Give me your tired, your poor, your braceros

Having passed some of the harshest anti-immigrant legislation in the nation, Arizona legislators, faced with a mass exodus of essential workers and pressure from business interests, are talking about reversing their previous stance and now want to actively recruit immigrant workers to the state. But of course with some conditions …

Video Link

They want a guest worker program, limited to agricultural workers that "doesn't lead to citizenship, doesn't lead to permanent status, can't bring family with you, can't come here and have your babies, can't come here and be a burden on the taxpayer, come here, work, earn your wages, pay your taxes and go home when it's done" … Essentially, a return to a bracero style program of the past.

This, despite overwhelming evidence that current guest worker programs are a dismal failure, supplying nothing but misery for their participants while assuring profits for what become in essence government sanctioned plantations.

The failures of current guest worker programs are numerous and systemic as evidenced by this testimony by Mary Bauer, Director of the Immigration Justice Program at the Southern Poverty Law Center before the House Education and Labor Committee.

Video Link

But these abuses have not been limited to just agricultural workers or those from Mexico or South/Central America. Importation of modern day indentured servants has become a global industry.

Video Link

The answer to our failed immigration system is not to perpetuate and expand on failed policies, or return to exploitive and discriminatory practices of the past. Allowing workers to be treated as commodities, to be traded across borders at will to the lowest bidder, is no substitute for true reform of the system.

Anti-immigrant advocates like Russell Pearce, having had their plans blow in their face, now look for alternatives to prevent the severe economic consequences of their actions.

But allowing them to codify indentured servitude to placate angry business interests is not the answer. As they finally come to terms with the economic reality that immigrant workers are the backbone of their economy, let them now come to terms with the ramifications of that fact … the only answer is to reform the immigration system to respect and protect the human rights and dignity of all people. Anything less would be nothing more than a return to braceros.

Read More...

Summary only...

I'm just a bill … hate group style

It appears that the "grassroots" efforts that led to the controversial anti-immigrant ordinances in Prince William County Va. weren't so "grassroots after all.

Apparently the folks at our favorite hate group, FAIR not only midwifed the legislation through it's birth …they played a crucial role in it's conception.

This wouldn't be the first time that FAIR, or one of it's astroturf affiliate groups in the Tanton Network, anonymously penned some legislation for anti-immigrant politicians … but this video gives us a clear picture of their behind-the-scenes actions on the local level to push an anti-immigrant agenda...

Video Link

Read More...

Summary only...

Enter the bottom feeders

From Irving Texas to Prince William County Virginia, municipal governments are currently engaging in legislative efforts to drive immigrant populations out of their communities. Many make no bones about their intentions to "do the job the federal government won't" and make their towns and cities as inhospitable for immigrants as possible. Whether enacting legislation to limit housing in immigrant communities, or extending powers to local law enforcement previously restricted to the federal government, local governments around the country, see the expulsion of the immigrant population as a quick way to capitalize on the growing fear and xenophobia fueling much of the current immigration debate.

Despite overwhelming evidence that such plans eventually created greater burdens on taxpayers and do irreparable harm to the local business climate, local leaders have continued to push for harsher and harsher policies. All this in the hope that they can drive what they viewed as an undesirable population to more distant communities…not unlike the "sundown town" policies used in previous generations to keep an unwanted Black population from taking up residence in certain areas.

And with this climate of government-sponsored intimidation and fear comes the inevitable arrival of society's bottom feeders, those all too willing to exploit an already exploited population for personal gain.

Latino residents of Arlington (TX) apartment complexes say they received letters threatening a visit from federal immigration agents if they didn't send $95 cash to a post office box.

"People have fear, and more than anything because of what is happening in Irving," said Ruby Valenzuela, assistant manager of the Las Lomas apartments, where at least four residents said they found the notices from the nonexistent "Immigration Citizenship Enforcement" agency taped to their doors.

….

The letters, written in English on official-looking letterhead, ask that the recipients send the money to a post office box in Dallas to help start the citizenship process.

"If the amount is not received in 14 days, you can get a visit from an ICE agent," the letter warns.

"When I saw it posted on the door and read it for the first time, I felt very scared," said one homemaker who spoke on the condition that her name not be used. "One cannot do anything with something like this."

Giovani Estrada, a tenant and employee of the Park Row apartments, said he also received a letter, and about 10 residents at the complex had asked him to translate the letters they received. Mr. Estrada, a permanent legal U.S. resident, said the letter looked real. "People were terrified," he said.

