In the Arizona state legislature, a group of state senate Republicans joined Democrats in defeating a series of anti-immigrant bills.
Leading the drive against the bills were many of Arizona’s largest employers, who signed a letter to a top Arizona legislator explaining their opposition to the bills.
“Arizona’s lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration. But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur,” the letter states.
“It is an undeniable fact that each of our companies and our employees were impacted by the boycotts and the coincident negative image.”
An international rights group condemned U.S. immigration policies regarding the apprehension and detention of immigrants.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a part of the Organization of American States, issued a comprehensive review of the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement practices in recent years, and found fault with many aspects of actions taken on behalf of the U.S. government.
You can view the 155-page report here.
Emily Rosenbaum has written a thoughtful piece about the DREAM Act at the Columbia University Teachers College website.
Ms. Rosenbaum carefully reviews arguments for and against the legislation, taking into consideration a variety of issues, including, perhaps most importantly, the compelling need of undocumented immigrants to be adequately educated so that they may contribute to our nation.
The editorial opinions against House Bill 4305 continue to accumulate.
The Times Herald, a news source from Port Huron, Michigan, recently published an editorial against the proposed anti-immigrant legislation, stating, “Police resources should be devoted to upholding public safety. Officers need to be able to make arrests when they have evidence that someone has committed a crime, not spend their time investigating whether someone is in the country illegally.”
The Holland Sentinel, a publication based in Holland, Michigan, cautioned that HB 4305 would amount to racial profiling: “HB 4305 might be justifiable if all Americans — whether it’s someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower or a Somali immigrant who took the naturalization oath last week — were required to carry citizenship papers, but that’s not the case. An Arizona-style law would create a discriminatory system, effectively requiring hundreds of thousands of non-white Michigan residents — people just as American as their white neighbors — to carry papers with them proving their legal status.”
In the Detroit Free Press, Gus West, board chair and president of the Hispanic Institute, calls on Latino leaders to respond forcefully against assaults on immigrants’ rights. Referring to a proposal recently introduced in the Michigan legislature, HB 4305, which seeks to follow in the footsteps of Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, Mr. West urges leaders to “lead the way” against such measures.
Mr. West connects the current anti-immigrant sentiment to past eras in American history, as he writes: “The tactic isn’t new. The archives of newspapers from the 1920s are filled with similar stories — not about Hispanics, but about Italians, Germans, Eastern European Jews and others who came to America to make better lives. Those groups overcame the prejudices of the day, often with help from leaders from their respective ethnic groups, and so will Hispanics. But, it won’t happen as quickly or as effectively for Hispanics without support from the Latino leadership.”
Click here to go to the commentary at the Detroit Free Press.
In a recent editorial, the Detroit Free Press criticized anti-immigrant legislation (HB 4305) proposed by state Rep. Dave Agema.
Take a look at the editorial here.
Roxana Bacon, a former top counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), sharply criticized the Obama Administration and Congress for failing to act on immigration reform measures while at the same time engaging in harsh enforcement of current immigration laws.
In a recent article published in an Arizona law journal, Bacon stated, referring to the nation’s capitol, “I know that D.C.’s collective ostriching is not a viable strategy. . . . The reasons — demographic, national security and economic — are all around us.”
“We need visionary thinking and incisive analysis grounded on economic truths to create the functioning immigration policy the nation needs,” Bacon wrote. “None of this is likely to come from this Congress, or from this Administration.”
Bacon criticized the enforcement of immigration laws against certain people brought into the United States illegally when they were children, through no fault of their own. “Punishing them is like jailing a one-year-old for not wearing a seat belt,” Bacon wrote. Referring to the failed effort in Congress to pass the DREAM Act, a proposal to create a path to legalization for these young people, Bacon stated, “Even the most reactive voices acknowledge that the Dream Act kids cannot all be deported; rather, almost all will stay here. The only issue is whether we set them up for failure or maximize their contribution. Remarkably, we opted for failure.”
To read Roxana Bacon’s complete article, please click here.
The New York Times continues its recent string of editorials regarding immigration with a piece commending the citizens of many states for resisting state-level anti-immigrant legislation.
According to the editorial, “In dozens of states considering such crackdowns — including Nebraska, Indiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas — elected officials, law enforcers, business owners, religious leaders and regular citizens are providing the calm voices and cool judgment that are lacking in the shimmering heat of Phoenix.”
“They are reminding their representatives that replacing federal immigration policy with a crazy quilt of state-led enforcement schemes is only a recipe for more lawlessness and social disruption, for expensive lawsuits and busted budgets, lost jobs and boycotts. And all without fixing the problem.”
To access the complete editorial, click here.
Tom Ridge, who was appointed as the first Secretary of Homeland Security, said recently that critics of immigration reform need to “get over it,” and warned that Americans shouldn’t be so “arrogant” as to believe that “everybody that comes across the border wants to be an American citizen.”
The former secretary said that “sometime in the future” the U.S. government should take a serious look at immigration policy “in general.” He continued: “At some point in time you’ve got to say to yourself, ‘We’re not sending 12 million people home.’ . . . We’re not going to send them home, so let’s just figure out a way to legitimize their status, create a new system, and I think that will add more to border security than any number of fences we can put across the border.”
Many in the crowd erupted in applause.
Read more about Tom Ridge’s speech here.
The New York Times published the following editorial:
No Exit from a Bad Program
“I’m totally confused now,” wrote a government official in one of thousands of internal e-mails released last week on the subject of Secure Communities, the federal program enlisting state and local police in the crackdown on illegal immigrants.
The confusion was over a simple question: Could a state or city choose not to participate in Secure Communities? That is, could it decide to preserve that bright line separating local policing from federal immigration enforcement, so as not to discourage immigrants from reporting crimes?
The e-mails show that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t know how to answer the question — even two years into the program, which sends the fingerprints of everyone arrested by participating state and local agencies to federal databases for an immigration check.
The answer was important, because while the Obama administration has made Secure Communities a centerpiece of its immigration-enforcement strategy, many state and local agencies have wanted nothing to do with it. They know it has been used to deport tens of thousands of people with no criminal records, even though it was supposed to focus strictly on dangerous criminals.
They have seen how some politicized and unscrupulous police departments have used it as an excuse for racial profiling. They worry that participation will strain their resources and make community policing harder.
Though the e-mails, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by immigrant-rights advocates, show the agency at its most confused, top administration officials had no doubt: Secure Communities doesn’t allow states and localities to opt out. As The Times reported, the administration even “developed a plan to isolate and pressure communities that did not want to participate.”
There is a place for local law enforcement in immigration matters, but it must be strictly limited and cautiously drawn. It must place the highest priority on catching and removing dangerous criminals, while letting alone those without criminal records — the vast proportion of the undocumented population.
President Obama has repeatedly promised that he will work to change the immigration laws so undocumented immigrants who work hard can earn legal status. The Secure Communities program goes against that vow. It is also bad for public safety. States, cities and towns should be able to opt out.
Here is a link to the editorial.