Undocumented Immigration
New Reports Describe the “Green-Washing” of Nativist Hate
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 28th
In a new report, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes the rejuvenated efforts of anti-immigrant groups to repackage themselves as environmentalists who are trying to save the United States from the supposed ecological ills of “over-population.” According to the report, entitled Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism & the Hypocrisy of Hate, the two-faced nature of these efforts is “astounding” given the dismal environmental records of the organizations and political candidates to whom nativist groups tend to contribute funds. Moreover, this “green-washing” of the nativist agenda also amounts to a white-washing of the anti-immigrant movement’s white-nationalist roots.
As the SPLC report describes:
In the last few years, right-wing groups have paid to run expensive advertisements in liberal publications that explicitly call on environmentalists and other ‘progressives’ to join their anti-immigration cause. They’ve created an organization called Progressives for Immigration Reform that purports to represent liberals who believe immigration must be radically curtailed in order to preserve the American environment. They’ve constructed websites accusing immigrants of being responsible for urban sprawl, traffic congestion, overconsumption and a host of other environmental evils.
Yet these sorts of arguments, the SPLC report notes, “have in the last 15 years been
rejected by the mainstream of the environmental movement as far too simplistic … most conservationists have come to believe that many of the world’s most intractable environmental problems, including global warming, can only be solved by dealing with them on a worldwide, not a nation-by-nation, basis.” Furthermore, the anti-immigrant groups engaged in the green-washing of their ideologies belong to the national network created by John Tanton, who has long been “far more concerned with the impact of Latino and other non-white immigration on a ‘European-American’ culture than on conservation.”
The SPLC report echoes the findings of another recent report from the Center for New Community (CNC), which explores “how anti-immigrant forces have corrupted the dialogue on population and the environment.” In that report, Apply the Brakes: A Report on Anti-immigrant Co-optation and the Environmental Movement, CNC points out that “anti-immigrant activists belonging to the neo-Malthusian tradition claim that populations are constrained by the carrying capacity of the environment, and that population growth causes environmental degradation.” Within this narrow and inaccurate worldview, “people become pollutants, with all the racial overtones of such a social construction.”
Both the SPLC and CNC reports lay bear the ugly historical roots and flawed intellectual underpinnings of these faux environmentalists. The environmental rhetoric being spouted by anti-immigrant activists is nothing more than window dressing designed to lend a green tinge to an anti-immigrant ideology. As the SPLC report points out, “the greenwashers are wolves in sheep’s clothing, right-wing nativists who are doing their best to seduce the mainstream environmental movement in a bid for legitimacy and more followers.” This is a siren’s call that serious environmentalists should resist.
Photo by mugley.
Restrictionists Confounded by Increased Deportations and the Administration’s Defense of the Constitution
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 27th
According to an article in the Washington Post, ICE expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, which is nearly 10 percent more than the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The Obama administration has also far outpaced the previous administration in terms of audits of employers who may be employing unauthorized workers. Yet even while immigrant advocates decry the administration for spending billions on immigration enforcement and deportation and for failing to move ahead on comprehensive immigration reform, immigration restrictionists continue to deny that enforcement is taking place.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies stated that while the administration focuses on some illegal immigrants with criminal records, others are allowed to remain free, creating a “sense of impunity.” So the U.S. is deporting people but they’re not the “right” people? Krikorian doesn’t want ICE to prioritize terrorists, violent criminals, and gang members?
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo—who never misses an opportunity to express extremist sentiments—took things even further and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he calls for President Obama’s impeachment on the grounds that he is not enforcing immigration laws:
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Huh? Just last Thursday the Administration vigorously defended the Constitution and the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration law by challenging Arizona’s recently passed immigration law on the grounds that it violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
But I guess that didn’t count. Last week, several senators tried to pass an amendment which would have prohibited the Administration from continuing its lawsuit and defending the federal government’s constitutional authority. So Obama does defend the Constitution but he shouldn’t be allowed to? I suppose when facts don’t matter, it’s easy to end up with conflicting or even nonsensical stories.
