Arizona Governor Jan Brewer contributed mightily to the growing conflict over immigration when she threatened to enforce the law. She signed a bill yesterday establishing the most restrictive immigration law in the country. Under the new law, it will be illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The law would require police to "make a reasonable attempt" to ascertain the legal status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" regarding that person's immigration status. Immigrants would be required to provide documents proving they are in the country legally: documents they are obliged to possess. Additionally, it would allow laws suits to be filed against state and local agencies that are deemed to be abetting illegal immigration.
It is estimated that there almost 20 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Some put the number lower, others put it higher. Of those, 460,000 are in Arizona: an impressive number when you consider the population of Arizona is only six and a half million. The number of illegal immigrants is going up every day. Also, illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in certain areas making their impact greater than their overall numbers suggest. It is in the areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants that the greatest costs and turmoil over immigration exists. Arizona's new law may seem drastic to people in Vermont, but it has great resonance in Arizona.
The new law was quickly condemned by many. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles breathlessly equated the new law to "Nazism." Mexico is also upset over the law. It expressed concern about the rights of its citizens, a concern less often observed at home than abroad. Mexican President Felipe Calderon called the law an obstacle to solving shared problems of the border region. Mexico's problems in the border region are very different than Arizona's. For Mexico, immigration is often a bonus. It relieves pressure in many poor areas of Mexico and provides a substantial flow of income from money sent home by Mexican immigrants in the U.S. One can only speculate what Calderon's response would be if the situation was reversed and tens of thousands of Americans were regularly stealing into Mexico. Pro immigrant groups are predictably up in arms. Relying as they do on numbers to make their case, stricter immigration laws might affect their memberships and political clout.
President Obama has criticized the law as misguided, even harmful. He chided Arizona, saying the law threatened to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and communities" - as if enforcing the law was unfair. Fairness under law traditionally means the even application of the law regardless of person or circumstance. Exempting some people from obeying immigration laws is anything but fair. Mexicans should have to obey the same immigration laws that everyone else has to. As for undermining the trust between police and communities, if Obama was not speaking of the trust by illegal immigrants that they will not be apprehended and punished for violating immigration law, I am not sure what he was talking about.
The Arizona law reflects the frustration of many states with high illegal immigration. There are laws against illegal immigration, hence the title "illegal". The federal government has long been casual in enforcing those laws. It is state and local governments that have had to bear the brunt of the federal government's disinterest in enforcing immigration laws. Apart from the social and psychological dislocation caused by rapidly shifting demographics, there are concrete costs. Social services have had to be expanded to meet the needs of immigrants, many of whom are unskilled and illiterate, not just in English, but Spanish as well. Documents and services have to be duplicated to serve those unable to speak English: a not inconsiderable cost. School funding has had to be increased to meet the needs of the children of illegal immigrants: again, a burden that state and local governments often have to bear.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants in 2004 alone was $29.6 billion. Most of that additional cost was in places like Arizona and California with high concentrations of illegal immigrants. California spent $10.5 billion in 2007 to educate, incarcerate, and provide health care to illegal immigrants. It would be surprising if those costs have gone down. Against these costs are the benefits of cheap labor. But cheap labor has costs of its own, the most prominent of which is poverty. Additionally, local law enforcement has had to be increased to deal with many of the problems associated with porous borders, not least of which is drugs. There are numerous other costs associated with illegal immigration. Those costs are also largely borne by state and local governments.
There are many studies that exist concerning the costs and benefits of illegal immigration to the U.S. In 2007, the CBO concluded in regard to illegal immigration that "no agreement exists as to the size, or even the best way of measuring the cost at a national level." At the state level on the other hand, it is easier to measure the costs. They are closer to the problem and have a much better sense of the costs and benefits provided by illegal immigration. One conclusion that the majority of studies share is that it costs more than it benefits.
The federal government has done a poor job of securing the border and enforcing the law. In many cases, it has chosen to overlook the law, even at times intervening, as is the case in Arizona, to prevent its enforcement. Arizona is not seeking to change immigration laws, it is simply trying to enforce laws the federal government has enacted but proved reluctant to enforce. The governor stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."
Illegal immigration is a growing problem in the U.S., especially for those states forced to cope with large numbers of illegal immigrants. The majority of polls taken shows that most Americans believe that the federal government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. The numbers suggest they are right in their concern. Statistics show that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased sharply over the last two decades. It is estimated that 3.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally in 1990. In 2006, it was estimated that 12 million entered illegally. Despite recent information that the rate of illegal immigration has slowed due to the poor economy, the number is going up every day. If the federal government is unable, or unwilling to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it should not begrudge the states for trying to enforce them.
No doubt there will be many problems associated with trying to enforce the new law. What precisely a "reasonable suspicion" is or what constitutes a "reasonable attempt" will have to be worked out: assuming the law stands long enough for the issues to come up. Nevertheless, the effort by Arizona to gain control over its immigration problem is not unfair, racist, or tyrannical. It is simply trying to enforce the law and address a growing problem: a problem Washington should be taking care of, but isn't. If people object to immigration laws, those laws should be changed, not violated or ignored.
Illegal immigration is an active and growing problem. The longer it is not addressed, the worse it gets. Every year the issue gets put off the solution gets more difficult. The government needs to do something about it one way or the other. The federal government should help or get out of the way. Illegal immigration is not a pressing problem in many parts of the nation, but it is in Arizona. That is why Arizona is acting and Vermont is indignant. Therein lies the rub.
