Thread: How not to fix the immigration system

Harsh laws create trouble for Alabama, Arizona

chicagotribune.com
Editorials
December 29, 2011

Crops don't get picked. Chickens don't get plucked. Kids don't go to school. And the line at the Department of Motor Vehicles is really, really slow. Those are among the unintended consequences of Alabama's overreaching immigration law.

The law, which took effect in September, is even more punitive than Arizona's SB 1070, most of which was blocked by a federal court after the Obama administration sued. Alabama and a handful of other copycat states will have a rooting interest next summer, as the U.S. Supreme Court hears that case against the backdrop of an intensifying presidential race.

Challenges also are pending against similar laws in Georgia, Utah and South Carolina.

The White House argues that the federal government has sole constitutional authority to regulate immigration. The states say the feds have done a poor job of it. They're both right, if you ask us.

But the states' efforts to fix things have only made them worse.

Arizonans are rethinking their harsh stance. Immigrant-friendly governments, companies and individuals boycotted the state, costing it hundreds of millions in tourism, conventions and sales. More than 100,000 Hispanics left the state — exactly as the law intended — but businesses weren't happy to see them go. Besides being a source of cheap, reliable labor, immigrants are consumers too.

With another round of restrictive measures teed up in the legislature earlier this year, Arizona's business leaders called for a timeout. The bills, which would have denied birth certificates to children of undocumented parents and banned illegal immigrants from driving, among other things, were defeated.

In November, Senate President Russell Pearce, the mouthpiece of the anti-immigrant movement, became the first state legislator in Arizona history to be removed from office via a recall election. He was replaced by a candidate who favors a more balanced approach to immigration reform.

Some Alabama leaders are having second thoughts too. Dubbed the "Juan Crow law," their measure is meant to intimidate immigrants into fleeing the state by, for example, requiring schools to check the residency status of students and their parents — even though the Supreme Court has long held that children are entitled to a public education regardless of their immigration status. Fearful parents have responded by keeping their kids out of school.

A worker exodus has left farmers and poultry plants without enough help.

The law's onerous demand that documentation be produced for "any transaction between a person and the state" has turned out to be a maddening inconvenience for everyone who needs a driver's license, auto tags or a business license.

Some local governments are unsure whether the law prohibits them from providing utilities or trash pickup to undocumented families. A judge already has blocked the state from requiring proof of legal residency on annual registrations for mobile homes.

Meanwhile, measures meant to scare away illegal immigrants could end up scaring away business investors too. In November, a German executive visiting Tuscaloosa's Mercedes plant was pulled over because his rental car was missing a tag; he was arrested when he couldn't provide proof of residency. Oops.

This prompted the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to invite Mercedes to move its plant to Missouri. "We are the Show-Me State, not the 'Show me your papers' state,' its editorial page quipped. The paper admitted Missouri's legislature has been hostile to immigrants, "but not as hostile as Alabama's or Arizona's."

Many Alabama lawmakers recognize they need to change the law. That won't be easy after all the chest-thumping that went into passing it.

The lesson here is that the one-dimensional, enforcement-only approach doesn't address the root of illegal immigration: Businesses need workers. When the system fails to provide enough visas to fill the available jobs, employers and workers find ways around it. Those needs should drive our immigration policy. Instead, it has been driven by politics.

Aware that the hard-line approach doesn't sit well with businesses or Latino voters, some of the presidential candidates have dared to temper the debate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry defended his state's program to extend in-state tuition to undocumented students. Newt Gingrich called for "humane" immigration policies, including a path to legalization for longtime undocumented workers who have otherwise been law-abiding. Both tacked right again after being booed by immigration hawks.

Two recent polls of likely Iowa caucus-goers, though, gave Gingrich and Perry the highest marks in the Republican field on immigration.

Maybe we're getting our hopes up, but Americans seem to be inching toward a civil discussion on immigration. That would be a big step toward a workable solution.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,6872180.story

What a crock of lies right down to calling illegal aliens "immigrants" and calling those of us for the rule of law anti-"immigration"! Have these people no shame nor no conscience at all?