It’s clear that no matter what this administration—or any other administration—does to enforce immigration laws, immigration restrictionists will not be happy, and no amount of enforcement will be enough. Those who claim we must enforce the law first before moving toward comprehensive immigration reform have no intention of acknowledging enforcement has been done and moving to step two. They have nothing except more enforcement.
The Obama administration must continue to educate the public about all of the immigration enforcement it has done and must continue to defend its supremacy in immigration law. But to distinguish themselves from the restrictionists, the administration and Congress must move on to step two—comprehensive immigration reform—immediately. They must demonstrate that they are serious about finding a fair, practical, sustainable solution.
Photo by Brian Kersey.
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 26th
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we’ve started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead.
At the fifth annual Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Democratic leadership rallied the progressive voice to keep doing what they’re doing—holding Congress accountable and moving the progressive agenda forward. A large part of that progressive agenda is immigration reform—an issue that many progressives feel the Administration has yet to throw its full weight behind. In a Q&A forum, progressive bloggers and activists held Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s feet to the fire on the immigration front. With Congressional Republicans blocking comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), many wondered about the viability of passing the DREAM Act this year. Here’s what Democratic leadership had to say:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
There is a difference of opinion on how we go forward on [the DREAM Act]. We are committed to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We don’t want to take one piece and leave the rest of the undocumented behind. We need to secure [the] border, enforce laws, stop the exploitation of workers, and provide a path to legalization. If we take off rosier pieces, it will diminish the prospect for CIR. Others have a different view, but that’s a debate we’re having. Arizona also shouts out for the need for CIR which supports all the things I mentioned. We know what our values are as a country. We continue to meet with business and evangelical communities, not our usual allies, but who both understand the need for CIR. We need to keep the heat on for when the time is right to pass CIR, which will be soon. We’re all cosponsor of DREAM Act, but we don’t want to diminish the support for CIR.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):
We’re still working on CIR. We’re not finished after this work period before Congress goes out. We still have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up. No one has worked harder on immigration then me. I’ve got the stars to show it. We spent more time last session on immigration than any other issue.
Those people screaming the loudest, the Senators from Arizona, won’t let us move on immigration. I believe we need CIR. We need to take care of our borders, get a guest worker program that includes more than just AgJobs, bring people out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay taxes, and get to the end of the line…which for some is thirteen years long. Remember, more than half of these undocumented immigrants have American children. We can’t do what Rush Limbaugh wants us to do. There’s no way we can ship them back to somewhere else. This is not amnesty, it’s fairness.
I’ve worked really hard to push for CIR. I’m working with Durbin and Lugar. But I’m not going to the DREAM Act unless I’ve got the 60 votes. I won’t disappoint all those young men and women if I don’t have the votes. So that’s the story.
So where does that leave us? A dose of political reality is never fun to swallow, but both leaders paint a pretty clear picture of an uphill battle for immigration reform of any kind this fall. The upcoming recess and elections, the lack of votes for CIR, and the questionable number of votes out there for the DREAM Act are all sobering reminders that the work isn’t over. The difficulty of immigration reform is also a strange reminder of just how much Congress has accomplished this year, despite overwhelming obstacles. That Republicans and some Democrats are digging their heels in on immigration could mean that progressives haven’t yet found a way to make this issue click for other political interest groups. Despite more and more involvement by conservatives, evangelicals, and law enforcement officials, immigration remains an issue that doesn’t get a lot of bipartisan support. While progressives may chastise their leaders for not doing enough, it was probably pretty fair of Pelosi and Reid to challenge progressives as well.
Photo by wellsy.
J.D. Hayworth Challenges Administration on Immigration Enforcement Just Weeks Before National Guard Deploys to Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 20th
Over the weekend, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth challenged the Obama Administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement—just weeks before the Administration is set to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico Border. On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that the National Guard will begin deployment on August 1, with more than 500 soldiers going to Arizona and the rest to New Mexico, California and Texas. The President has also requested that Congress appropriate $600 million in supplemental funds for “enhanced border protection and law-enforcement activities.”
Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain (R) in the Arizona GOP primary, is a notorious immigration hardliner who has been criticized by the Mayor of Phoenix as “being full of racism.” It’s quite a challenge on the part of Hayworth to be even more hawkish on border issues than Sen. McCain—who recently released a 10 point border security plan with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) and has recorded a television spot solely dedicated to “completing the danged fence”—but Hayworth has managed to do so. Campaign politics aside, challenging the Obama Administration on immigration enforcement—an issue that immigration advocates have criticized the President as being too heavy-handed on, in fact—just doesn’t make sense.
On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Hayworth defended Arizona’s “show us your papers” law, SB 1070, and commented that the Obama administration supports “no enforcement” of immigration law:
It should come as no surprise that any number of people who advocate open borders and advocate no enforcement of the law, including this current administration, are trying to throw up these roadblocks.
Also on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, published an op-ed in The Arizona Republic highlighting the Administration’s progress on enforcement and border security:
Over the past year and a half, the Obama administration has pursued a new border-security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency, making historic investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure while combating the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle weapons, cash and people across the United States border.
Make no mistake: Despite what those looking to score political points may tell you, the numbers show we are moving in the right direction.
Last year, illegal crossings along the Southwest border were down 23 percent from the year before, to a fraction of their all-time high. Seizures of contraband rose significantly across the board in 2009. DHS seized 14 percent more illegal bulk cash, 29 percent more illegal weapons and 15 percent more illegal drugs than the year before. And, by all measurable standards, crime levels in U.S. border towns have remained flat for most of the last decade.
Meanwhile, in response to a firm date for National Guard deployment, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer criticized the President for not sending more troops or allocating “more resources” to the border. “While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border.” Similarly, Sens. McCain and Kyl commented that while these additional border resources are “a step in the right direction,” a lot more still needs to be done—which no one would argue with. It’s called comprehensive immigration reform.
When it comes to immigration enforcement, it seems like the President just can’t win—either he’s doing too much to enforce “the laws on the books” or he’s not doing enough. The fact that deportations are up under President Obama doesn’t seem to matter to those who would rather score cheap political points rather than acknowledge the work on the border or any other enforcement benchmarks that DHS has met. Of course, for politicians like J.D. Hayworth, it may never be enough. This is, after all, the same man who actually advocated for a ban on legal immigration from Mexico. Not that Hayworth is concerned with things like credibility, but he might do himself a favor by acknowledging the reality that President Obama is spending enormous amounts of resources to enforce immigration law and secure the border.
Photo by Media Matters.
UPDATE: Utah Attorney General Condemns Immigration Knock List
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 16th
Utah officials and community leaders reacted swiftly and with revulsion to the announcement this week that confidential state records had been breached to compile a list of more than 1,300 supposedly undocumented people living in Utah, including pregnant women and children. At a press conference this afternoon, State Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff condemned the list, noting that “some call it a blacklist, but I call it a hit list.” Speaking for himself and on behalf of the governor of Utah, Gary R. Herbert Shurtleff made it clear that the release of confidential information was “not the way we do things in Utah” or in this country. He noted that the state government of Utah is trying to speak with one voice to condemn the release of information, will not be using the list to initiate actions against anyone on it, and roundly criticized those who would use lists, hate mongering and political rhetoric to stir up racism in Utah. Instead, he called on the federal government to continue to work for a truly comprehensive solution to immigration reform. He noted that the governor has called a meeting next week to produce Utah’s recommendations for immigration reform that will help to keep Utah from going down the road of S.B. 1070. Schurtleff is also awaiting results of an internal investigation before determining how many laws at the federal and state level may have been broken and who is subject to prosecution.
Other speakers included Paul Mero, head of the conservative think tank, the Sutherland Institute, who also condemned the list, calling it “reprehensible.” He noted that the “good people of Utah won’t stand for this” and predicted that the list itself may backfire, given the controversy it has created, and serve as a tipping point for a more rational discussion on immigration reform. Mero also noted that he believed support for comprehensive immigration reform represented a tenet of an “authentic conservative position” as fixing the immigration system went directly to what kind of people we are and what kind of world we want to live in.
