konopnicki, a moderate Republican, lamented to the New York Times, “We are going to look like Alabama in the '60s.”

Protestors took to the streets in the border state within hours of the law's signing and more demonstrations around the country are scheduled for May 1. City leaders in San Francisco and Los Angeles have called for a city government boycott of goods and services provided by Arizona entities and are encouraging private firms to do the same.

That is not to say that Arizona legislators are without sympathizers. Counterparts both in Texas and Ohio have already expressed their intent to move similar proposals through their legislatures.

But it is Arizona that has become the focus of attention. Glenn T. Eskew, professor of history at Georgia State University and author of But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle, observed, “To critics of the immigration law, its sponsors bring to mind the defenders of white supremacy at the height of the civil rights movement.”
At this point, it is not certain that the Arizona law will go into effect. Many efforts are underway to challenge its constitutionality, including one by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nor is it certain that Congress will jump on an immigration overhaul before midterm elections in November. Congress has failed twice in the last four years alone to enact comprehensive immigration reform despite considerable efforts by activists and pressure from Hispanic voters, the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States.

President Obama acknowledged recently that there may not be an "appetite" in Congress to immediately tackle the issue. After a divisive battle over healthcare reform and with much work still pending on energy legislation, immigration may have to wait. Moreover, Republicans have said they will cooperate on climate change only if immigration reform is postponed.

Still, the day Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, the federal government took notice and Obama warned that “our failure to act responsibly will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.” Five days later, on April 28, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Bob Menendez and Charles Schumer circulated a draft of their new immigration bill.

Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of employers advocating immigration reform, would like to believe that the events in Arizona will lead to a comprehensive and balanced reform. But she fears that in the midst of election year politics, Democrats will rush to introduce a bill with no concessions to Republicans and thus jeopardizing, perhaps for years, a chance for an overhaul.

Initial press reports on the Reid, Menendez and Schumer bill had Jacoby somewhat optimistic, however. “The devil is in the details but … it appears promisingly balanced,” she said in an interview. Also promising were Obama’s words when asked about prospects for reform. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One he said: “I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.”

Events in Arizona have jarred the conscience, but they have yet to reach a threshold whereby politicians of all stripes can no longer resist addressing their source. As Eskew recalled in an interview, Robert Kennedy once observed that, before the brutal events against protesters in Birmingham in 1963, no one in Congress seriously discussed the "race problem." Afterward that is all members of Congress could talk about.

Arizona hasn't quite taken us to that point. But it is has taken us closer.