Posts Tagged ‘anti-immigration’

I HAVE Read the Arizona Law. And, It Still Stinks!

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

I was at church on Sunday when a fellow parishioner decided to engage me on the Arizona anti-immigration Law.  His main point was this:  ”it is exactly like federal law.”  When I explained to him that it was not actually “exactly” like federal law and that in fact there is no federal law allowing for racial profiling and arresting people because they look “illegal,” he would not believe me (keep in mind, we are at church).

I have heard repeatedly over the last month, from folks who may have read the Arizona law, but who have NOT read the federal law, that the Arizona law is somehow nothing more than an extension of what the Federal government already does.  Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Arizona law is classic Kris Kobach.   When he worked in the Attorney General’s office under Ashcroft, he took Section 263 of the INA (written as part of the Alien Registration Act of 1940— this law is how we put thousands of Japanese into internment camps), and turned it into “Special Registration” or NSEERS.  NSEERS was designed to have Muslim men who had come into the U.S. legally come and “register” with the then INS.   NSEERS did not require anyone who entered illegally come in and register (that is true).   The program is considered an failure, as it produced no viable evidence of anyone involved in terrorist activities.  It did lead, however, to 13,000 Muslim men being arrested, jailed and placed in removal proceedings, so perhaps Kobach did achieve his goal.

That said, and to make the argument that the Arizona law mimics federal law, Kobach has now taken Section 264(e) of the same Alien Registration Act of 1940, and included it in the new Arizona law (A.R.S. 13-1509).  Section 264(e) makes it a federal misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail and/or a $100 fine, to fail to carry one’s ”certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt car issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).”  Now subsection (d) of the INA 264 says:  ”every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at a such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.”   That alien registration document refers to the registration document created under the section of law that Kobach previously used to remove Muslim men from America.  However, in case you were thinking that this federal statute was actually being used, a search of court records reveals no prosecutions federally for this offense, and the last citation to the statute in an immigration appeals court case 32 years ago.

So, while technically true that federal law does require anyone required to “register” to carry proof of that registration with them at all times, in reality, enforcement of this law has been suspended for decades for good reason–the law has not kept up with the changes in immigration law.  There are now dozens of ways to prove one’s legal status, many of which do not even include proof (e.g. Canadians who enter by showing a passport are given no proof of entry).  The law is basically unenforceable, or other words, broken.

A bigger issue, however, is the provision in the Arizona, that is causing the most outage —  the racial profiling provision found in Section 3 of HB2162, now A.R.S.  Section 11-1051. This is the big lie. This provision does NOT have any federal immigration statutory counterpart. There is a federal regulation that reads as follow:

8 CFR 287.8(b)(2)  If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.

The question becomes this.  What are “articuable facts” to a trained ICE or CBP officer of a person’s illegal presence in the United States, versus what those facts are to a Maricopa County Deputy Sheriff?   Let’s not kid ourselves, this new Arizona law will lead to racial profiling, and thus creates the strong possibility that it is unconstitutional.  Kobach knows he is pushing the envelope on constitutionality here. He has repeatedly played this game at the expense of cities and counties around the United States. His plan is clear, keep getting gullible and politically ambitious politicians to pass marginally constitutional laws, in the hopes of establishing the outer fringes of what is unconstitutional on the issue of immigration enforcement (e.g. mandatory e-verify vs. housing discrimination).

So, Section 11-1051 is an attempt to establish how much “profiling” will be allowed in Federal law.  Kobach wrote:

“[F]or any ”lawful” stop, detention or arrest (actually he wrote “contact” but then realized after passage that this would fail constitutional muster so he had the AZ folks change it) made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state,  . . . county, city, town . . .  in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state (to make sure to include housing violations and cars on blocks in the yard, because you know those are signs of  ”illegals”), where ”reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, . . . .

Do you really believe that a statute this vague, ambiguous and downright inflammatory actuallywill pass constitutional muster?  I hope not, because it does not.    Now, tell me this–What does this language mean? The term “reasonable suspicion” is nowhere defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  So, what is “reasonable suspicion” that  someone “is an alien unlawfully present?”  Is it the clothes they wear? Their haircut? Perhaps the car they drive? The person’s accent?  Or, do you just know it when you see it, like pornography.

