More Immigration Blogging -- What Does It Mean To Secure a Border?
In more than five years of blogging, I have noticed that posts on immigration generate some of the most heated exchanges in the comment section. Last week's short post on the new Arizona immigration law was no exception. Here are some more points I'd like to make.
First, what does the law mean? There have been different characterizations presented in the media, but what I had in mind was similar to this one presented by Roger Noriega:
The Arizona law requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person who is stopped for any "lawful" reason. Only if that person does not present valid, government-issued identification is there a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is "unlawfully present in the United States," after which the officer must make reasonable attempts to verify the person's immigration status. State authorities are required to report the arrest or conviction of an illegal alien to federal immigration authorities. The law requires an illegal alien (or a lawful alien who is not carrying his green card) to pay fines and jail costs. The vast majority of the bill is dedicated to imposing stiff sanctions on those who employ or smuggle illegal aliens.
This is consistent with how I think we should begin addressing illegal immigration. (See my first post on immigration reform from March 2006.) If this is not the way the law is intended to work, then the law should be modified.
Second, I wrote the post last week as a reaction to hearing the law described by the President as "misguided" without his acknowledging the murder that precipitated the law. He was acknowledging "failure to act responsibly at the federal level." That failure abetted a murder. If he wasn't going to connect the dots, then I certainly was. And if the federal government isn't going to act responsibly, the citizenry must do it for themselves, either as private individuals or through sub-federal governments. In the post, I indicated that the Arizona law was within the set of things I'd be willing to accept to keep my fellow citizens safe. Many commenters suggested that was "mighty white" of me, presumably based on their different interpretation of the law. A recent New York Times/CBS poll indicates that I am far from alone in my view. That doesn't necessarily justify the view, but it is relevant for the political solution that will emerge.
Third, the President was back in the Rose Garden for Cinco de Mayo yesterday, and he found reason to describe the law as "misconceived." Then he said (my emphasis added):
So I want to say it again, just in case anybody is confused. The way to fix our broken immigration system is through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) That means responsibility from government to secure our borders, something we have done and will continue to do. It means responsibility from businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers -— they’ve got to be held accountable. It means responsibility from people who are living here illegally. They’ve got to admit that they broke the law, and pay taxes, and pay a penalty, and learn English, and get right before the law -- and then get in line and earn their citizenship.
This makes his failure to acknowledge the murder even more absurd. Arizona passed the law precisely because the federal government has not secured the borders. The President has the three elements of comprehensive reform listed correctly (and, in my view, in the correct order of importance and implementation). He's just wrong on the facts. And until the federal government can make much more progress on securing the borders, there won't be much political will in Congress to hold businesses responsible or to offer a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally.
Fourth, you can see a good example of how immigration splits the generally right of center coalition into conservatives (including me on this issue) and libertarians in this segment featuring fellow econoblogger Don Boudreaux.
Passing an unconstitutional
Passing an unconstitutional law that targets a minority is an absurd, ineffective response to a crime (if, in fact, this law was passed in response to one crime).
Your obsession with this one crime notwithstanding, the facts are that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes. You should be criticizing the legislature for their irrational, panicky reaction, if you truly believe that this murder precipitated this law.
Remember, "Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona. ... Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. ... In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that "if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase.""
Your emotional desire to see this murder as a political martyrdom is unjustified by the facts. That's the predicate issue here-- to say nothing of the fact that the law is unconstitutional and will never be enforced.
Please Read the Study That You Are Citing
If you were to take the time to read the study by Rumbaut and Ewing, available here, then you would see that in no comparison do they distinguish illegal immigrants from legal immigrants. It is hardly a surprise that a group that includes legal immigrants has a lower crime rate than comparable groups of native born citizens.
By contrast, a comment was made on the prior post that linked to this news release by the Center for Immigration Studies citing a number of studies that specifically consider the criminality of illegal immigrants. Links are provided in the press release in case you are curious.
Much of what Chapman writes in the essay in Reason, when he is not misinterpreting the findings of the Rumbault and Ewing study, is very sensible and clever. The longer the federal government delays action on immigration reform, the less likely it is to include those suggestions.
fear of the Other
Thanks for reading and responding.
The press release you link, from the controversial Center for Immigration Studies, has two relevant statistics. One comes from Maricopa Country; I am not inclined to draw any large conclusions from the experience of law enforcement there.
The useful statistic at that press release states: "Analysis of data from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state's prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state's adult population at the time of the analysis."
That's it.
The legislators of Arizona have their reasons for whipping up resentment surrounding this tragedy. It's apparent that a concern for public well-being isn't among their reasons.
Is there any indication that
Is there any indication that the new AZ law would have prevented the murder of the AZ rancher? If so, how?
Does it need to be mentioned again that AZ is not exactly riding a crime wave by illegal immigrants?
Is it really reasonable to make draconian laws against crimes involving behavior of consensual adults? In this case, the consensual adults are employers and their employees of questionable legal status. Rather than create larger government apparatus to police the workplace more diligently against crimes that cause no actual harm to person or property, why not legalize their employment instead? This has the benefit of discouraging under the table employment, increasing tax revenue, while keeping government growth, particularly in the more disruptive law enforcement fields, at bay.
Local police and La Migra
Let's put the Constitution and proper immigration policy aside.
The Arizona law is dunderhead policing. You want everybody who is not a criminal to trust the guys in blue. That means that the police get the information and cooperation they need to keep order and fight crime. The Arizona law creates people who mistrust cops. The efficacy of policing breaks down, and ethnic underworlds are easier to build.
In other words, cops are the worst possible enforcers of immigration law. For every illegal migrant they send back home, they disrupt the trust of dozens of other illegal migrants. For every brown-skinned citizen who receives the illegal migrant treatment, you resentment and mistrust in dozens.
If you are going to enforce immigration law, you need a special immigration police that has nothing to do with the regular force, and cannot be mistaken for it.
But this is just policy. What the good people of Arizona wanted was red meat.
The position of privilege
Just once I would like to see someone such as yourself, Mr. Samwick, preface your stated opinion with the acknowledgment that you occupy a privileged status in this country, by virtue of your race and your social status, such that you have no real understanding of the experiences of people such as myself (an American citizen) being subjected to arbitrary suspicion, police harassment, and institutional barriers based upon my own appearance and social status. Your protected social status renders you immune from the annoyances, or worse, of the crime of driving while brown or black, of less-than-polite interactions with police and other authority figures. While thinking through these kinds of issues, I suggest that you might want to educate yourself by inviting people of color to the table so that you might understand that their experiences are far different from your own. Maybe such an endeavor will inform your casual dismissal of the objections from people like myself who object to the certain knowledge of increased arbitrary police harassment. I'm not accusing you of racism, but of ignorance as to the realities of life experienced by people whose appearance differs from your own.
I hold no sympathy for border coyotes, who may or may not be American citizens, that prey upon the illegal border crossers. They constitute the majority of the kidnappers that plague the Phoenix area. And I think that many of the problems and issues associated with large numbers of unskilled people without resources cross our borders are legitimate areas of debate. But you diminish your credibility, and your opinion is of little value, when you refuse to educate yourself to reality.
I find your blithe disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens like myself very disturbing and disappointing.
The Arizona law requires the
The Arizona law requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person who is stopped for any "lawful" reason.
Is that true? It doesn't match my reading of the law, though I have not been tracking the issue closely.
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official ... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person...
My objection is the fact that only those for whom there is a "reasonable suspicion" they are illegal, will be checked. I can't see any way to have a reasonable suspicion someone is illegal without racial profiling, and so I think it is very likely the law will be found unconstitutional.
If everyone was treated equally, and had to produce proof of legal status during lawful stops, I would have no problem with the law. However many supporters of the law would object to being asked for identification themselves, they only find it appropriate for people who look "reasonably suspicious" of being illegal.
Undermines community oriented policing
The police here oppose this bill (which has been introduced into the MN legislature) for several reasons, but the biggest is that they have worked so hard to build relationships with the minority communities, and this law would seriously destroy trust with that community.
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/05/minneapolis-and-st-paul-poli...