immigration

Vision for the 51st. State, Jeff Stone (R)-Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

While not a new idea, Jeff Stone, a California Republican on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, wants to explore the idea of secession. The idea is to create a utopian conservative enclave that can address issues of improved border security, balanced budgets, better schools, lower taxes, and a stronger economy. While actual secession is very unlikely, a debate can address worthwhile issues of governance and policy, particularly the distribution of tax revenue. The geography of this new state would be rural and agricultural, with vast tracts of desert, akin to a neighbouring state to the east. So, it was fitting that Democratic Governor Jerry Brown’s spokesman, Gil Duran, served up this diss::

“It’s a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody’s time. If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there’s a place called Arizona.”

Speaking of Arizona, let’s be clear where low taxes leads a state in an economic downturn. This Harper’s article from last summer highlights the problems in a state loathe to raise taxes and where selloffs and privatization only goes so far::

“Although dozens of states are facing budget crises, the situation in Arizona is arguably the nation’s worst, graver even than in California. A horrific budget deficit has been papered over with massive borrowing and accounting gimmickry, and the state may yet have to issue IOUs to employees and vendors. All-day kindergarten has been eliminated statewide, and some districts have adopted a four-day school week. Arizona’s state parks, despite bringing in 2 million visitors and $266 million annually, have lost 80 percent of their budget, with up to two thirds of the parks now in danger of closure. The legislature slashed the budget for the Department of Revenue, which required the agency to fire hundreds of state auditors and tax collectors; lawmakers boasted that these measures saved $25 million, but a top official in the department estimated that the state would miss out on $174 million in tax collections as a result.”

While Arizona flounders, the article notes political attention has drifted to culture war topics like immigration.

The idea of a “South California” brings into sharp relief the problem of governance in a diverse state—a state with several distinct regions, each with their own demographics, industrial bases, access to water resources, and political cultures. If California’s budgetary woes continue, which is very likely given the slow recovery prospects, it’s natural that geographic alignments become stronger and influence political discourse. In the past, this has invoked the culture war, but this can be dicey terrain. Ask Pete Wilson, who played that card only to get hammered for it later and estranged by his own party.

{Hat tip:: LinnyQat} Republican strategist Jack Burkman and former NY Senator Al D’Amato, a Republican, went toe-to-toe on Fox Business. Burkman was rehashing arguments about US post office waste, but has a twist. He went after “unskilled Nigerians and Ethiopians” that he claims the US is “importing” and the massive unions protecting them. Burkman also claims that the post offices are used by politicians to plaster their names on them.

While D’Amato is actually for privatization of the post office {and public-private partnerships}, he berated Burkman for bringing national origin into the argument, as opposed to focusing on skills and organizational waste. D’Amato also said that Burkman hurts the cause with his remarks. Another panelist, attorney Tamara Holder, also in favour of privatization, found Burkman’s statements to be out-of-line and racist.

It appears that some libertarians or those with libertarian leanings are having less patience for wrapping economic arguments with jingoistic statements that are cheap ploys at stirring up emotions.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Fmr NY Senator Al D’Amato [R] goes after GOP strategist Jack Burkman for racist characterizations of postal workers. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Google Map street view capturing Border Patrol van in San Luis, AZ

Arizona’s controversial immigration bill, SB 1070 {along with provisions from HB 2162} [pdf of 1070], is days from going into effect and a maelstrom of lawsuits are heating up. Those who haven’t lived in a state bordering with México might not be familiar with how heated of a topic immigration can be, although various polls state that many Americans, not just Arizonans, support the bill.

The bill, which became law as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act that Governor Brewer signed in April has been in the cards for a while. This article from the Arizona Republic shows how this “local” issue stemmed from frustration about Federal immigration policy and enforcement in Arizona, as well as noting how nobody expected a firestorm in the national spotlight::

“‘I have never felt the racism that you are feeling in Arizona today because of this bill,’ said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democratic Maricopa County supervisor who is hoping U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will block SB 1070 from going into effect.