Link

Like the nooses hung from trees and locker rooms, and all the other current racists trappings of a time we had hope had long passed in our nation, the arrival of the bottom feeders to these communities, now controlled by modern-day White Citizens Councils, only reminds us of just how far from the ideals of equality we truly are.

While these modern citizen councils try to wrap their hateful policies in the rhetoric of patriotism and the "rule of law", they are no different than their hooded forefathers, intimidating and bullying those they wish to eliminate. They leave their victims vulnerable not only to state condoned coercion, but the exploitation and abuse of those who will always prey upon the weak and defenseless.

Read More...

Summary only...

New study shows undocumented immigrants good for Arizona economy

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more in taxes than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems.

At a time when states like Georgia, Oklahoma and Colorado, and municipalities large and small all over the country, are passing harsh legislation intended to drive off their immigrant populations, this Arizona study concludes that, in the long run, these restrictionist tactics will end up creating economic disaster for certain segments of the economy and an overall loss for all residents. These finding don't bode well for the state which already has some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the nation.

The study is also unique in that it breaks out the non-citizen population from the rest of the immigrant population and still comes to the same overall conclusions.

This is a important development, since one of the restrictionsts chief weapons in their war of misinformation has been the lack of information on the contributions of the undocumented versus the larger immigrant population.

This has allowed them to wrongly discount or discredit many of the previous studies by claiming that undocumented are somehow different than the broader immigrant population in their use of services or contributions.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion, $29 billion of that coming from non-citizens. This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

The study also looks at what impact the removal of as little as 10-15% of the immigrant workforce would have on the state's economy. Over $.5 billion in tax revenues would be lost, 125,000 jobs and $13.5 billion of lost economic output.

Clearly, lawmakers from statehouses to city councils across the country should examine this study before they begin to contemplate the adoption of restrictionist tactics and harsh legislation when addressing this issue. …..like the old saying goes:
"Be careful what you wish for … or you just might get it."

Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts
by Judith Gans
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona.

Preface
Arizona’s foreign-born population has grown dramatically since 1990 when there were about 268,700 foreign-born persons in the state. By 2004, the foreign-born population had grown to 830,900. This is more than a 200 percent increase. The vast majority of these new immigrants are in the non-citizen category, which went from 163,300 to about 619,800, an increase of almost 280 percent. Most immigrants are of working age and have come to the United States seeking employment. This fact is central to their impacts in Arizona.

The likelihood that many of Arizona’s non-citizens are undocumented immigrants has fueled anger over lawlessness and made discussion of immigration in Arizona politically contentious. But Arizona’s experience is a specific case of a national problem, one that exists because large economic incentives in today’s global economy are overwhelming the U.S. immigration system – a system that is widely understood to be in need of reform. Public discourse that equates immigration and illegal immigration is narrowly focused and risks overlooking broader dimensions of the role of immigrants in the economy.

It is not the purpose of this study to address the myriad issues surrounding illegal immigration or to imply in any way that illegal immigration is not a problem. Rather, the objective of this study is to suspend, for the moment, discussion of this narrow topic and focus instead on a broader examination of all immigrants’ impacts on Arizona’s economic and fiscal health. By so doing, we hope to create a more thorough understanding of the economic costs and benefits of immigration and of the tradeoffs involved in setting and enforcing immigration policy.

In Brief

Arizona’s proximity to Mexico, the growth of its immigrant population, and the proportion of immigrants that are in the United States illegally have made immigration a contentious issue. This study is intended to step back from debates over illegal immigration and deepen our understanding of the costs and contributions of immigrants to Arizona’s economy.

Executive Summary

This report examines the costs and benefits of immigration in Arizona. It provides estimates of the of incremental fiscal cost associated with immigrants – education, health care, and law enforcement – and measures their contributions to Arizona’s economy both as consumers and as workers. The two categories of immigrants (naturalized citizens and non-citizens) are examined separately in order to disentangle the economic costs and benefits associated with each.

The bottom line

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion ($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

Fiscal costs of immigration

Estimates of the incremental fiscal costs of immigration were derived from a variety of sources. In summary:

• Education: For this analysis, English Language Learner (ELL) enrollment was used as a proxy for the number of immigrant children in Arizona’s public schools. The 2004 cost of ELL education in Arizona was about $540 million of which about $350 million (65 percent) was incurred in Maricopa County.



• Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent) was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.
  
  The total cost in 2004 of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid program, was $4.3 billion, of which an estimated $640 million was incurred by immigrants. Of the $640 million in AHCCCS costs associated with immigrants, about $480 million was incurred by non-citizens.



• Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Immigrants as consumers

As consumers, immigrants bring considerable spending power to Arizona’s economy. This spending contributes to Arizona’s overall economic performance, and, in turn, generates tax revenues for the state.

• Jobs and income: Consumer spending in 2004 by naturalized citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $6.1 billion. Approximately 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $5.9 billion of output in the state’s economy.
  
  This output included labor income of $1.2 billion, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $900 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.



• Tax revenues: Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s naturalized citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $460 million, consisting of personal taxes of about $49 million, sales taxes of about $210 million, and business taxes of $190 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.
  Immigrants as workers
  
  Immigrants in 2004 were 14 percent of Arizona’s workforce, and were a larger proportion of low-skilled labor in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and certain service industries. High-skilled immigrants were a large percent of the workers in specific areas of medicine and science.

In low-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Agriculture: Immigrants were 59 percent of the workforce in farming occupations and 22 percent of the workforce in food-preparation-and-serving occupations.


• Construction: Immigrants were between 35 percent and 41 percent of the workforce in certain construction trades such as brick masons, flooring installers, and cement masons. They were 27 percent of the workforce in all construction trades.


• Manufacturing: Immigrants were 35 percent of the workforce in food-related manufacturing, 46 percent of the workforce in textile-related manufacturing, and 22 percent of the workforce in metal-working manufacturing.


• Service industries: Immigrants were 34 percent of the workforce in occupations providing services to buildings, 51 percent of the workforce in landscaping-services occupations, and 38 percent of the workforce in building-and-grounds maintenance. Immigrants were 26 percent of the workforce in traveler-accommodations occupations, 23 percent of the workforce in restaurant-and-food-serving occupations, and 33 percent of the workforce in private-household help.

In high-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Medicine: Immigrants were 38 percent of medical scientists and 19 percent of physicians and surgeons.


• Science: Immigrants were 36 percent of astronomers and physicists, 16 percent of computer-hardware engineers, 18 percent of computer-software engineers, and 17 percent of electrical and electronics engineers. Immigrants were 15 percent of economists.

Economic contributions of immigrant labor

Approximately $15 billion, or four percent, of the state’s output can be attributed to naturalized citizen workers, resulting in about 120,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. This output included $4.9 billion in labor income and $1.9 billion of other income in the state. State tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $860 million.

Non-citizens, for their part, contributed about $29 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s economic output, resulting in about 280,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. Their output included $10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.5 billion.

The role of immigrants as workers can be further understood by analyzing the potential consequences of this source of labor not being available. In other words, what would be the impacts if immigrant labor were removed from the economy?

To this end, this study used a series of computer simulations to examine the impacts of reduced immigrant labor on the industries that employ relatively large numbers of immigrants. The study focused on industries employing low-skilled, non-citizen workers because this is where recent growth in Arizona’s immigrant population has occurred and because we know that significant numbers of these workers are in the country without authorization. Thus, the simulations are designed to estimate the economic consequences of eliminating this segment of the workforce.

• Agriculture: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of about $600 million in output including lost labor income of about $200 million, and lost other income of about $110 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $25 million.


• Construction: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the construction sector would result in direct losses of about 56,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $6.6 billion in output including lost labor income of about $2.6 billion and some $450 million in lost other income. The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $270 million.


• Manufacturing: A ten-percent reduction in immigrants in the manufacturing workforce would result in direct losses of about 12,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $3.8 billion in output including lost labor income of about $740 million, and lost other income of nearly $290 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $100 million.


• Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the immigrant labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and lost output of $2.5 billion including reduced labor income of about $900 million, and reductions in other income of about $270 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be nearly $160 million.

Net fiscal impacts of immigrants

Total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was estimated to be about $2.4 billion ($860 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion, the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive, by approximately $940 million.

As 14 percent of the workforce, immigrants make significant contributions to Arizona’s economy. There are also specific fiscal costs associated with immigrants. But, by virtue of their contributions as workers to Arizona’s economic output, their overall contribution to the state’s fiscal health is positive. Certainly, these impacts are changing over time, but looking at data for one year provides a snapshot of the extent and magnitude of the role of immigrants in Arizona’s economy.

Note: We have estimated the incremental (marginal) costs of immigrants as individuals. If the immigrants were not present in Arizona, these costs would disappear. Immigrants’ impacts on costs of social services, such as fire and public safety protection, are not estimated because it is not possible to measure the incremental costs attributable to immigrants for these services.

Read complete report

UPDATE: 10/16/07: 7:30 EDT

Some questions have been raised at various other sites about two aspects of this study. One is the standard question about breaking down the numbers for just the undocumented population as oppossed to the non-citizen population as a whole.

The other questioning the extrapolations made about the economic costs of losing a portion of the undocumented workforce and the possible replacement of those workers with US-born workers.

the study answers both those questions:

How much of Arizona's immigrant population is here illegally?

We do not know. The U.S. Census does not ascertain legal presence in the United States when conducting its surveys and so the non-citizen category includes both legal and illegal non-citizen immigrants. However, there are reasonable, statistically derived estimates. Research by Jeffrey Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that, in 2002, there were between 250,000 and 350,000 unauthorized immigrants in Arizona, most of whom came from Mexico, and that by 2005 their numbers had increased to as many as 500,000.

Given these numbers it's statistically safe to estimate that somewhere around 80% of the non-citizen population is in fact undocumented in Arizona. This allows us to extrapolate the statistics given on the "non-citizen" population to see what's occurring with just the undocumented portion of that population.

As to the extrapolations made about the effects of the removal of the undocumented population on the economy and the likelihood that US-born workers would step up to fill the gap:

Our analysis to this point has focused on measuring the portion of Arizona's economic activity attributable to immigrants in its workforce. This raises the following question: would the jobs filled by immigrants be taken instead by native-born workers if immigrants were not part of the labor force in Arizona? The answer to this question is complex but largely depends on the availability of native-born workers with skills similar to Educational attainment data, both for Arizona and for the United States, indicate that immigrants and native-born workers tend to have different skills, with immigrants filling specific gaps in the native-born workforce by providing needed low-skilled and high-skilled workers. Immigrants in Arizona are an important source of low-skilled labor and of specific high-skilled labor that is relatively scarce in the native-born population and thus are vital to the total output of the industries that employ them. It is difficult to make the case that all or even most jobs filled by immigrants would, instead, be filled by native-born workers if immigrant workers were not available.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Tale of Two Suburbs

This past week we witnessed the responses of two local law enforcement agencies to increasing political pressure to rely upon them to enforce federal immigration policy:

In Irving Texas, a suburb in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, 2000 protester marched this week to highlight that city's participation in a Federal program that has caused deportations to increase 500% from that city in the last year alone.

In Nassau County NY, a suburb in Metro NYC, the county's highest ranking police official announced this week that his department would no longer assist federal authorities with the apprehension of undocumented immigrants.

Across the country, municipalities large and small are now being forced to examine exactly what their rights and responsibilities are when it comes to enforcing federal immigration policy.

In a heated political climate where incendiary speech and inflammatory rhetoric often pass for public discourse, too many local leaders have chosen to make political hay by claiming it is now their responsibility to take on the burden of enforcing Federal law.

Others have taken a much wiser approach.


Whether passing local zoning ordinances to limit housing in immigrant communities, or empowering local law enforcement to enforce laws beyond their constitutional jurisdiction, some municipal leaders around the country clearly appear to be using the "immigration issue" as a way to garner support within certain segments of their constituency or further their political ambitions.

Most of these local initiatives have been challenged in court, and many, after wasting precious taxpayer resources, have been struck down as unconstitutional.

In other municipalities, officials have taken a much more enlightened and practical approach to the Federal Government's unwillingness to repair its fatally flawed immigration policy, and decided to do what is not only best for their residents, but prescribed by the Constitution.

In Irving, the protests were sparked by that city's participation in a federal program that allows local law enforcement to screen the immigration status of all people arrested. With a Latino population that exceeds 30%, many see the huge increase in arrests that end up with deportation as evidence that the local police are targeting the Latino community. Evidence coming from the Mexican Consul in Dallas who interviews Mexicans being deported, seems to back up this assertion. With jurisdiction over a huge area from East Texas all the way to the Texas Panhandle, Consulate officials say that half of the deportation cases it reviewed in the last few weeks originated from Irving. They have advised all Mexican nationals to stay away from the area for fear of arrest.