Perhaps the problem here is Kobach. Do we really want a man on a mission to aggrandize himself (and make a living on the lawsuits he causes to be filed by the laws he writes) to be the puppet-master behind these ambitious blinded politicians?  Isn’t a dialogue on the most effective way to curb illegal immigration, without passing unconstitutional laws denigrating entire races of people?  Surely we, as a society, are capable of agreeing on a solution that enforces our borders, punishes bad employers, secures America, AND provides compassion to people, energizes our economy, supplies needed labor and investment, and provides for an appropriate flow of immigrants and non-immigrants in the future.  I just hope we come to a solution before Kobach dreams up his next unconstitutional nightmare.

Immigration Reform or Immigration Timeout?

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

Tom Tancredo recently wrote an article about his plan to get Immigration under control. The last, and apparently most important part of his plan, is an immigration moratorium:

Every month our government lets in 75,000 permanent foreign workers via “green cards” and 50,000 temporary workers through numerous guest worker programs. That’s 1.5 million new foreign workers each year. Then add all the illegal aliens flooding across our open borders. Every one of those new arrivals is competing with American citizens for jobs – and contrary to the propaganda of the open borders lobby, they are not taking only “jobs Americans won’t do.”

Among the many problems with this plan, not the least of which includes the extraordinary harm to America’s economy, innovation, and world wide stature as the “Shining City on a Hill,” if immigrants were not allowed into America, is the fact that the numbers that Tancredo throws around are misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. It appears that the lying by the anti-immigration movement is beginning to be properly understood by the media in the US, which for too long has been trying to view organizations like FAIR and CIS as not what they really are–fronts for a troubling ideology.

So, what is “wrong” with Tancredo’s numbers? First, in 2009, the USCIS admitted 1,130,818 people as lawful permanent residents of the United States. Of that number, over 667,000 of these people were already in the United States. We did NOT add them to the population or workforce. Further, only 144,000 of the larger total were actually employment based immigrants. 747,000 people were family based immigrants, following our countries long and storied commitment to family based immigration. There is no evidence that all these people are “foreign workers.” In fact, to the contrary many of these folks are parents, spouses and minor children who are not “foreign workers.” Of those 144,000 employment based immigrants, more than half of those people are actually the spouses and minor children of the actually employed immigrant. The reality of the numbers, ignored by Tancredo, is the simple fact that only 77,000 people immigrated permanently to the United States in 2009 through the immigration system.

The unfortunate part of these numbers is that they generally do not reflect immigrants who come to the United States to do jobs Americans “will not do.” Those immigrants, lesser skilled workers, are limited to only 10,000 people a year, and after taking in account family members, fewer than 5,000 lesser skilled employed workers actually immigrated to the US in 2009.

As to the 50,000 nonimmigrant workers allowed into the U.S., well, that number is simply not based in any reality that I am aware of. The numbers of H-1B visas submitted (not even approved) since April 1, 2010 is less than 20,000, and that goes toward the YEARLY total of 85,000 allowed into the U.S. Other nonimigrant categories, such as H-2B (65,000 a year), L-1 visas (less than 30,000 a year), E-2 Visas (less than 20,000 a year), an

The bottom line is this. The numbers are no overwhelming in a country of 300,000,000 people. In an economy of more than 140,000,000 jobs, adding fewer than 75,000 employment based workers to the economy each year is drop in the bucket of our economic engine. Yes, I understand the family based immigrants are going to seek work once they have legal status in the United States, but I also understand that even if half of the new 2009 immigrants (not counting those immigrants who were already in the United States and adjusted status–many if not most of those folks are already part of the economy), that means 230,000 new potential workers in the U.S. economy each year, or about 20,000 a month–in an economy of 134,000,000 jobs! And, that does not account for the fact that immigrants are far more entrepreneurial than native born citizens, and are more likely not seek employment, but rather, to create employment. so each month, there is a .00014 increase in new immigrant seeking employment each month. That is the crisis that Tancredo is warning about? Come on Tom, tell the truth.

The scare tactics of Tom Tancredo, when examined in the light of day are simply not supported by the facts and the numbers. An Immigration timeout? To the contrary, we need a better immigration system to encourage the employment based immigration that creates jobs and maintains American hegemony in technology, science, research, development, banking, and virtually every area in which America leads the world. We want immigrants, we need immigrants, and America is better off for our long history of encouraging immigration to our land of promise and hope.

