Ahead of a competitive Arizona primary, Mitt Romney said that the state's immigration law SB1070 would make a strong model for the rest of the country. While this may be smart politics in a Republican primary where rhetorical thumping of chests has replaced cogent articulation of any immigration policy, conversely it is also indicative of the fact that the GOP presidential field has a stunning lack of understanding of how state-passed immigration laws work and very real contempt for the Hispanic vote.
The GOP embrace of SB1070 as a national model is ridiculous for several reasons. As Andrés Oppenheimer recently wrote these laws are toxic for states that have passed them and are exceedingly difficult to enforce. The difficulty in enforcing these laws does not come from the various lawsuits which come with them, but from the fact that these state passed immigration laws are designed to mirror federal enforcement practices without giving states the resources to enforce these laws adequately. States quite simply do not have the infrastructure, money or time to enforce federal immigration laws. Despite the open rancor of these GOP debates, and the chest thumping of a few local elected officials, the fact remains that the majority of states in the country are facing an improving fragile economy and are looking to capitalize and grow. Re-regulating federal immigration law is quite simply not something the majority of local legislatures have much interest in.
The GOP's lone contribution to fixing our broken immigration system, so called "self-deportation," is completely contrary to a state model. Under this scenario if a state like Arizona passes SB1070 and California, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico do not pass similar laws, then what is to stop an undocumented immigrant from simply moving to another state as opposed to leaving the country? Even if the Supreme Court was to rule that states can pass their own immigration laws, there is no guarantee that even half of the states in the country would do so. Why? Because most states do not want the added cost and problem of enforcing federal immigration laws. States know the federal immigration system is broken, but they also know that at this point they cannot fix a national problem on their own.
For those who may think that an embrace of these state laws may pay political dividends, think again; these laws are politically toxic to the Hispanic community. As a recent Time Magazine cover story pointed out, Hispanics will be a deciding factor in this year's presidential race. Poll after poll shows that the Republican candidates who continue to embrace these harsh immigration laws see their profile diminish with the Hispanic community on a national basis. Arizona Senator John McCain, who had some good will built up in the Hispanic community from his time as an avid immigration crusader, only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. The top three Republican candidates do not have nearly that type of recognition among the Hispanic base. Among Hispanic voters none of the GOP candidates receives more than 24% in a head to head match up with President Obama.
The most frustrating thing about the Republican Party's embrace of a patchwork of immigration laws is that it misses the broader problems facing local governments; our federal immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, not by states but by Congress. The original drafters of SB1070 legislation wrote the law to directly challenge the federal government to do something about the current national law. These state laws were never designed to be sustainable models for the country; they were designed to highlight problems in our current legal system.
Over the last three years the Obama Administration has done its due diligence to enhance our immigration system, including making legal immigration more efficient and smarter enforcement of our current immigration laws. The GOP's embrace of these laws in their primary season merely highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the right on immigration. The fact remains that it is disingenuous at best for the Republican Party to say out of one corner of their mouth that our immigration system is broken, then do everything they can in Congress to stop any wholesale fix, all the while pushing state-passed laws based on our federal immigration system as a solution to our broken system. Our states and our country deserve better.
Follow Kristian Ramos on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kramos1841
Rev. Peter Morales: Returning to the Scene of the Crime: Phoenix, Two Years Later
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
99.9% precincts reporting
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Del. |
|---|---|---|---|
 Romney |
409,899 | 41.1% | 15 |
 Santorum |
377,521 | 37.9% | 15 |
 Paul |
115,712 | 11.6% | |
 Gingrich |
65,016 | 6.5% | |
 Others |
29,024 | 2.9% |
100% precincts reporting
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Del. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romney |
216,805 | 47.3% | 29 |
| Santorum |
122,088 | 26.6% | |
| Gingrich |
74,110 | 16.2% | |
| Paul |
38,753 | 8.4% | |
| Others |
6,875 | 1.5% |
All they have to do is hand over the fingerprints of people who have broken the law to ICE (which SC will do) and let them handle it. E-Verify employees in their states, and the one i like, tow the cars of the uninsured.
