NDN Blog

The New York times published a story on the border recently entitled On Border Violence, Truth Compared to Ideas it can be read here.

Some excerpts can be read below.

the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe.

Below are some of the statistics cited in the story. The FBI puts out a report called the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report. The section on Arizona is below.

A closer examination of the statistics shows that from 2008 to 2009 crime has actually gone down. The full FBI Report can be seen here.

And here is the Department of Homeland Security Report on the Estimates of Unauthorized Immigrant Populations Residing in the United States: January 2009. Below is a brief excerpt.

In summary, DHS estimates that the unauthorized immigrant population living in the United States decreased to 10.8 million in January 2009 from 11.6 million in January 2008. Between 2000 and 2009, the unauthorized population grew by 27 percent. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2009, 63 percent entered before 2000, and 62 percent were from Mexico.

As the rumors that the federal government will file a lawsuit against Arizona regarding SB1070 continue to grow, there have been rumors that the federal suit will focus on a legal precedent known as 'Field Preemption.'

Arizona State Attorney General, Terry Goddard, who is also a candidate for Governor, has removed himself from his responsibility of defending the state from any lawsuits regarding SB1070. The full story on this latest development can be read at the Arizona Daily Sun here.

In a recent television interview with KGUN 9 ABC's local news affiliate (which can be seen here) Attorney General Goddard noted that the federal lawuit would be based on the Field Preemption precedent. A portion of the interview is below:

To date there are five lawsuits pending against SB1070. They argue the state violates the constitution because federal law supersedes state law and, therefore, only federal agents have the jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. Goddard said, "That is the argument. It's called field preemption. Does the federal law command the field to such an extensive degree that no state law is permitted."

Field Preemption is not something anyone other than legal scholars are usually familiar with. I was fortunate enough to be a part of a briefing from MALDEF National President Tom Saenz on and the legal frame work that was being used in lawsuits against SB1070.

MALDEF and several other civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a law suit against SB1070 and Field Preemption is one of the clauses cited in the brief. The full suit can be seen here.

According to my notes from the briefing Field Preemption comes from the Supremacy Clause in Article VI Clause II of the Constitution. Essentially the clause notes that federal laws made in keeping with the Constitution and treaties made with foreign nations are under the strict sovereignty of the federal government.

Within this clause comes the idea that if the government has established a field of command or has passed legislation that has established federal jurisdiction then a state cannot write a similar law.

Also established in the Supremacy Clause is that only federal law can regulate legislation between the United States and foreign entities. Immigration law is federal because it  concerns dealings with a foreign country.  Under this clause a state cannot pass legislation that deals with a foreign country. That right is clearly delineated under the constitution to the federal government.

SB1070 is incredibly similar to the 287 (g) program, not to mention that it is already a federal offense to be in the country illegally.

Interestingly enough in the same interview Attorney General Goddard opines that the Arizona law does not breach the Field Preemption clause.

Goddard says the state has a strong case against the legal challenges filed against the constitutionality of SB1070. Nine On Your Side's Steve Nunez asked, "Based on what you do know do you feel confident that Arizona could win any legal challenge against SB1070?" Goddard said, "It's a very tough issue but I think, yes, the state could win the challenge on the jurisdiction angle."

He then continues on to note that:

SB1070 is written as an alternative law that's consistent with federal immigration law. Goddard said, "The standard is incredibly high. Courts, federal courts especially, do not like to stop state's who are trying to implement a particular program and so they very seldom unless they can see a clear jurisdictional bar or on its face civil rights violation they're very unlikely to interfere."

Ironically, Attorney General Goddard indicated that if he was elected Governor he would overturn the law, saying that he would instead focus state resources on securing the border.

NDN's own Alicia Menendez was once again the voice of reason on the O'Reilly factor last week.

In this segment O'Reilly went out of his way to characterize the situation as violent and pointed out repeatedly that the federal government needed to secure the border. O'Reilly was extremely critical of the White House, saying that it had not done enough to secure the border.

The White House has repeatedly pushed back on this narrative. Below are statistics provided by the White House to show increased border security. These statistics appeared first at the Fox News Website:

STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:

Over the past year since the Southwest Border Initiative was launched:

• Doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces by deploying 110 additional special agents.

