By now you’ve probably heard of the new immigration bill signed by Governor Jan Brewer into law on April 23, that will go into effect July 28 . This law is something that some call a necessary and timely solution for the wave of illegal immigration while others see it as a blatant, racist slap in the face to immigrants and Hispanics in America. Protests have been held, racial slurs have been thrown, neighbors have killed neighbors, even film maker Robert Rodriguez has joined the mix with his special Cinco de Mayo message for Arizona via a trailer of his new movie Machete. What you won’t see is a lot of honest discourse about what the bill actually states, the different arguments for and against it, and some lesser discussed solutions for the immigration problem in the US.

Proponents of the law say that it will effectively curb illegal immigration by giving local law enforcement more power to enforce federal immigration laws. That it is necessary to lower crime, retain jobs for Americans, and stop the draining of resources such as welfare, education, and health care by illegals.

Opponents of SB1070 charge that racial profiling, privacy violations, and unconstitutionality are major problems with the law. To dismiss accusations of racial profiling, proponents of the legislation cite a portion of HB 2162 which when passed, effectively amended SB 1070 . It states that “a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin” when stopping someone or determining citizenship. It is difficult however, to get away from the probability that Hispanics will be the group most affected by this legislation.

Countering the “papers please” privacy violation argument is the fact that it is standard operating procedure for a police officer to ask for identification during a stop. Once shown ID, the officer would not have any reason to continue questioning about citizenship. But is this all that will happen? There is a report out that before the bill even became law, a man in Maricopa County AZ was stopped at a truck weigh in station and after giving his driver’s license and social security card, he was still asked for his birth certificate. This would have been a violation of the law which states that only one form of identification is needed. He was taken to the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency where his wife had to bring his birth certificate in order for him to be released from custody. Only time will tell if reports such as the one above will be rampant or rare occurrences.

If the person stopped is not a citizen, it is and has been the law for them to have their registration documents on hand by the Alien Registration Act in 1940. So in actuality, this law does not change policy when it comes to police asking for identification. It does however charge them with enforcing federal law that has been on the books for some time now.

On the issue of Constitutionality, the main argument is that only the Federal Government has jurisdiction over foreign affairs, and thus, immigration issues. Rob Natelson, a Professor of Constitutional law at the University of Montana writes in an article for the Tenth Amendment Center that this idea is a “myth.” That although “the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy…If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own…powers not denied remain with the states.”

Looking at these arguments, it seems that Arizona’s new law is pretty solid, but is there a better way to deal with illegal immigration? In his article “Immigration and the Welfare State,” Congressman Ron Paul provides the solution that the welfare state must be eliminated and our borders secured. He posits that the elimination of the welfare state will effectively weed out immigrants coming to America for a free lunch, and also push Americans to work at jobs that they may have otherwise balked at while sitting at home collecting a government entitlement check. While he does not support amnesty and birthright citizenship, others feel that weaning immigrants off welfare be enough to bring in more industrious immigrants and that barriers to immigration should be removed.

Some libertarians believe that the answer is to have a more open immigration policy. That the illegal immigration problem stems from regulations, interventions in supply and demand, restrictions that only serve to exacerbate racial tension and put a strain on the economy. That the restrictive path to citizenship creates the illegal immigrants. And since these immigrants are coming here anyway, why not have them add to the economy further by paying taxes? That it is also the employer’s right to freely decide who will work for them. And that the market will balance supply and demand out so that there is always a need for jobs.

Advocates for laxer immigration policy assert that the majority of illegal immigrants are hard workers. That the crime rate in Arizona has dropped faster than the rest of the country over the last 10 years and that most illegal immigrants will avoid crime in order to remain in the country. They insist that more welfare recipients are native born and that the 1996 welfare reform bill was successful in lowering rates of welfare use by illegals. And again there is the idea that illegal immigrants fill a need by working at jobs that Americans won’t do due to harsher working conditions and lower wages.

It seems that open borders however is an offer that is not on the table for the majority of Americans. This is mainly in part due to feelings that this will lead to a loss of America’s sovereignty and cultural identity along with fears of movements such as the reconquista or reclaiming of the states in the southwest US that is the battle cry of certain Mexican nationalist groups and student groups.

There is no doubt that our country is very divided on the issue of illegal immigration. There is an abundance of solutions, but hardly any you can get the majority of the American people to agree on. I’m going to give props to Arizona for at least attempting a plan, and all we can do is wait and see if it succeeds, fails, or causes other problems to pop up elsewhere.

And speaking of problems elsewhere, how will the actions of Arizona affect Texas? It is possible that both legal and illegal immigrants may flock to Texas, New Mexico and California to avoid altercations in Arizona. It will be interesting to see if it will affect our economy for better or for worse. Meanwhile, Governor Perry hasn’t been influenced. He issued a statement that while Arizona’s law “would not be the right direction for Texas…securing the border has to be a top priority ” He touts his increase of National Guardsmen, and request for predator drones along the border as evidence of his tough stance on illegal immigration. The San Antonio Express News reports however that “Perry, through a spokesman, simply called immigration policy a federal responsibility.” Sounds a lot different from the Governor Perry who made the allusion to Texas seceding from the Union just last year.