Another “War on Drugs?”

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

“La Casa Blanca” welcomed El Presidente and the First Lady of Mexico to the United States with great pomp and circumstance. Presidente Felipe Calderón, was welcomed as an important friend and ally of our country. There were honor guards, special luncheons, and of course, the highlight, a state dinner hosted by President Barrack Obama and First Lady Michele in the East Room of the White House.

But beyond the all of the hype and ceremony, tough policy issues face both nations as we look to confront not only the immigration reform issues, but perhaps more importantly, the issue of drugs, trafficking, and weapons.

It is no secret that the drug cartels in Mexico are at war not only between one another, but against the government in their attempts to meet the ever growing illicit drug demand in the United States. While most of the most violent and inhumane crimes against humanity have been committed in Mexico, a growing trend of violent drug related crimes are spilling over the border into cities and towns along the border.

In addressing the drug problem, President Obama made it clear that his administration would work “to stem the southbound flow of American guns and money” and to once again work on “new approaches to reducing the demand for drugs in our country.”

In order to focus on the drug war going on in Mexico, efforts to decrease the American demand for those drugs coming from Mexico must be addressed. The “just say no” mentality of yesteryear isn’t working and demand for Mexican drugs on the street corners across America continues to grow.

There is no doubt, President Felipe Calderon listened with intense interest as President Obama spoke of making the Mexican drug war a priority for law enforcement on this side of the border.

President Obama, as he pledged he would increase pressure on criminal drug gangs that “traffic in drugs, guns, and people,” voiced American determination to stop the flow of drugs from Mexican drug cartels.

The violence in Mexico which has caused thousands of innocent people to become victims can be traced to the American drug demand. This demand has created a culture of violence by drug cartels as they seek to distribute and sell their drugs in the USA.

This time we must not permit law enforcement in the USA to get involved in losing another “war on drugs.” Words alone will not stop the flow of “American guns and money” to Mexico. This time, it is going to take more than slogans, cliché’s, and political rhetoric to fight this war on drugs.

While the debate on immigration reform has focused and often stalled on the one issue of “amnesty,” the drug violence caused by the Mexican drug cartels and American demand for drugs must also be addressed in any comprehensive immigration reform package.

When border issues are debated, it centers on the fact that “too many illegal immigrants are crossing the border undetected.” The reality is that too many shipments of illicit drugs are coming across the border undetected in huge amounts to meet the ever growing American demand for drugs.

In order to meet the pledge made by President Obama to join the war against criminal gangs with Presidente Calderon, it is going to take a major policy change for the Obama Administration. It is going to take a concerted by this President to put his words into action via a new policy for his border law enforcement agencies.

Right now, the Obama Administration has misplaced priorities when it comes to border security. The American Immigration Council believes policy makers must make a distinction in any comprehensive immigration reform package between undocumented immigrants crossing the border and the drug induced violence of the drug cartels. “But cracking down on unauthorized immigrants in the United States is not going to diminish violence in border communities because unauthorized immigrants aren't the perpetrators, criminal cartels are.”

The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity just completed a study, “Assembly Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline.” Operation Streamline is a Bush era policy still in effect that has in fact created a paradox for American policy makers responsible for securing the border.

“Operation Streamline requires the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all unlawful border crossers. The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border. This Warren Institute study demonstrates that Operation Streamline diverts crucial law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime along the border, fails to effectively reduce undocumented immigration, and violates the U.S. Constitution.”

In other words, if President Obama is pledging to reprioritize American law enforcement efforts, Homeland Security and the Border Patrol will need to put their resources to work on curtailing human trafficking and putting a stop to the drug shipments slipping over the border undetected. This will be no easy task.

Right now, the federal government is creating federal criminals out of simple border crossers who have no criminal histories. As the Warren Institute study points out, “By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence.”

It is time to reevaluate Operation Streamline and synchronize the policy with the Obama initiative to stem the flow of weapons and money to Mexico. The Warren Institute Study calls for a complete change in policy by the Obama Administration.

“The program channels law enforcement funding and attention toward

the apprehension and prosecution of low-level offenders, rather than focusing on the crimes that create border violence, including human trafficking and drug smuggling. As petty immigration prosecutions have increased in the border district courts, drug prosecutions have declined.”

It is time to target the drug cartels and the violence caused by the illicit drug traffic demand. If law enforcement target drug cartels who have little or no regard for who gets hurt or killed, as drug related homicides in Mexico have increased year after year, we truly can expect a war on drugs.