The furious, and fearful, reaction to Brewer’s decision to sign the bill caught both backers and opponents of the legislation off guard.

‘The majority of us who voted yes on that bill, myself included, did not expect or encourage an outcry from the public,’ said state Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale. ‘The majority of us just voted for it because we thought we could try to fix the problem. Nobody envisioned boycotts. Nobody anticipated the emotion, the prayer vigils. The attitude was: These are the laws, let’s start following them.'”

On the legal front, there is the Constitutionality aspect, with complaints being filed and the DoJ getting into the mix {both links to the Constitutional Law Prof Blog}, along with how supremacy and preemption factor into the legality. While legal types argue issues of whether Arizona state law with the Act conflicts with or embodies “concurrent enforcement” of federal immigration and naturalization laws. The Act is in a grey area of state criminal law and federal immigration law and policy.

Politically, the dividing line is roughly along party affiliation with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it. Given the rough shape of the economy and joblessness, getting tough on immigration is an easy issue to get support for. Republican Governor Jan Brewer got a boost in the polls after signing the bill and is ahead of her Democratic challenger. Nevertheless, not all Republicans support the law, including Jeb Bush and Karl Rove. It’s a tricky issue for the Republicans, who want to court Latino voters and many of whom aren’t on board with this type of law and may be another issue that can divide, not unite the Republican party. The NY Times stated that immigration is also a touchy issue for the Democrats, but to a lesser degree, and that states are rushing to craft their own legislation, which may lead to a patchwork of laws, rather than a comprehensive national approach.

The problem I see with the law is that it really fails to acknowledge the social reality of what’s going on and is likely to have bad unintended consequences. Some in law enforcement {there’s no consensus on this} are concerned that undocumented immigrants will fear them, making their jobs more difficult. I’ve worked on projects for the James Irvine Foundation earlier this decade and one of the issues that cropped up was the institutional barriers that prevented undocumented immigrants from engaging in society. This manifested in a fear of law enforcement and a reluctance to engage in health and social services, which is borne out by statistics. Some may see this as a good thing, as in lower costs, but I see it as increasing costs particularly when it comes to health care, due to less preventative medicine, increased risk for the spreading of infectious diseases, and greater utilization of emergent care facilities for primary care. Additionally, in Arizona, while causality cannot be determined, there are reports that Latinos may be leaving the state and those who are eligible to vote are…registering as Democrats.

What’s needed is for the federal government to step up to the plate and make the tough choices on immigration. I’m not holding my breath that the Obama administration or Congress will do anything before the November elections.

{In the future, I’ll blog about the economics of immigration and this one misguided project I worked on {but wasn’t the principal investigator on} that had a strange take on the industrial organization of agriculture.}

Song:: MIA-“Pull Up the People”

Twitterversion:: [blog] The sturm & drang of Arizona’s immigration bill. Will Obama or Congress step up to the plate—in an election year? @Prof_K

One of the best public affairs talk shows in the country, WAMU’s Diame Rhem show is based out of Washington, DC. This gives it access to a whole host of public officials and advocacy groups. The result is an informative, engaging, discussion of policy issues.

This show is a regular on my Zune (I know, don’t laugh…I actually think it’s a really good MP3 player). Examples of the policy discussion goodness includes shows on Arizona’s Immigration Law and Financial Regulatory Reform.

This is a good tool for those who teach a Social Problems or Public Policy course. It’s a sober discussion of current issues. I’ve assigned this show’s podcasts to my policy students. It’s a good way to engage students and to give them a break from reading when necessary.

Here’s where you can donate to the show if you’re so inclined 🙂

Downtown Montréal signage, en français, August 2006 after American Sociology Association Annual Meetings. Kenneth M. Kambara

Notes from North of 49ºN

A recent Globe and Mail article by John Ibbitson states that Québec has immigration policies that hinder diversity and that the province lacks cultural integration. He starts by comparing Ottawa in Ontario and Gatineau, just across the river in Québec. The former has 19% of the population being a visible minority, while the latter has 6%.

