Last Night in Annapolis in front of the Statehouse
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Press Conference for the MD DREAM Act
I was proud to see District 18 Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez and Sen. Rich Madaleno joining lead sponsor Sen. Victor Ramirez to speak out for this important legislation.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Vote Team Ehrlich, Speak English
Here's a campaign sign promoting Bob Ehrlich, anti-immigrant Delegate Pat McDonough (R-7) and flame-throwing Delegate Rick Impallaria (R-7) in northern Baltimore County.
"Team Ehrlich" members McDonough and Impallaria are two of the most conservative Republicans in Annapolis. They once spoke at a rally held by Help Save Maryland, which was named as a "nativist extremist" group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Looks like Bob Ehrlich still thinks multiculturalism is "bunk."
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Pat McDonough's "Survey"
Here's a copy of Delegate Pat McDonough's (R-7) "survey" of General Assembly candidates intended to pressure them into supporting an Arizona-style state law on immigration that he plans to introduce next year. Explore Baltimore County reported that McDonough plans to release the results of the "survey" over the Internet.
Regardless of how one feels about the merits of an Arizona-style immigration law, McDonough's method of pursuing it is clearly not designed to build support for it, but rather merely to draw publicity for himself and his radio show. Bring in the clowns, folks!
Friday, March 27, 2009
MoCo's New Criminal Justice Policy
Recently, the Gazette reported confusion among people on the street about Montgomery County's new policy providing for immigration status checks on violent criminals. Courtesy of the County Executive's office, we reproduce a memo from Ike Leggett to MCPD Chief Tom Manger outlining exactly what the new policy will do.
M E M O R A N D U M
February 10, 2009
TO: J. Thomas Manger, Police Chief
FROM: Isiah Leggett, County Executive
SUBJECT: Criminal Justice Policy Changes
One of the most important responsibilities that I have as County Executive is to ensure the safety of our community. I appreciate your outstanding leadership and the exceptional work of the Montgomery County Police Department in helping us to achieve this objective.
I have evaluated your recommendation for a change in our current policy regarding the manner in which we handle violent offenders in the county, some of whom may be undocumented residents. I have also received valuable input from State’s Attorney John McCarthy, County Attorney Leon Rodriguez, Correction & Rehabilitation Director Arthur Wallenstein and many others throughout the criminal justice system – on the local, state, and federal levels. In addition, I received considerable feedback and information from a broad range of County residents and organizations reflecting a variety of perspectives on this important recommendation.
After careful consideration, I have concluded that the following should reflect our new approach on this matter. The names of all persons arrested and charged in Montgomery County for crimes of violence, as defined in the Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 14-101, or for wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun (Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 4-203) will be forwarded to the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As has been our practice, Montgomery County police will not conduct immigration status investigations.
Montgomery County police’s role under these circumstances is to simply notify ICE of arrestees charged with violent crimes and the specific handgun violation in our custody and allow ICE to perform their duty from that point forward. Our police will not differentiate among the violent offenders falling into this new policy when charged. They would report the names of all those arrested and charged for these offenses to ICE. My understanding is that this new procedure would forward, on average, about three names per day.
Among the violent offenses included under this policy are murder, rape, carjacking, and defined classes of assaults, sexual offenses, arson, and robbery. The handgun provision would broadly cover those persons in illegal possession of a handgun. The list of offenses covered is attached.
This new policy can assist the county in helping to keep violent offenders off the streets. We can accomplish this without our officers becoming federal immigration police or crossing the line into “profiling” individuals based on their race or ethnicity. I strongly believe that local jurisdictions such as Montgomery County should not substitute their law enforcement efforts for what can only be described as a failure of the federal government to achieve a workable immigration policy.
As you know, currently, if a person is arrested or questioned by county police officers, the individual’s name is checked with the National Crime Information Center for any warrant. If there is an outstanding warrant, we detain that person and notify the appropriate law enforcement agency, including ICE. The changes we are adopting in this new procedure will not alter our current policy of checking for outstanding warrants through the National Crime Information Center.
I recognize that some in our community may think that the approach outlined in this response to you goes too far; others may conclude that it does not go far enough. I believe this approach is balanced and realistic for our highly diverse community of nearly one million residents.
Let me share with you what influenced my decision on this matter. First and foremost it is a priority of this administration that our police department facilitates safe and sustainable communities where every resident is encouraged to interact positively with the police. The men and women of our police department have made great strides in earning the trust of the community and we need to ensure that they continue to operate in such a manner that maintains that trust and confidence of all of our residents.