The Warren Institute study makes it clear the present policy must be changed. “Operation Streamline does not target drug traffickers and human smugglers but rather migrants who are coming to this country in search of employment or to reunite with family.”

It is time for President Obama to change our present enforcement policy on border security and go after the real criminals, the criminals with weapons, money, and determination to sell their drugs in our country.

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Anti-Immigrant Group Recommends Economic Self-Destruction for Arizona

For Immediate Release

May 18, 2010

Washington D.C. - In data released "exclusively to FoxNews.com," the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - architects of the new Arizona law SB1070 - claim that unauthorized immigrants in Arizona are costing the state's taxpayers $2.7 billion per year for education, medical care, and incarceration. The release of this "fiscal analysis" takes advantage of the absence of any legitimate economic analysis by the state on what SB1070 will cost. However, judging from FAIR's track record when it comes to these kinds of state estimates, it is likely that their numbers are virtually meaningless. In its most recent state studies on unauthorized immigration in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for instance, FAIR has dramatically exaggerated the fiscal "costs" imposed by unauthorized immigrants by including schooling and medical care for their native-born, U.S.-citizen children in its estimate, and conveniently forgetting to account for the economic role that unauthorized workers play as consumers who help support local economies.

FAIR's latest data fails to account for the property, sales, and income taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. Nor does the data account for the consumer purchasing power of unauthorized immigrants - what they spend on goods, services, and housing - which actually creates jobs and generates additional tax revenue. They seem to forget that deporting workers also means deporting consumers and taxpayers.

However, in all fairness, they do acknowledge that the costs of implementing SB1070 will add to the economic strain on the state. In the absence of any state-generated fiscal data on the cost of the law's implementation, some Arizonans have pointed to a fact sheet produced by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden in response to similar legislation proposed in 2006. The Yuma county snapshot of enforcement costs is a sobering reminder of the overwhelming financial costs - up to $100 million for just one Arizona county - that will ensue if the state attempts to enforce its new law. Ultimately, this law will cost Arizona hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. Yet those costs are only part of the story and don't even account for lost revenue from losing a part of the workforce, not to mention a growing boycott and expensive lawsuits from which the state will have to defend itself.

For further information see:

• Implementation Costs of SB1070 to One Arizona County (IPC Press Release, April 23, 2010)

• How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill SB1070 Cost? (IPC Press Release (April 21, 2010)

• Arizona is Not the First State to Take Immigration Matters into their Own Hands (IPC Fact Check, May 6, 2010)

###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

Talk About a Double Standard

By Fidel "Butch" Montoya

In Florida, Latino Marco Rubio, who is running as a Republican for the United States Senate has now come out against SB 1070, the Arizona racial and ethnic profiling law. Rubio who is being backed by conservatives and many Tea Party elite has allowed politics to play a major role in his decision to deport all undocumented immigrants and have nothing to do with “amnesty.”

Rubio at one point criticized SB 1070 and found the law strictly focused on racial profiling. One would have expected that a person whose parents were Cuban refugees and faced many of the same life experiences that many undocumented immigrants face today would stand against the intent of the Arizona law and the hate it creates.

Rubio who seems not to be able to find his place at the table of immigration reform originally was a fierce critic of SB 1070. Rubio claimed, “From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

But Rubio who is considered the sweetheart of conservatives seems to now have now changed his opinion about SB 1070. He now claims the changes in the law have made it acceptable. Jason Mattera of Human Events interviewed Rubio after the changes were made.

In that interview Rubio said, “But right now, for the people of Arizona , this is not (from what I gathered) this is not even an immigration issue. This is a public safety issue. And the fact is that Mexican drug violence has tragically crossed over the border and into an American state and American cities. So I congratulate them on taking steps to clarify even further the intent of the law.” So the whole issue is not even an immigration issue.

Rubio pushed the issue even further by rejecting the whole concept of a “pathway to citizenship” or “amnesty.” He claims that despite all of the “human stories” about hardships faced by undocumented immigrants today, these stories mean nothing to the heartless Rubio.

“I understand the human stories that we’re going to...We’re gonna....There are going to be stories of very young kids that were brought to this country at a very young age who don’t even speak Spanish that are going to be sent back to Nicaragua or some other place. And it’s gonna feel weird and I understand that. The goal here is to have an immigration policy that works. And if you provide a path for people to enter this country illegally and if they stay here long enough and pay enough in taxes, well let them stay legally...why would anyone come in through the legal process?”

So who cares about young kids that were brought to this country at a very young age who don’t even speak Spanish that are going to be deported back to Nicaragua or some other place? Rubio doesn’t care about those young kids or the circumstances many of them faced when brought to this country.

Rubio, being Cuban and whose parents fled Castro’s Cuba many years ago seems to have forgotten the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which still applies to any Cuban who basically touches US soil and are then permitted to remain here. No questions asked. No ICE investigations. No detention while status is determined. Just reach out and touch US soil and you are safe. But according to Rubio, that may be too much to provide any other group of people who also have “reached out and touched US soil.”

Legal experts will tell you that no other people from any other country than Cuba have these special rights, privileges, and special advantages.

The United States Coast Guard does deport any Cuban caught trying to enter the United States through the traditional escape route from Cuba, the Florida Straits.

The Houston Times reporting on this issue points out very clearly how Cuban immigrants are treated differently than other groups caught trying to cross the US border. “The agreement also led to the creation of a "wet foot/dry foot" policy. Cubans caught in the water are now taxied back to the island on Coast Guard ships. But, if Cubans can make it to U.S. soil, they can stay and seek legal ­residency.”

The Houston Times explains why Cubans are making the risky trek via Mexico . "Dry foot" Cubans technically enter the country on a one-year parole. At the end of that time, they are required to appear before an immigration judge to have their status upgraded to permanent residency.

The new phenomenon of Cubans crossing Mexico by land has given rise to a new term: "dusty foot.”

The Houston Times says this “policy has been widely criticized as hypocritical since its inception.”

From Mexico, Cubans make the trip up to the Texas border, where on the same day they cross, they are registered as "political asylees." From day one, no detention, no background investigation, or no ICE intimidation, but are given legal status to remain in the country.

The Houston Press reports that “The number of Cubans entering Texas has skyrocketed. About 11,500 crossed the border legally last year, almost all through Brownsville , which is three times the number that enter through Florida .”

Just maybe Rubio ought to go back and review his family heritage and see where changes in immigration law might be made. Maybe the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 ought to be changed so that it applies equally to all others who have reached out and touched US soil.

Rubio’s position on immigration reform is the real definition of a political hypocrite. A law that applies to “his people” by giving them special privileges to stay in the United States no questions asked, but who is willing for young kids who were brought here at a young age and don’t speak Spanish, to be deported back to a country they don’t even recognize or remember and even after listening to these stories, they do nothing to appeal to this man’s sense of humanity.

It is time that someone called Marco Rubio out as a hypocrite and that as a candidate for the United States Senate, his integrity and character are questionable. Rubio is merely a political hand puppet of the extreme conservatives and patrons of the Tea Party who would rather play politics with the issue of immigration than work for comprehensive reform.

For Rubio to back away from his earlier condemnation of the Arizona law, and now become a strong proponent of deporting young kids back where they came from and to ignore the special privileges afforded Cubans who leave Castro’s Cuba is simply hypocritical.

Marco Rubio is simply a disgrace to not only Cubans who have worked hard to attain their rightful place in our society as former refugees, but to others who seek the same American dream. Rubio ought to stop playing politics with the important issue of comprehensive immigration reform and work to find a resolution that meets the needs of so many people who merely only want a better life.

Even if his conservative supporters and Tea Party cohorts disagree with the fundamental core values of immigration reform, Rubio should remain true to the ideals of providing safe haven to all who seek freedom and security. Rubio might even stop and listen carefully to all the human stories that demand that our government immediately enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Rubio must understand the issue of comprehensive immigration reform is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is about human stories of people seeking to find a better life free from many of the same issues why Cubans flee Cuba today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Say what you will, SB 1070 is still profiling.

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

The Arizona Legislature after running into harsh criticism and condemnation of SB 1070 as the worst racial and ethnic profiling law in the land, took some feeble steps to change the intent of the law by trying to ensure that law enforcement officers didn’t abuse their authority by stopping and questioning every person who fit the profile of an “undocumented immigrant,” by amending the law with HB 2165.

Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill passed by the Arizona Legislature that now requires every alien present in the state to carry proper documentation that they are legally in the state. The police can use “reasonable suspicion” to question any suspected undocumented immigrant in the state about their legal status. If undocumented immigrants do not carry “their papers,” police can charge them with additional fines, and in effect, making innocent men, or women – criminals.

The whole issue of racial profiling and ethnic intimidation allowing police to question anyone, who fits a profile of an undocumented immigrant, has raised a new issue of defining what an undocumented immigrant looks like. Even Governor Brewer who claims that police will undergo new training in identifying what a undocumented immigrant looks like, could not even venture a response to a question from a reporter what that training will entail.