The List: A Modern Day Witch Hunt in Utah
originally posted by Wendy Sefsaf for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 15th
It’s the stuff of fiction. A vigilante group with a vaguely patriotic name creates a list with the help of someone—perhaps a disgruntled government-employee/mole—who is fed up with the system (think Michael Douglas in Falling Down). The list contains the names, social security numbers and other private information of hundreds of people whom the vigilantes deem “undesirable.” The list even identifies pregnant women and their due dates and recommends that they be first on the list for “elimination.” The list is delivered to a wide range of government, law enforcement and media groups, accompanied by a letter insisting action be taken to remove the undesirables.
Unfortunately, this bizarre tale is not the plot of a new movie or a New York Times bestseller, but a real drama which just happened in Utah. An anonymous group called “The Concerned Citizens of the United States” compiled a list of 1,300 alleged unauthorized immigrants—including birth dates, workplaces, and social security numbers—accompanied by a letter instructing government agencies to “begin deportation now.” They write:
Some of the women on this list are pregnant at this time and steps should be taken for immediate deportation.” They also promise to continue sending “new lists on a continual basis.
The list (which appears to contain a mix of accurate and inaccurate information) is outrageous, but sadly not at all surprising, given the downward spiral of anti-immigration tactics and antics of other “concerned citizens” who have taken up the restrictionist cause. Utah has a mixed record on immigration, but, unfortunately, is home to a growing number of hate groups and is not immune to efforts advocating the adoption of “show me your papers” legislation. However, despite the outrage around this list, some Utah state legislators are pressing forward on their work on SB1070 style legislation.
In their rush to look tough on immigration, Utah legislators should proceed with caution. Charles Kuck writes on the ILW blog:
A bigger concern for Utah has to be the fallout and consequences of “The List” and prospective state legislation on immigration. If Utah politicians ignore not only the political consequences, but their own heritage in moving forward toward passing an Arizona style “show me your papers” type of law, Utah will become, like Arizona, an economic pariah. Utah will be faced with declining foreign and domestic investment as the result of efforts to isolate those states that pursue legislation that serves no legitimate law enforcement, drives immigrants further into the shadows and away from the police, and deepens the divide in the United States over what is good for the future of America. Fifty different state laws on immigration policy is not a way to effectively run a country.
Utah, a state with a $700 million budget shortfall, certainly can’t afford to become the next Arizona by alienating its immigrant and Latino populations. IPC research shows:
Mexican immigrants in Utah “own property valued at $984 million,” have more than $1.0 billion in purchasing power, and paid more than $67 million in state and local taxes: $7.5 million in income tax; $52.2 million in sales tax; and $7.6 million in property tax.
There are other famous examples of “list building” that put a chill in the spines of most Americans. From the bygone days of McCarthyism to the historic Salem Witch Trials, the idea of a private group building a list of names and handing it over to government officials to be investigated just seems archaic and out of line. It is, alas, just one more example that screams out the need for immigration reform in Congress. It also begs the question: how much worse will it have to get before it gets better?
Photo by dhammza.
The Right Side of History: Religious Leaders Urge Immigration Reform at Hearing
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 14th
At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing today, a panel of conservative religious leaders made the case for common sense solutions to our immigration problems—comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that secures our borders, follows the rule of law and provides a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. While the hearing, The Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System, started off with ethical and biblical arguments supporting and opposing reform, it later evolved into what most immigration debates eventually boil down to—fairness, justice and the punitive aspects of a reform effort.
The majority witnesses—Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and VP of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Dean Mathew Staver of the Liberty University School of Law—testified to the moral and biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us,” the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Faith leaders will continue to reach out and support the undocumented population, Dr. Land said, but “only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.”
“Get tough on immigration” hardliners—Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)—however, pushed back on religious leaders by citing scripture that quote the “rule of law” and advocate the “punishing of wrongdoers.” “Americans need not repent for wanting to follow the rule of law,” Rep Smith said, “A truly Christian approach would be to end illegal immigration.” Likewise, the single witness for the minority, Dr. James R. Edwards, Jr. of the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies, testified that biblical precepts of compassion and mercy “might not apply to civil government of the nation-state of which we are citizens. Sometimes, such application would actually be harmful and wrong.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)—among others—took particular offense to Dr. Edwards’ distinction. Rep. Gutierrez replied, “I want my government to be a reflection of my values, don’t you?” Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) asked Dr. Edwards if our current immigration laws were just and whether deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living here was considered “justice?” Dr. Edwards replied “no” to both questions.
