L-America-immigration Policies During the Obama-April 12

7/30/2019 L-America-immigration Policies During the Obama-April 12

1/10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LATIN AMERICA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The US has an age-old ambivalence about immigrants.

It proclaims the human rights of all citizens of the Union,

but denies to others the citizenship associated with those rights.

The country needs immigrants to fill jobs, and theyre given work,

but at the same time theyre denied their papers.

The Obama governments paralysis isnt for lack of policy.

The immigration policies during Obamas time

crudely express this ambivalence.

.

The only point of consensus regarding the

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

S 1348), a federal compromise bill touted as both

smoothing the way for illegal immigrants already inside the

country to get citizenship and beefing up control of the

southern border, was the haste to get funding to complete

the border wall and increase its surveillance, plastering over

its porosity once and for all. The failure to get cloture after

a month of debate effectively sparked a free-for-all on

immigration policy by state legislators. Thousands of

overlapping and competing bills appeared in the following

years, one on top of the other.The starting point for S 1348 was the building of a dyke

to contain the seemingly uncontrollable flow of immigrants

and impose some order in a house where many felt there

were no longer enough beds for so many people. But what to

Immigration policies during

the Obama administration

JOS LUIS ROCHA

do with all those already ensconced on the living room couch

watching the Oprah Winfrey Show, mowing the lawn in the

backyard, browning some enchiladas on the grill with that

abominable barbecue sauce and reading John Dewey and Jos

Mart on the porch?

Tolerance of and adversity to the invaders

The most tolerant leaned toward pragmatic coexistence with

what already amounted to a fait accompli; their views ran

and still runsthe range from certain forms of immigro-

philia to an intelligent and selfish calculation of the roleimmigrants play in the US economy. Without exhausting

the list, we could include countless activists among the

former group, while the latter contains those businesspeople

who are somewhat satisfied with the meager temporary

42

envo


2/10

LATIN AMERICA

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

april 2012

Those most adverse to the invaders

saw Congressman James

Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and his anti-

immigrant HR 4437 bill (Border

Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal

Immigration Control Act of 2005) as

their Moses and Torah, respectively

migration quotas and criteria allowed by the Department of

Homeland Security.

Those most adverse to the invaders saw Congressman

James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and his anti-immigrant HR

4437 bill (Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal

Immigration Control Act of 2005) as their Moses and Torah,

respectively. That bill, submitted to the House of

Representatives two years earlier, was a xenophobes

paradise: a 1,120-kilometer wall along the US border with

Mexico at the points where most undocumented immigrants

cross; giving the federal government custody of illegal aliens

detained by local authorities; employers having to verify

their workers legal status through electronic media, with

reports sent to Congress to ensure that such verifications

are being carried out; the elimination of sanctuary cities

such as Chicago and New Yorkwhich ignore the more

restrictive stipulations; incorporation of satellite communi-

cations for immigration officials; deportable immigrants

having to provide US$3,000 toward their voluntary

repatriation; a minimum of 10 years in jail for carrying false

documents; the obligation of any foreigner applying for legal

status to produce a criminal record guaranteeing that they

are not on the terrorist list; three years in prison for anyone

lodging undocumented immigrants, etc., etc. The House

approved HR 4437 by 239 votes, with 182 opposed, but the

Senate rejected it.

roughness with John Wayne and Margaret Hamilton (the

Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz).

Although approved to great acclaim in public opinion,

SB 1070 also kicked up a lot of opposition. The original

proposal was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162, and the

state congress people had no option but to sugar the bitter

pill with it. This hurried modification suppresses SB 1070s

most clearly racist traits. For example, the original says

that A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a

county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state

may not solely consider race, color or national origin in

implementing the requirements of this subsection except

to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona

Constitution.

The amended version removed the word solely, but

while this recurring statement therefore moderates the new

kind of racism involved in even considering race, color or

national origin in such situations, it tacitly recognizes andthus still authorizes any form of racism that might already

be established in either the US or Arizona Constitution. The

reform also specifies that an aliens immigration status may

only be determined by law enforcement officers federally

authorized to do so. Jail sentences for first offenses

particularly those applicable to employerswere reduced

by half or even eliminated altogether. In short, certain words

and figures were changed but the bills savage spirit was

preserved.

