APRIL 25, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Severe recessions can make people crazy and mean. During the Great Depression, immigration to the United States from Mexico virtually ceased, but states began arresting and deporting Mexicans, many of whom were in the country legally. The Mexican population of the United States fell by 41 percent during the 1930s. And the same kind of thing is happening again.
The recession has sharply curtailed illegal immigration to the United States. According to Princeton political scientist Douglas Massey, the number of undocumented residents in the United States peaked at 12.6 million in 2008 and fell to 10.8 million in 2009. Nowhere did it fall more sharply than in Arizona, where the number of illegal immigrants dropped by 100,000 over the last year. But Republicans in Arizona are acting as if illegal immigrants are pouring across the border and must be stopped by any means necessary. “The back door to the United States for all intents and purposes remains wide open,” Republican Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth declared at a North Tucson town hall meeting last month.
Last week, the hysteria of the state’s conservatives took its most concrete form: The Arizona legislature passed a bill on a party line vote, and Republican Governor Janice Brewer signed it, making illegal immigration a state as well as federal crime and requiring Arizona police to require proof of citizenship if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from staying in Arizona, but it would also affect Arizona’s Latino citizens and probably, too, its Native Americans, who would be subject to arrest if they fail to allay a policeman’s suspicion that they are in the country illegally. Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony called the bill “the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law.” Mahoney also questioned whether Arizonans are “now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” That is, perhaps, rhetorical overkill, but there is a disturbing echo here of the worst periods in American and European history.
The bill might not have become law if Democrat Janet Napolitano had still been governor. Napolitano vetoed similar measures. And Arizona’s Latino community hoped that Brewer, who replaced Napolitano, would veto it. When she took office, Brewer was reputed to be a hard-line conservative, but faced with the reality of Arizona’s huge budget shortfall, she had begun moving to the center on a few issues. This year, she had the temerity to propose a temporary 1 percent sales-tax increase to prevent even greater cutbacks in state services.
Brewer’s tax proposal enraged Arizona’s conservative Republicans, as well as the state’s Tea Party and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, and challengers have already made it the focus of their campaign to defeat Brewer in this August’s Republican primary. Brewer evidently felt she couldn’t afford to do something else that would alienate Republican conservatives—and so she signed the immigration bill.
The state's incumbent Senator John McCain might also have been expected to oppose the bill. After all, he had co-sponsored with the late Senator Edward Kennedy an immigration bill that would have eased the way for illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and eventually become citizens. But faced with a primary challenge from Hayworth, and a primary electorate that will be dominated by conservatives, McCain has been steadily disavowing prior stands on taxes, the bank bailout, gays in the military, campaign finance reform, and climate change. On the eve of the vote in the legislature, McCain came out in favor of the immigration bill. “I think the people of Arizona understandably are frustrated and angry,” he declared.
Of course, there will be legal challenges, and there will likely be boycotts of Arizona’s hotels and conventions. That happened after the state refused to celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday, and led eventually to Arizona giving in. There will also be political repercussions. While Republicans may pick up a few more percent of the angry white vote in November 2010, they can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye—and not just in Arizona. That may not have meant much in 1935, but in the years to come, it could seal the Republicans’ fate as a minority party. That’s at least one price they’ll pay for being mean and crazy.
John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
25 comments
Ask the California Republican party how being the party of angry white people is going, especially when paired with the strategy of telling hispanics that they are second-class citizens. Ask Pete Wilson, in particular, how well his re-election strategy worked out in the long run. (the answer -- permanent minority party).
- JEFF FREY
April 26, 2010 at 12:28am
Was Archbishop Mahony's comment really "rhetorical overkill"? Now, for the first time in history, American citizens can be (under Arizona's law, must be) imprisoned if they are not carrying government-issued identity papers. Which really is the kind of thing that characterizes actual tyrannies. Ironically* brought to us by the same rightwing paranoids who've been warning against the left's plan to institute national ID cards for almost a century. *Not actually ironic, because American conservatism is an authoritarian movement, and instituting mandatory ID laws is the kind of thing authoritarians do.
