Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SB 1070: Testing the “Frustration” Hypothesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Latino Politics and Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070

Part of the book series: Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy ((IMPP))

  • 1109 Accesses

Abstract

Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, popularly known as SB 1070, is the first state law to directly challenge the federal government’s claim of plenary power over enforcement of its immigration law. Arizona’s law is justifiably famous (or notorious) for that accomplishment. But every milestone has its history. This chapter is about that history, specifically the history of Arizona’s efforts to inform the federal government of its concerns as a border state coping with unauthorized immigration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A Google search that linked all of the following terms—“frustrated” and “Arizona” and “SB 1070” and “federal government”—produced 62,000 hits.

  2. 2.

    For example, California Governor Pete Wilson submitted a fifty-page document for the record titled “The Unfair Burden” that detailed the costs of unauthorized immigration to the state.

  3. 3.

    The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (see Nevins 2010; Daniels 2004).

  4. 4.

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2011) in 2010 forty-six states and the District of Columbia passed 208 immigration-related laws and adopted 138 resolutions—reflecting a slight rise in activity from 2009.

References

  • Berman PS (2009) The new legal pluralism. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 5:225–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calavita K (1996) The new politics of immigration: ‘balanced budget conservatism’ and Prop. 187. Soc Probl 43:284–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavez JM, Provine DM (2009) Race and the response of state legislatures to unauthorized immigrants. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 623:78–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlan T (2006) From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: reflections on the half-century anniversary of the commission on intergovernmental relations. Public Adm Rev 66:663–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cover R (1981) The uses of jurisdictional redundancy: interest, ideology, and innovation. William Mary Law Rev 22:639–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels R (2004) Guarding the golden door: American immigration policy and immigrants since 1882. Hill and Wang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Lewis PG, Provine DM, Varsanyi MW (2009) On the frontier of local law enforcement: local police and federal immigration law. In: McDonald W (ed) Immigration, crime and justice. Emerald, Bingley, pp 261–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Derthick M (2001) Keeping the compound republic. Brookings Institute Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinan J (2010) State government influence in the congressional policy process: the case of health care legislation in the 111th congress. American Political Science Association, 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1643301

  • Filindra A, Tichenor DJ (2008) Beyond myths of federal exclusivity: regulating immigration and noncitizens in the states. American Political Science Association, 2008 Annual Meeting Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleury-Steiner B, Longazel J (2010) Neoliberalism, community development, and anti-immigrant backlash in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In: Varsanyi MW (ed) Taking local control: immigration policy activism in US cities and states. Stanford University Press, Pal Alto, pp 73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillette CB (1997) The exercise of trumps by decentralized governments. Va Law Rev 83:1347–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins D (2010) Politicized places: explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. Am Political Sci Rev 104:40–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan M (2009) Donors send millions to defend Arizona law. The Wall Street J. Retrieved 19 April 2011, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304248704575574461341942940.html

  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2009) News releases: ICE announces standardized 287(g) agreements with 67 state and local law enforcement partners. Retrieved 18 April 2011, from http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0910/091016washingtondc.htm

  • Jacobson RD (2008) The new nativism: Proposition 187 and the debate over immigration. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver M, Benoit K, Garry J (2003) Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. Am Political Sci Rev 97(2):311–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey DS, Sanchez MR (2010) Brokered boundaries: creating immigrant identity in anti-immigrant times. Sage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald WF (1997) Crime and illegal immigration: emerging local, state, and federal partnerships. National Inst Justice J :2–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Medrano L (2011) With lawsuit, Arizona tries to stare down Obama on illegal immigration. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 11 February 2011, from http://www.csmonitor.com

  • Michaels R (2009) Global legal pluralism. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 5:243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of State Legislators (2011) State laws related to immigration and immigrants. Retrieved 3 April 2011, from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19897