These slight amendments, however, did not placate the

opposition. On July 28, 2010, just 24 hours before the law

was to come into force, US District Judge Susan Bolton in

Phoenix issued a temporary injunction against its mostcontroversial clauses. According to the Christian Science

Monitor, Bolton embraced arguments by Justice Department

lawyers, who challenged the laws constitutionality and

compliance with civil rights, and by the Obama administra-

The Arizona law:

Slight changes to the text, not the spirit

In sum, none of the federal proposals, whether immigro-

philic or immigrophobic, generated consensus, resulting

in the contest passing to the arena of the countrys 50 states.In the first quarter of last year alone, 1,538 bills and

resolutions were introduced. Immigration super-conserva-

tives were the most active lobbyists: offense is the best form

of defense has always been the creed of the bullies of history.

Xenophobiaan ancient phenomenon with renewed sex

appealwon the day in various southern states.

In July 2010, Arizona, which would appear not to be in

its appropriate geographic zone, unveiled the Support Our

Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (introduced

as Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and thus often referred to as

Arizona SB 1070). It contained a wealth of demands for

documents, fines and the jailing of immigrants and anyone

who lodges, employs or transports them. Jan Brewer, thegovernor who signed the act into law, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio,

who is willing to apply the law in all of its and his

coarsenessbecame something akin to Hollywood person-

alities, competing in popularity, media effectiveness and


3/10

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

envo

LATIN AMERICA

Arizonas law thus triggered what was

most feared: the imitation of worstpractices; the opening of a Pandoras

Box of laws, decrees, operatives and

other gadflies of the most repressive

immigration policies

tion that SB 1070 is preempted because it interfered with

executive branch control over immigration policy. Arizonas

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Boltons

suspension of the most egregious stipulations.

they were captured but because they fledbut so did the

number employed, which led to a fall in the volume of buyers,

sales, dividends and taxes. While Republican Senator Russell

Pearce, who backed SB 1070, trumpeted that the exodus of

undocumented immigrants has been the biggest victory in

reducing the costs of the health and education services

provided to the US-born children of undocumented

immigrants, the Center for American Progress (CAP), a

progressive think-tank, contrasted the current policy and its

results with an opposing approach: the acts application could

lead to a 17.2% drop in employment and cause losses to the

state economy of up to US$48.8 billion, while legalizing

undocumented immigrants could generate a 7.7% increase

in employment and increased tax revenue of $1.86 billion.

At the beginning of 2011, the business community

pointed out that the boycott against Arizona had already cost

the conference industry $140 million in losses. Their lobbying

was effective, promptly leading the Arizona Senate to reject

various legislative proposals that would have further hit

immigrants. One of them would have denied US nationality

to the Arizona-born children of undocumented immigrants,

even thoughjus soli (the principle that a persons nationality

at birth is determined by the place of birth) has always applied

without restrictions in the United States.

Arizona is like a laboratory

for anti-immigrant laws

The challenges to such xenophobic policies are still like

isolated swallows: they dont yet make a summer. This

spectacular defeat is demonstrated by the results of a

nationwide survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion

in the period between the Arizona acts approval and itsentry into force. According to that survey, 71% of respondents

are in favor of both requiring state and local police to

determine the status of a person if there is reasonable

suspicion that they are illegal immigrants and arresting

people who are unable to provide documentation to prove

they are in the U.S. legally. Meanwhile, 64% believed that

immigration was having a negative effect in the US, 58%

that undocumented immigrants take jobs away from US

workers and 45% that all undocumented workers in the

United States should be pulled from their jobs and massively

deported. Only 16% would allow them to work on a

temporary basis, and not many more (28%) would allow them

to stay in the US and eventually apply for citizenship.Midwest respondents tended to give the responses most

adverse to immigration.

Arizonas law thus triggered what was most feared: a

demonstration effect; the imitation of worst practices; the

The boycott of Arizona

causes million-dollar losses

Politicians from other states decided to attack Arizonas

shameless racism. As early as June 15, 2010, the Sacramento

California City Council issued Resolution 2010 Opposing

Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2162 and calling for a boycott of the

State of Arizona and Arizona-headquartered businesses. One

of the reasons mentioned in the resolution was that

Sacramento has historically supported policies that prohibit

discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender,

sexual orientation and disability and has been proclaimed

the most diverse and integrated city in the United States.

The measures adopted by the City Council, which would

remain in effect until such time as Arizona repeals or a court

nullifies SB 1070 and HB 2162, include the following: no city

official or employee shall attend a conference in or travel to an

Arizona destination at city expense or with city resources;where practicable and where there is no significant additional

cost to the city, the city of Sacramento shall not enter into any

new, amended, extended or supplemental contracts to purchase

or procure goods or services from any business or entity

headquartered in Arizona; and the city manager shall direct

staff to review existing contracts for the purchase of goods and

services with businesses or entities headquartered in Arizona

and to explore opportunities to lawfully terminate those

contracts consistent with their terms, if practicable and if

there are no significant additional costs to the city.