Organizers of the demonstration called on people to boycott Irving businesses and flood the mayor's office with phone calls demanding an end to the Criminal Alien Program. Officials have denied accusations of racial profiling and said everyone arrested in the city is screened for a possible referral to immigration officials.

Irving police have been screening arrested people and have turned over 1,373 to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials this year. Data from the city show that the number of prisoners turned over to ICE is increasing.

About four illegal immigrants a month were identified among people arrested in Irving before police began the Criminal Alien Program, according to police data.

About 50 a month were identified after police started the program in September 2006.

About 130 a month were being identified by April.

Up to 300 a month are being identified now, according to the mayor

Star-Telegram

Clearly the numbers look suspicious. A six-fold increase in the number of deportations since the program's inception would lead one to wonder whether police are searching out those who they suspect are here without documents, and then targeting them for arrest on even the most minor of charges.

Latino advocates accuse police officers of racial profiling and overzealously arresting suspected illegal immigrants so they can be deported, a claim the Mexican Consulate takes so seriously it's advising people to avoid driving through this Dallas suburb.

Police Chief Larry Boyd, however, says he's merely providing information to immigration agents as part of a national program designed to streamline the deportation of illegal immigrants who have been incarcerated.

"In terms of immigration enforcement, we're not doing anything on that," said Boyd, whose city joined the program last year. "The officers are arresting people for offenses like they always have."

Houston Chronicle

In Nassau, NY, the situation seems to be the polar opposite.

The Nassau County Police Department has a long history of working with Federal law enforcement agencies on various sorts of criminal maters. Yet, after assisting in a series of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids earlier in the week, that they were informed would target gang members, Nassau's top cop announced an end to all inter-agency cooperation when only three out of the 82 people apprehended turned out to be gang members.

A top police official on Long Island said Friday he has "no desire to cooperate any further" with federal immigration agents after his department was kept in the dark about many of the details of raids and arrests conducted earlier this week.

"We withdrew from any involvement in any further operations," Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said following the arrest of 82 people. "There will be no further cooperation unless these issues are ironed out."

Mulvey said agents from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency were repeatedly asked to supply a list of suspected gang members targeted with arrest warrants to the local police department, but the request was only granted on Thursday afternoon _ four days after the raids commenced.

"We had asked for a list of the targets on the warrants because we have a very accurate and up-to-date database on gangs in Nassau County," Mulvey said. "It was promised and not delivered."

…

Only three of those taken into custody, Mulvey said, were actually suspected gang members; most were undocumented immigrants. He said the ICE agents appeared to have outdated intelligence on where some of the suspects were located.

…

"They pick up and leave town and we're left to deal with the missing persons reports from families whose relatives were taken," Mulvey complained. "I have no desire to cooperate any further."

He said he has shared his complaints in a letter to ICE officials, but has yet to receive a response.

Mulvey also said if he had known that ICE had sought to arrest undocumented immigrants, the department would not have assisted. "This sets us back" with the Latino community, Mulvey said. "We suffer the consequences of the mistrust that develops."

Newsday

It’s obvious that the officials of these two suburban municipalities are separated by more than mere geography.

Chief Larry Boyd, with the apparent full support of the Irving City Council, has decided to utilize the power of the Federal government to engage in a systematic program that would rid his city of those that are deemed "undesirables."

Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, on the other hand, has taken a defiant and courageous stance to do the right thing for his entire community, and not allow Federal authorities to use local law enforcement, and divide his community against itself.

Let the Federal government do their job and enact legislation that will finally fix an immigration system that all can clearly see is broken. Their lack of leadership on this issue only perpetuates situations ripe with abuse like that in Irving, or tries to force local officials to act in a matter that runs contrary to their community's own best interests.

Immigration policy needs to be set in Washington, as prescribed by the Constitution, not in the chambers of City Councils or County Legislatures.

Read More...

Summary only...

One problem with local immigration enforcement.

One of the more ominous results of the current lack of leadership coming from Washington regarding immigration reform has been the growing numbers of states, and municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to usurp federal powers and jurisdiction regarding immigration matters. While those in Washington jockey for political advantage rather than doing the real work of enacting meaningful reform, the feverish rhetoric and shrill voices of those hoping to push an agenda based solely upon punitive measures has grown louder.

This situation has created conditions that have led some to believe that local governments should start doing "the job the federal government won't."

But this transference of power is already beginning to show signs of the inevitable abuses and parochial prejudices that are bound to occur when too much power is transferred to the local level. There are good reasons why the Founding Fathers assured that certain powers should remain in the exclusive realm of the federal government.

