The American experience is an immigrant experience. Throughout our history, immigrants from every corner of the earth have come to America in search of freedom and opportunity. Each new immigrant generation has made unique contributions to our national greatness - from building the great cities of the 19th century to founding the great technology companies of the 21st century. In the words of President John. F. Kennedy, "immigrants everywhere have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life."
But it is difficult to celebrate this proud tradition when we must regrettably mark the second anniversary of Arizona's draconian anti-immigration law, SB 1070. This law and similar laws enacted in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah reject our deeply held national values of inclusion and integration. Well outside the mainstream of American immigration politics, these laws embrace the extreme policy of self-deportation.
Let's be clear about what this means. It means making life so miserable for undocumented migrants that they will leave. It means using the fear and the threat of force to uproot hardworking people, separate them from their families, their communities and hound them out of the country. This is as unrealistic as it is unwise and cruel. There is not a single problem that we face as a nation that will be solved by deporting millions of hard-working immigrant families who have reaffirmed the American dream over and over again. And what we have seen over the past two years is that state anti-immigration laws simply don't work. States can't deport people. These laws don't reduce illegal immigration, and only result in immigrants moving to other states or further into the shadows.
State "show me your papers" laws, however, do undermine the civil rights of millions of Americans who have lived here for decades. They require police officers to ask anyone who is "suspect" for their citizenship papers, abandoning the bedrock American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
At a time when our country grows increasingly diverse by the day, these laws encourage discrimination against people based solely on how they look or how they speak. Is it right for a military veteran to get asked for his papers just because he's of Mexican heritage? Is it right for a mother of Asian background who speaks with an accent to get asked for her papers - right in front of her children? A state law that encourages discrimination is flat out wrong. That's not who we are as a nation.
Over the past two years, mayors and police chiefs from all over the country have argued against state "show me your papers" laws, and for good reason. These laws undermine the core mission of public safety by diverting limited law enforcement resources away from more serious crimes and by forcing police officers to arrest those who pose no real danger to the community. We also know that the culture of suspicion and fear that these laws foster will make it less likely for individuals to come forward to report crime. This will undermine public safety in our communities.
There is no question that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. I share the frustration that many Americans feel about Congress' lack of progress on this important issue. State 'show me your papers' laws are not the solution. They make matters worse. After Alabama adopted its anti-immigrant law, farm workers left the state and crops rotted in the fields. SB 1070 has given Arizona a reputation for discrimination and cost the state an estimated $145 million in convention business. When teachers in Alabama were forced to become immigration agents, students were afraid to attend school.
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of SB1070. This is a momentous case. If the Supreme Court reinstates SB 1070, the civil rights of millions of Americans will be harmed, the safety and security of communities across the country will be compromised and other states will have the green light to proceed down Arizona's misguided path. We will become an America increasingly divided between states that want to welcome immigrants and those that want to expel them.
We don't need a confusing patchwork of 50 state immigration laws. We need a federal solution. This is what both common sense and the Constitution require.
By rejecting SB 1070, the Supreme Court can send the clear signal to our national leaders in Washington, DC that they must step up to the plate and meet their responsibility to enact well-designed, bipartisan federal policy.
We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We need comprehensive immigration reform. SB 1070 is not the answer.
Follow Antonio Villaraigosa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/villaraigosa
Like SB1070 even LAPD Special Order 40 merely states that people will not be stopped with the sole purpose of determining legal status.
Secondly the foundation of all law enforcement is reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Immigration issues are not news, this has been tested over and over again as has the right of state and city po,lice to concurrently enforce federal laws - including immigration. Even the much vaunted Morton Memo specifically states that ICE does not have prosecutorial discretion so any illegal is subject to the full force of the law.
We don't need a patchwork since we have laws covering all of these issues - but have become necessary through the calculated actions of people like the mayor who seem to feel that they can pick and choose the laws they feel should be enforced.