I have heard from those who have so thoughtfully and passionately advocated that we totally remove our county’s law enforcement from issues involving immigration. I do not believe it is a good use of our county police resources to enforce federal immigration law. I remain opposed to the 287(g) training for our police.
Frankly, no one wants violent criminals preying on the community, including the residents of our neighborhoods most heavily populated by immigrants.
I have heard as well from those who feel that this change does not go far enough. I carefully considered even stricter options that were recommended to me from a variety of parties who believe a broader number of crimes should be included in the list of offenses. In addition, others have asked me to consider more questionable policies and legal procedures to reduce violent criminal activity in the county. However, I have concluded that this new approach is a balanced and useful tool that could help us keep some of the more dangerous criminals out of our neighborhoods. I do not believe it is reasonable or would be effective for our county to go further by adopting some of the more restrictive measures found in other communities.
In addition, I also support an effort led by Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy to amend the criteria used by the State Department of Juvenile Justice in making detention decisions on juvenile offenders committing serious crimes.
We have seen, over and over, 16 and 17-year olds who are committing serious felonies being released back into the community while awaiting trial, only to engage in continued criminal activity. Other communities have been able to amend the State’s criteria to keep the worst juvenile offenders detained while awaiting trail, and we need to do the same. John McCarthy has also led the way, meeting with State officials to craft a policy that balances the welfare of these young offenders with the safety of the community. I am currently working through our Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission to amend what is called the Risk-Assessment Instrument (RAI), used by the State Department of Juvenile Services (DJS). It is our intention to have an RAI in place that mirrors what Baltimore County is using. This change will help remove some of the most dangerous juvenile offenders from our community.
There is no doubt that the immigration issue is a thorny one on many fronts. The immigration system is broken, and we need common-sense solutions from Congress that are fair and realistic. Until that happens, communities such as Montgomery County find themselves in a difficult situation on a range of issues.
Based on all of the aforementioned factors, I believe adoption of the new procedure you recommended for crimes of violence and illegal handgun possession is warranted.
It is my responsibility to keep our diverse communities as safe as they can be for all of our residents. These changes, taken together, will help us advance that goal.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Help Save Maryland Named Nativist/Extremist Group
The Southern Poverty Law Center has named Help Save Maryland a “nativist/extremist group” – its only such designation in the Free State.
SPLC, a civil rights organization devoted to combating white supremacist and hate groups, defines nativist/extremist groups this way:Organizations identified by the Intelligence Report as nativist extremist are groups that go after people, not policy. Rather than limiting themselves to advocating within the mainstream political process for tighter border security, stricter immigration controls or tougher enforcement of immigration laws already on the books, these fringe outfits target and confront immigrants as individuals.
In the past, Help Save Maryland has focused its efforts on cutting off public funding for day laborer centers and lobbying state lawmakers against drivers licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. But Help Save Maryland Frederick County coordinator Steve Berryman has admitted that his group worked “hand-in-hand” with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization that SPLC claims has worked closely with hate groups.
Some conduct armed “citizen border patrols.” Others confront Latino immigrants congregated at day labor centers or informal roadside pick-up sites. Some conduct surveillance of apartment houses and private homes. Almost all of them disseminate vicious, immigrant-bashing propaganda.
Help Save Maryland is offering thanks to guest speakers at its recent rally night in Annapolis. Those speakers include:
Senator Janet Greenip (R-33)
Senator Andy Harris (R-7)
Delegate Gail Bates (R-9A)
Delegate Ron George (R-30)
Delegate Rick Impallaria (R-7)
Delegate Patrick McDonough (R-7)
Delegate Warren Miller (R-9A)
Also appearing was Jack Martin from FAIR.