• Tripled the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) intelligence analysts along the Southwest border in April 2009 by deploying 28 additional personnel.

• For the first time, the Department of Homeland Security began screening 100% of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash.

• Deployed 13 additional cross-trained canine teams, which identify firearms and currency, to the Southwest Border to augment the five teams already in place.

• Deployed 116 additional Border Patrol Agents to augment CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers during inspections operations—particularly outbound inspections.

• Deployed five additional Z-Backscatter Units, which help CBP identify anomalies in passenger vehicles, to the Southwest border to augment the six already there.

• CBP and ICE combined have seized $85 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border—a 22 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

• CBP and ICE together have seized 1,404 firearms and 1.62 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border—increases of 22 and 14 percent respectively over the same period during the previous year.

• CBP seized $29.5 million in illicit southbound cash along the Southwest border—a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

Additionally, the San Diego DHS Maritime Unified Command, comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and other law enforcement partners, saw a more than six-fold increase in maritime drug interdictions in the Pacific waters extending from the Southwest border—seizing 57,437 lbs. of drugs in fiscal year 2009 compared to 8,884 lbs. seized in fiscal year 2008. Already in fiscal year 2010, the Coast Guard has seized 11,500 lbs. of drugs across the San Diego sector.

Since 2004:

• the Border Patrol has doubled in size to approx 20,000 Border Patrol agents on board.

CBP statistics show that illegal immigration into the United States is down with apprehensions between points of entry having dropped 23 percent in FY09. During FY09 the Border Patrol apprehended 556,041 compared with 723,825 during FY08. El Paso Sector saw a 51 percent reduction in apprehensions, the Tucson Sector saw a 24 percent reduction in apprehensions, and the Rio Grande Valley Sector saw a 19 percent reduction in apprehensions. Those statistics reflect a reduction in the number of people attempting to illegally cross our borders.

• And as part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama will request $500 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities. The president will also deploy up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Funds will be utilized to enhance technology at the border, share information and support with State, Local, and Tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money.

The video is below:

There has been rumblings since last week that the Obama Administration would be filing a law suit to fight Arizona on the passage of SB1070. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag in an interview with an Ecuadorean television studio, the full story on that can be read here. As enticing as Secretary Clinton's statements were, at the time they were un-confirmed by the White House.

As of Friday, the Justice Department still had not formally announced plans to file suit. 

However many senior administration officials have felt the need to speak off the record indicating that they would be filing a lawsuit to strike down SB1070 before the legislation became law. The full article can be read here. As always some highlights below.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said the matter was still under review, but other senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a decision had indeed been made and only the details of the legal filing were still being worked out.

These officials said several government agencies were being consulted over the best approach to block the statute, which, barring any successful legal challenges, takes effect July 29. At least five lawsuits have already been filed in federal court, and civil rights groups have asked a federal judge to issue an injunction while the cases are heard.

Stay tuned here, for more information as it develops.

The headline of a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll reads, "Most Americans Back New Immigration Law," while this is true it only tells half the story.

While most Americans support the Arizona law they equally support a pathway to citizenship.

It is true that there is support for SB1070, lets look at the cross tabs:

31. A new law in Arizona would give police the power to ask people they've stopped to verify their residency status. (Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration.) (Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling.) On balance, do you support or oppose this law? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

                                         -------- Support --------   -------- Oppose ---------     No         

                                      NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion

                                     6/6/10   58       42         16      41       12         29         2

58% of Americans strongly support the Arizona law, however there is almost equal support for a pathway to citizenship.

30. Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?

                                                    Support   Oppose   No opinion

                                         6/6/10      57        40          3

                                         4/24/09     61        35          3

                                        12/19/07    49        46          5

                                         11/1/07     51        44          4

                                          6/1/07      52        44          4

57% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship provided the immigrants pay back taxes and meet other requirements.

It is important that that political pundits and legislators recognize, that while SB1070 is popular,fixing our broken immigration system is equally popular.

Not only does the polling data shows that Americans want something done on comprehensive immigration reform, but it shows consistent support for immigration reform going back three years. 

Also of note within this poll there is broad support for federal enforcement of immigration law vs. state only enforcement.

