Immigration done right

Posted on April 29th, 2010 by ecthompson md

Day Laborers from AP

The Arizona law which was signed into law earlier this week has caused a firestorm. We have nobody to blame but our politicians in Congress. Immigration has been a problem in this country for more than 15 years. We have seen it. We have studied it. We’ve introduced legislation into both houses of Congress and yet nothing has been done. So, Arizona was fed up with the problem. They decided they’d waited too long for the federal government to do something meaningful. Unfortunately, doing something is not the same as doing the right thing. I think it is clear that this law is racial profiling. I’m not sure that Arizona police have the resources to seriously enforce this law. I suspect the law will be struck down by the courts. I’m not even sure the Supreme Court will hear this argument because this law is so obviously unconstitutional.

Yet, this still doesn’t solve the problem. The fact is that we have millions of people who have come to this country illegally. Why? People did not risk capture, deportation, harassment and even death just to wear American jeans. They came here because they believe the economic opportunities were better here than in their own home country. (This is why I’ve stopped using the term “illegal immigrants.” That term seems to play right into conservative ideology and talking points. “Economic refugee” is a more descriptive term because it explains exactly why these folks came here.)

I discussed this problem just the other day when I was interviewed on Local Edge Radio. The place to start is by enforcing the laws that we have now. We have laws on the books that fine employers for hiring people who are undocumented. These laws must be enforced. If we are going to be serious about reform, then this is the place to start. Economic refugees come here for jobs. If the jobs are available then they have only two alternatives — become an American citizen or return to your home country. There are no alternatives.

Now, I think it is important for all of us to consider the ramifications of enforcing, strictly enforcing, the laws that we have on the books now. When you go to Burger World, who is bussing your table? When you go into your kitchen in the middle of the night to make a BLT sandwich, the lettuce and tomato are extremely affordable. Who picked the lettuce and who picked your tomatoes? As a matter fact, who was mowing your lawn? Who is doing the maintenance at the place where you work? Economic refugees have filled these low-wage jobs for more than 15 years. Employers have kept the wages low,making these jobs unattractive to Americans. So, if we are going to start enforcing our laws, our food is going to cost more. It’s going to cost more to get our lawns cut and our houses built.

Without much fanfare and hoopla, Congress could pass a bill today that would increase the budget for enforcement of the laws that we have on the books now. That’s where we need to start. We can worry about the other stuff later. When American businesses understand that there’s a penalty for not hiring Americans, they will start hiring Americans. If they have trouble filling job positions, sooner or later, they will raise wages. This will put Americans back to work and help us get out of this recession faster. How is this not the right thing to do, right now?

Tags: Business, Immigration // 17 Comments »

  • margaret2

    Don't you love it when powerful people tell the little people what they have to do.Then stand back and say okay you do it. We pay you to put your life on the lines The politicians have told the hardworking police persons they have to take on the whole community when they pull someone over for a traffic violation. The people are ready to pounce in anger. I can see a mob attack for something simple.

    Utah passes something like the same thing but only if they were arrested. The police chiefs said they refuse to follow the law. And it was revised.

  • TCB

    What does the law say that is unconstitutional?

  • ecthompson

    The problem is if you are going to enforce the law you need to be able to identify economic refugees. How are you going to do that without racial profiling? Round up all day laborers? Round up everyone working in restaurants cleaning tables?

    I just want Az and everyone else to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. We won't point the finger at the folks that have caused this problem – Big Business!!! If Big business didn't create a climate that was favorable to these refugees they wouldn't be here. If everyone had to have some paperwork to work in the US, we would have almost no illegal immigration.

    Be well.

  • TCB

    I suggest you read the law. The law doesn't call for rounding anyone up. It's clear that the law wanted to address th issue of santuary cities in Arizona where police were prevented from asking about citizenship. What the law does is authorize police too investigate immigration status if involved in a “lawful contact.” At NRO, the Adndrew Mccarthy explains what lawful contact and reasonable suspicion means:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZm…

    “Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the “contact” between the police officer and the person is “lawful” in the first instance.