Perception is Reality

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

One of my favorite movie lines is from “The Princess Bride.” Vizzini, the mastermind behind the kidnapping of Princess Buttercup, upon seeing the Man in Black pursuing them keeps repeating the word “inconceivable.” Finally, Inigo Montoya, one of of Vizzini’s then assistants says: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

That simple statement applies to so much in the immigration law world that it is hard to even define situations where it does not apply. Much of what we deal with is really about our perception of what the law is, not about what the law actually says. This is true for legislation and for court decisions. Today, this statement seemed more true than ever. I received an email from the Center for Immigration Studies, the anti-immigration “think tank,” promoting a new web program it is hosting on “Local Law Enforcement Authority to Check Immigration Status.” This email comes with this teaser:

This program . . . “discusses a recent court decision affirming that local law enforcement officers may question suspected illegal aliens encounter [sic] about their immigration status and then contact immigration authorities (ICE). Known as Estrada v. Rhode Island, this important decision should reassure local officers that they are not obligated to look the other way when they discover immigration law violations and provide guidance on reasonable actions officers may take in questioning foreign nationals.”

Thus comes into play Inigo Montoya’s statement, to paraphrase here–I do not believe that case means what you think it means. After all, if a court had stated that police officer could pull people over and question them about their immigration status and have no other reason for doing so, don’t you think that we would have all heard about this by now? Heck, the nutty proposed law in Arizona is exactly this, no? Having police ask people their immigration status based upon “reasonable suspicion” is the basis of Senator Russell Pearce’s brainchild. I thought, how could I have missed such a seminal case. Or, perhaps, the folks over at CIS are giving a court’s decision a little more “spin” than it actually deserves?
Go ahead, read “Estrada v. Rhode Island.” This case is exactly NOT about a law enforcement officer’s right to ask questions about a person’s immigration status, with no other basis for stopping the person. The case is about whether or not a police officer can be sued under civil rights and others laws, for engaging in this behavior. The case is NOT a constitutional analysis of the legality of the officers actions in the context of a criminal or immigration related case. Rather, this is a civil case brought by the ACLU of Rhode Island seeking civil damages against the officer because of his actions towards the plaintiffs in the litigation.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly did not rule on the legality of the officer’s action, but rather ruled on whether or not he enjoyed “qualified immunity” for so doing. By finding that the officer was immune from civil suit, the 1st Circuit did not uphold his actions as legal, it simply said he could not be sued over them, expressly NOT ruling on the broader question here.
In the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say that a reasonable officer in Officer Chabot’s position would have understood that his conduct violated Tamup’s constitutional right.
This is not exactly a rousing endorsement for law enforcement officers to engage in what is effectively racial profiling. Given the prospective Arizona law, there is no doubt behind CIS’s efforts to encourage law enforcement officers to stop and question people they believe are undocumented. What should be clearly understood is that no court has found it reasonable to stop and question a person about their immigration status, just because of how they look. But, perception being reality in immigration law, I fear that such activity could become the “law of the land.” That would be a tragic reality.

The Election and Anti-Immigration

Friday, November 7th, 2008

 

This week’s national elections brought home a very simple fact. The American People have, for a third election cycle, once again rejected Anti-Immigration candidates.  Hate simply does not sell in America, and the Anti-Immigrationists only peddle hate.  Frank Sharry and the folks at America’s Voice, issued a press release today confirming what many of us already suspected, Latinos came out strongly for President-Elect Obama and the Democrats.  The key demographic came out so strongly not because they inherently believe all that Democrats espouse, but rather because the Republican party, the party most Latinos would culturally and philosophically be more drawn to, rejected them, classified them as “illegal” and law breakers, and literally chased them away and lost them, perhaps for a generation or more.  Anti-Immigrationists, who tragically have found a home in the Republican party, can say they are only talking about “illegal aliens” and that they love legal immigrants,  but the reality is they are not. The code word for anti-Latino is “illegal alien.”  

 

 

Of note in this election is that once again, just like in 2004 and in 2006, those politicians like Lou Barletta, the former mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, the original home of some vicious anti-immigration ordinances, was soundly defeated in a Republican oriented district, in his bid to become a U. S. Congressman.  Several other Anti-Immigration politicians were also soundly defeated,  including Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Thelma Drake (VA-02), and possibly Virgil Goode (VA-5) (race too close to call at press time).  At the same time, politicians espousing rationale immigration proposals were elected in many parts of the United States, including Dina Titus (taking Rep. Portes seat in NV-3), Bill Foster (IL-14), Jim Himes (taking Rep. Shay seat in CT-4), Rep. Giffords (AZ-8), and many others.  Put simply, what can conclusions can we draw from this election?  Hate does not sell, it does not draw votes, and it does not win elections.  

 

 Thank Goodness.

 

 

 

For more information, read:

Wall Street Journal: Big Turnout of Latino Voters Boosted Obama

by Miriam Jordan

November 6, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593469349803755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.