But like all politicians, she couldn’t pass the chance to give a vague response. "I do not know," she said. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think that there are people in Arizona who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I don't know if they know that for a fact or not."

Mike Littwin, columnist of The Denver Post, wrote the best response to the question. She said that they're still trying to come up with guidelines for the law. We all know what the law will do — go after those with the wrong accents or the wrong shoes or who press 2 at the ATM.

The bottom line, civil rights organizations are already lining up to sue the state and demand that the racial profiling law be reviewed by the courts. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Arizona filed their challenge against Arizona’s Latino racial profiling law last week.

In a major show of support and unity with the Latino community, the NAACP, the nations’ oldest and respected civil rights organization in the country called SB 1070 an attempt to roll back the clock on civil rights protections in our country. The NAACP is outraged that Arizona would pass a law that empowers the police to legally use racial profiling as a means by which to target the Latino community.

The Black community lead the civil rights movement back in the 1950’s, suffering the indignity and injustice of police abuse and brutality during non-violent civil disobedience protests, know what racial profiling can lead to when police abuse the authority given them under the law.

They also understand how the moral disregard of the law can be abused when segregationist Public Safety manager of Birmingham used his police against non-violent protestors in Birmingham. Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor was responsible for the ugliest images embedded in our minds of cops and dogs brutally attacking innocent victims of the civil rights demonstrations. Dr. Martin Luther King called, “Birmingham the most segregated city in America.” It was here that America watched in horror on television as police used police dogs to drag away protestors in the streets of Birmingham. But one of the most dreadful images caught by news photojournalists of the time were the high powered water fire hoses used to push and wash Black protestors off their feet and into submission. Speaking from a sense of history and outrage, NAACP Chairman Roslyn M. Brock condemned the fact that SB 1070 was a violation of the moral and human rights standard in our country and an attempt to roll back the clock.

“The passage of SB1070 is an embarrassment to the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, and if we are not careful will leave a permanent stain on the United States’ reputation throughout the world. As an association that has fought for more than 100 years to ensure that basic rights and freedoms would be equally extended to all, it is disheartening to see the State of Arizona enact a law that tramples on the civil rights of Hispanic persons, and one that cannot be enforced without resorting to racial and ethnic profiling. We intend to use the full weight of our 2200 branches and units to ensure that this law is repealed and does not happen in other states across this nation.”

In Colorado, a highly respected civil rights lawyer took the time to analyze SB 1070 and the feeble attempt by the Arizona Legislature to amend the law (HB 2162) in their efforts to quiet claims that by allowing police to use “reasonable suspicion,” basically meant racial and ethnic profiling was legal in Arizona. Joseph Salazar, who “read and dissected SB 1070,’ even after the legislature passed HB 2165, wrote, “HB 1070 is severely flawed. There are no real safeguards prohibiting unconstitutional conduct, such as racial profiling.” Salazar opined, “The fact is that SB 1070 violates the scared principles of our federal government’s power to regulate immigration.”

Salazar took the task upon himself to read and analyze SB 1070 after Scott McInnis, Republican running for governor of Colorado, claimed that even though he had not read or studied SB 1070, he would sign such a bill if he were Governor of Colorado. The same gentlemen who while in Congress warned the nation right after the 911 terrorist attacks on our country, “the need for profiling for the national security of this country."

David Sirota, columnist for a syndicated column in Oregon Live. Com wrote, “Brandishing his past experience as a police officer, he implored lawmakers "to quit being politically correct" and let authorities make "ethnic background a legitimate component" of law enforcement investigations -- just as Arizona's new statute allows.

“Insurance companies profile for risk. That is what I am asking that we continue to do -- we need to profile for risk," he thundered, adding that using ethnicity as a risk factor "is very legitimate -- I think it is smart.”

Commenting further, Sirota wrote, In other words, we should do to civil rights what insurance firms have done to, say, health care -- namely, deny people rights and privileges based on their ascribed characteristics.

No wonder, McInnis didn’t need to read SB 1070 and stand before he stood before the microphones and proudly stated he would readily agree to sign it into law if he were elected Governor of Colorado. It is part of his DNA as a former cop to understand how easily it is to make “ethnic background a legitimate component” for profiling people who look like the bad guys.

With McInnis’s lack of political astuteness and understanding that SB 1070 is morally reprehensible to a large group of voters in Colorado, he allowed his own personal feelings about racial and ethnic “profiling for risk” to blurt out without understanding the political repercussions of being so frank and in this case, dishonest.