Now that Help Save Maryland has been branded a “nativist/extremist group,” will the above politicians continue to associate with it? Or will they abandon it as election time approaches?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Hate Email Circulates in Annapolis
The following email has been sent to several state delegates. We have had to censor some of the most objectionable phrases but the intent should be clearly visible to readers.Subject: FW: Montgomery Steps Up Reporting in ICE Efforts
From: [Name Withheld]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:54 PM
To: Vallario, Joseph Delegate; Ivey, Jolene Delegate; Gutierrez, Ana Sol Delegate; Ramirez, Victor Delegate; Hixson, Sheila Delegate
Subject: Montgomery Steps Up Reporting in ICE Efforts
By Dan Morse and Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009; Page B01
You ***holes are about to learn a valuable lesson in majority rule. Want to know what the residents think about your pro-illegal stance? Try reading the comments on Washingtonpost.com sometime. This is just the beginning, Leggett was forced to back-peddle from his position by the residents of this state who have had it with the lawlessness and now we're going to build on this momentum. This backlash is only going to grow stronger. How did you think people would react in the face of a recession when they see their jobs either dissapearing or stolen by illegals, their taxdollars used to support the parasites that shouldn't even be here to begin with and then read about those same illegals murdering innocent residents?? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! For most citizens, the rule of law still means something and now you're going to shut the f*ck up and listen to what we have to say. The driver's licenses are next bitches. Time for the illegal parasites to hit the trail and those who support them will be soon to follow, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Delegate Gutierrez Wins Progressive States Network Award
On Monday night, the Progressive States Network honored District 18 Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez for her work in defeating anti-immigrant legislation in Maryland. We carry her acceptance remarks below.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
It’s Time to Protect Domestic Workers
Back in 2006, the Montgomery County Council commissioned a study by researchers at George Washington University about conditions faced by the county’s domestic workers. The study found that domestic workers were frequently paid less than minimum wage, often did not receive overtime pay, rarely had written employment contracts, did not know their rights under U.S. labor laws and did not have enough contact with their peers to facilitate unionization. On that basis, Casa de Maryland and other groups called for a “domestic workers bill of rights” to protect these workers from employment abuses.
The council did not implement the broad-ranging bill of rights, but Council Members George Leventhal and Marc Elrich recently introduced Bill No. 2-08 mandating employment contracts for domestic workers. Under the bill, any employer of a domestic worker must negotiate a written employment contract with that worker. The contract must specify days and hours of work, wages, paid and unpaid time off, and many other conditions of work. Furthermore, live-in domestic workers must have a private room for sleeping with a lock as well as reasonable access to a kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities. Employers are forbidden to retaliate against workers requesting such an agreement. Any worker who suffers an agreement violation can file a complaint with the County’s Office of Consumer Protection.
On its face, this is a strong system of protection for a very vulnerable class of workers. But as David Lublin has noted, the bill has its critics – even among progressives. Among other things, they question whether employment contracts with domestic workers who are illegal immigrants are binding, whether an illegal immigrant would have to acknowledge his or her immigration status during the contracting process, and whether increased education would be a more appropriate alternative than contracts.
As I’ve probably told our readers before, I have spent my entire adult career in the building trades section of the labor movement. We have to deal with the anarchic intersection of illegal immigration, sometimes murky tax and employment laws and predatory employers on a daily basis. Believe me that these are not easy issues. The critics’ questions are legitimate and deserve to be answered.
1. Is an employment contract with an illegal immigrant binding?
Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal for an employer to hire an illegal immigrant. Under the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), an employer may not knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. An employer has a duty to ask for a list of documents from any job applicant but has no duty to verify them with the federal government. When prosecutors go after an employer for hiring illegals, they must prove knowledge of their illegal status in court, which is not an easy task. (That’s why there are so few prosecutions.)
Illegal immigrants execute all manner of contracts in the U.S., including car purchases, business agreements and even mortgages. These contracts are enforceable in court. Labor unions and other organizations routinely recover wages owed to illegals who have been cheated by their employers. Many illegal immigrants are covered by employment agreements, including union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements. So employment agreements involving illegals do not inherently violate the law.
2. Would an illegal immigrant be forced to acknowledge his or her status by this bill?
Bill No. 2-08 is silent on whether the worker is to be classified as an employee or a contractor. That is a meaningful distinction, but not necessarily for immigration status.
Generally speaking, employers may classify workers as independent contractors if they face substantial business risk from their operations, control their own performance and hours of work and own their equipment and capital. When employers set schedules, control work conditions, closely supervise performance and own the relevant equipment and tools, they are supposed to classify workers as employees. Employees are eligible for social security, workers compensation and unemployment benefits while contractors are not. (Because of the immense costs at stake, this distinction is often abused.)
If a worker is classified as an employee, they will be expected to supply a social security number (SSN) and a number of documents establishing legal residency. The employer has no duty to verify them. Illegal immigrants can and do use false SSNs to establish employment (and credit). I have personally audited construction jobsites on which three-quarters of the SSNs used were false. IRCA’s document requirements have spawned a massive phony documentation industry, but that is an inevitable byproduct of a large number of illegal immigrants and a large number of employers willing to hire them.
