A report by the Pew Hispanic Center finds that the huge wave of immigration from Mexico not only seems to have come to an end but is also reversing itself. This is a remarkable development, one that would have seemed unthinkable even five years ago. Illegal immigrants are self-deporting back to Mexico.

One of the reasons is the softness of the U.S. housing market. The housing industry was a magnet for immigrants, and now the jobs aren’t available. The reverse migration will change politics. Border security and illegal immigration will diminish as front-burner issues. The border wall will turn out to have been unnecessary. The outflow of workers to Mexico will hamper the recovery of the housing market, and it will make new homes less affordable. Local schools and hospitals will be less burdened as the immigrant population disperses. These are just a few of the consequences that are foreseeable in the short term. Illegal immigration will continue to be an issue, but much of the heat will dissipate.

Tagged: immigration

Does anybody else find it ironic that Perry is faltering because of the rare good deeds that he has done, such as the Dream Act and the HPV mandate? The guy spends ten years being a total hardline conservative with a couple of exceptions, and suddenly his own party is turning against him. I find it especially ironic that Perry is accusing his rivals of not having a heart when he has assented to booting who-knows-how-many-hundreds-of-thousands of families off CHIP and Medicaid (in the latter case, by requiring them to re-up every six months, knowing that some would fail to do it and fall off the rolls for half a year). He brags about securing the border, lavishes hundreds of millions of dollars in homeland security funding on border sheriffs in return for their political support, has put up border cameras all over the place in South Texas, may even have some drones flying around down there, but because he scoffs at the effectiveness of a wall, Republicans think he wants to invite every Mexican north of Mexico City to emigrate. The tea party is mad that he won’t call a special session to pass a sanctuary cities bill; let’s hope they don’t find out that the DPS doesn’t enforce immigration laws, nor should it. Even his controversial HPV executive order was a good deed, if somewhat dubiously motivated. It was the wackos in his party that opposed it.

I didn’t think that Perry’s conservative-Democratic past and Al Gore flirtation would be a problem for him, but somehow, the old conservative Democrat in him keeps bubbling up to the surface. (more…)

Tagged: HPV, immigration, rick perry

The Texas tea party’s revolt over Rick Perry’s immigration stand is, well, revolting. I seldom agree with Perry, but he is right this time–right in a moral sense, but wrong politically. Building a wall will not make Texas a better state. Denying scholarships to the children of immigrants will not make Texas a better state. Calling a special session to pass a sanctuary city law,  whose sponsor, Burt Solomons, said “does nothing,” would not make Texas a better state. It’s hard to imagine that the Republican Party is too far to the right for Rick Perry, but that may be the case, as astonishing as it seems. Perry is counting on Hispanic votes to elevate him to the GOP nomination and the presidency, but openly courting Hispanics could result in an erosion of his tea party base.

The Perry campaign does not appear to be a smooth operation. I’m not forecasting doom and gloom. He’s still in great shape in the polls. He has forged a large constituency. But he is running this race as if he were running for governor in Texas, almost as if he were the incumbent. He hasn’t adapted to the format of a primary race, which is like an audition for a movie role: Multiple contestants are more or less reading from the same script, and everything depends upon how well you deliver your lines. (more…)

Tagged: immigration, republican presidential primary, rick perry, Texas Tea Party

The outcome of the Arizona immigration lawsuit was inevitable. The Arizona statute is preempted by federal law and by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. From the Court’s opinion:

“The United States asserts that mandatory determination of immigration status for all arrestees “conflicts with federal law because it necessarily imposes substantial burdens on lawful immigrants in a way that frustrates the concern of Congress for nationally-uniform rules governing the treatment of aliens throughout the country – rules designed to ensure ‘our traditional policy of not treating aliens as a thing apart.’” (Plaintiff’s’s Motion at 26, quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 73 (1941)).)”

I wrote about the Hines case in an earlier post about the Arizona lawsuit shortly after the government filed its complaint. In that post, I cited Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, who told Yahoo! News that federal law clearly preempts the Arizona measure in his view, rendering the state law unconstitutional: Said Chemerisnky: “In Hines, the Supreme Court ruled that by its adoption of a comprehensive, integrated scheme for regulation of aliens — including its 1940 registration act — Congress has precluded state action like that taken by Pennsylvania.” This was not a close case. It was over when the Department of Justice filed its lawsuit.

This is another key paragraph in the opinion:

If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law.

The legal battle is not over. After the injunction is lifted, the case will go to trial in Judge Bolton’s court. The decision is likely to go against the state of Arizona. Governor Brewer could still insist upon appealing the case to the Ninth Circuit, though the chance of success is not great. Meanwhile, the political battle is just beginning. I wrote in that earlier post, “My belief is that the Obama Administration will win the battle but lose the war. That is, the law will be found to be unconstitutional, but the loss will be pinned on Obama and the Democrats generally.” It will be interesting to see whether Leo Berman and Debbie Riddle continue to push immigration legislation in the face of an adverse court decision and a governor who doesn’t support the legislation.

Add Dan Patrick to the Berman/Riddle list. He issued this statement today:

(more…)

Tagged: arizona, immigration

My copy of the federal government’s complaint plainly says that the lawsuit is brought in the District Court for the District of Arizona. But will it stay there?

Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

If either party moves to remove the case to the Supreme Court, a trial could follow pretty rapidly.

Tagged: arizona, immigration

In its lawsuit against the state of Arizona that objects to S.B. 1070, the new Arizona immigration law, the U.S. Department of Justice [quoting from the complaint] “seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070,” because “S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Considering that DOJ is supposed to have some of the finest legal talent in the land, the complaint is really not a very persuasive document. Preemption is merely asserted. The government made no effort to support its assertion with references to precedent or statutes. It doesn’t even bother to cite the constitutional language pertaining to immigration, nor does it refer to any specific federal statutes. The complaint says only, “In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. The authority derives from the U.S. Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

Is DOJ right? Does the Constitution preempt the states from taking action against illegal immigration?

(more…)

Tagged: arizona, immigration

From the PPP Web site:

Our poll of the Texas Governor’s race this week is another data point indicating possible backlash for Republican candidates this fall in the wake of the Arizona immigration law.

When we polled the race in February Rick Perry led Bill White by 6 points. The race is tied now, and the movement since the previous poll has come completely with Hispanic voters. With white voters Perry led 54-35 then and leads 55-35 now. With black voters White led 81-12 then and leads 70-7 now. But with Hispanics Perry has gone from leading 53-41 in February to now trailing 55-21. And it’s not that the sample of Hispanic voters we interviewed for this poll was somehow fundamentally different from the previous one- Barack Obama’s approval with them on this poll was 49% compared to 47% on the previous Texas poll.

Hispanics moving toward Democratic candidates since the Arizona immigration bill was signed is becoming a trend in our polling of western states. Previous races where we polled before and after the signing of the immigration bill showed Rodney Glassman going from a 17 point deficit against John McCain with Hispanics to a 17 point lead, Michael Bennet going from a 12 point lead to a 21 point lead against Jane Norton with them, and Terry Goddard going from a 20 point lead to a 46 point lead with them.

There’s no doubt the immigration bill is popular nationally. But if it causes Hispanics to change their voting behavior without a parallel shift among whites then it’s going to end up playing to Democratic advantage this fall. It’s much more important to look at how Hispanic voters in states with large Hispanic populations are reacting than it is to look at the national numbers, at least as it pertains to this fall’s election.

(more…)

Tagged: debbie riddle, immigration, leo berman, public policy polling

Over the past couple of days, the main topic on this blog has been the controversy over the Arizona immigration law. I understand why Debbie Riddle and others want to do something about illegal immigration. What I don’t understand is why they think that passing a law will achieve anything. At best, we will be taking law enforcement officers away from the job they were hired to do — prevent crime and apprehend criminals — and charging them with the job of acting as immigration officials. They will be spending their time rounding up people who, for the most part, have committed no crime other than crossing a border without the proper documentation, and having them deported, after which most of the deportees will probably try to come back, only to be apprehended and deported again. Or are we going to fill our jails, or build new detention centers, with illegal immigrants? What options are left, short of shooting them down in the desert?