- rhubarbs
April 26, 2010 at 7:56am
Too right Rhubarbs. I fail to see how it is rhetorical overkill. Detaining people who are not carrying government identification on their person at any given time is one of the defining attributes of a non-free, tyrannical state. Were Tom Clancy to write "The Hunt for Red October" today (or were the movie to be made), in the following memorable exchange between Ramius and Borodin there would now have to be a caveat: (from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099810/quotes) Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that? Captain Ramius: I suppose. Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers? Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state. Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives. Captain Ramius: Oh, at least. ... Captain Ramius: But in Arizona you will need papers, so perhaps it is best to go to New Mexico instead.
- Nari224
April 26, 2010 at 10:07am
Hey, it is already happening: http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway. Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed. He tells 3TV, “I don't think it's correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.” 3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him. Jackie tells 3TV, “It's still something awful to be targeted. I can't even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.” Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed. An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate. Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He's legit. It's the first time it's ever happened.” Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option. Jackie says, “It doesn't feel like it's a good way of life, to live with fear, even though we are okay, we are legal…still have to carry documents around.” A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure. The agents needed to verify Abdon was in the country legally and it is not uncommon to ask for someone's birth certificate. She also said this has nothing to do with the proposed bill or racial profiling. This one line alone shows their utter insanity: An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate. This for 2 native born Americans. How can any trucking company hire Hispanics now if at every weigh station drivers will now be stopped and arrested? How much do you want to bet that these agents themselves aren't carrying around their own birth certificates? Since I live in Mexico I like the South west and was hoping to move somewhere there when I move back, Arizona is now off the list, maybe it will be New Mexico.
- blackton
April 26, 2010 at 11:07am
Blackton: "How much do you want to bet that these agents themselves aren't carrying around their own birth certificates?" How much do you want to bet that the members of the Arizona congress who voted for this aren't? Would be an interesting "natural experiment"! The GOP - leading the way to tyranny!
- Nari224
April 26, 2010 at 11:26am
For a start, we could adopt a sympathetic understanding of the Mexican and all Latin American immigrants. They cry for help. Many regimes are unbearable. We could think of nurturing domestic reforms in the spirit of a new non-violence policy.
- sf4200
April 26, 2010 at 12:22pm
Reminds me of a story from The Worst Hard Time. During WWI, some Texas deputies make a midnight raid and arrest a bunch of German immigrant farmers. The local magistrate is summoned to arraign the men for sedition. The judge tells the Germans to turn out their pockets; the men produce war bond certificates and victory savings stamps. So the judge asks to see all the war bonds the arresting posse has on their persons. Not a one, it turns out, and so the judge releases the farmers with an apology and sanctions the deputies.
- rhubarbs
April 26, 2010 at 12:38pm
Arizona's law certainly isn't right, but the cities that are NOT doing anything to illegals responsible for crimes that kill citizens isn't right either. In Virginia Beach, for example, a person that has entered the country illegally will not be turned over to immigration until their third DUI. Google "Alfredo Ramos" to learn more about the horrible crime he committed, and how a bunch of well meaning policies towards illegal immigrants allowed it to happen. (spam filter blocked the link) So, how about it. How about a policy that says anyone arrested for a crime must prove their citizen ship or be stuck in jail for the crime, followed by deportation. No debate. No discussion. Lack of any action towards those that are here illegally is really what spawns policies like in AZ. People read about Alfredo Ramos type accidents, and become deeply bothered by the unfairness of it. And that permits these obscene laws like in AZ to make it on the books. The really bothersome thing about the AZ law is the potential for abuse from police man that doesn't like certain kinds of people.
- seattleeng
April 26, 2010 at 1:29pm
Not surprising that McCain is on board. His entire presidential campaign was one long, dreary appeal to hysteria.
