The New York Times today published a story on how towns are re-considering cracking down on illegal immigrants because of the blowback such laws have on things like the local economy.
The Times reports that hundreds if not thousands of recent immigrants fled the township of Riverside, New Jersey after the law went into effect a little more than a year ago. Traffic, noise and other problems dissipated. So did business in hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to immigrants. And while many left, lawsuits – two of them – appeared, bringing legal bills with them.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”
In the past two years, more than 30 towns nationwide have enacted laws intended to address problems attributed to illegal immigration, from overcrowded housing and schools to overextended police forces. Most of those laws, like Riverside’s, called for fines and even jail sentences for people who knowingly rented apartments to illegal immigrants or who gave them jobs.
Such laws coincided with the training of local police and sheriff’s departments around the country to detain residents for immigration violations, from Maricopa County, Arizona, to Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. And, of course, there have been the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids around the country, in Iowa, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
The United States has some much harder, complicated questions to ask itself on immigration reform, and must prepare itself for complex, nuanced answers. It starts with adjusting individual ways of living, managing expectations at restaurants, grocery stores and schools, and who exactly is entitled to the American Dream.
Categories: Uncategorized
The NY Times, LA Times and Chicago Tribune had stories today on the Department of Homeland Security suing the State of Illinois for barring employers in the state from using a federal database to verify job applicants legally reside and can work in the U.S.
The LA Times reports,
The Illinois law “is a direct assault on the federal law,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Monday in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “This is about as bold an anti-enforcement measure as I’ve ever seen.”
From the NY Times
Under the Illinois statute, the ban would remain until Washington certifies that the databases used to verify workers’ eligibility are 99 percent accurate.
Supporters of the law say the Social Security Administration and Homeland Security Department databases used to confirm eligibility are riddled with errors and could result in the denial of jobs to legal workers, including citizens.
The law, which passed with bipartisan support, was signed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on Aug. 13 and is to take effect on Jan. 1.
It is one of the recent actions taken by the federal government to go head-to-head with states enacting their own laws to address the immigration reform conundrum. States versus federal government debates are keeping Chertoff busy these days.
On Saturday, the NY Times published another story on the feds restricting health-care coverage for illegal immigrants living in New York state. New York State health officials learned that chemotherapy no longer qualified for government financed program for emergency medical care.
Times reporter Sarah Kershaw writes,
The change comes amid a fierce national debate on providing medical care to immigrants, with New York State officials and critics saying this latest move is one more indication of the Bush administration’s efforts to exclude the uninsured from public health services.
Other battles include cities and counties identifying themselves as “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants. The Christian Science Monitor published a story today.
The sanctuary argument is that police have better luck with crime victims and witnesses in neighborhoods populated by illegal immigrants cooperating with them if such people are not afraid of being deported.
From the Monitor:
Sharply divided views on sanctuary policies are emerging on the national stage. A Florida congresswoman introduced a bill this month that would withhold some federal funds to sanctuary cities. Meanwhile, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has been criticizing rival Rudolph Giuliani for the former mayor’s sanctuary policy in New York City.
With the demise of a comprehensive immigration deal this year, in congress opponents of illegal immigration are pushing for greater enforcement mechanisms, including help from local law-enforcement. But for immigrant advocates and many police departments, that goal draws local resources into an area of federal responsibility and undermines successful community policing efforts.
(Word isn’t fully out, perhaps, that the U-Visa, will be issued to immigrant crime victims who cooperate with police as a result of a recently decided lawsuit.)
Categories: Uncategorized