Indifferent toor even encouraged bythe flurry of anti-

HB 2162 reactions, the never sufficiently defamed Joe

Arpaio, Sheriff of Arizonas Maricopa County, has continuedmaking his arrests. The recent legislation, Arpaios fame

and the slew of antibodies both have generated have cut

both ways for Arizona. The number of undocumented

immigrants dropped by 100,000 in 2010 alonenot because


4/10

LATIN AMERICA

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

april 2012

opening of a Pandoras Box full of laws, decrees, operatives

and other gadflies of the most repressive immigration

policies. Arizona became the anti-immigrant laboratory,

from whence laws started to be exported to many states of

the Union.

Florida: In March 2011, Florida representatives

introduced HB 7089, which would make the federal E-Verify

program (an internet-based system that allows businesses

to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in

the United States) obligatory, while SB 2040, a more

comprehensive and controversial crackdown bill, was

introduced into the Senate the previous month. On May 5,

with no debate whatsoever, the senators voted in favor of SB

2040 by 23 to 16, but only after having opposed an amend-

ment that pushed for broader use of the E-Verify system,

thus shooting down its obligatory nature. The bill did,

however, authorize the police to verify migratory status, even

in the case of minor offenses, and turn undocumented

immigrants over to the immigration authorities. The House

bill was withdrawn two days later.

Another brick was laid in the anti-immigrant wall by

the Florida Senates Higher Education Committee, by

rejecting SB 1018, which would have allowed access to public

higher education by US-born children of undocumented

immigrants. Sen. Ren Garca of Miami, who backed the

bill, told the committee This is not an immigration issue.

This is an issue of inequality among US citizens. Despite

the bitterness of this defeat, activists rallied to ensure that

the Florida House rejected HB 7089made in the image

and likeness of the Arizona Act.

Georgia: In mid-May 2011, only weeks after the

District Appeals Court in Arizona upheld the striking down

of certain stipulations in the Arizona Act, Georgia rep-resentatives approved HB 87also a photocopy of that law

by 112 to 59 just a few hours after it was approved by the

Senate. By the time it went into effect on July 1, 2011,

Special US District Court Judge Thomas Thrash neutered

key elements in it as well, although some of its hardest

hitting clauses were retained: those authorizing the local

police to verify the migratory status of suspected illegal

immigrants and penalization of people who transport or

shelter them.

Tireless in combat and enraged by their partial defeat,

Georgias Republican state senators presented SB 458 this

February to force all public universities to verify their

students immigration status using a federal database anddeny access to anyone who cannot demonstrate that he or

she is in the country legally. Its not enough for them that

undocumented immigrants, even if admitted due to excellent

qualifications, are ineligible for either federal or state

financial aid and must pay the fees assigned to out-of-state

students even if they are residents of Georgia.

Alabama: Georgias western neighbor didnt want to

be left behind. Since September 2011, Alabamas HB 56

has imposed detention of undocumented immigrants even

for mere traffic infractions, made it impossible for businesses

to declare wages paid to them as expenses and extended E-

Verifyto schoolchildren. Paraphrasing the bills Republican

backers, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Andr Segura

called the law a new version of the Arizona law, but with an

Alabama flavor. In reaction, a wave of immigrants

immediately headed off to law firms to accredit third parties

as responsible for their children and material goods.

Activists have challenged the constitutionality of this

anti-immigrant law and declared that half a century after

the civil rights movement of the sixties, Alabama has once

more become ground zero in the fight for civil liberties.

Retired Judge U.W. Clemon, who was a civil rights activist

alongside Martin Luther King and the first African-American

federal judge, appointed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter,

condemned the law as a product of ignorance and of those

who continue to believe, even in the 21st century, that whites

are superior to all others. He lamented that it took us back

to the states racist past.

What is being called the One Family, One Alabama

campaign, aimed at repealing HB 56, was launched by the

16th Street Baptist Church, Birminghams first black church,

and the site of a bombing by the Ku Klux Klan on September

15, 1973, that killed four girls. Academics have also added

their voice to the struggle, with the University of Alabama

warning that the act will cause the exodus of 70-140,000

employees from the state, reduce the demand for goods and

services, shrink tax income by between $56.7 million and$264.5 million and cause the state economic losses of between

$2.3 billion and $10.8 billion (1-6% of the GDP).