- miceelf
April 26, 2010 at 1:36pm
seattle, I'd like to see non-citizens deported at the conclusion of any punishment for felony offenses. But it's unconstitutional - and unconscionable - to place the burden of proof on the offender. Just think of the practicalities: where do you deport someone to unless you've proven his immigration status and origin? Further, there's a reason we don't make petty crimes capital offenses: people seek to avoid punishment. So if theft can get you the death penalty or life in prison, then the thief has an incentive to kill to avoid detection and capture. Disproportionately punitive laws reduce public safety. Thus also with immigration. If every shoplifting arrest or traffic stop carries the certainty of deportation, then outlaw migrants will have new incentive to use violence to avoid detection and capture. And of course there's the obvious fact that laws like Arizona's discourage criminal reporting by and about outlaw migrants, which again will tend inevitably to increase overall incidence of violent crime by, among, and against outlaw migrants. So yes, we need better enforcement of immigration laws. But we need better federal enforcement. Even the immigration checks on local felony convicts we both wish to see should be a federal responsibility. And there are things state legislatures could do to prod federal authorities to act. Imagine, for example, if Arizona had instead passed a law saying that it would forward the file of any convict whose citizenship could not be verified to ICE for investigation and deportation. The feds would have to take the ball and actually start following up on that. Other states would follow suit, and Congress would almost certainly have to respond.
- rhubarbs
April 26, 2010 at 1:51pm
seattle, don't confuse local incompetence with national policy (or a state assuming it can co opt national policy contrary to the constitution). Of course judges can hold people accused of a crime who don't have proper id, otherwise they would be a flight risk, but at the same time you also have to understand if you jail people for not having proper id on them, then how in the world could they go home to get it, outside of a police escort? If you were sitting in jail, could you prove your citizenship? Honestly, there is nothing to prevent the cops from calling ICE if they are holding a suspect who they suspect of not being a citizen (there are plenty of reasons not to call on witnesses or victims, but that is another issue). I think most cases it is people can't be bothered. ICE has a huge backlog and cops don't want to deal with it. If you want your taxes to go up to increase the staff of ICE, then state it so now and loudly.
- blackton
April 26, 2010 at 1:55pm
As a sometime resident of Prince William County, VA, which passed a law much like Arizona's, I think I can say categorically that it's universally dumb. As rhubarbs pointed out, it creates an overwhelming reason for illegals (and people irate at being suspected of being illegals) to not report crimes, not offer statements, and generally avoid all contact with police at all times. Our police force, which I like to think is a tad wiser than your average Joe Arpaio, vehemently opposed this idiotic law on exactly those grounds. They were ignored until it was actually passed, after which their opposition, backed by real examples to point to of how it was damaging policing, combined with the ridiculous expense of enforcing it, led to it being repealed in six weeks.
- janus
April 26, 2010 at 5:12pm
Yet another state in the Union to avoid ... (In fact, I don't even go to Mexico any more - in the tourist areas, I'm routinely mistaken for a Mexican and am really badly treated by everyone, Mexicans and tourists alike, until they realise I am not one. Each time, after I object to the mistreatment, the words out of the mouths of the lovely (white) tourists is, "Oh, you're one of us". Mexicans - well, they just tell me not to be dramatic; "shit happens" said one security guard, while buying me a drink after trying to throw me out of the club. How the average Mexican can take this every day is a mystery.) Seattle: you might well have excellent examples, but as Rhubs demonstrates, public policy can't be made on the basis of anecdotal or personal stories, no matter how emotionally powerful. And, frankly - and I am going out on a limb here - the issue for me transcends legal or illegal immigrants and covers the whole lot. There are some crimes that, in my view, fully justify stripping an immigrant of his or her legal status and deportation. (Heck, alleged war criminals can have their citizenship revoked up here - if, that is, they are naturalised.) Having said that, I am not sure what purpose one serves by overly draconians laws aimed solely at immigrants, legal or illegal.
- icarusr
April 26, 2010 at 6:05pm
Janus: If your legislators can admit to having been stupid within six weeks of the act, I'd say you should count your blessings.