This past week provided two glaring examples of exactly why we don't want Barney Fife enforcing US immigration law.

Authorities in South Georgia forced a young Canadian tourist to strip naked, shower and spend the night in jail last weekend for minor traffic violations. This, while they confirmed her immigration status…in spite of the fact that they had no real authority to do so.

Carleton University student Cheryl Kuehn is outraged about the way she was treated by police in the state of Georgia. She says she was strip-searched and locked up for 12 hours, all for running a stop sign and speeding.

Kuehn, 23, who has just completed her master's in social work, was traveling to Florida with her husband, brother-in-law and a friend.

They had just pulled out of a restaurant parking lot along the I-95 in New Brunswick, Georgia, when Kuehn was pulled over for speeding and failing to stop at a stop sign.

When the officers learned Kuehn was a Canadian, they decided to take her into custody until she could post bail and until they could confirm with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency that she was legally allowed to be in the country.

…snip…

When she arrived at the detention centre, Kuehn was fingerprinted and ordered to strip and shower.

"They wanted me to shower and I kept trying to avoid it because I was really scared and I don't like getting undressed in front of people. But eventually, it was inevitable and I had to go and have a shower in front of someone and get this lice treatment put all over me and -- it was very humiliating,"

Kuehn was told to put on a navy blue jail outfit and sent to sleep in a cell with two other women while other inmates jeered and leered at her from adjoining cells.

"They were trying to intimidate me. And it worked," she says.

Kuehn says she was never given a proper explanation about what was happening to her and says she still doesn't quite understand why she had to endure what she did.

Ontario woman angry over Georgia strip-search, CTV

She waited several hours in a freezing common holding room until she was moved to a shared cell, where she was greeted with jeers and stares from inmates banging on the walls of surrounding cells, she said.

“When I went in there, it was the scariest thing ever,” she said.

Paranoid, she said she laid awake the entire night until her release.

Even though Kuehn had a valid passport, and her husband, Scott, gathered the $222 US to post a bond for her release within three hours of her arrest, Kuehn was told she couldn’t be set free until officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency conducted an immigration check to ensure she was legally in the country.

But Kuehn was not charged with either offence, and the investigation has already revealed that the jail received the information needed for her release by about 7:30 p.m. — long before she was released the following day at around 5 a.m.
Carleton student spends 'terrifying' night in Georgia jail for minor traffic offence , The Charlatan

The treatment of Cheryl Kuehn, a graduate student from Ottawa, has sparked outrage in Canada and investigations in Georgia. And Friday, immigrant advocates said it raises new questions about how local authorities are interpreting Georgia's sweeping new immigration law.

…snip…

A Glynn County Jail official initially told the Ottawa Citizen that the immigration review was done in response to SB 529, a wide-ranging immigration law signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue a year ago. But the law isn't set to take effect until July. And it only requires authorities to check the immigration status of foreign nationals jailed for a felony or drunken driving

Immigration law cited as Canadian jailed over minor traffic violations , Atlanta Journal Constitution

Of course state officials have called for a full investigation and eventually the whole affair will be chalked up to "a bad apple", or "a lack of training and communications," or any one of a myriad of excuses usually given when civil or human right are violated.

But, while blame for the incident must be taken be the officers who detained Kuehn, the real fault lies in the fact that these officers were given the authority, whether real or perceived, to enforce US immigration laws that they obviously had no understanding of.

While Ms. Kuehn's case appears to have no obvious racial motivations behind it, the same can't be said for an incident that occurred last week in Maine where an unpaid $6 bill at a local gas station brought out the police, local sheriff, state troopers, drug –sniffing dogs, and eventually immigration officials.

What kind of criminals could have warranted such a response? Drug dealers? Escaped felons? Murders? Rapists? Child molesters?

Nope… Just three Latinos from the Bronx with a lack of funds and an expired plate on their car. Unfortunately for one passenger, his friend's lack of monetary foresight will cost him his freedom and result in a flight back to Honduras.

PITTSFIELD -- A Honduran man faces deportation and two men were left without a vehicle following an unpaid gasoline bill Tuesday afternoon.

A man who identified himself as Franklin Barcelona, 24, of Bronx, N.Y., was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Pittsfield police station on suspicion of being in the United States illegally, according to Officer Michael Cote of the Pittsfield Police. Franklin was taken to Bangor for an extradition hearing, Cote said.

