If the Feds won't do it, we will: localities take steps to curb illegal immigration

Great Debates
1

I came across three articles talking about how state and local groups are passing legislation to take a stand against illegal aliens. These are the first successful attempts I’ve see that run counter to municipalities declaring there areas safe havens, which I take to mean that the authorities there will not lift one finger aid the federal government in enforcing our immigrastion laws. I understand some of the thiinking behind this. Mainly, that immigration is a federal issue and state and local agencies have no authority, expertise, or manpower to deal with the issue.

I do think that is only partially true, as some municipalities are more of the “open border” mindset, and with large hispanic populations (legal and illegal) they don’t want to piss off a large constituency.

That said, these three articles show that many people are fed up to the point of circumventing the feds in order to achieve the same ends that our federal immigration laws are intended to.

First we have the the good people of Herndon, VA, voting out city council members that have voted counter to the wishes of the residents. At issue is a Center for day workers to gather in order to get chosen for work, which had been approved by the old council.

Next we have the state of Alabama that will, starting in July, to require contractors working with the state to sign statements saying that they do not employ illegal aliens. I don’t know how much teeth this will actually have. During the same legislative session a proposed bill that would have levied heavier fines on businesses that hire illegals did not pass. But it is a step in the right direction. Especially since it targets employers, which could be highly effective.

Then we have some good thinking in Phoenix, AZ. Law and order stalwart Sheriff Joe Arpaio is assembling a posse of 100 volunteers from the department’s 3,000 member posse (who are trained and are often former deputies) that will arrest any illegal alien they find in Maricopa County. The law he is using is one intended to stop smugglers. His take is that these poeple fall under that law because they are smuggling themselves in. Interesting.

It won’t surprise many of you that I think that these are all great steps in the right direction. My question is, do you think this is a good thing? Not as far as the issue itself necessarily, but if the federal government is not enforcing laws that Americans want enforced, is it a good thing that states and municipaities take up the slack?
On a related note, this Zogby poll from March 31 of this year indicates that 82% of the likely voters of Arizona favor making English the official language of the state. With two-thirds “strongly favoring” such a measure. More surprisingly (to me), almost 60% of Democrats and 75% of Independents favored the measure. Even 78% of Hispanics are for it. Arizona bill HRC 2036, which would allow Arizonans to vote on the issue in November was just passed by the House. The Arizona Senate is now considering the bill.

Last year, both the House and the Senate approved legislation that would have made English the Official Language of Arizona, but it was vetoed by the Governor. Now she’ll have to deal with the direct will of the people. But at what point is an elected official ethically bound to NOT work in opposition to the will of her constituents? Given the high poll numbers, do you think she will oppose the people or support their wishes?

2

It would seem to me that this indicates how silly the measure is. Everyone is for it because they recognize that immigrants are already pursuing that goal on their own (which is what the Census Bureau numbers have been telling us all along). As long as

it seems that is neither punitive nor productive, so if it makes them happy, I guess it’s OK. (As long as they don’t start sending raiders over to their (officially bi-lengual) neighbors in New Mexico to impose their will on that state, of course.)

3

Which would do what, exactly?

4

The idea of such legislation is usually twofold. It reduces costs to the government and makes the language more of thread that unites us all. Of course, there’s a;so the symbnolic aspect.

5

If I recall, (and I could very well be wrong) the census bureau #s did not prove the opposite case. I don’t recall them proving the point you claim. I’m sure you will correct me if I am mistaken.

6

It gives the government an excuse for harassing or worse people who speak the “wrong” language. Taken to extremes, the state could decide that a household that speaks Spanish is abusive, and take the kids and put them in English speaking homes, like the good old days.

7

How? Most of the things that the government makes in different languages are things that they want people who don’t speak English to be able to use. Like tax forms and other legal documents. It isn’t because of a commitment to multiculuralism, it’s because it’s necessary for the smooth operation of local, state, and federal government. Making English official will either do nothing at all, or cause many, many legal and bureaucratic problems.

8

My understanding is that making English “the official language” of the state would affect curriculum requirements in the schools. If English is the official language, schools would not have to provide classes spoken in any language other than English.

