Immigration fix must come from Washington

http://www.courierpostonline.com

Wednesday, December 26, 2007


The discussion regarding undocumented and illegal immigrants is becoming increasingly complex.

Due to the lack of modern, clear and coherent federal laws that address this delicate subject, states and cities are trying to handle the issue with local laws. Thus, the situation is becoming chaotic and contradictory.

In my opinion, immigration laws should continue to be under the federal jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the government agency in charge of immigration, which belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.

Any country, regardless of how stable its federal system might be, cannot afford to approve thousands of differing local laws, many incompatible, impractical and sometimes openly against the spirit of one another, regarding a national issue.

Last week, a meeting took place at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Camden to discuss the Law Enforcement Directive 2007-3 issued by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office regarding immigration.

Joshua M. Ottenberg, special deputy attorney general and acting Camden County prosecutor, and Arturo Venegas, supersession executive of the Camden Police Department, were present to speak to local residents about the directive.

Both Ottenberg and Venegas did their best to explain the contents and potential effects of the directive, hoping to decrease the concerns of the community, which is currently divided regarding undocumented and illegal immigrants.

One side would like to see the local police's responsibilities include seeking out and arresting undocumented immigrants. The other side thinks the police force does not have immigration duties and therefore should not inquire about the legal status of anyone residing in New Jersey, not even from those who have committed a crime.

There was a void at the end of this meeting. Despite authorities' efforts to clarify the problem and its solutions, the community remains confused. All these initiatives do not help to improve the immigration problem or give it any real solution.

Instead, the best course of action for the states and local municipalities would be to launch legal actions against Congress for not fulfilling its responsibility to give the country a clear immigration law.

The irresponsibility of our representatives in Congress in this sense has pushed localities to embark on long, useless and costly discussions that end up in impractical rules that only fuel unrest.

Let's just keep in mind the recent case in Riverside, where long days of social tension were the only result of the municipal council's approval of a law prohibiting rentals, employment and even sales to undocumented immigrants.

Now it is Camden's turn to answer the question: Should the police inquire about residency status?

The debate is basically focused on asking this question of those who commit a crime.

Certainly, the police should not have the task to be walking around, simply asking people if they have legal papers or proper identification. Besides not being a function of their jobs, it is safe to assume officers will choose to not waste their time on this when they can't even keep criminals who move about this city under control.

Police duties

Officers should not have to abstain from fulfilling their duties out of fear that they are dealing with an undocumented immigrant whom they are expected to treat differently under the law.

Let's look at a simple traffic violation. The first thing the officer will need to see is a driver's license, proof of insurance and car registration. All drivers, without exception, are asked for these items and have the obligation to supply these documents.

If police officers were expected to make exceptions with undocumented immigrants, we could have this surreal scenario: A person runs a red light, for example, and when asked for the corresponding documents, the answer is "I don't have any because I am an illegal immigrant."The police officer would have to respond with some embarrassment: "I am so sorry; I am not authorized to find out your legal status, so drive on."

The law should be the same for all people living in this country, legally or not.

If an undocumented immigrant is found driving drunk, committing a robbery or any other criminal act, he or she could be asked by authorities to hand over the proper documentation. If these are not existent or false, the person should have to respond for both actions -- the current crime and the lack of proper documentation.

Newark case

One case that is currently used when discussing this issue is that of Jose Carranza. He is the undocumented immigrant who has been accused of executing three teenagers six months ago in Newark.

Carranza committed this terrible act while he was on parole for the rape of a minor.

Regardless of his residency status, Carranza has been accused of committing major felonies. Thus, like anyone else, he will have to be responsible for his actions. Being on parole had nothing to do with his residency status.

Another issue cited as an example of special preference for immigrants is the protection they receive when they act as witness to a crime, by not being asked about their residency status.

This is nothing special. A general norm in this country is to offer protection to witnesses, in many cases going as far as offering total anonymity.

The discussion regarding undocumented and illegal immigrants is confusing indeed. For example, can anyone explain why, given that undocumented and illegal immigrants are not allowed to work in this country, they are issued a special taxpayer identification number by the government to pay their taxes?

In this confusion, the city of Camden is one of the most harmed because spending energy on the subject of immigration can only take it from burning problems in need of immediate solutions.

The author is a columnist for the Courier-Post. This column appears on Wednesdays.