Activists have challenged the

constitutionality of this anti-immigrant

law and declared that half a century

after the civil rights movement of the

sixties, Alabama has once more

become ground zero in the fight for

civil liberties


5/10

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

envo

LATIN AMERICA

Texas: Republican State Senator Rick Perry promoted

a bill that was approved in June 2011 by 19 votes to 12,

demanding that police officers interrogate detainees about

their immigration status, regardless of how insignificant the

reason for their detention. In the same state, Republican

Representative Debbie Riddle presented a bill to penalize

the hiring of undocumented immigrants, with the exception

of domestic workers, nannies and gardeners.

Democrats accused Riddle of hypocrisy in trying to get

rid of all illegal immigrants unless they are nannies working

for her friends. To Riddles great surprise, the San Antonio

Immigrant Youth Movement, mainly made up of undocu-

mented youths, is defending the right of young people without

documents to study at university. Bills such as Riddles,

inspired by the Florida ones, threaten 16,500 undocumented

university students who until now have had the right to pay

the same fees as citizens and/or residents and were promised

that their situation would be normalized.

Kansas: In a state where wild hogs are shot by gunmen

in helicopters, Republican Representative Virgil Peck voicedwhat some considered an irresistible invitation: Looks like

to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe

we have found a solution to our illegal immigration problem.

Activists charge that such outrageous declarations have

sparked a 40% rise in hate crimes against Latinos, also citing

a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center showing that in

2010 the number of racial hate groups in the USA topped

1,000 for the first time since the Center began counting

them in the 1980s, a 7.5% increase just since 2009.

Questioned immediately, he made light of his remark.

I was just speaking like a southeast Kansas person, he

said, but that drew fire from two other southeast Kansas

legislators, one of whom said I have no intention of lettingRepresentative Peck brand me with his own extremist views

just because I live in the same region. The pressure from

activists was so strong and so immediate that Governor Sam

Brownback and the Republican leadership of Kansas called

on him to apologize. My statements yesterday were

regrettable, he said. Please accept my apology. Hardly

mollified, the League of United Latin American Citizens

the largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization called

on Peck to resign immediately from office.

The anti-immigrant tidereaches New Mexico, Utah and Washington

Businesspeople in both Kansas and Oklahoma opposed

importing the Arizona legislation, arguing that such

measures would put their states at a disadvantage compared

to those that continued allowing undocumented labor. There

were also failed attempts to mount similar legislations in

Colorado and Nebraska.

But the tides of penalizing undocumented immigrants

did reach three relatively tolerant states: New Mexico,

Washington and Utah, the only three where driving licenses

are issued without discriminating by immigration status.

The license issuers say there are 83,000 undocumented

immigrants driving in New Mexico. Although Republican

legislators tried to make distinctions in between licenses for

undocumented immigrants and those for documented ones,

Businesspeople in both Kansas and

Oklahoma opposed importing the

Arizona legislation arguing that it would

put their states at a disadvantage

compared to those that continued

allowing undocumented labor

activists called it a positive sign that licenses are granted to

people who live, work and pay taxes in our states, regardless

of their immigration status. The debate was particularly

fierce in Washington state, but was resolved for economic

reasons: the technology to verify applicants immigration

status would cost $1.5 million a year.

In Utah, HB 497 gives the police authorization to check

the immigration status of people suspected of committing a

serious crime or displaying notably bad driving, but not in

the case of minor infringements. But there again concessionswere made to employers: a bill that would create a labor

commission to recruit workers in the Mexican state of Nuevo

Len, and another to create a temporary worker program in

2013, which commits the governor and district attorney to

negotiate with the federal government a special license that

would allow Utah employers to hire undocumented workers.

Reinforce the border but then what?

Are any better winds blowing in the broad federal arena?

Since its stuttering creation following the 9/11 attacks, the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has assiduously

responded to the anti-immigrant forces demand for a federalgovernment commitment to restrict irregular immigration.

Early in President G.W. Bushs second term, the

champions of a hermetically sealed border and an armed

immigration policy fed atavistic fears with the new,


6/10

LATIN AMERICA

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

april 2012

ubiquitous anti-terrorist ideology that was applicable both

beyond and within the countrys borders.

Conservatives and restrictionists ticked off the DHS work

agenda in a chorus that displayed little discord. On January

19, 2006, some prominent conservativesmany of them

elderly senators and representativessent an open letter to

President Bush somewhat pretentiously titled First Things

First on Immigration, in which they fervently argued that

border and interior enforcement must be funded, opera-

tional, implemented and proven successfuland only then

can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or

the need for new guest worker programs.