So while civil right lawyer Salazar took the time to read and analyze the law, it was very easy to see that the intent of the Arizona law – as written in the law itself, “The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local governmental agencies in Arizona.”

For McInnis and others who champion the violation of civil rights under the guise of protecting our country by using racial and ethnic profiling might want to take the same amount of time and effort as Salazar and find out for themselves that, “HB 1070 is severely flawed. There are no real safeguards prohibiting unconstitutional conduct, such as racial profiling.” Salazar opined, “The fact is that SB 1070 violates the scared principles of our federal government’s power to regulate immigration.”

No matter how much the Arizona Legislature tried to hide the true intent of SB 1070 by amending the law with HB 2165, putting lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Immigration Reaches the Boiling Point, How will Washington Respond?

For Immediate Release
May 3, 2010

Immigration Reaches the Boiling Point, How will Washington Respond?

More Enforcement or Genuine Reform?

Washington D.C. - As the constitutional and civil rights consequences of Arizona's punitive new immigration law become ever more apparent, proponents and opponents of the law seem to share only one area of agreement: America's immigration laws are broken and must be repaired. The proposed solutions however, are as different as night and day. Supporters of the law champion federal and state enforcement-only solutions premised on the belief that we must secure the borders before taking any other action to reform the system. Opponents of the law know that a border-first strategy is short-sighted, has failed in the past, and cannot provide a solution to the larger immigration problem. As these two forces mobilize for yet another immigration debate, the stakes grow ever higher and the need for accurate information grows more acute.

Although it may be politically popular to call for additional border and interior enforcement, the real solutions and the facts call for a comprehensive approach. In order to truly solve the problem we must address the root causes of illegal immigration: inadequate legal means for working and immigrating to the United States, a deportation-driven strategy that focuses on numbers rather than genuine threats to national security, and a failure to enact a consistent and balanced federal plan for regulating immigration.

Pouring billions of dollars more into border enforcement alone or venting frustration through questionable state laws will not solve the problem. Turning off the jobs magnet, expanding effective worker verification programs, providing a legal and regulated flow of workers, and getting millions of workers right with the law - paying taxes and contributing to our nation's recovery - is a recipe for reform. Throwing billions at enforcement-only has been the modus operandi in Washington for nearly two decades, and the results have been an increasingly dysfunctional system.

The Immigration Policy Center has developed fact sheets and reports that breakdown the problems and solutions to our broken immigration system, and provide a summary of the most recent proposal for immigration reform. These publications provide readers with a comprehensive overview of what's wrong with our immigration system and the steps we need to take in order to fix it. The Senate proposal is an important first step, but much work still must be done to turn these concepts and various other legislative proposals into a truly bi-partisan bill ready for debate.

For further information see:

Breaking Down the Problems, What's Wrong with Our Immigration System? (IPC Special Report)

Focusing on the Solutions: Key Principles of Immigration Reform (IPC Special Report)

Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform (REPAIR) Proposal Summary (IPC Fact Check)

###

For press inquiries contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7509.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

5 Myths about Immigration

Washington Post, By Doris Meissner Sunday, May 2, 2010; B02

Despite the fact that we are a nation of immigrants -- or perhaps because of it -- immigration continues to be one of America's most contentious topics. The new law in Arizona authorizing police to arrest individuals who cannot show documents proving that they are in the country legally has set off a fresh bout of acrimony. But as in the past, much of the debate is founded on mythology.

1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.

Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 15 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980. This probably won't change anytime soon. Low U.S. fertility rates and the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers mean that immigration is likely to be the only source of growth in what we call the "prime age" workforce -- workers ages 25 to 55 -- in the decades ahead. As record numbers of retirees begin drawing Social Security checks, younger immigrant workers will be paying taxes, somewhat easing the financial pressures on the system.

Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement -- rather than compete with -- jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly. As a result, immigrants experience higher employment than natives during booms -- but they suffer higher job losses during downturns, including the current one.

It's true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.

2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.

The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as "green card" holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas.

It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part.

3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did.

The integration of immigrants remains a hallmark of America's vitality as a society and a source of admiration abroad, as it has been throughout our history. Although some people complain that today's immigrants are not integrating into U.S. society as quickly as previous newcomers did, the same charge was leveled at virtually every past wave of immigrants, including the large numbers of Germans, Irish and Italians who arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Today, as before, immigrant integration takes a generation or two. Learning English is one key driver of this process; the education and upward mobility of immigrants' children is the other. On the first count, today's immigrants consistently seek English instruction in such large numbers that adult-education programs cannot meet the demand, especially in places such as California. On the second count, the No Child Left Behind Act has played a critical role in helping educate immigrant children because it holds schools newly accountable for teaching them English.