The question in the poll reads:

In general do you think states should be allowed to make and enforce their own immigration laws or should they be left to federal jurisdiction.

53% of the respondents said that the federal government should be responsible for making and enforcing immigration laws.

It is significant, that the general public recognizes that the federal government should be responsible for passing and enforcing immigration laws.

This statistic is another indicator that the public would rather have federal comprehensive legislation then allow states to create their own laws.

Much has been written (here and elsewhere) about the many policy and economic defects of Arizona's anti-immigrant SB1070 legislation, what has not been so readily covered is the spread of copy cat laws.

As of the time of this posting, there are 5 states that have SB1070 copy cat laws currently in the legislative pipeline. 17 more states have expressed an interest in taking up laws when the legislative calendar begins again in January.

The fact that SB1070 is spreading is not surprising, what is interesting is where the copy cat laws are being proposed.

Albuquerque, NM, Mayor Richard J. Barry recently passed a law that would require federal agents to check the immigration status of every person arrested in Albuquerque.

New Mexico is 44.9% Hispanic, with such a large population it is hard to believe any anti immigrant legislation would pass so easily. In fact the Mayor's decision has caused quite an uproar, the full story can be read here. Stay tuned to see if this legislation is not repealed.

Democratic stronghold Pennsylvania also has an SB1070 copy cat bill in the pipeline. House Bill 2479, would direct a police officer "to attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens."

But wait, this legislation goes a step further than SB1070, from a Post Gazette Newspaper article:

The bill also would create a new third-degree misdemeanor "for illegal aliens who violate federal law by either willfully failing to register as an alien or failing to possess proper proof of such registration when stopped for another primary offense, such as a traffic violation."

SB1070 does not create a new third-degree misdemeanor. HB2479 would also:

attempt to crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens without first checking to see if they had registration papers and are in the state legally. It also would create a new third-class felony "for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens (into the state) for profit" and would let police officers "impound any vehicle driven by an illegal alien or used to transport illegal aliens.''

Employer sanctions are another "improvement" on SB1070.

Not to be outdone the South Carolina state Judiciary committee has been holding hearings on H4919. The text of the legislation can be found here.  An excerpt is below.

A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 15
TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 23 SO AS TO ENTITLE THE ARTICLE "ILLEGAL ALIENS
ENFORCEMENT", TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES FOR VERIFICATION OF A PERSON'S
IMMIGRATION STATUS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE
WARRANTLESS ARREST OF PERSONS SUSPECTED OF BEING PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
UNLAWFULLY

This is essentially adds federal immigration law to the state code of laws in order to give local law enforcement officers the ability to arrest and profile any one who they may suspect to be an undocumented immigrants. An article from The State a local South Carolina newspaper can be read here.

There has been allot of talk about Texas passing similar SB1070 legislation. So much so that the Texas state Republican convention split in two over the idea. A great summary of the schizm can be found at read at the New Mexico Independent.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, a staunch Republican, strongly opposes passing SB1070 copy cat legislation in the state. Fox News has a good summary up here.

There are sure to be more states who will be adding to the list of SB1070 copy cat legislators, please check back here for all the latest developments.

The Immigration Policy Center has released a report on the difference between immigrant and native born workers.

The paper examines  the idea that during an economic downturn, working immigrants, take jobs from native born workers.

The findings of the paper show that this idea is empirically false. Immigrants and native born workers do not compete for the same jobs overall.

The report notes that:

The data demonstrates—as have other, more detailed analyses2—that most foreign-born workers differ from most native-born workers in terms of what occupations they work in, where in the country they live, and how much education they have. What this means in practical terms is that most native-born workers are not directly competing for jobs with immigrant workers because they are in different labor markets.

The concept that immigrant and native born workers often exist in completely seperate labor markets is an important distinction to make. This distinction in the type of work that immigrants and native born workers engage in shows that they are not ever in direct competition for jobs.

Please read the full report here.

Peter Robinson, has written a noteworthy WSJ editorial on immigration. Before delving into the substance of this editorial let's focus on two quotes.

These quotes offer a clear alternative narrative to the current focus on enforcement and border security. While enforcement and border security are certainly relevant this editorial presents a third issue as equally important: labor.

