THE U.S. IMMIGRATION QUANDARY

by H. N. Burdett

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are both deeply disturbed that immigration reform has been shoved to the back burner. But they are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the kind of reform they have in mind.

Last April 23, Gov. Brewer signed the nation's toughest bill on illegal immigration. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport undocumented immigrants.

Mayor Bloomberg is forming a coalition of chief executives of major U.S. corporations and big city mayors advocating reform that includes citizenship for illegal immigrants now living in the United States.

Even before Brewer signed the Arizona bill that gives state and local police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, President Obama expressed opposition to it.

The president said the law, scheduled to take affect next month, threatens "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."

Gov. Brewer calls the law "another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix, the crisis caused by illegal immigration on Arizona's porous borders."

Opponents have called the law an open invitation to harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony likened the inclusion in the law that grants law enforcement officers the authority to demand to see a suspected illegal immigrant's papers to "Nazism."

"Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe," says a statement issued by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which claimed the law would create "a spiral of pervasive fear, community dissent, increased crime, costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

Acknowledging the concern of critics, Brewer said she would work to ensure that Arizona police have proper training to carry out the statute.

She said the law "protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here in our state lawfully. And it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional rights of all in Arizona remain solid, stable and steadfast."

"This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement," the governor stressed. "Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."

The Arizona law, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document, Brewer said "is adopted verbatim from the same offense found in federal statute."

Provisions of the law, introduced by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, an outspoken advocate of immigration restrictions, include:

* Requiring police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

* Making it a state crime -- a misdemeanor -- not to carry immigration documents.

* Allowing people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute who assisted in the drafting of the language of the Arizona law, says he has been contacted by lawmakers of four states who want to introduce similar legislation. He declined to identify the states on grounds of attorney/client privilege.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in state laws relating to immigration. In 2005, 300 bills were introduced in statehouses throughout the U.S. In the following year, that number nearly doubled. In 2007, more than 1,500 bills were introduced; in 2008, another 1,305. Last year, some 1,500 immigration measures were introduced, 222 were enacted and 131 resolutions relating to immigration approved.

Last December when Pearce's immigration bill was being debated in the Arizona legislature, the New York Times reported state and federal officials had testified that the drug war among Mexican cartels and their pushing to expand operations in the U.S. had led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in the state.

The article noted that the drug trade had long brought violence to Arizona, a hub from which illicit drugs and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.

Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving border-related kidnappings or hostage-taking in a home, according to the Times. The Maricopa County Attorney's office said such cases rose from 48 in 2004 to 241 in 2008, and investigators believed many more go unreported.

The violence in Mexico -- where more than 6,000 people were killed in 2008 in drug-related violence, double the number of the previous year -- is "reaching into Arizona and that is what is really alarming local and state law enforcement," said Commander Dan Allen of the Arizona Department of Public Safey.

"We are finding home invasion and attacks involving people impersonating law enforcement officers," Allen told the state Senate Judiciary Committee. "They are very forceful and aggressive. They are heavily armed, and they threaten, assail, bind and sometimes kill victims."

Chief David Denlinger of the state's Department of Public Safety, said that while tactics like home invasion might not be new in the drug trade, "they are getting more prevalent." He added: "Border crimes are not just on the border."

Large quantities of cocaine, marijuana and other drugs smuggled in vehicles, sometimes on the backs of couriers and illegal immigants linked to drug organizations are regularly seized by police and federal agents in Arizona.

A vast majority of weapons used in Mexico's drug-related killings come from the U.S. and Arizona is a top exporter.

On July 7, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the state of Arizona in federal court, challenging the law. The federal government will argue that federal law supersedes the state statute and that enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The DOJ is requesting a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that its operation will cause "irreparable harm."

The lawsuit is based on the preemption doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court under the Constitution's supremacy clause, stating that certain matters are of such federal character, as opposed to local or state, that only the federal government can act on them.

"I agree with the argument that the federal government's authority under the preemption clause will prevail over the Arizona state law," says Southwestern Law School professor Robert Pugsley. "Otherwise we could have 50 states writing immigration laws and it would result in the charge that the preemption clause was specifically created to prevent."

Kevin Johnson, Dean of the School of Law at the University of California, David, said it is "a clear situation where the federal government is having its power intruded upon by the state government."

But Hector Chichoni, partner at the national law firm Epstein Becker Green, says, "There is a good basis to believe the DOJ lawsuit may fail. The Arizona law does not necessarily preempt the Federal government, rather (it) sets the state and local governments as enforcers of what is already available, and on certain cases, mandatory under immigration law."

Unclear is whether state police have authority to enforce immigration law, says Muzzafar Chisti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University School of Law.

A few weeks after the law's passage, Arizona lawmakers modified the language dictating when a policeman could ask for papers from a suspected illegal immigrant. They added a stipulation that police could only do so if the person had already been pulled over for another offense, such as speeding. That action may have strengthened Arizona's case, Chisti contends.

