Two weeks ago, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona had the nerve to sign a bill that will instruct Arizona’s law enforcement officials to begin to actually enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration.

The signing of SB1070 essentially makes it illegal in the state of Arizona to be an illegal immigrant in the United States.

The law, which will not be enforced until August, has been characterized as the toughest immigration law in the country. It has been roundly criticized from the President of Mexico to the Latino civil rights group La Raza, to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Even one of Arizona’s own congressmen, Democrat Raul Grijalva, has called for a boycott of his state’s businesses. In one of President Obama’s jabs at the law, he referred to SB1070 as “misguided.” But is it?

For starters, according to The New York Times, “More people and drugs cross illegally into the United States through Arizona than any other state.” ABC News reported that Phoenix, Ariz. is the kidnapping capital of the U.S. and only second in the world behind Mexico City.

This last weekend, a sheriff deputy was shot in southern Arizona by drug smugglers in only the latest example of the crime and violence flowing north. The problem of illegal immigration and a porous border is real, and Arizonans are the front line.

Those who condemn SB1070 always seem to forget the most important fact: Those who will be convicted under this law are here illegally. They broke the law.

Now, the ACLU and other defenders of illegal immigration want to use this country’s court system in an ironic attempt to shield those who broke the law, with the law. The hypocrisy of such lawsuits would be laughable if this issue was not so serious.

They argue that SB1070 is unconstitutional because a state cannot interfere with federal immigration power.

This is true. However, the only reason this law exists is because the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws.

If the ACLU was advocating against SB1070 and promoting real enforcement of immigration law by the feds, I would agree with them. But the defenders of illegal immigration are not fighting Arizona because it is stepping on the fed’s toes; they are fighting because they do not want immigration law to be enforced. They are fighting to prevent officers from even questioning a person’s legal status.

The ACLU also argues that the law invites racial profiling of Latinos. Yes, on its face, this law could absolutely lead to profiling. However, the text of the bill and its revised form have made it very clear that racial profiling can’t be used as the source for meeting the “reasonable suspicion” requirement it takes for officers to question suspected illegal immigrants.

It is important to understand this law does not mean police officers in Arizona can stop someone walking down the street and demand to see identification papers.

Officers can only inquire about immigration status after they have made contact with a suspect for a different legal reason – for instance, a traffic violation. Supporting SB1070 does not automatically equal support for racial profiling or the denial of a citizen’s civil rights.

I have a question for those who decry this law because of its potential to violate civil rights. What about the civil rights of 15-year-old Dani Countryman? She was raped and murdered by two illegal immigrants in Oregon City on July 27, 2007. Only nine months after being released from jail for his second DUII, one of the men stepped on Dani’s throat, strangling her. Dani’s brutal murder was bad enough for her family, but to find out that her murderers should not even be in this country is just salt in the wound.

What about the civil rights of the countless Latino citizens in this country who have been the victims of the crime and drugs brought north? What about the civil rights of Americans of every race and ethnic background whose lives have been destroyed as a direct result of the lack of enforcement on our borders?

Those who disagree with my argument will call me anti-immigration and racist. Actually, La Raza – making the most of their thesaurus – also called supporters of SB1070 “nativists,” “vigilantes,” and “extremists.” This default attack, however, is both false and intellectually lazy.

First, advocating for the enforcement of our country’s law is not racist. If the United States were facing a flood of humanity, drugs and crime from Canada in the same levels as it is from Mexico, I would feel the same way as I do now.

The color of the face of a person that pops up from underneath a fence, or of a person who overstays their visa, is not why I support the enforcement of immigration law.

I support it because the rule of law and the respect for the law is part of what makes this country great. If the first act of someone coming to this country is to break our laws, why should we believe that they would suddenly begin respecting them?

Second, I am a fourth-generation American and not “anti-immigrant.” My family paid for respecting this country and its laws, as do innumerable other families in some way.

Nearly a century ago, my great-grandmother sailed from Sicily with her younger brother and parents. After arriving at Ellis Island, her younger brother, crippled and in need of crutches, was told he would not be allowed into the United States because of his condition. My great-grandmother’s parents were forced to make an almost impossible decision. They chose to send their 13-year-old daughter alone to live with her older brother, hoping she could live a better life than the one she left in Sicily.

They then boarded another ship, which was bound for Europe, with their son. In one final blow, the young boy, weakened from the arduous voyage, passed away. They followed the rules and respected immigration law.

Finally, the attack on SB1070 is intellectually lazy because it is an easy cop-out. Why confront the facts and offer ways to fix the problem when you can just call the other person a racist?

Illegal immigration causes significant difficulties in areas ranging from violent crime and narcotics to health care and education. Calling everyone who draws attention to such difficulties a racist or anti-immigrant only makes the situation worse. There is something that can be done though.

The federal government has failed to protect this country, and states like Arizona, that are on the front line of this problem, have had to take matters into their own hands. Whether you agree with the Arizona law or not, most agree that our federal immigration policy needs comprehensive reform. So what’s the answer?

First, stop the bleeding. The U.S. needs to protect its borders, whether that means a continuous fence, aerial surveillance, extra manpower or a combination thereof. We have to first stem the tide in order to assess and tackle the rest of situation.

Second, go after businesses that hire and often exploit illegal immigrants for profit. Most people are coming to work, so cutting the access to jobs for illegal immigrants leads to less illegal immigration; because that is their reason to come.

Third, streamline the immigration process. The United States needs workers for the jobs many, including students like us, are too lazy or unwilling to do. The backbreaking work in the agricultural industry, for instance, still needs to be done, whether an illegal immigrant does it or not.

The federal government needs to make it easy for workers to come and go in a legal fashion. This would cut down on illegal immigration and reduce employers’ abuse of migrant laborers, because they are now part of an immigration system that they could report any abuse to.

Fourth, deport every illegal immigrant currently in detention at every level of government, no matter what the crime. If someone has come here illegally and decided to break another law, they have shown blatant disregard for our society and its values. Their own actions have proven that they are not worthy to be here, so they shouldn’t be here.

Fifth, amnesty, or the code used by Democrats: “A path forward.” Those already here who have lived within the law after their illicit entry should be brought out from the shadows. Some sort of “path forward” that brings these people into our society and guides them through the citizenship process should be set up.

Sixth, the U.S. government should support Mexico’s economic growth and law enforcement. Mexicans do not dream for the day they get to leave their families and culture to endure a grueling and often lethal journey to another country just to work a tough job for a meager wage.

However, in today’s Mexico, there is often no better choice for struggling families to survive. Also, the guns and money flowing south are fueling the drug war in Mexico, only making the country’s situation worse.

So is Arizona’s new law the ultimate answer to our problems? No, but in a state fed up with the ills of illegal immigration, they decided to act, and they should not be vilified for it.

It bears repeating: “More people and drugs cross illegally into the United States through Arizona than any other state.” In the end, the difference between supporters of SB1070 and opponents of it is that supporters respect the rule of law in this country and recognize the problems caused by illegal immigration.

For those who think Arizona is “backwards” or “xenophobic” for adopting SB1070, please pull your head out of the sand – illegal immigration and a porous border cause real problems.

Stop pretending those problems do not exist. Don’t waste your time griping about Arizona, boycotting the state and its business or wasting money in hypocritical legal disputes. Instead work to make the law irrelevant: Focus your resources on comprehensive federal immigration reform.

You showed that the hope for change might not be a pipe dream, so try again. Everyone will be better off for it, and I will be right there with you.

– Matthew Reiner is an Oregon State U. senior in political science.