The underlying tension in the room, however, wasn’t whether our immigration system is broken (everyone in the room agreed on that) but in how to fix it—and a step further, what a “just punishment” might look like. While the majority of committee members and witnesses agreed on CIR as a solution, immigration restrictionists championed the Arizona SB1070 model—enforcement through attrition—that is, create enforcement laws so harsh that people choose to leave the state. Rev. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, argued that deportation wasn’t the answer and that the conservative “amnesty” scare tactic wasn’t helping anyone:
I call upon those who label an earned path to legal status as amnesty to stop politicizing this debate needlessly and to honestly acknowledge the difference.
Dr. Richard Land echoed Rev. Staver’s complaint that “amnesty” is, in fact, something very different from proposed CIR proposals.
Some critics, however, suggest that “comprehensive reform” is a code for amnesty, but such action is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write and speak English, and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (American citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants) with dignity.
While restrictionist committee members continued to argue that CIR and its prescribed penalties—paying fines, going back to the end of the line, etc.—were simply not enough, religious leaders like Rev. Staver, continued to drive home the point that immigration is not a “right left” issue, but a “right wrong” issue, a moral issue, and that we “should not allow partisan politics to deter us from the ultimate goal of fixing a broken system.”
Photo by Lone Primate.
Undocumented Youth Pin DREAMs on Congressional Action
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 13th
Every year, undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. along with their young children. These kids grow up in the U.S., speak English, and hang out with their friends just like other American kids. But unlike their classmates, they cannot join the military, work, or pursue their dreams because they don’t have legal status. Every year, roughly 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, but many don’t apply for college, even when they’re at the top of their class, because they can’t afford it. These hard-working students are not eligible for loans or work study and must often pay high out-of-state or international tuition rates. They often live in fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM Act—which would benefit these students as well as the U.S. economy—proposes to fix these problems, but not without the political will of Congress.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the “DREAM Act” (S. 729 and H.R. 1751), addresses the plight of young undocumented immigrants who, growing up in the United States, wish to go to college and obtain lawful employment. By providing a path to legal permanent status, the DREAM Act would create a needed incentive for students to stay in school, pursue higher education or join the military.
According to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), approximately 114,000 potential beneficiaries with at least an associate’s degree would be immediately eligible for conditional legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Another 612,000 potential beneficiaries would be immediately eligible for conditional status because they already have a high school diploma or GED and 934,000 children under 18 could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future under the DREAM Act.
Experts report that the DREAM Act would have economic and social benefits for the U.S. According to a fact check by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), the DREAM Act would:
- Provides an opportunity to raise individual wages and the resulting tax contributions. If legalized, these students would get a better education and better jobs and would earn more and pay more in taxes.
- Allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy. Removing the uncertainty of unauthorized status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.
- Reduce the drop-out rate for immigrant students by creating a strong incentive for undocumented students to remain in school until graduation
- Help universities by increasing school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.
- Aid military recruiting. According to West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.”
On the legislative end, the DREAM Act has come up for a vote several times in past years and has garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House; it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee twice; and it received more than 50 votes as a stand-alone bill. Yet it has failed to become law. Some Members of Congress who support DREAM in principle have voted against it because they want to see it pass as part of a broader immigration reform effort and fear that passage of the DREAM Act alone would hamper the possibility of larger reform. For example, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)—then a Republican, now a Democrat—voted against the bill because he thought it would weaken the chances of CIR, not because he disagreed with the contents of the bill. According to a recent poll, the DREAM Act has garnered public support across party lines with as many as 70% of Americans favoring the DREAM Act.
Recently, many Republicans have come under fire for supporting any form of immigration “amnesty,” including the DREAM Act, and some former supporters have switched their positions. Earlier this May, five immigrants sat in the office of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and refused to leave, asking him to sponsor DREAM. In past years, Senator McCain was a co-sponsor for the DREAM Act, but became more conservative on immigration issues during his 2008 presidential campaign and continues to do so during his 2010 Senate campaign, where he is facing a primary challenge from the right.