The consequences of using false SSNs are usually minimal. When a false SSN is used for social security withholding, the Social Security Administration sends “no-match” letters to employers requesting that they provide corrected SSN information. But there is no requirement that the workers be fired, much less deported. (If workers were frequently terminated over no-match letters, half the construction jobsites in America would shut down tomorrow. Trust me on that.) A recent attempt by the Bush Administration to require employers to fire workers with false SSNs was recently turned back by a federal court. It seems unlikely that a President McCain, a President Clinton or a President Obama would seek to institute such a requirement.
It’s much more likely that employers of domestic workers will instead classify them as independent contractors. In that case, the employer would issue a Form 1099 to each worker reporting their compensation for tax purposes. The Form 1099 reports the recipient’s “identification number.” That could be an SSN or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which is available to anyone regardless of immigration status.
The IRS is generally forbidden to share taxpayer information with other federal agencies and is delighted to issue ITINs. As IRS Commissioner Mark W. Emerson told the New York Times last year, “We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not.” In 2006, 1.4 million people used ITINs to file income tax returns and many of them were undoubtedly illegal immigrants.
So under either of the above arrangements, a worker would not have to confess his or her immigration status and any possibility of deportation is extremely unlikely. If the bill really did threaten to cause deportations, Casa de Maryland would not be supporting it.
In any case, while the above issues raise some questions, the workers are not better off working “off-the-books.” In my experience, off-the-books arrangements lead to cheating, abuse and exploitation far, far more than the employment contracts proposed in the Leventhal/Elrich bill.
3. Would greater education be sufficient to protect these workers?
The key determinant of whether a worker’s rights under the law are protected is not the worker’s knowledge of them. It’s the available enforcement mechanisms. I have worked on many organizing campaigns in which education of the workers is an important, early component. But even when workers knew their rights, the employers could and did decide to ignore and violate them. Whether the workers were ultimately able to get their rights respected depended on the vigorousness of government enforcement (which was usually weak), the financial strength of the company and the success of the union’s tactics in countering the law-breaking employer. This is a harsh, HARSH country for workers – even those who are citizens, know their rights and have strong unions.
In the case of domestic workers, education in and of itself would be a challenge. How can the government reach them, especially those who live with their employers? How many languages must the government use? How can the government persuade the employers to respect those rights? And exactly what are the workers supposed to do when their rights are violated? Individual domestic workers have almost no power in their workplaces. That’s why they’re so vulnerable. That’s why they’re in need of real protection.
The way I read it, the Leventhal/Elrich bill will not cause mass firings or deportations of domestic workers. And it may very well bring them up out of the working poverty they currently inhabit. It gives them something almost all union members have: an enforceable, written contract that protects them. It’s a good bill. All progressives should line up to support it, perhaps discuss improvements to it, and ultimately pass it.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
More on the Great Maryland Drivers License Feud
As David Lublin noted, Marc Fisher’s January 27 column carried news of alleged broken promises by the O’Malley administration over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. But this is merely the latest incident in an escalating, internal Democratic Party feud over the issue.
The drivers license issue has a bit of history worth recalling. Maryland is one of seven states (the others being Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) that do not require license applicants to prove legal U.S. status. On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers, all of whom were admitted to the country legally, were able to obtain a combined 13 drivers licenses and 21 other ID cards and use them to board and commandeer airplanes. Several of these documents were obtained with fraudulent records. Among the hijackers was Hani Hanjour, who fraudulently obtained a Maryland ID card from the Motor Vehicle Administration and used it to pilot a plane into the Pentagon. Later, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for strong national standards applying to ID documents including drivers licenses and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from acquiring them. In 2005, the Congress passed the Real ID Act, which among other things required that states not issue licenses to individuals illegally present in the U.S. The original date established for compliance was 5/11/08 but that has since been pushed back to 2010.
It is commonly believed that the 9/11 Commission recommended denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. But as the commission’s successor organization, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, makes clear on its website, that is untrue. The project authors state:Specifically, we did not make any recommendation about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation (often fraudulent) that appeared lawful to immigration inspectors. They were therefore “legal immigrants” at the time they received their driver’s licenses… Whether illegal aliens should be able to get driver’s licenses is a valid question for debate.
But President Bush and the Republican Congress explicitly set up Real ID requirements to block licenses for illegals anyway. Soon enough, the states began calculating the costs of bringing their license systems into compliance with Real ID requirements and began to balk. Maryland estimates its costs at $60-80 million. Seventeen states and counting have passed legislation and/or resolutions opposing Real ID, including Maryland. But the federal requirements remain and that is causing political turmoil.
Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari originally proposed installing a two-tier license system to deal with Real ID. Legal residents could obtain Real ID-compliant licenses while illegal immigrants could obtain non-compliant licenses that still conferred in-state driving rights. But Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (District 18) rejected this approach, telling the Washington Post, “In this climate, that's a scarlet letter… Any policeman could call [federal] authorities.”
Delegate Gutierrez need not have worried about Porcari’s proposal because Governor O’Malley swiftly killed it. The Governor declared, “We should not allow Maryland to become an island virtually alone on the East Coast” by issuing drivers licenses to illegals. He called instead for one license program that was completely Real ID-compliant. O’Malley was no doubt paying heed to the painful experience of another blue-state governor who proposed, then backed down from, a plan to license illegals.
Gutierrez responded by accusing the Governor of “betrayal” and even told Post columnist Marc Fisher, “The governor did not keep his promise… This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that.” That should make for interesting reading for the many anti-slots voters in District 18.
This issue is turning into a significant internal feud within the Maryland Democratic Party. Each side has something important to lose.
On one side is the Democratic establishment. Over the long term, the state party benefits by strengthening its ties to immigrant voters, especially Latinos. These voters are often socially conservative and will require economic reasons to vote Democratic. It would be wise for politicians to remember that immigrants often belong to large, mixed households that include legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and citizens. Measures that target illegal immigrants tend to antagonize their entire families, and many members of these families are citizens who vote.
On the other side is the state’s Latino leadership. As mentioned above, Delegate Gutierrez has used terms like “scarlet letter” and “betrayal” in describing the administration’s policies. (One can only imagine what is being said in Spanish-language media.) This sort of hot rhetoric, flung about in the newspapers like searing frying pans, may very well earn the enmity of both the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. And that may prevent the District 18 delegation from obtaining movement on its urgent transportation priorities. In fact, many of Delegate Gutierrez’s constituents are undoubtedly viewing the growing rift with unease, if not dismay.
And so the two sides have a strong incentive to compromise, perhaps using something resembling MDOT’s original proposal as a starting point. But neither side is showing much inclination at the moment. Happy memories of a new state-financed immigrant services center in Langley Park are rapidly fading. Should the feud escalate, it will create bad consequences for state Democrats, immigrants, and quite possibly, District 18 residents.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What Ana Didn't Get for Slots
According to Marc Fisher's column, Gov. Martin O'Malley broke a promise to Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez to back retaining driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants:In the 2006 campaign, the governor won the Hispanic vote with appearances such as one at Casa de Maryland, the immigrant advocacy group in Takoma Park, where he told reporters that "I don't believe that at the state and local level that we should exacerbate the problem by enacting policies that put up . . . barriers to getting a driver's license or getting to and from work or home." Unlike the previous governor, who famously called multiculturalism "bunk," O'Malley seemed intent on embracing Hispanic immigrants, even if they arrived illegally.
So advocates such as Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) and Kim Propeack, Casa's director of political action, accused O'Malley of a "betrayal" -- both women used the word -- when he announced last week that Maryland would no longer issue licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. As of 2010, when the federal Real ID law kicks into effect, even people who have long held Maryland licenses will be denied renewals.
"The governor did not keep his promise," Gutierrez says. "This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that."
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Know Nothings in the 2008 Election
Americans often tout our country's diversity and how the ancestors of most Americans came here from somewhere else seeking a better life. When I was a kid, the Smithsonian hosted an exhibit called "A Nation of Nations" which sums us up about as well as our national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" or "One Out of Many."
On the other hand, Americans don't often tout our history of nativism which has a long if undistinguished pedigree. The anti-Catholic Know Nothings rode high in the 1850s, founding the ironically named "Native American Party". Former President Millard Fillmore carried Maryland on an anti-immigrant ticket in 1856. I guess the people forgot that the Colony of Maryland had been founded as a Catholic refuge and named for a Catholic Queen.
America is currently going through yet another of its cycles of high immigration followed by nativism. Although his presidential campaign is going nowhere fast, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo has managed nonetheless to attract a few headlines with his extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric:
"Look at what has happened to Miami. It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a Third World country," Tancredo said.Less widely reported is that Tancredo received a standing ovation at the Family Research Council so-called "Values Voters Summit" in DC this past weekend when he tried out the same line according to someone I know who attended. The right-wing National Review bloggers seemed to miss that particular sound bite though they discuss other glorious moments in Tancredo's speech here and here. Suffice it to say that it is a good thing Mary and Joseph didn't look for shelter in Tancredo's manger.