If you have traveled to anywhere overseas you better have your passport/visa handy or a copy of them to show when asked. I know you support illegal aliens and it's a big shame if they are asked to show any paperwork which we all know they don't have, but they are not suppose to be here.
It means making life so miserable for illegal aliens that they have to return to the country of their birth. Does not sound too bad?
The laws do not create an obligation for a single person which does not already exist under federal law. Are you against federal immigration law too?
"an America increasingly divided between states that want to welcome immigrants and those that want to expel them."
You forgot the adjective "illegal". Some states want to deter illegal immigration. Villaraigosa's state and the city he is mayor of have policies to encourage more illegal immigration. How are California and Los Angeles doing? What used to be the ultimate destination state is now losing Americans at a rapid rate as the total population approaches 50 million due to unchecked immigration.
"SB 1070 is not the answer."
And to "immigrant rights activists", neither is Secure Communities, 287(g), audits, raids, ICE, the border patrol, E-Verify...
If you're against every conceivable form of immigration law enforcement, you're against immigration law itself.
By definition, rule-of-law cannot be "outside the mainstream". Only a corrupt, out of touch politician would say something so nonsensical.
"Let's be clear about what this means. It means making life so miserable for undocumented migrants that they will leave."
"Self-deportation" (or deterrence) is a policy of making it impractical for an unlawfully present person to reside in the U.S. It's discouragement and prevention to get less of something. The alternative to such a policy is encouraging unlawfully present people to stay forever in violation of the law (anarchy) and to attract more of it. By denouncing prevention, I can only conclude that Villaraigosa wants to attract more of it.
I'm not laughing anymore.
They work illegally using forged or stolen documents and not be deported (there's no "workplace enforcement” anymore because of Obama's 'executive order), lie on Federal forms, steal identities—and are never charged with any crime—and those crimes are Felonies. What do you think would happen if a U.S. citizen did that?
They get college tuition for less than a U.S. citizen from another state would have to pay, and get stopped driving with no license and no insurance and NOT have their car impounded.
Any argument about those listed so far? Those are just the basic AMNESTIES that multi-millions of Illegal Aliens live under. There are many more and you can fill in the blanks for yourself.
Round them up by any means necessary. "Enough is enough" happened a long, long time ago.
There are criminals in the US that are undocumented with no criminal history and no criminal activity in their lives. There are also permanent residents that remain in the US who have been in and out of jail, have committed numerous violent crimes, and yet, have not been deported. My father in law is one of those permanent residents. My husband WAS one of those undocumented immigrants. Through a long process following the federal laws of the US, he became a permanent resident through marriage to a US citizen (me). Then again, following US federal laws, he became a US citizen last year.
It is not the state's job to enforce federal immigration laws. It is the federal government's. If you don't like federal immigration laws and you don't like DHS's methods of enforcement, put pressure on your congresspeople. In the meantime, enjoy your clean office building and your grocery store produce.
PS - crossing the border illegally or even lying about your identity is not a criminal act. It is a civil violation. A quick read through of INA section 212 will help you understand this.
It is a deportable offense being in the country illegally. BTW, providing false information to a police officer claiming to be someone who you are not is a criminal act.
The Mayor knows that....
You have to think about things like, what if a drug dealer wants to apply the same thought to his situation. There are many drug dealers who have no violent criminal history, but because of a dire circumstances results to selling drugs. Would you consider, if he is caught, not sending him to jail and separating him from his family? Again, I'm not anti-immigration nor do I have the "we're losing our country" complex that some have. However, people like you make it hard to come to an agreement because your argument is ignorant of reality.
Without being a big admirer of Jerry Brown here in California, I do like a quote of his likening policy to navigating a canoe: "sometimes you paddle right and sometimes you paddle left".
Reagan said, “The amnesty was the worst mistake of my presidency.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1538/545/The_dangerous_legacy_of_the_1986_amnesty_for_illegal_aliens_illegal_becomes_legal.html
http://mojaveairport.com/lease-build/aircraft-storage/
Reposess their property and fine businesses who hire them to pay the operating costs.