Catherine Wilson, a political scientist at Villanova University, says the DOJ suit could have potentially damaging repercussions for the Arizona midterm election this year.

She noted that "three embattled Arizona Democratic representatives -- Reps. Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick -- (had) urged the President to reconsider the lawsuit given their vulnerable seats. Instead of suing the state, they argue that the Obama administration's efforts would be best spent on providing resources and security to the border."

Addressing both the Arizona law and the issue of immigration reform, President Obama said, "Government has a responsibility to enforce the law and secure our borders and set clear rules and priorities for future immigration. And under Secretary (Janet) Napolitano's leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, that's exactly what we're doing. We've strengthened security at borders, ports and airports, and we will continue to do so, because America's borders must be secure." (When Secretary Napolitano served as governor of Arizona before she was tapped for her position in Obama's cabinet, she vetoed legislation similar to the current law.)

Obama further noted: "Businesses have a responsibility to obey the law and not undermine American workers, especially when so many Americans are out of work. Many businesses work to comply with the law every day. But for those who don't -- those that ignore the law and exploit and abuse vulnerable workers and try to gain an unfair advantage over all businesses that do follow the law -- we will hold them accountable."

The president said that those who are in the United States illegally "have a responsibility to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn English, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law -- or face removal -- before they can get in line to eventually earn their citizenship."

"Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility in others," Obama emphasized. "And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. . .

"In fact I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

In response to Obama's remarks, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order calling for the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board "to develop training and appropriately implement (the bill). Importantly, this training will include what does and what does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States."

"We must acknowledge the truth," the Arizona governor said. "People across America are watching Arizona, seeing how we implement this law, ready to jump on even the slightest misstep. Some of these people from outside our state have an interest in seeing us fail. They will wait for a single slip-up, one mistake and they will work day and night to create headlines and get face time they so desperately covet.

"We must react calmly. We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color. . .or social status. We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong."

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, 58 percent of all Americans support the new Arizona law -- including 79 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents.

But far from reflecting a tidal wave of xenophobia overwhelming the country, the same poll showed 57 percent of Americans supported allowing illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. In addition to 66 percent of Demcorats and 49 percent of Republicans, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants was supported by 56 percent of independents.

Meanwhile, among those who have joined Bloomberg's Partnership for a New American Economy seeking to reframe immmigration reform as the solution to repairing and stimulating the American economy, were the chief executive officers of Boeing, Disney, Hewlett-Packard and News Corp.

In 2006, Bloomberg proposed establishing a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. At that time, he said all 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States should be given the opportunity for citizenship, claiming that deportation was not only impossible but it would devastate the economy. He added that lawmakers who want to deport all illegal immigrants are "living in a fantasy world."

Declaring that current U.S. immigration policy is "national suicide," Bloomberg said: "I can't think of any way to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest, and then we don't give them a green card."

The main goals of Bloomberg's new coalition are: secure the borders; develop an easy system for employers to verify work eligibility; hold companies accountable for breaking the laws and to improve the use of technology to prevent illegal immigration; more opportunities for immigrants to join the U.S. workforce, and a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants."

Immigration is "our great strength as a nation, and it's also critical for continued economic growth," said Robert Iger, chairman and CEO of Walt Disney Co. "To remain competititve in the 21st century, we need effective immigration reform that invites people to contribute to our shared success by building their own American dream."

Among coalition members is Rupert Murdoch, the Australia-born chairman and CEO of News Corp. "As an immigrant myself," he said, "I believe that the country can and must enact new immigration policies that fulfill our employment needs, provide a careful pathway to legal status for undocumented residents and end illegal immigration."

With the Arizona law bringing the issue back to center stage in the political arena, Congress may be unable to ignore the pressure to finally take action on immigration reform. President Obama says he would like to see a bill on his desk as early as this fall.

But in a Congressional midterm election year, most national lawmakers hardly can be eager to tackle such a contentious issue. Hispanics or Latinos today comprise from 25 percent to nearly 60 percent of nine of the 10 most populous cities in the United States, as well as 15 percent of the total U.S. population. The Census Bureau projects U.S. population to increase by another 130 million by mid-century, with immigration accounting for virtually all of this growth.

This is deeply disturbing to groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which, unlike Bloomberg and his coalition, contends that the country will be unable to sustain increased population pressures on U.S. resources, economy, employment, environment and infrastructure. FAIR is, among other things, seeking what it views as more realistic limitations on legal immigration, a moratorium on immigration until such a figure is reached, and opposes paths to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants.

Even the most committed progressives generally concede that the United States politically leans slightly to the right, so the poll revealing that 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona law is not surprising. Beyond surprising, downright startling in fact, is that in a country with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, 57 percent of Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Respect for immigrant workers is the only possible way to account for a conservative-leaning nation, reeling from recession and high unemployment, supporting amnesty for undocumented workers in virtually the same numbers that it backs the most restrictive immigration law in the country.

Whether documented or undocumented, Hispanic and Latino workers are pervasive throughout the nation. From our smallest rural villages to our largest cities, they are not hard to find. There is widespread disagreement over whether or not they are accepting employment that no one else wants, or taking jobs from those who really do want them. Rarely disputed, however, is the work ethic and skills Hispanics and Latinos bring to the workplace. It belies the old myth of the so-called lazy Mexican, taking a perpetual siesta in a sitting position against an adobe building, his sombrero and serape shielding him from the elements.

There's little doubt that the poll is testimony to the respect Hispanic and Latino immigrants have gained among Americans wearing either a blue or a white collar. What cannot and should not be respected, however, is the American companies, large and small, that encourage illegal immigration, their under-the-table payments driving down the wage scale for all American workers, to say nothing of avoiding the payment of taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation and the dispensation of other employer benefits.

When it comes to the question of deportation, as a general rule I'd be much more supportive of shipping all of the sleazy, illegal entrepreneurs who lure immigrants across the borders with their off-the-books jobs to whatever sorry destinations that might welcome them. I'd be only too happy to fling those pathetic parasites to the wolves and keep any and all Hispanics and Latinos who have demonstrated respect for our laws, taken the time and trouble to learn our language, and brought to us a nostalgic reminder of the work ethic and skills that once were matters of national pride.

At the risk of seeming to want it both ways, I am cognizant of the fact that the United States is no longer a repository of infinite natural resources: the sinking water tables of our western states and our reliance on foreign oil are but two of the more chilling examples. This is a situation that ranges from serious to grave and is bound to intensify in the coming years. In deliberations to determine U.S. immigration policy, environmental, economic, labor force and resource projections must be taken into account.

As the son of immigrants who all too vividly recalls the honesty and industriousness of his own parents, as one who bore witness to how much they appreciated and loved their adopted land, how fervently they believed in and eventually lived the American dream, I cannot find it in myself to deny to any other hard-working, honest person the same opportunity to share in that dream of which I am a beneficiary.

As someone who has also witnessed firsthand the deleterious impact of unsustainable population growth in several developing countries, neither can I bring myself to support distributing green cards to anyone and everyone wanting them. Moreover, the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is troubling because if it is made too easy it is bound to encourage more and more people to enter the country illegally and dream of future amnesty. That is not policy, it is utter madness.

There really is more than one side to the issue that knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk liberals may simply refuse to see. But what's wrong with acting on those issues on which virtually everyone can agree? One that pops immediately into mind is securing our borders.

All too many Arizona residents live in fear. When the state's law enforcement authorities tell them the Mexican drug cartel wars have spilled over into Arizona, you'd best believe them. The state's top cops offered convincing evidence to the state's Senate Judiciary Committee last December

Securing our borders is a federal responsibility and I agree with Gov. Brewer that the federal government has done a terrible job of living up to it. President Obama is the first to own up to that.

How a former governor of Texas, a state sharing a significant border with Mexico, who was elected to two terms as President of the United States could allow immigration reform to slip between the cracks, is puzzling to say the least.

He did have a plan that included amnesty for illegal immigrants tied to their meeting specific conditions. But the energy and enthusiasm he put into immigration reform can be fairly questioned. Perhaps he was too busy invading Afghanistan and Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight the terrorists at home.

Under Bush's very nose the drug traffickers were moving back and forth as though the borders do not exist. But conventient though it may be, it is disingenuous to place all of the blame on George W. Bush. There's more than enough to spread around. There are plenty of Democrats who have served in the White House and in Congress who just weren't paying attention. They are all guilty of, at very least, benign neglect.

Now is the time to get beyond the blame game and resolve to ensure the safety as well as the sustainability of Arizona and the rest of the United States by establishing and enforcing a firm and fair immigration policy. This can be done. And we shouldn't have to wait until after the November election to get it done. The safety and security of Americans shouldn't have to wait for politics to run its course.

The border fence frankly leaves me cold. First, because a poor Mexican with a family to feed is going to find his way over, around or under it. Secondly, it is horrifically expensive. And, finally, if it is to be the enduring symbol of U.S. immigration policy, we've got to do something about tearing down that Lady in the Harbor, the one who beckons to "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses gaining to breathe free."

That particular Lady has inspired many, many people beyond my parents. Generations of immigrants who went on to work hard and be rewarded with their share of the American dream. And don't anyone dare to tell me this is sentimental claptrap. I'm not one to make idle threats, but that Lady has inspired too many people whose names will never make the history books, but who were, in my book, great Americans, who built this country, believed in it, worked to make it better, and who have defended it with their lives. Too much blood has been spilled from Bunker Hill to Antietam to Anzio and Iwo Jima to defend her honor and all that she stands for. Anyone who wants to tear down that Lady in the Harbor and have a border fence stand as our new symbol is going to have to go through me. So bring it on, but I can guarantee you one thing: I won't be alone.