There are many who point out that laws against illegal immigration will not stop it. They are correct. But I would point out that laws against robbing banks do not stop people from robbing banks either, but that is no reason to ignore bank robbery. It is even less reason to legalize it.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obama in the Polls
In the latest poll by Ramussen, 29% of those polled strongly approve of the job Obama is doing. 39% strongly disapprove. Last year, nearly 68% strongly approved of the job Obama was doing. Only 12% strongly disapproved. Recently, the numbers were even. 46% approved, 46% disapproved. Polls across the board show Obama's numbers have dropped significantly. Most polls show those numbers are not getting any better. Many show they are getting worse. Many democrats are facing uphill fights in the Fall elections. Even long time incumbent Senator Boxer is in trouble in California. The forecast for democrats this fall is not very bright.
By objective standards, Obama has had an extraordinary term so far. Every major effort he has undertaken, from the economy, to the environment, to his most recent triumph over health care has ended in success. In each of these efforts, Obama has claimed to have the public on his side and their interests at heart. So why are his numbers falling?
Obama's sagging numbers are probably due in part to two reasons. First of all, despite his bold promises and impressive spending, things have not improved very much. The modest gains in the economy have been hamstrung by the growing gloom concerning the future. It is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the implications of the mounting national debt. Perhaps a striking improvement in the economy would help to take people's minds off things. But there is little, if any improvement. So the people brood. Secondly, the massive expansion of the federal government is making people apprehensive. Government expansion would not be a bad thing if the government were efficient and responsive. But it is not. More and more of the economy is being swallowed by the government and disappearing into the federal swamp. The bigger government gets, the more people have to venture into the swamp. Most people like to avoid swamps.
Neither have things improved on the global stage. The world is no safer now than when Obama took office. Despite his peace prize, the world is no more peaceful now than it was two years ago. Obama has been unable to do very much to ease international tension or resolve conflicts. Fighting drags on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestinians and Israelis are still dieing, Africans are still starving, and the North Koreans still have an atomic bomb. What is worse, Iran is now two years closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Obama took office promising hope and change. Two years ago it seemed anything was possible. Certainly Obama felt anything was possible. But Obama and his supporters mistook their impressive victory for licence and attempted to remake America and the world. They have overplayed their hand. Along the way they have shifted from giving the people what they felt the people wanted, to giving the people what they felt the people needed. Obama's recent health care victory is a case in point. As the debate dragged on, the people grew more and more disenchanted. As disenchantment grew, Obama worked harder to get his plan passed. It was as if he was in a race against the public. Rarely has anyone ever had to work so hard to give away so much to so many.
The Democrat's flagging numbers should be a sign to Democrats, and Republicans as well, that it is perhaps time to stop telling the American public what it wants and ask them. It is not the job of the government to tell people what they want. It is the job of government to ask the people what they want and help them get it. Government should follow the people, not lead them. But that is a concept of government manifestly unsuited to a man like Obama. Obama sees it as his destiny to lead. His job, as he understands it, is to get the American public to follow him. Obama's sagging poll numbers indicate that the public is losing interest in where Obama is trying to lead them and becoming less and less willing to follow him.
By objective standards, Obama has had an extraordinary term so far. Every major effort he has undertaken, from the economy, to the environment, to his most recent triumph over health care has ended in success. In each of these efforts, Obama has claimed to have the public on his side and their interests at heart. So why are his numbers falling?
Obama's sagging numbers are probably due in part to two reasons. First of all, despite his bold promises and impressive spending, things have not improved very much. The modest gains in the economy have been hamstrung by the growing gloom concerning the future. It is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the implications of the mounting national debt. Perhaps a striking improvement in the economy would help to take people's minds off things. But there is little, if any improvement. So the people brood. Secondly, the massive expansion of the federal government is making people apprehensive. Government expansion would not be a bad thing if the government were efficient and responsive. But it is not. More and more of the economy is being swallowed by the government and disappearing into the federal swamp. The bigger government gets, the more people have to venture into the swamp. Most people like to avoid swamps.
Neither have things improved on the global stage. The world is no safer now than when Obama took office. Despite his peace prize, the world is no more peaceful now than it was two years ago. Obama has been unable to do very much to ease international tension or resolve conflicts. Fighting drags on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestinians and Israelis are still dieing, Africans are still starving, and the North Koreans still have an atomic bomb. What is worse, Iran is now two years closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Obama took office promising hope and change. Two years ago it seemed anything was possible. Certainly Obama felt anything was possible. But Obama and his supporters mistook their impressive victory for licence and attempted to remake America and the world. They have overplayed their hand. Along the way they have shifted from giving the people what they felt the people wanted, to giving the people what they felt the people needed. Obama's recent health care victory is a case in point. As the debate dragged on, the people grew more and more disenchanted. As disenchantment grew, Obama worked harder to get his plan passed. It was as if he was in a race against the public. Rarely has anyone ever had to work so hard to give away so much to so many.
The Democrat's flagging numbers should be a sign to Democrats, and Republicans as well, that it is perhaps time to stop telling the American public what it wants and ask them. It is not the job of the government to tell people what they want. It is the job of government to ask the people what they want and help them get it. Government should follow the people, not lead them. But that is a concept of government manifestly unsuited to a man like Obama. Obama sees it as his destiny to lead. His job, as he understands it, is to get the American public to follow him. Obama's sagging poll numbers indicate that the public is losing interest in where Obama is trying to lead them and becoming less and less willing to follow him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)