http://www.npr.org/templates/
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/
Maybe you've been following this story, but Arizona recently passed a draconian anti-illegal immigrant bill that goes beyond even California's Prop. 187 that was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court. In brief, it permits AZ law enforcement to ask suspects to furnish documents proving their lawful immigration status, and to use race/appearance as a "factor" in pursuing suspects. And like the CA bill, it also blocks illegal immigrants' access to public services.
Regardless of whether we agree with the measure or not, 70% of AZ residents and most of their elected officials support it (the mayor of Phoenix is an exception, and plans to sue). Defenders of the law says that it merely enforces federal laws that Washington has continued to drop the ball on. Opponents say that it is bigoted racial profiling, and will in fact hurt the state economically. Due to enhanced border fortifications in CA and TX, AZ is now the main conduit for illegal southern entry into the US. The state has an estimated 0.5M illegals (official state pop. is 6.6M), and Border Patrol makes on average 900 arrests per day in AZ, accounting for 45% of their total workload. The drug trade is also a problem, with US authorities seizing on average 1.5 tons of pot per day, so no telling how much gets through (the AZ justice system is so overwhelmed that for a while it could only prosecute suspects caught with >500 pounds). Drug-related crime and murders occur at a higher rate in AZ (1 kidnapping per day) than all other states bordering Mexico.
So in response, leaders in the CA legislature and some CA cities have declared a boycott of AZ as protest (all non-essential state and city business and travel should be suspended). So AZ is the new Sudan or South Africa apparently. We know that boycotts are troublesome because they invariably hurt the people that we seek to defend. AZ Latinos and illegal immigrants also benefit from CA visitors spending money. And AZ has been one of the hardest-hit states in the housing bust, so their economy is quite fragile. CA does millions of dollars of business each day with AZ, though I'm sure this boycott will be more bark than bite. In addition, AZ holds the trump card that its private prison industry houses thousands of CA inmates. The Governator hasn't joined the protest because he doesn't want an angry AZ shipping all those inmates back to our overcrowded system.
I disagree with the law, but I understand that desperate times compel people to over-react with desperate measures. Due to federal impasse over immigration reform and a growing drug war, AZ feels the need to take matters into its own hands. It's no different than CA trying to enact stronger emissions legislation with the federal climate bill's future still uncertain. Civil rights groups are protesting the AZ law, and business groups are suing CA. All this anger and wasted effort is mostly due to Congressional gridlock and lack of political will in Washington. And while the gov't has pressured and aided Mexico to get together on in its drug war, where is the call for social and economic reform? Mexico and most of Latin America is feudal. The rich 1% control everything and the poor masses have nothing. So they dare to brave the horrible journey to the States because they have no other choice (see the film "Sin Nombre"). Where is the US pressure to reform Mexico's taxation and social services? Of course we need to get our own house in order first, but reforms south of the border must be included in any successful immigration overhaul.
Yes, some of this may be due to election year posturing, but tackling immigration is like playing with dynamite for campaigners. The topic hurts one's own party more than the opposition. Hard-line conservatives think we should get tougher on illegal immigration, and other states like UT are trying to follow AZ's lead. But Karl Rove and the Bushes question the law, and worry that the GOP will lose more Latino votes. Democrats are also sensitive to the Latino vote, but know that they can't be seen as soft on security either. Obama's hands are full with Wall Street reform, Afghanistan, and maybe resuscitating the climate bill, but lawmakers like Harry Reid all but forced the debate back to Congress, now that he is fighting for his Nevada Senate seat. That's not to say Congress will pass anything in 2010, but now it's on the agenda in a big way. Even Gavin Newsome's "outrage" over the bill that promoted him to issue a SF boycott of AZ occurred only after LA's city council made a similar proposal, and one councilwoman happens to be his chief rival for the CA Lt. Governor's post. So I guess it's the same old game. The politicians grandstand and squabble while the honest people on the front lines suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment