DATELINE June 21, 2010
It's a terrible Catch-22. For years now, the powers that be in Washington have done next to nothing to help define and refine the nation's immigration laws. So states and municipalities have started to tackle the job themselves. However, when the "locals" are finally exasperated enough to take action, they're hauled into court for encroaching on the federal government's purview!
Let me get this straight. The Feds won't act to fix our immigration mess, but the states can't do anything either because it's the Feds' job? Oh, what a paralyzed mess we've become in this country!
We've all heard about what Arizona did. The state's officials showed real daring in the fight to be pro-active about identifying, prosecuting and deporting those who should never have entered America in the first place. Arizona now has the toughest anti-illegal immigrant laws in the land, but they're also mired in expensive court fights. One such suit has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
You may also have heard that today, people in the small town of Fremont, Nebraska, vote whether to adopt a first step law to control those who are in their town illegally through regulating where they can live and work.
But you may not know that almost 40 other municipalities in 18 other states have already gone this route. That's how intense the frustration level is in this country! Government bodies in states across the country have thrown up their hands at the lack of immigration action on Capitol Hill and have tried to tackle the job themselves.
All these local attempts started with something very basic to every human: housing. These state and city lawmakers figured if illegals found it tough to rent a place in their locality they would go somewhere else. The idea was to make landlords demand hard proof of a renter's citizenship and to enforce strong penalties against those who rented to illegals.
Officials in these places -- from Missouri, Illinois and Kansas to the Carolinas, Wisconsin and Oklahoma -- ultimately gave up the idea of trying to regulate immigrants housing mostly because they feared the cost of defending their actions in court. Every time one of these localities talked about how they could legislate the problem, the American Civil Liberties Union or Latino groups made it clear they would immediately file discrimination lawsuits if such laws passed.
Lawmakers in many of the 40 towns or cities also considered penalties against employers who hired non-documented workers, but they gave up on that too. Again, just too expensive to defend, they explained.
All local attempts have failed. Courts across the land continue to rule that it is the job of the federal government to pass such laws. So where the heck is Washington in all this? President after president comes and goes. Session after session of Congress opens and closes, and we are no closer to any meaningful immigration law changes.
Remember the names Hazelton, Pennsylvania, and Farmer's Branch, Texas. Stalwart town leaders in those two locations have refused to give up -- or in -- to the lawsuits. Along with the state of Arizona, these two towns stand as reminders to Washington that America will continue to hold their feet to the fire until they do something to right the sinking ship that is our current immigration policy.
Hazelton was the first American city to pass a local illegal immigration ordinance in 2006. The Dallas suburb of Farmer's Branch quickly followed the same year. So far they've spent at least 500 thousand and 3.4 million dollars, respectively, defending their actions to protect their community. Officials in both places say they fully expect the price tag will rise by several million dollars more. But they've concluded that's cheaper than paying for English as a Second Language Programs in public schools, emergency room and health care costs and the extra expense for adding more police. In Farmer's Branch, Texas officials report since they made their intentions known to crack down on illegal aliens, even the uninsured accident rate has plummeted.
So, when you read about citizens in little Fremont, Nebraska -- population 25,000 -- voting today on its immigration ordinance, what will you think? Maybe that it's just another futile attempt to pass a law several courts have already struck down.
I prefer to look at it as thousands more American voices rising up to tell Washington they are getting fed up and want action on the problem.
You know, if you paid a painter or plumber or electrician to do a job that never got done, you'd ask for your money back and fire them. It's a shame we can't do that with our national politicians as we add immigration reform to the growing list of things they just never seem to get done.
UPDATE ON THE VOTE: Check out this New York Times article entitled: "Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants"
Diane Dimond can be reached through her web site at: www.DianeDimond.com
Follow Diane Dimond on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianedimond
I was vague in what I wrote and I apologize for that. So many different efforts in so many different municipalities makes writing in generalities almost impossible!
When I wrote that ..." All local attempts have failed. Courts across the land continue to rule that it is the job of the federal government to pass such laws." I was referring to the type of law Fremont, Nebraska voters had before them....laws regulating rental properties/housing.
My apologies.
The thesis of the piece remains, however, - its a shame that cash strapped local government's have to spend so much time and effort trying to regulate something Congress should have taken care of long ago.
Mexico has joined a suit to stop Arizona's law from taking effect. It would keep their citizens from being able to get jobs or benifits in the state and make it exponentially harder for unregistered foiegners to stay. It might even end "Sanctuary Cities" in Arizona. "Show me your papers" was a red herring planted by them to get American hispanics (not affected by the law) to support the cause of Mexicans.
Thier tactic is to call Americans who disagree with them "racist", Nazi, xenophobes, gringos and any other name they can think of. But the real racists are them. They want "Atzlan" (American Southwest) back under the control of Mexico and for Mexicans only.
A nation that gets $50 billion a year from smuggling to the US and billions in remittances every year from their people here illegally does not want us to enforce our own border laws and even claims openly that it would hurt their citizens rights. To come to our nation without permission to stay?
That's not their right, no matter what they believe.
For the Love of God, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS and get the illegal aliens out of this Country!
The 14th Amendment provides that ANYONE BORN ON U.S. SOIL IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. That amendment will d@mn well stay in effect, permanently, and you are not gonna "do" anything to change it.
And BTW the 14th amendment was passed in 1868 - our "founding fathers" didn't write it.
But where is the outrage and lawsuits when sanctuary states/cities institute their brand of racism? It is simple - the money is on the side for open borders. Big business groups, chambers of commerce, Catholic church, ACLU, LaRaza, etc all have untold amounts of money and they make more from this situation.
If we simply removed the rewards for illegals these same groups would find less money in their pockets so they fight it.
The problem is that the people who are most hurt by illegal immigraiton are our own low-income working CITIZENS and our youth. They are most affected by lower wages and higher unemployment mass immigration imposes upon us. And those folks are swayed by the media & politicians repeated lies regarding the situation.
But our side is gaining and their side's support wanes as the public becomes more educated.
People who are not legally citizens wouldn't be taking the jobs unless employers didn't hire them. Americans have a tendency to want a living wage or at least feel like they are getting a fair wage. But since non-citizens are the cheapest labor force around, who can blame the profiteers?
And once again, we're right back to the economy and to our ideas about money, community, survival, and nationality as well as the appropriate roles of government and business.