However, the unauthorized status of millions of foreign-born immigrants can slow integration in crucial ways. For example, illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver's licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.

4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.

The job of protecting the nation's borders is immense, encompassing nearly 7,500 miles of land borders, 12,380 miles of coastline and a vast network of sea ports, international airports, ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders and visa-issuing consulates abroad.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have dramatically strengthened our borders through the use of biometrics at ports of entry, secure cargo-shipment systems, intelligence gathering, integrated databases and increased international cooperation. The Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. The Department of Homeland Security says it is on schedule to meet congressional mandates for southwestern border enforcement, including fence-building. And cooperation with the Mexican government has improved significantly.

Still, our southwest border is more a classic law enforcement challenge than a front line in the war on terrorism. Antiterrorism measures rely heavily on intelligence gathering and clandestine efforts that are unrelated to border enforcement.

The seasoned enforcement officials I have spoken with all contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy's demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.

5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.

The politics of immigration can be explosive and can chase lawmakers away, especially as elections near, with the result that Congress infrequently and reluctantly updates immigration laws. However, all the significant immigration bills enacted in recent decades were passed in election years, often at the last minute and after fractious debates.

This list dates back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our system for humanitarian protection and refugee and asylum admissions. Next came the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to hire unauthorized immigrants and provided amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas allotted to highly skilled workers. And the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act charged immigration agencies with implementing significant new law enforcement mandates.

Legislative attempts to make urgently needed changes fizzled in the House in 2005 and in the Senate in 2006 and 2007, and the to-do list for this Congress is substantial. But ruling out immigration reform, whether because Congress has other priorities or because it's an election year, would be a mistake. The outline for immigration legislation that Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues unveiled last week, together with the uproar over the Arizona law, may help convince lawmakers that there's no time like the present.

Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, served as commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000. She will be online Monday, May 3, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

Church leaders call for 'compassionate' solution to illegal immigration

by CYNTHIA VEGA
WFAA
Posted on April 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Updated today at 5:57 PM

DALLAS - A group of evangelical church leaders held an early morning prayer vigil Friday, in advance of Saturday's big immigration march in downtown Dallas.

They say it's their moral duty to help find a way to resolve illegal immigration, in a more compassionate way than the legislation passed in Arizona.

They said not all religious conservatives take a hard line on illegal immigration.

Unlike in the past, this year's Mega March through downtown Dallas has created a deep divide between those in favor and those against new legislation in Arizona, which allows police to stop and question those seeming to be illegal immigrants.

It has a group of North Texas faith leaders, already deep in thought and prayer, seeing how this legislation is already affecting their church communities.

"We are seeing, for instance, churches that have lost up to 50 families because of the fear factor of SB1070," said Mark Gonzales, a pastor.

Gonzales, like others in the group, sees the urgency of addressing illegal immigration but believes federal leaders in Washington should be taking action, not individual states.

"We understand the Arizona situation, and what's going on across the border, but we don't believe SB1070 is a way to go about trying to secure the border," he added.

Most immediately, this group is praying people will march peacefully tomorrow, no matter what their stand.

Included in their prayer circle on Friday, was newly-appointed Dallas Police Chief David Brown, who is ready to do his part.

"We've got pretty good plans in place, comparable with where we are. Of course, we're going to remain flexible and try to get ahead of any problems that might flare," Brown said.

E-mail: cvega@wfaa.com

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Church-leaders-call-for-compassionate-solution-to-illegal-immigration-92524709.html

Texas Gov: Arizona Immigration Law 'Not Right' for Texas

April 29, 2010; Associated Press


Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement: "I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas."

AUSTIN, Texas -- Arizona's tough new illegal immigration enforcement law would not be right for Texas, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday, upholding the state's long-held tradition of rejecting harsh anti-immigrant policies.

The Arizona law will require local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, making it a crime for them to lack registration documents. The law also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.

"I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas," Perry said in a written statement.

"For example, some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe."

The Arizona law has been hailed by conservatives as long overdue and two Texas lawmakers have said they'll introduce similar immigration measures when the Texas Legislature meets next.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the Arizona law's constitutionality.

Though Texas is ruled by conservative Republicans, top GOP leaders from former Texas Gov. George W. Bush to Perry have rejected harsh and punitive immigration policies.