Research has shown that the DREAM Act would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. Moreover, the DREAM Act create an opportunity for many young people to get on the path to permanent legal status, improve their education, invest in themselves and their communities, and serve their country. But for the DREAM Act to pass, it would likely need the support of both the moderate Republicans who supported it in the past, as well as the Democrats who may be holding out hope for CIR.
Photo by SomewhereinAK.
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 12th
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration.
Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee.
So when the executive branch determines that a state law fundamentally upsets this scheme—in other words, violates the Constitution—the government needs to act. Sorry that the timing stinks. Sorry that Congress hasn’t done its job. Sorry that this may not play out very well with some members of the public who don’t understand that maintaining checks and balances requires action. Sorry that this makes Arizona out to be the constitutional bully that its state legislature is trying so hard to be. But the federal government is defending its constitutional right to regulate immigration law.
You have to wonder if the critics have bothered to read United States v. Arizona, which unfolds like a primer on the structure of the federal/state relationship. The lawsuit is a crisp and detached analysis of federal constitutional obligations and responsibilities regarding immigration and a point by point analysis of the manner in which SB 1070 violates and undermines that scheme. Moreover, it makes the very compelling point that immigration is inherently a federal responsibility precisely because it engages many competing national interests:
In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside, responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the e treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad.
The suit argues that by enacting S.B. 1070, Arizona “attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the Unites States despite the fact that these are federal domains.” The suit notes that Arizona explicitly acknowledges that the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement (code for make the laws so harsh that people leave the state) which means that it is not taking into account any of the other vital immigration priorities and, in the process, undermines the federal scheme enacted by Congress.
Of course, under this analysis, the federal government has to fight back. As Maryland governor Martin O’Malley noted:
The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen. When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.
Ironically, that principled stand essentially means defending Congress’s right to pass federal law, even when it can’t or won’t do it. Rather than criticizing the President for moving forward on a crucial constitutional issue, Democrats should be kicking themselves for failing to be brave enough to take the issue on. And Republicans should stop throwing firebombs and start working on immigration reform.
Photo by jamess.
The Numbers Are In: Polls Reveal Voters’ Desire to Fix Immigration
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 9th
In the media storm following the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration enforcement law (SB1070) this week, politicians, reporters and advocates are busy gauging voters’ reaction in the build up to midterm elections. A number of public opinion polls have recently surfaced, each with something slightly different to say about how most Americans feel about Arizona’s law, the DOJ lawsuit, and immigration in general. As any pollster can tell you, poll results depend entirely on the phrasing of the question. However, while it’s difficult to mine the nuances of each poll question, one thing remains clear—most Americans agree that our broken immigration system needs to be fixed. The question is, how do we move forward?
A new bipartisan poll conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies found that the majority of voters who support Arizona’s immigration law are also more likely to support comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The poll asked the following question about a CIR proposal:
Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship.
84% of the 1,100 registered voters polled who said they support Arizona’s law said they also support comprehensive reform, with 12% opposing and 4% undetermined.
A recent Gallup/USA Today poll, however, shows that Americans are closely divided on whether the U.S. government should halt the flow of undocumented immigrants or deal with the undocumented immigrants already here. 54% of the 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, surveyed supported halting the flow while 45% wanted a plan to deal with the immigrants who are already here. The number of people supporting a comprehensive plan is up from 43% in May of 2006 while the number of those who want a halt is down from 52% in the same year.
Finally, a recent Rasmussen poll found that 61% of voters “favor passage of Arizona’s law” in their state. The same poll found that 56% of voters disagreed with the DOJ lawsuit while 28% agreed the DOJ should challenge the state law.
But no matter how your slice these varied poll results, one thing remains constant—voters are clearly concerned about immigration and many, regardless of their stance on Arizona’s law or the DOJ lawsuit, want to fix our broken immigration system. As America’s Voice points out, voters are clearly frustrated with the fact that Congress has failed to move on immigration. With the recent upswing in state immigration enforcement legislation, voters are sending policy-makers a very clear message: America needs solutions to our immigration problems now.
Photo by batega.