The letter, whose signatories included current Republi-

can presidential pre-candidate Newt Gingrich, was organized

imbued with the at-home version of the fight against

terrorism ideology, Napolitano boasted that the Safe

Communities programa pretentious label for what is

really an ethnic cleansing operationhad produced the

record figure of 195,000 deportees with criminal records in

2010. The expansion of the program from 14 jurisdictions in

2008 to over 1,000 in 2011with the southwest border as

the favorite targetwas responsible for this huge figure,

which has affected many immigrants with only minor

offenses. In South Carolina alone, the program identified

3,800 undocumented immigrants.

Napolitano also lauded the fact that, since 2009,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has audited

over 3,600 employers suspected of the abominable crime of

giving work to undocumented immigrants, suspending the

licenses of 260 businesses and individuals and reaping $56

million in fines. Napolitano also reported that more than

249,000 employers are using the voluntary E-Verify program.

by the ultra-conservative Hudson Institute and contained a

consensus among traditional conservatives, immigration

restrictionists, social policy conservatives, neoconservatives

and Republican political leaders.

Its all about security

The most unexpected addition to this xenophobic melting-

pot was the neoconservatives who occupied important foreign

affairs posts in the Bush administration. Led by Jews of

recent immigrant descent, they had tended to provide a pro-

immigrant voice until the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers,

but in this new context dominated by national security

ideology, they joined the growing anti-immigrant chorus.

In subsequent years, the First, reinforce the border

position grew in force even among Republicans who had been

most sympathetic to comprehensive immigration reform.

Ignoring the obvious political opportunism of this proposal

which will probably be followed by Second, reinforce theborder and clean housemany moderate and even liberal

Democrats took the bait and are joining up with this position.

Under Michael Chertoff and Janet Napolitano, the DHS

has pledged to reinforce the border. Even when President

Barack Obama offered to seek a liberal immigration reform

that would include both legalization and new programs for

legal foreign workers, Napolitano, enthroned as DHS director,

said it would apply the law with no palliatives, arguing that

her institution is responsible for applying the law, not changing

it. In late March 2009, Napolitano told CNN that her

administration would spend $700 million on border security:

Its all about border safety and security and making sure

that spillover violence doesnt erupt in our own country.

Safe communities or ethnic cleansing?

Going a step beyond the slogan First, reinforce the border,

For those who defend this expansion,

its all about benefiting the 23 million

native unemployed people in a

country in which 7 million people work

illegally doing jobs and at wages well

below the level of most of todays

unemployed

Obama promised openings,

Napolitano closed them up

Safe Communities could extend its tentacles given that

the US House Judiciary Committee approved the programs

obligatory nature for every state, although this is still pending

approval by the House plenary. For those who defend this

expansion, its all about benefiting the 23 million native

unemployed people in a country in which 7 million people

work illegally doing jobs and at wages well below the level of

most of todays unemployed. As is to be expected,

businesspeople from the agricultural sector, who want even

more cheap labor, are fighting it tooth and nail.

In her only visit to Central Americato Guatemala onFebruary 27Janet Napolitano met with Guatemalas new

President, Otto Prez Molina, and his foreign minister,

Harold Caballeros, to address two issues: the fight against

drugs and temporary protection status for Guatemalans living


7/10

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

envo

LATIN AMERICA

in the United States. Drugs and immigrants were thus served

up on the same menu, with the former as the main course

and the latter as the kind of dessert that can be refused due

to its high calorie content.

While Napolitano, the DHS under her leadership and,

for that matter, the Central American governments find

nothing scandalous about this combination, we cant expect

the reform pushed by the liberals to be what immigrants

want. What we can expect is the DHS conception and

structure ending up conditioning the migration agendas of

Central Americas governments, in which they trade the

repression of drug trafficking for ephemeral temporary

protection agreements that are basically nothing more than

a moratorium on deportations, as their name openly admits.

Obama ran down his term in office promising a reform

of immigration legislation that turned out to be another of

those good intentions that pave the road to hell. Instead of

pushing the promised reform, which could be imposed and

superimposed over all state legislation given that immi-

gration regulations correspond to the federal level, he limited

himself to media-focused, pettifogging shows of appeals and

challenges to the Arizona and Alabama acts, served up with

a spoonful of sugar.

They were mere delaying tactics aimed at winning time

while Janet Napolitano cleaned up the house and damped

down expectations and animosity, dishing up deportations

in big spoonfuls. While the invisible hand of the comprehen-

sive reform promised by Obama also grew intangible and

was ever less mentioned, Napolitanos energetic hand cleared

out and dusted the corners and gave clear signs that the

Obama administration was committed to restrictive policies.