As of Jan 2013 secure communities goes nationwide, NJ and a few other states just went 100%, also the Real ID Act also goes nationwide Jan 15th 2013. Driver licenses will only be issued to US citizens and greencard holders, nationwide.
Birthright and national E-Verify bills are now working themselves through congress. Did illegal aliens think America was going to remain like this forever, not enforcing immigration law?
Thank you for acknowledging this contribution. The obvious answer to your issue about only some states having an attrition policy is to take such a program national. Then, rather than move to a different state, the alien will move to a different country than the U.S.
Although I agree with E-Verify as one part of comprehensive reform, it is obvious that those governor's eager to cleanse their states of "illegals" and jump on the ill-willed and wrong-headed bandwagon of AZ's never-to-see-daylight SB1070, it has never been about jobs for Americans and this is where the truth becomes evident. It is true that farmers have suffered the loss of 10s of millions of dollars in crops even after recruiting for American workers; an obvious and predictable outcome of laws designed to ultimately incarcerate the very people who have historically performed the work in various sectors that Americans have traditionally rejected. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Mises-Economics/2011/1020/Farms-can-t-find-pickers
Some might say these laws have only one aim and it isn't about creating jobs for Americans? So what is Arizona's answer to all of this? An endless supply of prisoners courtesy of ALEC's long range plan creating oodles of free prison labor for the state. http://civiliansnews.com/2012/01/17/alec-prison-lobby-cca-arizona-immigration-law/
http://redwriteblue.over-blog.com/pages/congressman-luis-gutierrez-5032063.html
In 2011 a number of additional States passed laws mandating the use of e-verify. As of now, 17 States require it. That is one third of the U.S. SCOTUS has already ruled that States may do so. The impact of these laws is only beginning to appear, but it is reasonable that it will lead to illegal immigrants moving to other States. It is also reasonable that more States will pass similar laws.
No matter what happens with SB1070, the use of e-verify alone has put significant power into the hands of the States to control illegal immigrants within their borders.
Democrats wont vote for it unless it is included CIR- Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
When will E-Verify expire?
Sept. 30, 2012. IIRIRA required the termination of the pilot program after four years (allowing for a one-year implementation). It was extended for two years in 2002 and five more years in 2003 (until November 30, 2008). See the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003, Public Law 108-156. Congress passed a continuing resolution extending budgets of certain federal agencies until March 2009, including E-Verify (HR 2638). Congress then passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 in March, extending the budget of E-Verify until September 2009 (Public Law 111-8). Another three-year extension was approved in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations in October 2009, P.L. 111-83.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/e-verify-faq.aspx
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Go to this site to send a free fax to your Congressman on issues related to illegal immigration, including e-verify.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/february-13-2012/dhs-releases-new-data-e-verify-participation.html
"Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) has cosponsored Chairman Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act (H.R.2885) that would require 100% of businesses to use E-Verify within two years. The bill also requires all federal, state, and local governments to E-Verify their entire workforce."
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/december-19-2011/rep-don-manzullo-cosponsors-chairman-smiths-mandatory-e-verify-bill.html
"Even if the Supreme Court was to rule that states can pass their own immigration laws, there is no guarantee that even half of the states in the country would do so."
All 50 States introduced legislation in 2011 to address illegal immigration. While a handful of these bills allowed illegal immigrants to attend State colleges at the resident tuition rate, the vast majority were detrimental to illegal immigrants. A very significant number of those bills were passed. Since every State that has passed a comprehensive law like Arizona's has been sued by the federal government, it is reasonable that other States have not yet done so. A favorable decision by SCOTUS on the Arizona law is likely to significantly change this.
There will certainly be sanctuary States. The question is how long these States will be able to afford an influx of illegal immigrants. If their economy improves as a result, as we often read here on Huff, it will be to their benefit. If sanctuary States see their economy plummet due to increased costs for education, medical care, social services, etc, they will rapidly pass their own comprehensive laws.
America is tired of seeing the toll of uncontrolled population growth on its schools, hospitals and open lands. We are tired of our laws being disrespected and our children's future ruined by our government's failure to adequately stem the flow of undocumented aliens across our borders.