| | |  Editorials | Opinions 
Utah Should Shun Arizona's Immigration Law
 Mark Alvarez - Salt Lake City Tribune
go to original
June 13, 2010
 |  | Government has ignored enforcement of immigration law for decades in the interest of a status quo that mostly benefited from cheap undocumented immigrant labor. |  | | |
Arizona's new immigration law is logical but cruel. Public support of the law is understandable: The federal government has dropped the ball on immigration and someone must act. But should government act in this way?
The Arizona proposal certainly was rushed: Within a week of passage, the Legislature amended the text in the face of widespread criticism touching on racism, xenophobia, constitutionality and the essence of America as a nation of immigrants. Words such as "Gestapo" and "bigots" were not uncommon.
The Arizona law is being challenged in court. It is arguably constitutional. That does not make it right.
Utah legislators are discussing a softer proposal for our state. Policy would require the standard of "probable cause" rather than "reasonable suspicion" as a trigger for immigration status verification. It would also have protections for witnesses in investigations and safeguards against racial profiling.
Let's look at the Arizona law, though, before jumping to decisions.
Legislative intent is often difficult to find. Not so for this Arizona law; intent is expressed in paragraph one. The first part concerns "a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona."
Law enforcement agencies at federal, state and local levels should coordinate their efforts. Nevertheless, systemic challenges including varied training programs, diverse priorities across agencies and regions, and communication barriers, logistical and legal, make coordination difficult. Coordination is especially elusive in immigration, given broad agreement that the current system has become outdated.
Another intent expressed in the Arizona law is the enactment of "attrition through enforcement [as] the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." The principle of "attrition through enforcement" follows from an influential article published in 2005 by Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Krikorian acknowledged that mass deportations would not work. Given supposed opposition to any reform that would give undocumented immigrants lawful status, Krikorian proposed a third way that would downsize "illegal immigration" by intensifying enforcement of immigration law and making it increasingly more difficult for undocumented immigrants to live in the United States.
Krikorian argued that most undocumented immigrants would ultimately "self-deport." Essentially, Krikorian wanted the government to squeeze the undocumented population until it left. This is the cruel heart of the Arizona law.
Undocumented immigrants have worked hard. Government has ignored enforcement of immigration law for decades in the interest of a status quo that mostly benefited from cheap undocumented immigrant labor.
Many Utah construction projects es across the state would have been much costlier without undocumented immigrant labor. Most of those workers had no realistic path to legal residence or a work permit. The problem was not bad people but bad law.
Improving immigration law and enforcement is a crucial task, but justice requires respect for fundamental values. Those who broke bad law that ultimately benefited many should not be broken by cruelty.
Utah is not Arizona. Utahns should express their opposition to "attrition through enforcement," and their support of humane immigration reform. Qualifying undocumented immigrants have earned their shot at the American dream.
Mark Alvarez is a Salt Lake City attorney and a member of the Salt Lake City Library Board. He co-hosts a Spanish-language radio show. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us