Meanwhile, in their own sphere, the individual states filled

the vacuum created by the federal legislative paralysis withan ominous and confused mosaic of state laws, as seen above.

Barack Obamas particular political character as someone

who avoids producing conflicts and runs from any that arrive

at his door. The Republican steamroller in the lower house

has boycotted all of Obamas initiatives with hardly a protest

from the White House. On a number of occasions, Obama

could have highlighted the damage such Republican

intransigence was doing to the country, but he opted to take

the blow, breathe deeply and smile his disarming smile.

US social scientist James McGregor Burns distinguishes

between two kinds of presidential leadership: Transactional

leaders who thrive on bargaining, accommodating and

manipulating within a given system and transforming

leaders who respond to fundamental human needs and wants,

hopes and expectations, and who may transcend and even

seek to reconstruct the political system rather than simply

to operate within it.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a transforming leader

and is still proclaimed as such by sustained acclamation. He

was the visible head of the New Deal that pulled the United

States out of the great collapse of the 1930s. Obama is the

Obama could have highlighted the

damage such Republican

intransigence was doing to the country,

but he opted to take the blow, breathe

deeply and smile his disarming smile

archetypal transactional leader, to the benefit of the

Republicans and the loss of the immigrants. Obama will not

dare to use the instruments at his disposal to liberalize

immigration policyor even water down its repression

without the Republicans seal of approval. As a result, Janet

Napolitano goes about her business with exemplary

dedication, filling up her pages with the names of

deportables. Obama the accommodator will continue

allowing big sticks and baby carrots to rain down on the

immigrants.

Obamas not one of usIn his presidential campaign, and even earlier in his

autobiographical book The Audacity of Hope, Obama

presented himself as a man of principles but one seeking unity,

a discourse he used to disarm and defeat a gratuitously

confrontational Hillary Clinton. But his Republican rivals

have done nothing more than see signs of weakness in and

exploit that obsession for consensus. The result is an Obama

much less independent of the Republicans than he might wish.

His other means of supportincluding his inevitable

hallmark, the fact that he was blackslipped through his

fingers. Precisely due to his talent as a peacemaker come

hell or high water, Obama launched a speech that aimed to

abolish differences: There is not a Black America and aWhite America and Latino America and Asian America

there is the United States of America. Crass error. There

may be one America on the utopian horizon, but denying its

fragmentation is to refuse to correct the discriminations

The first reason for the legislative paralysis:

The kind of politician Obama is

There are three reasons behind this legislative paralysis.

The first, which is most rooted in the current situation, is


8/10

LATIN AMERICA

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

april 2012

jumping out at you. Immediately a harmonious black chorus

reposted: He isnt black enough, Hes not one of us.

He was stripped of the medal of being the first black

President of the United States, ironically enough, by African-

American activists. US essayist Debra Dickerson argued in

2010 that Black, in our political and social reality, means

those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary

immigrants of African descent (even those descended from

West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of

African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role

of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it cant

be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation

Harlemite have more in common than the fact that a cop

wont bother to make the distinction. Theyre both black

as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite,

for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we

use the term.

A series of unfortunate events have deepened Obamas

dependence on the Republicans. The first was the attempt

to push through a health system reform hand in hand with

the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry,

which alienated a large part of the soft progressives who

supported his campaign. That unsuccessful attempt earned

him condemnation from both camps.

Unemployment continued to grow during Obamas

mandate. It is currently over 9% and some analysts insist

that it may be as high as 16% if we include those who have

already stopped looking for work or cant find a regular job.

The value of houses and retirement savings have evaporated

and the banking system is still just as fragile. In this context,

how can immigration policy be addressed? Its not just a

question of other issues ranking higher in the priorities of

both voters and politicians; theres also the fact that crises

provide the conditions for immigrants to be scapegoated. If

theres unemployment, its because immigrant labor is

competing with and ends up displacing native labor. And if

people wonder why access to health services isnt universal

or why public spending cant be expanded in that area, they

are shown the answer in the parks and poor neighborhoods

of Hialeah, Los Angeles and Houston: those lay-about Latinos

are overburdening public spending because theyre being

catered to in jail while their womenwho cant stop giving

birthsaturate the schools with children whose studies are

paid for out of the public coffers.

Obama didnt just sit back with his arms folded. He

didnt get his immigration reform, but he did do what the

perverse Republicans would have done: he dedicated himself

to throwing out of the country those overburdening the state

services. He pointed out the guilty ones without actually

naming them.