  • Nelson G (2011) Gov. Brewer Presses Campaign Against Feds. Arizona Republic, p Z 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman GL (1993) The lost century of American Immigration Law (1776–1875). Columbia Law Rev 84:1061–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins J (2010) Operation gatekeeper and beyond: the war on “illegals” and the remaking of the U.S.–Mexico boundary, 2nd edn. Routledge Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton L (2008) Illegal, alien, or immigrant: the politics of immigration reform. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton L, Adams BE (2009) State immigration policies: innovation, cooperation or conflict? Publius J Fed 39(3):408–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Nintzel J (2011) Pearce: ‘SB 1070 is Constitutionally Sound’. Tucson Weekly. Retrieved 18 April 2011, from http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/04/11/pearce-sb-1070-is-constitutionally-sound

  • Nugent JD (2009) Safeguarding federalism: how states protect their interest in national policymaking. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivas MA (2007) Immigration-related state and local ordinances: preemption, prejudice, and the proper role for enforcement. Univ Chic Legal Forum  :27–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlow M (2007) A localist’s case for decentralizing immigration policy. Denver Univ Law Rev 84:1061–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (2010) Public supports Arizona Law. Retrieved 12 May 2010, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1591/public-support-arizona-immigration-law-poll

  • Provine DM (2009) Justice as told by judges: the case of litigation over anti-immigrant legislation. Stud Soc Justice 3(2):231–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine DM, Doty BE (2012) The criminalization of immigrants as a racial project. J Contemp Crim Justice 27(3):261–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakrishnan SK, Wong T (2010) Immigration policies go local: the varying responses of local governments to low-skilled and undocumented immigration. In: Varsanyi MW (ed) Taking local control: immigration policy activism in US cities and states. Stanford University Press, Pal Alto, pp 73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan PM (2008) Opposition to the REAL ID act at the state level: privacy, immigration, or unfunded mandates? American Political Science Association, 2008 Annual Meeting Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez CM (2008) The significance of the local in immigration regulation. Mich Law Rev 106:567–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Rough G (2011) Arizona seeking pacts with other states to defy feds. Arizona Republic, pp A1, A5

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck PH (2007) Taking immigration federalism seriously. The University of Chicago Law Forum, pp 57–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Skerry P (1995) Many borders to cross: is immigration the exclusive responsibility of the federal government? Publius 25:71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro PJ (1994) The states and immigration in an era of demi-sovereignties. Va J Int Law 121:121–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro PJ (2001) Federalism and immigration: models and trends. Int Soc Sci J 53:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrazas A (2011) Immigrants in new-destination states. Migration Information Source. Retrieved 18 April 2011, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=826

  • Varsanyi MW, Lewis PG, Provine DM, Decker S (2012) A multilayered jurisdictional patchwork: immigration federalism in the United States. Law Policy J 34(2):138–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhovek SH (1994) Texas plans to sue U.S. over illegal aliens costs. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 April 2011, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E0D7173BF934A15756C0A962958260

  • Wechsler H (1954) The political safeguards of federalism: the role of the states in the composition and selection of the national government. Columbia Law Rev 54:543–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells M (2004) The grassroots reconfiguration of U.S. immigration policy. Int Migr Rev 38:1308–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wishnie MJ (2001a) Laboratories of bigotry? devolution of the immigration power, equal protection, and federalism. N Y Univ Law Rev 76:493–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Wishnie MJ (2001–2003) Introduction: immigration and federalism. N Y Univ Ann Surv Am Law 58:283

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Justice and Social Inquiry, School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University, 876403, Tempe, AZ, 85287- 6403, USA

    Meghan McDowell & Doris Marie Provine

Authors
  1. Meghan McDowell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doris Marie Provine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doris Marie Provine .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. S Myrtle Ave 975, Tempe, 85287, Arizona, USA

    Lisa Magaña

  2. for Transborder Studies, North American Center, PO Box 877103, Tempe, 85287, Arizona, USA

    Erik Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McDowell, M., Provine, D.M. (2013). SB 1070: Testing the “Frustration” Hypothesis. In: Magaña, L., Lee, E. (eds) Latino Politics and Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070. Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0296-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation