EoW September 2010

135 / 216

EuroWire – September 2010 25
The immediate and strong response to the new legislation,
accurately termed “a furor,” ran from jubilation to revulsion in a
society built up by immigrants but now under stress brought on
by the economic downturn. Media emphasis on defiant gestures
– the Phoenix Suns basketball team wore jerseys reading
“Los Suns” during a game on 5 th May, the Mexican holiday
Cinco de Mayo – works against a considered early evaluation.
But , the online business journal of the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has performed
a service by assessing some possible effects on Arizona of the
rules that Governor Jan Brewer triumphantly signed into law
in her state. (“Not a Positive Signal: the Economic Impact of
Arizona’s New Immigration Law,” 21st May)
These observations are abstracted fromWharton’s report:
Americans for Immigration Reform, a business group which ❈ ❈
opposes “destructive measures” on immigration, estimates
that, if all unauthorised immigrants were to be expelled
from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic
activity and approximately 140,324 jobs. And, while the
new law may work as a deterrent to illegal immigration, it
could in the long run harm Arizona’s already ailing economy
with its implicit suggestion that the state is inhospitable to
newcomers. “This is not a positive signal to be sending in a
globalized world,” observed Albert Saiz, a Wharton real estate
professor who does research on immigration.
The Arizona immigration measure prompted calls for ❈ ❈
economic boycotts of the state, and officials in Phoenix, the
state capital, are fearful that the city could lose $90 million in
revenue if organisers of 19 large scheduled events take their
business elsewhere. Deputy City Manager David Krietor told
the Arizona Republic, “We have an image and public relations
problem of what might be unprecedented proportions.”
The new law has already been challenged in federal court ❈
❈
by two Arizona police officers who are seeking injunctions
to block enforcement of provisions which they argue are
unconstitutional. With Arizona likely to face further legal
tests, defending itself could become expensive. Wendy
Sefsaf, the director of communications for the American
Immigration Council (Washington, DC), asserted that
immigration is a federal responsibility and that state and
local measures typically fail. She said, “This brings up the
issue of how far a state can go without federal support –
which is not very far.” (Access to “Not a Positive Signal” and
the rest of the Wharton School article archive is free but
requires enrollment at the website .)
SB 1070 AND CRIME
A topic not addressed by Wharton was taken up by US Attorney
General Eric Holder who, on 26 th May, met with police chiefs from
around the nation to discuss the potential effects of the new
Arizona law on communities across America.