The second part of the paralysis is

the economic crisis. It started as a

Republican Party catastrophe and was

recognized as such, but Obama made

it his own when he cloned the

Republicans policy of saving the guilty,

i.e. the financial filibusters

The second reason: The economic crisis

and immigrants as scapegoats

The second part of the paralysis is the economic crisis. It

started as a Republican Party catastrophe and was recognized

as such, but Obama made it his own when he cloned the

Republicans policy of saving the guilty, i.e. the financial

filibusters.No other results could reasonably have been expected,

bearing in mind the conditions: his economic team consisted

of veterans from the Bush and Clinton Cabinets. As US

researcher Robert Kuttner lists, these are the very same

people whose deregulation policy generated the financial

collapse in the first place. Lawrence Summers, Clintons

former treasury secretary, became an economic adviser; Ben

Bernanke, the former president of Bushs Economic Advisers

Council, continued to head the Federal Reserve, having been

designated by Bush himself; and Timothy Geithner was

named treasury secretary, having served as an assistant

secretary under Summers and subsequently as president of

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with Bernanke. Thesecastling movescreating a new economic chess board but

using the same old pieces and foxy, silver-haired players

sent out a distressing signal to anyone expecting an about

turn.

The third reason: The eternal ambivalence of

giving them jobs and denying them papers

A third element, which from our limited perspective looks

structural, is the ambivalence of US immigration policies.

Worker mobility worries both the leaders of countries that

receive immigrants and part of their populations.This is happening in many countries. The United States

is simply a paradigmatic scenario: the invader is invaded;

the colonizer is subject to colonization without epaulettes or

arms. Those few can become many and transform the


9/10

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

envo

LATIN AMERICA

country. Those few, frequently perceived as threatening, have

shown themselves to be essential. Thats why the waves of

immigration have activated the ambivalent reactions with

which a society tries, through its ideological production and

state coercion, to absorb them. The society produces both

temporary protection status and roundups while business-

people demand both immigrant labor and border patrols.

Then theres both the applause for Latinos-turned-artists

and the stigmatizing stereotypes.

The ambivalence is maintained because its a mechanism

that allows the irregular recruitment of labor in the economic

field to become parasitic. Providing jobs while denying

papers produces the citizenship-deprived work force that

satisfies the system. Workers who arent accredited as such

work harder and more diligently than submissive legal

workers. Many industries want them and prosper at their

expense.

arent registered citizens. The system has turned them into

invisible providers of a generous subsidy.

How is this system perpetuated? How is the ambiva-

lence institutionalized? Thats where the politicians and laws

come into play. The two houses of Congress debated for months

to achieve a law that would maintain the ambivalence, but

unquestionably favored a drastic barrier to immigration: it

contained an amnesty for those who had already entered and

reinforced the filters that detain those at the gates. The idea

was to keep the ones who are useful, but stop the possibility of

excess labor. The proposals of the multilateral organizations

and their circular migration programs had a similar purpose,

with the circles ending up back at the country of origin. In

other words, they seek the return of the workers to their home

country, thus discarding the worker-merchandise after a certain

period of time.

Human rights proclaimed,

but denied to non-citizens

With the stagnation of a possible federal reform, the debate

shifted to the colorful arena of the state and local

legislatures, moving the ambivalence to the idiosyncratic

geographic terrain, to the celebration of multiculturality

in some cases and to rank racism in others, with some states

and cities recognized as immigrant paradises and others

extremely repressive. I tried above to summarize those

that climbed on the immigration legislation bandwagon

with the most zeal.

Human rights defenders can also fall into the systems

viscous ambivalence. They applauded in September 2007

when the DHS decided to apply a stipulation that Congress

had established in 2000: the U Visa, a new immigrationstatus created as part of the law for victims of trafficking and

the prevention of violence, will be automatically granted to

women and child victims of domestic violence and places the

holder on the path to permanent residence. But given the

limited number of interracial marriages, particularly among

undocumented immigrants, we can presume that most of

those charged will also be undocumented immigrants, so

each denunciation will also produce an expedited deportation.

It adds up to a good cause inserted, or at least at the service

of, a political program with atrocious purposes.

The issue of immigrants in the United States has been

compared with the Civil Rights Act, which unleashed so many

debates in the fifties and sixties. Another criminal ambiguityemerges here: in their speeches Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton

and Bush Sr. have all passionately defended human rights

while at the same time applying policies that have trampled

on immigrants rights.

Providing jobs while denying papers

produces the citizenship-deprived

work force that satisfies the system.