While Tancredo will not get far in his quest to be the next Millard Fillmore, the Washington Post reports that the desperate Republicans are likely to turn to anti-immigration as a theme in the 2008 elections. They've certainly done it before. Pete Wilson won reelection as governor of California in 1994 by running against illegal immigrants. His campaign commercials showed immigrants sneaking over the border with the voiceover saying "They keep coming and coming."
Pete Wilson won one more term but alienated Latinos permanently. The share of Latinos registering as Republicans dropped to near zero and California Latinos became a loyal Democratic voting bloc. In contrast, at the same time, the Republican governor of another state with a large Latino population reached out to Latinos and dramatically increased his share of the Latino vote. His name? George W. Bush.
Of course, as President, Bush did not choose to act on immigration under his popularity was in the toilet and he couldn't get immigration reform through Congress. Even so, Bush is positively progressive on the issue compared to many of his fellow partisans. My guess is that this is one aspect of the Bush legacy that Republicans will choose not to embrace.
Immigration doesn't just roil American politics. There were riots in the capital of Switzerland (yes, really) over this question during their recent election campaign. The Swiss People's Party has gradually risen from the fourth to first largest party in the land by combining opposition to the EU with opposition to immigration. Their election propaganda in the recent campaign showed three white sheep kicking a black sheep off of a Swiss flag.
Efforts to make it easier for people to naturalize have failed in Switzerland. In 2003, a major of Swiss voted against making it simpler for third-generation Swiss who resided legally in the country to gain Swiss citizenship. Over one-fifth of Swiss residents are not Swiss citizens so the high number of non-citizens remains a bit problem.
Perhaps we should be thankful that the 14th Amendment, which says that all people born in this country are citizens of the United States by right, prevents immigration from being a multi-generational nightmare here. While only a relatively slim majority of Latinos are citizens, over four-fifths of Latinos under age 18 are citizens. Latinos are also the fastest growing group of voters in the country. Republicans should consider that fact before they turn 2008 into our big immigrant bashing election.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Gutierrez Fights Immigration Warrants
The Washington Post reports:
Things got a bit heated when the issue of enforcing immigration warrants came up last week during Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger's monthly meeting with members of the Latino community.
State Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) was challenging Manger's decision to ask officers to pick up immigration violators and turn them over to the federal government. The civil warrants in recent years have been added to the FBI-run National Crime Information Center database and pop up when a county officer runs a computer check during routine stops.
Manger said he wished the warrants weren't in the database but couldn't ask his officers to ignore them. Manger has been criticized by some in the county who have called him a member of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal-immigration group.
The discussion prompted former County Council member Michael L. Subin, who heads the county's Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission, to stand up and defend Manger.
"Anyone who questions the honor of Chief Manger is questioning my honor," Subin said. "If you compare him to the Minutemen, you are calling him a racist and a fascist."
Gutierrez -- who identified herself when the meeting began only as a "citizen and taxpayer," not as a delegate -- reiterated that she felt the civil warrants didn't belong in the database, which was created as a repository for criminal records.
"I give up," Subin said, as he stormed out of the room. "I don't want to waste my breath."
Later that day, Gutierrez and other Latino leaders met with County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) but failed to persuade him to ask Manger to disregard the warrants.
Immigration isn't controversial just at the national level, though I fear that the federal government's failure to address the issue in a serious way will only exacerbate the problem. I'm just glad that the Constitution prevents this from becoming a multi-generational problem like in so many other countries without birthright citizenship. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.While the share of Latinos in the U.S. who are not American citizens is somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, the share of Latinos under the age of 18 who are citizens (and future voters) is over 80 percent. Politicians and parties should take note.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Karl Rove on Immigration
Think Progress catches Karl Rove "thinking" out lout on immigration:
Karl Rove was quoted telling a group of conservatives he supports President Bush’s immigration policies because “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” ABC reports: “The White House does not deny that Rove made the remark but claims it has been taken out of context. … Rove was not insulting those people in those jobs, the White House explained, he was, according to Perino, saying that every parent wants their child to have a high-skilled, high-wage job.”Of course, Rove's explanation for his remarks makes no sense so one suspects that the presidential advisor was understood perfectly well the first time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
