After Arizona... It is time for immigration reform?

Those of you who have been following the debate on immigration were probably not surprised by federal Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law.

As has happened with many other municipal and state attempts to enact laws on immigration, the judge imposed a temporary restraining order on several of the most controversial issues of the SB-1070 law.

And as has happened in those places, Arizona’s authorities announced that they will appeal Bolton’s ruling. After that, as recent history has shown us, the state will be involved in a long and expensive legal process before the law could be implemented in the way that it was approved.

The most recent example of a situation like this is perhaps the HB1804 immigration law in Oklahoma, which in spite of having been approved in 2007, has not been implemented because of a judge’s injunction as well.

The judge’s decision in that case halted provisions that would have required private employers contracting with the state to use the federal "Basic Pilot Program" to electronically verify the immigration status and work eligibility of potential employees. The judge’s rule also halted measures that would have imposed tax penalties on businesses that don't verify the status of independent contractors.

There are also several cases at the municipal level. The most representative are perhaps the cases of Fremont, Neb., Halzelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch in Texas.

In Fremont, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union filed lawsuits against an immigration law that would prohibit the hiring of or renting of housing to illegal immigrants in the city.  Yesterday, Fremont’s city council decided to suspend the ban until the lawsuits are settled, but the issue is still debated in courts.

In Hazelton, a U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction against an ordinance aimed to punish landlords, who might rent to undocumented immigrants, revoke the business license of any employer who would hire them, and declare English as the town’s official language.

And in Farmers Branch, the situation was similar. After four years of legal battles, a federal court decision in March of this year forbids the city from ever enforcing an ordinance that prohibits landlords from renting housing to undocumented immigrants. The city is appealing the court’s decision.

For any of these cities, the legal battles have had an extraordinary cost. According to news reports, since 2006, the city of Farmers Branch has paid out $3.3 million in legal fees. It potentially owes another $1.7 million to opposing lawyers. If divided up, the city's legal fees would cost every Farmers Branch citizen more than $160.

There is one constant argument in all of the cities’ attempts to regulate immigration: the federal government is not doing its job in regulating the flow of undocumented immigrants to this country.  And there is also a constant argument in all of the court’s decisions in any of these cases: Immigration is a federal issue and cities or states don’t have the authority to regulate it. 

If cities and states are putting all of this money and effort into an issue that won’t go into effect, it is because Congress has not had the determination to address immigration reform that could provide a solution for the estimated 12-million undocumented people living in this country, and regulating the flow of immigrants and enforcing border security.

Hopefully, all the heated debate created by the Arizona law could push congressmen to address this complicated and always controversial issue. For sure, it will not happen before the November elections.

Comments

[Judy Wai]

Great pro-immigration-reform piece, Anna! With huge and rising unemployment, what a perfect time to legalize a vast number of new people low in skills and high in need. That’s a super idea.

Also, with our huge budget deficits putting our economy on the brink of a disaster a la Greece, what a great time to legalize millions more unskilled and uneducated people. A nice bonus is that they will be eligible to receive a huge range of government social services, though they will almost all be among the 40% of people who pay no federal income taxes at all. Also isn't it terrific that they will become eligible to bring in their uncles, nieces, parents, etc. Some of these folks probably need kidney transplants and bypass surgery and so forth?--–we can pay for all that stuff too!

Also, it will be swell that our schools--already sinking in international comparisons--will have lots more problem cases to challenge them!

Mass immigration of unskilled people has already approximately *doubled* our poverty rate--why stop there?

reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.html

You have got some super ideas to really help improve things in this country, Anna--thanks for sharing!

[alice from ky]

Judy suggests that the #1 problem facing our nation is immigration, legal or not. If you toss in a sprinkling of semi facts, they appear to be true, but her facts are emotional rather than logical. A country that can afford a trillion dollar war on people who may or may not be despicable, but pose no threat to us whatsoever, can afford anything. I remind the writer that my ancestors and hers/his came her illegally, that the Latinos are closer to being legal than we are.

[Judy Wai]

Alice, that's a fascinating thing that you say " A country that can afford a trillion dollar war on people who may or may not be despicable, but pose no threat to us whatsoever, can afford anything. "

Unfortunately, that is not true, although it is an understandable thought. The problem is, we really couldn't afford to mount a massive war to save the Middle East. We are living on borrowed money. The Greeks thought they could afford anything, too, but soon the outside investors decided that they were not such a good credit risk, and suddenly: death spiral time. A fiscal death spiral would mean that all our life savings would be rapidly destroyed, Alice!

If we had not spent so much in the middle east, we could perhaps absorb this vast charitable enterprise of legalizing millions of illegals, but we already bought the war, and we can't afford anything else now.

[Jack the Referee]

America has welcomed the old, the poor, the oppressed for many years and she always will provided the laws of the land are followed. When the time comes that all 'ILLEGALS' are expecting that we just allow them to stay based on the fact that they are already here is a travesty. The rule of law must be upheld or the inmates will surely run the asylum. For the act of being "ILLEGAL' is the main issue here! As an American I am appalled that we would even have a debate about this. Follow the procedure or accept the consequences and right soon!