    There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent “reasonable suspicion.”

    Brief detentions are known in the law as “Terry stops” — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, “Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good,” does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

    The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

    So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.”

  • ecthompson

    Okay, here's the law.

    From Constitutional Professor Blog:
    The new Arizona law allows state officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person based upon “reasonable suspicion”:

    For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

    The statute also prohibits localities from adopting any policies that allow less than full enforcement of the immigration laws, thus prohibiting so-called sanctuary provisions.

    Additionally, section 13-1509 provides that a person is guilty of the crime of trespassing if the person is both: “present on any public or private land in this state” and in violation of federal immigration statutes. The statute further provides that there is no eligibility for “suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.”

    The statute also has an anti-solicitation of workers (often called day laborers) provision of the type that has been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment, see Town of Herndon v. Thomas, MI-2007-644 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007) Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F. Supp. 2d 952, 962 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

    (Here's my problem. this law was designed to do exactly what it has done. Divide america. All Az needed to do was to allocate funding to enforce the laws that are already on the books. That's it. No work – the economic refugees go somewhere else. Az decided that was to tame. Thanks for your comments.)

  • Brad

    TCB: What is to prevent the following scenario?

    Cop: Excuse me, sir, are you in the country legally? ["A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question"]

    Human being: <doesn't answer> ["the person is not required to answer"]

    Cop: I asked you a question, would you please answer it?

    Human being: <doesn't answer>

    Cop (thinks): This person does not seem to understand English; that's suspicious for someone legally in the U.S.

    Alternately, the human being says, “I refuse to answer that,” and the cop determines that that is suspicious.

    Either way, the next step is detention, and if the person is a citizen and does not have proof, then arrest is a natural consequence.

  • TCB

    As previously noted:
    “Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good,” does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity. [See response to ECT regarding lawful contact]

    First, if the cop asks the question after pulling someone over for drunk driving or speeding or any other violation of the law, the person must answer or risk jail. No different than you refusing to answer questions if you are pulled over. I would not suggest that you try the Michael Gerson response of “Go to hell!”

    Otherwise, if the cop is just asking questions at Baskin and Robbins, “Which is better Rocky Road or Banana Mocha Nut and by the way are you illegal?” You don’t have to say anything.

    Brad: Either way, the next step is detention, and if the person is a citizen and does not have proof, then arrest is a natural consequence.

    The next step is not detention but contacting the INS to check on the immigration status, a federal statute — 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years — requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it.

  • TCB

    1. Lawful contact has been amended to:

    “For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW”

    2. In regards to day laborers, the law simply applies to traffic, from the bill:

    IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.'

    3. What’s your evidence that Big Business is the main employer? The companies that I’ve vseen busted usually aren’t Fortune 500 companies

    4. If you are concerned about laws being enforced then what's wrong with banning “so called sanctuary cities?”

  • TCB

    Regarding who hires illegal aliens, tonight CBS showcased an illegal alien who works for the state:

    “Gerardo, who asked us to conceal his identity, crossed illegally from Mexico to Arizona four years ago. With the new law he knows there's a greater chance he’ll be arrested and deported…He has a daughter, a state job, a home which his an American born partner Jessica is packing up, fearing they might have to flee…So they joined the protest in Phoenix, fighting to overturn the law.'

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/0…

  • Joe White

    The Democrats and the unions, who claim to represent 'the little guy' against monied interests, seem to support the status quo, i.e. illegal immigrants are trucked into the country in violation of US law. Then in violation of most state employment laws, the people are employed at below standard wages, with no unemployment insurance and no workers comp and no additional wages for overtime.

    The Phoenix Suns decided recently to show their support for this indentured servitude by wearing jerseys proclaiming 'Los Suns', proving that not only do they not know how to speak Spanish, but the plain English of American law is lost on them as well.

