The Utah Way

The story of Utah's attempt at immigration reform is a story that has not received a lot of attention and it should. As this story from NPR notes, the state is about as Republican as they come and they came up with an approach that was part-enforcement and part-guest worker program. The story notes that Republicans in Utah learned from their conservative brethren in Arizona what NOT to do:

If you were to choose a state that would allow illegal immigrants to work and drive without fear of deportation, you probably wouldn't pick Utah.

"We have to understand, Utah is one of the most conservative states in the country," says Alfonso Aguilar, who runs the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. He says that Utah's new law shows that Republicans can find a middle course.

"The governor's Republican; the House and Senate are dominated by Republicans," Aguilar says. "And they saw what happened in Arizona. They passed an enforcement-only law. It has driven away investment, business, workers that the Arizona economy needs."

In Utah, Aguilar says, "they wanted to deal with enforcement — but balance it with measures that are more business-friendly. And that's exactly what they did."

Last Wednesday, Utah's Gov. Gary R. Herbert signed a package of immigration bills. One is an enforcement law, milder than Arizona's, but still opposed by liberal immigration advocates. Another is a guest-worker bill, which is opposed by some conservatives as amnesty.

It's heartening to see conservatives come up with an approach that is realistic and not punitive. Will Washington's conservatives follow suit?

h/t: Solomon Kleinsmith

Immigration and the Rule of Law

While I have supported immigration reform and have long argued that the GOP's anti-immigrant stance will hurt them electorally in the long run, I have always believed that those in this country without going through the proper channels have to respect the rule of law and try to become citizens. I am not for trying to round up all illegal aliens and send them back to their countries of origin. But I do think we have immigration laws for a reason, and even as broken as they are, they need to be respected. This was the reason I supported the immgration policy supported by President Bush that created a path to citizenship, but also made those in the country illegally have to pay a fine. The proposed law both welcomed new immigrants and also upheld the law.

My belief in upholding the rule of law comes from another belief: that to be an American is not simply about paying taxes to the government, but it is about learning about the history (good and bad) of this nation, and learning the ways and customs of the United States. (I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining this, but think of it as orientation class.)

So reading Tim Lee's takedown of those who talk about respecting the law is a bit troubling to me. (Lee talks more on the "rule of law" argument at his own blog.) I do think the case of Eric Balderas is a sad one, and I don't think he should be blamed for something his parents did. It's why I think we need to have immigration reform to allow for someone like Eric to become a citizen without having to leave the only home he knows.

That said, I think Lee tends to paint with too broad a brush those who want the rule of law upheld. He notes:

Balderas's real crime is neither sneaking across the border 15 years ago nor failing to fill out the right paperwork. Rather, his crime is belonging to a nationality that American policy makers have decided is over-represented in this country. And there's a significant constituency for this policy among American voters, some of whom simply believe that there are too many foreigners here. But this viewpoint has little to do with the rule of law. The rule of law doesn't demand that we punish children for the crimes of their parents, or that we punish people for crimes they committed decades ago. And if you demand stricter enforcement of the existing laws while vociferously opposing all proposals to expand the legal channels for coming to this country, then I hope you'll forgive me if I conclude that you don't actually care about people like Eric Balderas.

Now, I get what Lee is trying to say. If you are talking about rule of law, but in the same breath calling any proposal to make reform immigration "amnesty" then yes, one has to question if what bothers them is the color of their skin and maybe their accent. But Lee doesn't make that clear until the last paragraph and seems to portray anyone that does think the rule of law matters as some kind of narrow-minded redneck. I am pro-immigrant and cases like Eric's remind us why we need reform. And we need reform to reform our laws. But we have laws for a reason. As Travis Johnson noted, we have immigration laws to help protect us as a nation from outside threats.

Immigrants who came to the states came here illegally and in violation of the law. That's not a good thing. The answer to this is to reform the law and also find ways to help the immigrants come out of the shadows, own up to their violations (by paying a fine) and them find ways to legally intergrate them into American society.

As President Ford once said, we are a nation of laws and not men. The law should not be an instrument of exclusion as some on the right want it to be, but neither should it be ignored.

By the Time I Get to Arizona

Would police in Arizona pull over my mother?

My mom was born in raised in Puerto Rico. She came to the mainland in 1963 and settled in Michigan, where she met my dad. All of my uncles on my Mom's side tend to be dark-skinned, reflective of the African heritage that is part of what makes up modern Puerto Rico. But my Mom and my late Grandmother are lighter skinned, blessed with a rust colored skin that is common among many Puerto Ricans.

But would a cop in Arizona know that? Would they realize that she is and has always been an American citizen? Would they even know Puerto Rico is part of the United States? Or would they look at her skin and her accent and assume that she might be an illegal immigrant?

As you've probably guessed, I am not in favor of the current law in Arizona signed by their Republican governor. I think it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics; putting them up for suspicion simply because of the color of their skin. Meghan McCain couldn't have said it any better:

Let me say upfront that I do not support the bill that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer. I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents. Simply put, I think it is a bad law that is missing the bigger picture of what is really going on with illegal immigration. The concept that a law-enforcement official can stop an individual when “reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien, who is unlawfully present in the United States” is essentially a license to pull someone over for being Hispanic.

I'm not someone who favors "open borders" believing anyone should just come into the United States. As Travis noted, we want to make sure that no bad guys are coming in along with all the good people. I also believe we are a nations of laws, and those who enter the country illegally have broken the law and have to pay for that.

But this law is the wrong way to try to solve this issue. I can't say that if it is intentional, but I believe the law is at least in application, racist. It is based on fear instead of reason.

We need an immigration policy that is based on security and enforcement. That said, we also need to do something about the 12 million who are in the country illegally. It is not feasible, nor is even ethical to try to round up all of these folks and send them back where they came from. So, that means trying to find ways to get them to come out of the shadows and create a process that allows them to become Americans.

I can already hear the cries of "amnesty!" coming from some conservatives. Nevermind that some of the more recent attempts to reform our immigration laws included having these immigrants pay a fine for coming into the country illegally. Anything short of putting these people on a bus headed South will be called "amnesty" by these folks and says speaks volumes about their hearts.

This law also will ruin chances of the GOP reaching out to Latinos. President Bush was not my favorite president, but he at least tried hard to make the party more inclusive to Hispanics. He tried to reform immigration in way that would be more inclusive, but was rebuffed by the hard right. That might please whites in the GOP who seem afraid of brown-skinned persons, but in the long run, as America becomes more diverse, it will be Republican Party that will be on the losing end.

If there are any Republicans left who believe in fairness and justice, we must speak out against this law and call for real reform. This is a slap in the face to a party founded on equality and civil rights.