By Robert Garcia
The Sun (San Bernadino, CA)
Posted: 06/17/2010
I am saddened to see that the immigration debate has become such a polarizing issue, but I guess that was ultimately the point. In Sunday's Perspectives section, the newspaper pitted two extremist views against each other.
Mark Sechrest stated that you either support Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 or you're an open-border advocate. Meanwhile, L.A Ortega inexplicably avoids the issue entirely, pinning the blame for our bad economy on Big Oil and Bank of America.
The talk of boycotts, buycotts, protests, resolutions, sanctuary cities, rule-of-law cities, etc., has become utterly nauseating. I, for one, am not an open-border advocate; I firmly believe our country has a right, an obligation, and a duty to protect its borders. Mr. Ortega is off-the-mark attempting to downplay the effect illegal immigrants have on our economy because the entire discussion on the merits of illegal immigration is irrelevant. Illegal immigration is illegal and whether it has any benefits or is a lesser tax burden than corporations that don't pay their fair share is besides the point.
However, I have issues with the passage of S.B. 1070. More specifically, I have issues with the timing and the motivation behind its passage.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the illegal immigrant population in the United States has declined from 12.5 million people to 10.8 million people from 2007 to 2009 (a nearly 14 percent decrease). In addition, there has been a 5 percent
Advertisement
increase in ICE deportations, reaching a record amount under President Obama. On a anecdotal note, I haven't seen any day laborers at Home Depot looking for work in well over a year. It's plainly obvious that the jobs have dried up for illegal immigrants, and the dwindling numbers mirror our flailing economy. And yet for some reason, the debate about illegal immigrants has surprisingly reached a fever pitch in the spring of 2010.
As Mr. Sechrest points out, the Arizona law does in fact forbid racial profiling, but only because the law was modified a week after its passage by striking the word solely from its text: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection." In addition, the words "lawful contact" were changed to "lawful stop, arrest, or detention" to prevent potential harassment of citizens and legal residents by law enforcement officials.
The question is, why did a law that did initially allow for racial profiling hastily pass in its flawed form only to be changed to address civil rights concerns? The law most likely will pass constitutional muster because it has been stripped of its controversial language. As Mr. Sechrest states, the law is so innocuous now it resembles California law; so you have to ask yourself, why all the fuss?
S.B. 1070 is already ineffective before it's even been implemented. Eleven million illegal immigrants, to put in context, is roughly double the population of Arizona. The belief that a lawful stop, arrest or detention of individuals with a request for documentation will yield any sizable number of deportations is an illusion. The new Arizona law is not an anti-illegal-immigration tool but a rallying cry to justify other ends. If lawmakers were serious about curtailing illegal immigration, they would focus on a real deterrent: employer sanctions.
As evidenced by the past few years, a lack of employment opportunities and hefty fines as well as jail time for employers will trickle down and have a more broad and lasting impact. The employer fine for hiring an illegal immigrant starts at $250, yet if I commit a carpool violation I'm hit with $380 ticket. There is something seriously wrong with that. And yet, there will still be passionate supporters of the new Arizona law that are, shall I say, "misguided" by the real intent of this law.
Illegal immigration is a problem, a big problem. But the debate as it stands now serves only to fan its own flames and score political points for politicians. In an election year with continued high unemployment, illegal immigration has become the perfect wedge.
The new Arizona law was not meant to curb illegal immigration at all; its intent was to fill the airwaves, spark outrage, sell papers and get voters to the polls. Sadly, the story is not about illegal immigration and how to stop it, but the fervor about the issue.
Robert Garcia is president of the Inland Valley Democratic Club, www.ivdemocrats.org; www.facebook.com/ivdemocrats.
He is a resident of Fontana.
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15321254