    Of course rich guys like these NBA brats like the current setup. Many of them probably have employed illegals to tend their huge gardens and lawns. They save money by not needing to pay taxes on them or inconvenient things like workers comp or unemployment.

    Democrats show no regard for the rule of law and prove that they aren't 'for the little guy' at all.

  • ecthompson

    “seem” to support the status quo? What does that mean? I don't think that Dems support the status quo. As a matter of fact, it was Dems who wanted to change immigration policy and the change was blocked by Bush' own party.

    It is clear that both parties have a large fraction of members that serve big business. They have bought into prevailing theories of open markets and unfettered capitalism.

    From The Center for American Progress (I'm guessing if a leading progressive think tank proposes closing the border that would negate your theory):

    Goal one: Establish smart enforcement policies and safeguards. Meaningful reform will restore the rule of law by marrying smart workplace and border enforcement initiatives with legal reforms that embrace 21st century economic and social imperatives. Reform must restore the integrity of our borders and the legality of our workforce. Efforts in recent years to expand immigration enforcement by state and local authorities have resulted in an uneven patchwork of laws and have undermined community policing initiatives.

    Recommendation: Focus on both the border and the workplace. Deploy smart border technology designed to disrupt the drug and human trafficking networks on both sides of our borders. Reform should phase in the universal implementation of a secure electronic employment verification system as accuracy and privacy benchmarks and other important safeguards are met. Reform should also make clear that immigration enforcement is the federal government’s domain and preempt all state and local efforts to regulate in the civil immigration arena.

    Goal two: Resolve the status of those illegally present in the United States. Reform cannot restore the rule of law if it ignores the 12 million residing in the United States without legal status—to do so amounts to amnesty by inaction. It is unrealistic to suggest that the government pursue mass deportation for 12 million people; doing so would require a convoy of more than 200,000 buses that would stretch more than 1,800 miles. CAP research estimates that mass deportation would cost nearly $300 billion over five years.

    Recommendation: Create a tough but realistic program to register undocumented immigrants. The program must require undocumented immigrants to submit to background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and pay a fine in order to obtain legal status for themselves, their spouses, and minor children. The program must bar those convicted of serious crimes or who pose a security threat. But effectively solving this problem means that the program must be structured to register the greatest possible number of undocumented immigrants in as efficient and streamlined a way as possible. And the program must offer confidentiality in the application process as well as interim legal status with the eventual prospect of permanent status in order to ensure broad participation.

  • Joe White

    Pretty funny.

    While claiming to oppose amnesty, they endorse it.

    'Dont punish lawbreakers by sending them home, register them and reward them by letting them stay.'

  • ecthompson

    I don't know what to do with them but I know how to start the process.

    Again, your complain was that liberals support the status quo. That wasn't true was it?

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  • Joe White

    Actually it was true. They support allowing illegal aliens to stay here illegally (until some future hypothetical point when they can wipe the slate clean.)

    Who says that illegals even WANT to be U.S. citizens? They want money and a job but the assumption that they want to become citizens is not supported by any data that I've seen.

    Rewarding law breaking with offers of citizenship is not the way to go.

    Liberals have often blocked efforts to enforce immigration laws, thus they support the status quo while promising a better tomorrow.

  • ecthompson

    “Liberals have often blocked efforts to enforce immigration laws” – what laws? When? Are you saying one or two liberals or a majority of liberals.

    So, what is your solution? Besides, pointing your finger at the bad, awful liberals – what's your solution?

  • Joe White

    My solution is simply to enforce the law.

    I'm really tired of hearing liberals (like the ones you cite from CAP) say 'it's just unrealistic to say we'll enforce the law and send them home, that would cost soooooo much money. There's just soooooo many of them breaking the law, how could we ever enforce it?'

    What if we took that attitude toward other crimes?

    (and btw it costs a whole lot more to let them stay here and work for cash under the table (tax free) and then receive free health care, free education and other bennies)

  • Joe White
« »