I am not absolutely certain that this is correct information, but I was told that when I was teaching.

9

The census numbers for 1990 and 2000 indicate that fewer than 10% of people speaking Spanish in the home fail to learn English and that more than 50% learn to speak it very well. The numbers for 2000 were:


Count           Speak English  Percentage
28,101,052	total	        1.00
14,349,796	very well	0.510649779
5,819,408	well	        0.207088617
5,130,400	poorly	        0.182569677
2,801,448	not at all	0.099691926

Census figures on Language, 2000 ( .pdf)

So over 71% of Spanish Speaking immigrants have learned to speak English at least “well” and fewer than 10% have not (yet) learned to speak English. That seems to me as though there is a pretty strong indication that they are not refusing to learn the lingua franca of commerce in this country.

10

Thanks for the refresher. So it seems that since just about everyone thinks it’s a good idea to learn English, this added incentive should be welcomed by just about everyone. That would be great.

11

As long as we keep it at the state level and don’t do anything punitive and stupid at the national level, I have no problem with it.

12

Oh, come on. Surely you could think of greater extremes than that. You’re disappointing me here. I’ve come to expect so much more of you.

13

Interesting. Now why would you be okay with the will of the voters being expressed at the state level but not the national?

14

Realistic extremes. If we treat them too badly, they’ll leave and our economy will be screwed. Besides, many are foreign born, and IMHO such people tend to be less cattle-like than born Americans; they actually get irritated at mistreatment.

15

Kinda of oxymoronic, I’d say.

16

Hardly.

Religious mania overcoming America and it becomes a theocracy = realistic extreme.

Death by self cannibalism becomes the norm = unrealistic extreme.

17

Okay your realistic extreme here is my ridiculous extreme. Let’s move on.

The illegal ones evidently seem to think that not only do they have to obey our laws, but they have the right to tell us what our laws should be. Maybe they should be a little more like cattle. Or maybe just a little more like people who respect laws and realize that when you don’t even have an invitation, you should, at least, be as polite as the actual guests.

18

Everyone has that right, just as we have the right to ignore them.

19

It is not the “will of the voters” but the protection of minorities that interests me. At the state level, a person may be compelled to take their driver’s license test in English or be subjected to a few other restrictions. Imposing some odd notion of an “official language” at the national level is simply a way to open up avenues of discrimination that allow repression to be hidden behind “the law of the land.”

What does an “official language” even mean? Congress conducts no business in any language but English, so that is hardly an issue. The Courts do not try cases in any language but English, so that is not an issue. The only thing that I can see an “official language” doing is to compel the government to refrain from printing documents in any language other than English–in other words, to prevent the government from doing exactly what it did to include immigrants between 1890 and 1920. It is counterproductive. (I suppose the law could be used to compel restaurants named San Souci, Casa Abuela, and Dom Polski to be renamed “Carefree,” “Grandma’s House,” and “Polish House,” but that would never happen—except that it already has in Quebec.)

Since immigrants are already learning English, any imposed rule on the national level would only be an excuse to exercise discrimination. I think that the electorate should definitely be followed–as long as mass hysteria and mob rule are not permitted to discard protections for minorities.

20

Depends on whether the means they use are constitutional and effective. For example, I would be thrilled to see states and municipalities seriously cracking down on violations of labor law, which would reduce the incentives for businesses to save money by hiring illegal workers.

Getting a legal day-labor center moved to a different location, on the other hand, sounds pretty much useless. Having government-employed contractors sign statements renouncing the use of illegal labor, without imposing any legal penalties if the statements are false, sounds pretty much useless. Formally declaring that English is the “official language” of any particular state or city sounds pretty much useless.

Hiring a “posse” of volunteers to act out vigilante fantasies by arresting illegal aliens sounds both useless and dangerous. Especially given that it’s being done under the jurisdiction of the notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office and Maricopa County have already had to shell out millions of dollars in the past several years in damages awarded to plaintiffs in lawsuits for wrongful death and detainee abuse. Hundreds of amateur law enforcement officials working for an irresponsible cowboy are a recipe for catastrophe. Expect more deaths in custody and more lawsuits on Arpaio’s watch.