Workers who arent accredited as such

work harder and more diligently than

submissive legal workers

What California strawberries can tell us

Back in the early fifties, California produced only a third ofUS strawberries. Today it produces four fifths, a volume

that generates $840 million a year. The strawberry yields

per hectare can be higher than those of any other crop except

marihuana. As the demand for strawberries rises, so does

the number of workers required to harvest them. There are

towns where over 85% of the strawberry pickers are Latinos,

and most of them are undocumented. Depending on the

crop in question, 30-60% of the immigrants currently residing

in California dont have their papers. Theres always work

for them, and the fact that theyre undocumented allows the

boss to pay them less than the minimum wage.

The ambivalence also allows the welfare state to feed off

the precarious situation of the 12 million unauthorizedimmigrants, many of whom have $2,450 deducted every year

in social security contributions. Its calculated that undocu-

mented immigrants contribute no less than $7 billion a year,

but they receive no benefit from their contributions as they


10/10

LATIN AMERICA

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

april 2012

In this case, the ambivalence consists of endorsing civil

rights, but limiting them to the citizens of a given nation

and denying human rights recognized as universal to everyone

else. The slippery part is that the rights arent denied in

themselves, the problem is rather denial of the citizenship

associated with given rights. The criminality of this

ambivalence in all fieldslegal, economic, politicalmeans

the United States is backing off from its project of being a

multiethnic nation, a melting pot, turning itself instead into

a kind of quilt of juxtaposed patches in which different kinds

of citizenships are segmented by an unequal access to rights.

The paralysis of the Obama administration isnt a symptom

of the absence of policy. Its a functional continuation of a

long tradition: the fixed ambivalence of the immigration

nation/deportation nation.

The Californian oasis shows that

another immigration policy is possible

But not everything is so grim. Some interesting bills that

slipped through the cracks of that ambivalence have turned

California into an oasis in the desert formed by the latest

state immigration reforms.

California Governor Jerry Brown, who is leading what is

currently the worlds eighth largest economy, has maintained

a continuous run of ratifying laws benefiting immigrants. AB

130the first part of whats known as the California Dream

Actallows undocumented students to receive economic aid

for their university education from private funds. AB 131

the second part of the Dream Actauthorizes undocumented

university students to apply for state scholarships and will

benefit some 2,500 pupils currently without residency status

by permitting them to receive public aid.Meanwhile, AB 1236 prohibits cities and counties from

approving laws that oblige employers to use the E-verify

program to determine their employees immigration status.

AB 207 unifies the requirements for entering public schools,

regardless of the students immigration status, and AB 353

restricts the authorities capacity to impound vehicles driven

by people without a license and facilitates their return.

California is swimming against the tide, but might be

establishing precedents that could be imitated in the

medium term. In the least optimistic of cases, California

has demonstrated that another way of treating immigrants

is possible and that their human rights can prevail.

What will happen after Novembers elections?

The beginnings of the election campaign have placed the

debate back in the federal arena, where we are seeing new

onslaughts from old proposals. In the most recent episode,

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich promised a

very idiosyncratic package: including Mexico among the

countries supervised by the Southern Command; imple-

menting strategies to ensure that Fidel Castro is the last

dictator in Cuba; being more aggressive with Chvez to save

Venezuelans and free the USA from an anti-US President,

rather than leaving the job to cancer; and doing away with

unauthorized immigration in five years by having local

authorities review each case of irregular immigration and

making the visa-granting system more flexible.

We can detect in these proposals a curious mix of extreme

conservatism and conscious awareness that Latinos are an

important electoral quarry. Could it be an ultra-conservative

hand that unties the Gordian knot of immigration? For the

moment, all we know is that conservatives and liberals have

been equally ineffective at the federal level. The immigration

reform is still pending, while that curious mix has failed to

pass from rhetoric to practice under the most recent

Presidents.

Obama came to power with the support of 67% of the

countrys Latinos, while only 31% voted for McCain. Did

they get it right or did they waste an opportunity? In an

atmosphere thick with suspicion, one has to ask: would things

have been different for immigrants if McCain had won?Obamas policies for undocumented immigrantswhich

basically add up to more of the same that was dished out by

the Republicansappears to confirm Gore Vidals lucid

analysis of the 1970s: There is only one party in the United

States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:

Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider,

more rigid, more doctrinaire in their capitalism than the

Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corruptuntil

recently and more willing than the Republicans to make

small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-

imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no

difference between the two parties.

Jos Luis Rocha is a researcher for the Jesuit Service for

Migrants of Central America (SJM) and a member of the

envo editorial council.

California might be establishing

precedents that could be imitated

L-America-immigration Policies During the Obama-April 12

Documents

Transcript of L-America-immigration Policies During the Obama-April 12