We should have learned from the war on drugs that laws are meaningless if enough people are willing to disobey them. That is what those who seek to “secure the border” are up against. We are living in a period when poverty and lack of opportunity in the third world is so extensive that people will risk any hardship to escape. This has been going on for thirty or forty years now and no end is in sight. So many more people are willing to violate the law than are available to enforce it that there is no way to hold back the migratory tide.

People in government enjoy the fiction of their own power. Rick Perry can impress Republicans by the symbolic act of sending Texas Rangers to the Border. He can win the votes of Border politicians by giving them money to buy Suburbans and call it homeland security. He can point the finger at Washington for not securing the border. But Washington is as powerless as Texas. Look at what Washington can’t do. It can’t defend its borders in the face of mass migration. It can’t defend its currency against the globalization of trade and finance. It can’t defend itself against shadowy threats like the Times Square bomber. Other countries are in the same boat. Even countries with strong national cultures–Japan and France and Germany–teem with immigrants. The era in which the only threat to the nation was another nation is over. That’s the lesson of 9/11.

These thoughts are not original; they are gathered from books I have read. But I think they reflect the reality we live in today. The Arizona immigration law represents a spike in the national uncertainty over America’s future. The only thing that is certain is that a law is not going to change the nature of the times in which we live.

Tagged: arizona, debbie riddle, immigration, trey martinez-fischer

This report is from the Arizona Star (Tucson):

PHOENIX – State senators approved legislation aimed at the curbing the ethnic-studies program in Tucson Unified School District.

HB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity “instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

It also would ban classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people.”

Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, said the legislation is little more than a thinly disguised effort to quash a program TUSD officials have said was proven academically successful.

According to TUSD officials, the program in the district’s Mexican-American studies department simply provides historical information, which conflicts with state School Superintendent Tom Horne’s assessment the program is promoting racial hatred and “ethnic chauvinism.”

District officials insisted earlier this year nothing in the program would violate the legislation, if it were to become law.

But Lopez said teachers in the program have told her the measure would affect how they can teach history. Beyond that, she said this level of legislative intervention into how subjects can be taught is academically a bad idea.

* * * *

Has Arizona gone completely nuts? Is there any reason to believe that schools have courses that promote the overthrow of the United States government? Advocate racial hatred and ethnic solidarity?

As it happens, I met last night with a group of interns who work in Houston city government. One of the group was from Arizona. His analysis is that Arizona’s fair elections law, which calls for public financing, has been a disaster. Anyone who runs for office can receive public money. So you have a lot of ordinary citizens with no political experience jumping into races and winning them, and proceeding to enact their prejudices into law. The bill sponsor of the Arizona immigration law was just such a candidate.

One of the leading critics of the Tucson ethnic studies program is the State Superintendent for Public Instruction, Tom Horne. According to Fox News, Horne called passage in the state House a victory for the principle that education should unite, not divide students of differing backgrounds.

“Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds,” Horne said. “This is consistent with the fundamental American value that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever ethnic groups we were born into. Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism.”

Horne began fighting in 2007 against the Tucson Unified School District’s program, which he said defied Martin Luther King’s call to judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Horne claimed the ethnic studies program encourages “ethnic chauvanism,” promotes Latinos to rise up and create a new territory out of the southwestern region of the United States and tries to intimidate conservative teachers in the school system. This guy makes the Texas State Board of Education look good.

Tagged: arizona, immigration

In the Arizona Legislature, the correct term is “fact sheet.” It’s the equivalent of a bill analysis in Texas. This is the fact sheet for the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session

FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070

Purpose

Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.

Background

Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.

Current statute defines criminal trespass in the first degree as a person knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in areas related to residential structures, residential yards, real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease under certain circumstances, property if the person defaces religious symbols or religious property, or critical public service facilities. Depending on the circumstances, criminal trespass in the first degree provides penalties ranging from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony (A.R.S. § 13-1504).

In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), prohibiting an employer from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien and establishing penalties for employers in violation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office administers the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The SAVE Program, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA), administers E-Verify, which allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

The fiscal impact is unknown; however, there may be additional costs associated with criminal prosecution and detention of persons who are accused and convicted of the crimes established in this legislation. Additionally, the addition of new fines associated with this measure may also have an impact.

(more…)

Tagged: arizona, immigration