- icarusr
April 26, 2010 at 6:07pm
The US and its people profited for a decades off the backs of illegal immigrants, and now we want to punish them? They're the only ones around here who actually work hard. Americans were intentionally negligent in the enforcement of their immigration law, allowing this immigration. Although Congress can, going forward, enact stronger immigration laws, it cannot violate the constitutional rights of the people who are already here. The Bill of Rights covers everyone, not just citizens. Also, this law must be reversed for the sake of America's prestige abroad. After all, Europe, much of Asia, and a lot of South America use the United States as a constitutional model. What will happen if they see us going back on the principles we've preached to them for a century?
- haricot
April 26, 2010 at 6:42pm
As a (legal) immigrant, it'll take a lot for me to step foot in Arizona now. My children are brown skinned Americans and the thought that they could be stopped just because of the way they look makes my blood boil. Another thing - when will McCain give up? Are there no limits to this man's shame? He is getting close to 80, and while there is no good time to sell out, you'd think that one would be particularly careful about not making selling out the signature to one's story.
- austinden
April 26, 2010 at 6:54pm
icarusr, anecdotal? Illegals are estimated at 20% of the prison population in spite of being 3% of the general population. Arizona has a $2B cost per year due to illegals. A family of 4 citizens shoulders $1300 of that burden. The federal government isn't paying to send these kids to school. That burden is falling on the AZ tax payer who is expected to make up the difference. So, faced with a federal government that has done nothing about the problem, and faced with a growing financial burden that they can no longer tolerate, they are taking a bold step to "fix" the problem. Hopefully, as draconian as the solution is, it provokes the federal government into action to solve the problem. Blackton: "Honestly, there is nothing to prevent the cops from calling ICE if they are holding a suspect who they suspect of not being a citizen" Wrong. In seattle, even if a cop KNOWS you are not a citizen, they cannot call ICE for a large number of crimes. We're a "sanctuary city." I'm sure you'll agree that is wrong. rhubarbs: "seattle, I'd like to see non-citizens deported at the conclusion of any punishment for felony offenses. But it's unconstitutional - and unconscionable - to place the burden of proof on the offender. " Agree. "Papers, please" is now a reality in AZ, and it should make everyone's skin crawl.
- seattleeng
April 26, 2010 at 8:46pm
Seattle: Approximately (and this is a much better approximation, one based on data rather than guesses about the number of illegals in the country) 46% of the US prison population is African American, despite them representing only 13% of the general population. And if we want to get even stiffer, only about 2.9% of the general population are prison-aged black males. So what does this tell us other than that it appears that the US criminal justice system disproportionately affects the poorest citizens? Given that we incarcerate more people (on both an absolute and per capita level) than Russia, China, Iran and a number of other "non-free" countries, perhaps the problem is more that we are locking too many people up? Now I don't disagree with most of your other points, although it would be interesting to examine the benefits that the AZ economy has derived from all that cheap labour over the years. No-one much seemed to worry about those damned liberals complaining that we were importing another underclass, one that would keep the wages of our existing underclass pinned to the floor, back when it was just your lawn being cut for cheaper, and your taxes could be lower as you didn't need to invest in anything expensive like education. So I completely agree that this is a serious problem, and one that needs a solution from Washington. However, any attempt to provoke that through increasing the already significant levels of human misery the system is already inflicting is unconscionable. Almost unconscionable as the Bush-era ICE tactics of working with employers to get a steady trickle of arrests of persons that were otherwise law-abiding, long-term workers in the US as has been documented by a number of union activists. Never enough to actually really present a threat to the business, but enough to keep the ICE's numbers up. And all the while, everyone enjoying those cheap chickens/catfish/whatever. Sickening.