Avel Caballero, 23, of Bronx, N.Y., the driver of the vehicle in which Barcelona was a passenger, was issued a summons on a charge of attaching a false license plate to his vehicle, Cote said.

A third man in the vehicle, Rudy Gutierrezlino, 35, of Lubec, was not charged.

A manager at Robinson Mobile Mart on Somerset Avenue called police shortly before 3 p. m. Tuesday when the men said they did not have enough money to pay for $6 in gasoline, Cote said.

Gutierrezlino initially offered to take a summons to go to court to pay the gasoline bill, Cote said.

"He was quite agreeable," Cote said.

When Cote inspected the green Jeep Cherokee Caballero was driving, Cote said, he observed Barcelona slumped over in an attempt to hide in the back seat of the Jeep.

The officer also discovered the temporary dealer license plates had expired in 2002.

…snip…

Deputy Wilfred Dodge of the Somerset County Sheriff's Department and Sgt. Timothy Roussin of the Pittsfield police assisted Cote in questioning the three men outside the Mobil station. State Police responded with a drug sniffing dog but found no evidence of illegal substances, Cote said.

Police believe Caballero is a U.S. born citizen, Cote said.

…snip…

Caballero could have faced a slew of other charges, Cote said.

"I didn't feel, with their cooperation, any other charges were necessary," he said. "These guys were very cooperative, as best they could be."


Unpaid gas bill reveals immigration violation , The Morning Sentinel

Now I won't get into whether or not Mr. Barcelona had the "right" to be in this country. Or whether his apprehension is a just "punishment" for his being here without proper documentation.

But I will argue that the ends in this case surely don't justify the means.

I personally have a long history with the kinds of businesses that deal with the kind of "theft of services" infractions that initiated this whole case.

As a kid I worked in a gas station and at one point as an adult, a restaurant. On more than one occasion I've witnessed that classic moment where the waiter brings back a customer's credit card to say, "I'm sorry sir, but there seems to be a problem," only to have the customer realize that they didn't bring any cash. Or a person fills their tank to find out that they left their wallet home. And unlike what you might have seen on I Love Lucy, the unpaid bill does not result in being whisked into the kitchen to a huge pile of dirty dishes just waiting to be washed by vagrant patrons.

And it most certainly doesn't end with every law enforcement agent within a ten-mile radius converging on the premises.

Usually a plan is worked out whereby restitution can be made. Either one person stays behind while another gets some cash. Or some item such as a driver's license, jewelry, or some other item of value is left behind as collateral until the patron returns. Even on the rarest of rare occasions where law enforcement might be called (usually reserved only for blithering drunks, or the blatantly belligerent), a compromise is always worked out…the cops just don't need the extra paperwork.

Except of course if you're in Maine and your name is Barcelona, Caballero, or Gutierrezlino.

In that case, the local authorities are immediately called, and even after expressing your willingness to accept a summons and pay restitution in court, the drug-sniffing dogs are brought in for good measure. Because even though by the police's own admission, you've been "quite agreeable" and "very cooperative," everybody knows that three Latinos in a car from the Bronx with a bad plate can mean only one thing….drug dealers.

I'm sorry, but if it were three white guys named Smith, Jones, and Johnson, on a moose hunting trip or some such, who told that gas station attendant they were short $6, I find it hard to believe it would have ended with drug-sniffing dogs and State Troopers…..Experience tells me so.

But I digress.

Both these cases have one thing in common. Local law enforcement overstepping their authority or misusing it.

Herein lies the problem with granting broader powers to local law enforcement agencies. They simply are not equipped or trained to do the job of the federal government and are more prone to abusing their power. That appears to clearly be the case with Ms. Kuehn, and while the Maine case did end with the arrest of one undocumented immigrant, it was done through racial profiling and haphazard investigation. Certainly neither of these cases demonstrate any effective means of enforcing immigration laws or curtailing undocumented immigration.

If we must have our local authorities degrading and detaining Canadian tourists for traffic violations or sicking the drug-dogs on every carload of Latinos with an expired plate or registration in order to "secure our borders' something is very wrong here.


tags: immigration, local enforcement , local laws, GA, Cheryl Kuehn

Read More...

Summary only...

Arizona Immigration Ballot Initiatives

Mixed results on the GOP-led Arizona State Legislature's efforts to get their failed proposals from the now-vetoed "comprehensive" immigration bill they sent to the Governor last month on to the fall election ballots.