The quotes are as follows:

XXXX dismissed "the illegal alien fuss," arguing that we need immigrant labor. "One thing is certain in this hungry world," he said. "No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

The second quote is a bit more uplifting:

[a]nd if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

The quotes come from President Ronald Reagan, the title of the editorial is "Immigration: What Would Reagan Do."

In the first quote, President Reagan acknowledges that the current draw and advantage of immigrants coming into this country, is and has been, labor. President Reagans quote is important because in it he very clearly acknowledges that Immigrants bring a positive economic impact into the country.

The second quote speaks to the more philosophical aspect of the debate over border security and immigration.

In this second quote President Reagan raises the specter of what makes our country great: the all inclusive, all encompassing acceptance of those who have journeyed from far and wide to make a better life for themselves.

According to the editorial, President Reagan was a man firmly against an America closed off by borders, real or otherwise.

The idea that anyone could come to America, make a better life for themselves and be able to contribute to the country is something President Reagan believed deeply in.

With the current anti-immigrant hysteria sweeping the country I have to wonder if this belief is still something that all Americans, especially those in Arizona,  believe in.

The full Editorial can be read here.

A couple of interesting developments in Arizona.

First, the Arizona state legislature has started work on legislation that would target the children of undocumented immigrants.

Traditionally anyone born on United States soil is automatically a citizen.

However according to Time magazine, the Arizona state legislature is working on a law designed "to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up their anchors and leave." The full Time article is here.

The second important development is a growing acceptance that SB1070 is going to have a negative economic impact on Arizona.

The Arizona Republic has published an article on the possibly devastating impact that a mass migration of immigrants would have on the already fragile housing industry.  The full article can be read here. An excerpt is below.

An exodus of people - both legal and illegal residents - could be one more drag on a housing-market recovery. Departures from a state where growth is the economic foundation could add to the number of foreclosures and vacant houses and apartments, all of which will hurt the housing industry just as signs of recovery are starting to appear.

Driving illegal immigrants out of Arizona is one stated purpose of the new immigration law. But the law, experts say, could also drive out legal residents and deter potential new residents - people who are afraid of what might happen to them or who simply object to the law.

Undocumented Immigrants have long been home buyers in Arizona. As the total cost to the state continues to rise, members of the real estate business community find the passage of the law puzzling at a time when the economy of the state is so fragile.

"Many people in real estate operated with a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy when it came to certain homebuyers and borrowers. We didn't feel like it was our job to be an enforcement agency," said Margie O'Campo de Castillo, a Phoenix real-estate agent. "I always tell people if they aren't legally here, it may not be in their best interest to buy a home. But it's not my decision."

She is trying to help a friend who owns a small business and who had a Phoenix home but is not a legal U.S. resident.

"He never missed a payment, but his business has slowed down," O'Campo said. "He found a buyer to do a short sale on his home, but his lender wouldn't work with him because he isn't here legally. He lost his house to foreclosure."

In my last post I presented a recent Gallup Poll on Hispanic Voter turnout and SB1070.  While it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions from these polls, upon further reflection, there is a more comprehensive analysis worth presenting. Again direct your attention to the poll below.

There are two very important data points to highlight here.

First, this poll shows a very clear rise in Hispanic Voter intent. The aggregate increase in Hispanic voter intent, from the very enthusiastic and somewhat enthusiastic, is a 4 percentage point swing upwards in just three months.

As NDN President Simon Rosenberg has pointed out Hispanic voter intent has been down all year. In the last Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll Hispanic voter intent had dropped from 19 percent to 16 percent, from April 22 to June 3rd.  Given the context of this precipitous voting intent drop off, a four percent swing up is significant.

Secondly, while there has been an absolute increase in Hispanic voter intent there has also been a relative increase compared to non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic black voters.  While both of these voting groups  intent remains stagnant or decreased Hispanics are showing an increase.

If voter intent among this block of voters continues to increase this could significantly effect elections in places with high concentrations of Hispanic immigrant voters, particularly Arizona, California, Nevada and Texas.  We will keep our eye on these trends as they develop, but what this poll shows is that there is evidence now of a national Hispanic reaction to the awful situation in Arizona.