- Nari224
April 26, 2010 at 10:34pm
Nari, you don't think that paying someone $6/hour to work in a meat packing plant for 15 hours a day is misery for the illegal worker making subhuman wages, and also for the guy that used to work 7 hours for $22/hour in cleaner conditions who is now unemployed? Either you prolong the suffering of one or the other. Sometimes, some short term pain results in some long term gains. The right thing to do is make sure every job in this country is held by someone that has a right to work, and to make sure that that person is paid legally. If we must pay a guys who finishes 6 yards of concrete in sweltering heat $20/hour to do the job because nobody will do it for $10/hour, then so be it. Your fancy pool will cost that much more. This means rooting out the illegal workers. This means fining employers. This means raids. This means means images of people running from warehouses into the fields as they are chased by police. This means helicopter images of people streaming out of a hot trailer in the desert with their fingers laced over their heads. These are all unpleasant things to watch. These all seem to cruel. But it's the right thing to do. It will result in better working conditions for all workers in this country and higher wages. It will accelerate what everyone (right and left) want to happen. PS. Union workers don't like the current situation. It undercuts unions on so many levels. They also want all workers to be legal. Amnesty doesn't solve the problem. It just kicks the can down the road for the next 20 years. If we grant everyone in this country amnesty, then their wages go up and the next wave of immigrants comes to fill their shoes.
- seattleeng
April 27, 2010 at 12:39am
Ick: It is a great thing to have idiotic laws reversed, to be sure, but it's not all upside. County Supervisors get to operate mostly below the public radar-this brought CNN to their door for a few weeks, but that faded quickly, and people once again couldn't name their County Supervisor if their lives depended on it; the principal malefactor, Corey Stewart, has even since won reelection. seattle: You imagine images of people fleeing police, being chased into fields and deserts, being arrested and dragged off in public, but you don't seem to realize two important points. First, because of the simple scale of what you're talking about, it would not by any stretch of the imagination be "short term pain." Second, we've already experienced that kind of America. It was Bull Connor's America, and we're not going back. You're talking about a decades-long campaign of rounding up and deporting millions, building a new and immense infrastructure to imprison and then transport them, and creating a brutal atmosphere of terror within this country that would be another dark stain upon the soul of our nation. And no, that's not a fair trade for better working conditions and higher wages.
- janus
April 27, 2010 at 9:07am
Seattle - I think we're pretty much in agreement on your points. The suffering I am referring to here is the now-required harassment of legal citizens, as per the story Blackton brought up. All of the other misery that you describe already exists. However I find it odd that the low-tax states down south that have had their economies buoyed by illegals for so long now feel that "they have to do something". As to a solution, while there does need to be an effective process that addresses individual illegals in the country, it should not be the primary thrust as it has lots of problems associated with it (which is why the police generally oppose it). This is a good case of where supply side economics is singularly useless at helping understanding the problem (as it is for pretty much everything). These low cost jobs are not created because the illegals are here, the illegals are here because they can find gainful employment. And those employers are already subject to a number of regulations (such as withholding taxes) that allows the government to identify those who are probably employing illegals. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, there has bee stiff opposition to enforcing this against businesses. Additionally, it would help if we cleaned up our program of destroying the Mexican agrarian employment sector (which drives people North) and our drug addiction (which does likewise but also brings with it the less desirable).
- Nari224
April 27, 2010 at 1:24pm
Huh, this has been a federal law for almost 50 years: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both." If this is indeed a federal law, is AZ right to enforce it?
- seattleeng
April 27, 2010 at 10:29pm
Seattle - The question in Arizona is whether you can stop a person based on your suspicion that they're here illegally. Considering that this Fed law you cite does not empower the police to stop a person based on the suspicion only that they are a legal alien who happens to not be carrying their card, and considering that the Supreme Court says you can't stop someone without reasonable suspicion ANYWAY, this law certainly could not empower the police to stop someone on suspicion of being an illegal alien.
- haricot
April 28, 2010 at 6:18pm
That is not a question in AZ. Their law is very clear. You cannot stop someone based on suspicion alone. The AZ law says it must be lawful contact, which means the police have already detained you for some offense. The AZ law says race and ethnicity cannot be the determinant. Police have no new powers to stop someone.
- seattleeng
April 30, 2010 at 11:49am
It's happening here.
- nunziobal
April 30, 2010 at 4:25pm