Bush continued his moderate approach to immigration once he got to the White House, often to the dismay of his conservative base.

"We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals," Bush said in his 2007 State of the Union address. "We need to resolve the status of the immigrants that are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty."

Perry took heat during this year's Republican primary for backing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saying in a debate that the students are on a path to citizenship.

"Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state," Perry said Thursday. "As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government's failure to adequately protect our borders.

"Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed."

Why don't they come legally? They can't

The Oppenheimer Report
BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER

aoppenheimer@MiamiHerald.com

PHOENIX - APRIL 28: Undocumented Mexican immigrants are in-processed at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), center on April 28, 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona. Across Arizona, city police and county sheriffs' departments turn over detained immigrants to ICE, which deports them to their home countries. Last year ICE deported some 81,000 illegal immigrants from the state of Arizona alone, and with the passage of the state's new tough immigration enforcement law, the number of deportations could rise significantly. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images) After my last column criticizing Arizona's xenophobic immigration law, I got an avalanche of readers' comments. Most of them were angry anti-immigrant tirades, but some made important points that deserve an answer.

I won't waste your time responding to those that reek of racial prejudice. Instead, I will try to respond to some of the most common criticisms made by intelligent, well-meaning people whose arguments can't be dismissed as coming from the lunatic fringe.

Denise, who describes herself as a ``white Anglo who has lived in Miami all my life'' and wonders ``how much longer I will be able to live in the town I grew up in,'' writes: ``I am already a minority who is discriminated against and often feel that I live in a foreign country because of the huge population of Latins who insist on speaking Spanish.''

``My question to you is, Why is it so awful for the citizens of the United States to simply ask immigrants who wish to live in America to do so legally? And why should we reward those who broke the law and came here illegally?'' she asks. ``Maybe in your next article you can address these questions.''

MAJOR REASONS

Well, Denise, let me try. There are four major reasons why I take issue with the premise behind your questions.

First, there would be nothing wrong with demanding that immigrants come to the United States legally if we allowed them to do so. But we don't -- they are coming through the back door to take jobs we offer them, because we don't allow them in through the front door. Legal immigration quotas were set more than 20 years ago, when the U.S. demand for unskilled and highly skilled workers was much smaller than today's.

The U.S. labor market demands up to 500,000 low-skilled workers a year, while the current U.S. immigration system allows for only 5,000 permanent visas for that category, according to the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration reform advocacy group.

``There is no real line for unskilled workers,'' says Maurice Belanger, the Forum's public information director. ``If you are a Mexican wanting to get a legal visa to work as a waiter in the United States, you would be dead before you get your visa.''

It's somewhat easier to immigrate legally if you have close family members who are U.S. citizens, but often not by much. According to the latest U.S. State Department's visa bulletin, there is a lengthy backlog in several family visa application categories.

The U.S. government is now processing 1992 applications of Mexican adult children of U.S. citizens, and 1987 applications of Filipino brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.

``Many people think we have good laws and bad people who are breaking them,'' says Frank Sharry, head of America's Voice, a pro-immigration reform advocacy group. ``But we have bad laws and mostly good people who have no line to get into legally.''

EXPENSIVE

Second, deporting up to 10 million undocumented residents would be incredibly costly and impossible to carry out unless we turn this country into a police state. For national security and law enforcement reasons, it would be much better to know who they are, where they live, and to subject them to a series of steps -- learning English and paying taxes among them -- to regularize their status.

Third, I don't like to use the word `illegals' as a noun, because it's aimed at dehumanizing what for the most part are good, hard-working people. Yes, they broke the rules. But U.S. citizens who drive through a red light also break the rules -- in fact, causing much more potential harm -- and that shouldn't turn them into ``illegal'' human beings.

Fourth, I don't think you should be overly alarmed by the fact that many Hispanic immigrants don't speak English. They may not, but their children will. And if their children end up being bilingual, so much the better. In an increasingly competitive global economy, the United States badly needs more bilingual people.

In conclusion, Denise, we have a dysfunctional immigration system. Employers are hiring undocumented immigrants to do jobs Americans won't do, while the U.S. government provides these immigrants with no realistic chance to get legal visas. Perhaps you and I will agree that it's a perverse system that needs comprehensive reform.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/29/v-print/1603473/why-dont-they-come-legally-they.html#ixzz0mdEK7Usm

Arizona's Punishing Law Doesn't Fit the Crime

For Immediate Release

April 28, 2010

Arizona's Punishing Law Doesn't Fit the Crime

Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates Over Time

Washington, D.C. - Supporters of Arizona's harsh new immigration law claim that it is, in part, a crime-fighting measure. However, people like Republican State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa, the bill's author, overlook two salient points: crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born. Furthermore, while much has been made about kidnappings in Arizona, law-enforcement officials indicate that most of these involve drug and human smugglers, as well as smuggled immigrants themselves - not the general population of the state.