Arizona voters will decide in November whether to expand the list of government benefits denied to illegal immigrants and make English the state's official language.

[snip]

They failed Wednesday night to push through the Legislature ballot measures that would have criminalized the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona and set state punishments for businesses that hire illegal labor.

They also couldn't muster enough support for a ballot proposal to make communities get rid of policies that prohibit police officers from enforcing federal immigration law. - linkage

I'm breathing a sigh of relief that the meatier issues that would've put us on a further path of a police state were defeated, but it's still astronomically obnoxious that the voters in Arizona are going to be forced to vote for 1) the further restriction of basic services to people who share our environment and 2) the continued dumbing down of the general population by continuing the stigma of bi/multilingualism.


tags: immigration, migrant deaths


While the political suits and pearls keep chugging along in their game of political football, news stories like this will keep piling up worse than a chain-reaction wreck on I-10 during a monsoon dust storm.

Along the deadliest stretch of the U.S.-Mexican border, coroners and consulates are struggling to keep up with a record volume of bodies that are pouring into morgues like the one in Tucson. Border officials have dealt with unclaimed bodies and burials for decades, but they also face financial, moral and political questions as the bodies pile up.

Dr. Bruce Parks, the Pima County chief medical examiner, has more than 100 bodies of undocumented immigrants in the morgue, some new arrivals, others dating as far back as 2004. Since Jan. 1, he's received a record number - 83 - compared with this time last year, when he had 60. The start of the summer temperatures has been brutal, he said, with six dead in one June weekend, the worst so far this year.

"The main thing now is just bracing ourselves for the new people coming in," Parks said. "We're already behind, and it's picking up again."

Don't forget to give groups like No More Deaths, Coalición de Derechos Humanos and the Border Action Network some well-deserved support for helping to end the loss of human lives in the parched desert of the frontera-lands.

Crossposted from my humble blog

Read More...

Summary only...

Small Victory in Colorado: For Now

Today CO's immigrants can rest easy for now as the CO Supreme Court handed a blow to the anti-immigrant foes. AP reported that the CO Supreme Court ruled that the Defend Colorado Now's proposed constitutional amendment - a proposal to deny most state services to illegal immigrants - cannot appear on the November ballot.

According to the ruling, Defend Colorado Now touted the possibility of reducing taxpayer expenditures by restricting illegal immigrants' access to services, as well as the goal of restricting access to services.

So who is Defend Colorado Now (DCF)? DCF was started by Tom Tancredo which now includes known Republican-lite Democrats.

Former Gov. Dick Lamm and two other Democrats said a proposed ballot initative to stop illegal immigrants from getting government services sends a message that Colorado will not tolerate such immigration...

During a sometimes testy news conference at the Capitol, the Democratic trio was unable to say what services illegals are receiving that they would stop receiving if the initiative passed in November.

Immigration is expected to be a hot topic this year at the legislature, which convenes a week from today.

tags: immigration


Thanks to the kind folks at SoapBlox Colorado, they have already dissected the proposed constitutional amendment and the motive behind it. It seems that the Defend Colorado Now's proposed constitutional amendment as actually had no teeth and was mere race-baiting. Pacified at SoapBlox Colorado provides a link to a Mike Litwin's column in the Rocky Mountain News which breaks down the proposal.

I hate to waste your time, but don't blame me. Blame Dick Lamm. Blame Tom Tancredo. Blame the people at Defend Colorado Now.

They want to amend the Colorado Constitution with an amendment that does ... absolutely ... nothing.

Let me repeat that.

It's a proposed amendment - and one that will almost certainly pass - that does ... absolutely ... nothing.

It is supposed to be an amendment addressing the problem of illegal immigration in Colorado.

It doesn't - in any serious way.

It is supposed to be an amendment that has some impact on illegal immigration in Colorado.

It doesn't - in any way at all.

The proposal does - say it along with me - absolutely nothing.

If the amendment passes, nothing changes - except the size of the state constitution, which grows even more unwieldy. (Oh, and there is Section 2, which says that any citizen can sue any jurisdiction for not enforcing laws against illegal immigrants. File that under frivolous lawsuits in the making.)

Sadly, even some Democrats have fallen prey to the Tancredo meme by race baiting an anti-immigration amendment.The ruling may mean the issue is dead for now, therefore it is a victory for immigration rights, but the anti-immigration foes are still plotting.

Read More...

Summary only...