The Immigration Policy Center releases a fact sheet which shows the decrease in Arizona crime rates over time. The fact sheet also indicates that states with high immigration have the lowest crime rates and that unauthorized immigration is not associated with higher crime rates.

Highlights include:

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent crimes in Arizona fell from 512 per 100,000 people in 2005 to 447 per 100,000 people in 2008, the last year for which data is available.

According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, such as Arizona. From 1999 to 2006, the total crime rate declined 13.6 percent in the 19 highest-immigration states (including Arizona), compared to a 7.1 percent decline in the other 32 states.

Although the unauthorized immigrant population doubled to about 12 million from 1994 to 2004, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that the violent crime rate in the United States declined by 35.1 percent during this time and the property crime rate fell by 25.0 percent.

Combating crime related to human smuggling requires more trust between immigrants and the police, not less. Yet the undermining of trust between police and the community is precisely what Arizona's new law accomplishes. In the final analysis, immigration policy is not an effective means of addressing crime because the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.

To read the fact check in its entirety, see:

Arizona's Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime: Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates Over Time (IPC Fact Check, April 28, 2010)

###

For press inquiries contact Seth Hoy at shoy@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7509.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

Implementation Costs of SB 1070 to One Arizona County

For Immediate Release
April 23. 2010

Estimates Indicate Costs Could Rise into the Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for Entire State

Washington D.C. - Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may sign into law a bill that has the potential to sink her state much deeper into the red than it already is. Touting a $10 million investment into local law enforcement from discretionary federal stimulus money the state received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Governor Brewer is gambling with Arizona's economy. The costs associated with SB 1070 have not been quantified by the Arizona legislature but it is safe to assume that $10 million dollars is only a drop in the bucket towards what it would actually cost to enforce this law.

In Arizona, when a bill is introduced in the state legislature, a "fiscal note" is attached which lays out the cost of implementation. In the case of SB 1070, the accompanying fiscal note is shockingly lacking in detail, concluding that "the fiscal impact of this bill cannot be determined with certainty. We do not have a means to quantify the number of individuals arrested under the bill's provisions or the impact on the level of illegal immigration." At a time when Arizona is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, however, enacting an enforcement program that will surely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars is fiscally irresponsible at best.

In the absence of any current fiscal data on the cost of SB 1070's implementation, some Arizonans are pointing to a fact sheet produced by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden in response to similar legislation proposed in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000.

The 2006 fact sheet estimates the costs of a bill which would have authorized the police to arrest illegal immigrants on trespassing charges if they were simply present in the state (the bill was eventually vetoed by then Governor Janet Napolitano). The Yuma County Sherriff's fact sheet shows a staggering potential cost to Yuma County law-enforcement agencies. The Sherriff estimated:

Law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses;

Jail costs would be between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720;

Attorney and staff fees would be $810,067-$1,620,134;

Additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.

Furthermore, in an email between Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith and Arizona lawmakers, Smith added that there would be even more costs to implementing SB 1070 than just what Ogden had outlined, and noted that his county was already struggling with a budget deficit by furloughing employees and forcing days off without pay. He wrote:

"It was also noted that the Superior Court, Justice Courts and Municipal Courts would also realize increased costs if that legislation passed. Although such increases were not calculated, it was and should be noted that such would include additional court staff, interpreters, administrative staff and pre-trial services. In a percentage of those cases, Juvenile Court and the juvenile detention facility would have also recognized cost increases...An increase of this proportion would stifle all areas of the system, from the moment of arrest to the point of conviction, sentencing and incarceration. Already LEA (law enforcement agencies) are fighting to stay afloat through the use of furloughs, and mandated days off with pay. I really doubt the fines and fees assessed will be able to match the need and cost associated."

The Yuma county snapshot of enforcement costs is a sobering reminder of the overwhelming financial harm that SB 1070 could cause the state of Arizona. Ultimately, those costs are only part of the story and don't even account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue if this law if it is signed by the Governor.

###

For press inquiries contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?

For Immediate Release
April 21, 2010

Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.

At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.

More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.

With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.

###

For press inquiries contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.