Québec is allowed to set it own immigration policy. I knew this to be the case in 1992, as when I filled out my paperwork to visit at McGill, I had to have documents for Canada and Québec. The policies for immigration favours French speakers and those willing to integrate into Québec society. This tends to work against potential immigrants from China and India who are much more likely to have English-speaking skills or intentions to obtain them. Compounding the matter is that the province doesn’t have the resources to help immigrants integrate into Québec society, along with cultural clashes, such as a niqab-wearing woman getting kicked out of a government-funded CÉGEP French language class.

Ibbitson also makes the curious allegation that francophone sending regions tend to be impoverished areas which aren’t the most “vibrant regions,” when compared to China and India. He goes on to argue that the lack of immigration will cause cities in Québec to start dying. This is an elitist argument couched in pragmatics.

What Ibbitson fails to recognize is the context in which Québec immigration policy takes place. Québec contains a distinct culture, but within a predominantly anglophone nation. Historically, the Québec experience is one that exists within and at times resists the dominant cultural order of anglophone Canada. The immigration policies are meant to preserve the cultural order in Québec in light of this, but it puts immigrants in a bind. Immigrating to Québec means living in a region with a distinct culture that’s a minority within the nation of Canada. That’s a double-whammy or perhaps better termed, double-jeopardy. This “disincentivizes” immigration to Québec, reflecting the difficult terrain where culture, region, and nation intersect.

Within this era of globalization, can Québec realistically preserve its culture through its various policies? I’m not sure I have the answer to this, but I feel that Québec needs to figure this issue out on its own, for better or worse, despite my federalist tendencies. While there may be delicious irony in pointing out that Québec, which has brought upon bilingualism to Canada, appears to be closed to multiculturalism; the more interesting issue is how to foster better economic integration. Montréal is becoming increasingly diverse, with the immigrant population projected to go from 21% in 2006 to 31% in 2030, although these percentages are below the percentages of other major Canadian cities. The main problem is one of jobs. Despite immigrants oftentimes having better qualifications than native Quebeckers, they lack the networking with the francophone majority and subsequently face much higher unemployment rates.

I don’t see much point in encouraging more immigration to Québec if policy doesn’t address the issues of jobs and opportunities. Programmes that foster more economic integration of immigrants could be viewed as undermining the preservation of Québec culture, so there’s the rub.

Nevertheless, I think Ibbitson has it backwards. Rather than attracting a “better class of immigrant” from “vibrant” areas of the world, I think Québec should work on creating vibrant regions {most likely Montréal and certain areas of the Eastern Townships/Les cantons de l’est that are close to universities and open to diversity} that attract the flows of globalization, in terms of people, finance, technology, etc.

Twitterversion:: Globe&Mail’s Ibbitson says Quebec must fix its lack of diversity, but bigger issue is econ. integration for immigrants. http://url.ie/5cpv @Prof_K

Song:: Les Trois Accords-“Loin d’ici”

For those of you who can’t get enough of one political scientist blogger (me), here are two more political science bloggers on which to keep an eye.  King Politics is run by Marvin King, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Mississippi.  The blog provides an interesting and unique take on American Politics.  King also has a podcast where he interviews other bloggers and researchers.   Worth a listen!

The other worthwhile blog is ImmigrationNow by Gustavo Cano, a Ph.D. political scientist from Columbia who runs the Transnationalism Research Project at the Mexcio-North Research Network and specializes in immigration issues.  He has also created a site called Immigration Research Now that serves as a compendium of current research on the subject.  Both are worth a look.

Even thought the post debate flash polls declared Obama the runaway winner, I have a creeping suspicion that this presidential race is going to tighten. The McCain campaign has been remarkably undisciplined at pinning the “liberal” label on Obama. While we might be embroiled in a financial meltdown, there are certain policy positions which are do not meet what James March called the “logic of appropriateness.” One of these, support for late-term abortions, Obama handled with aplomb in last night’s debate. I’ve been wondering when the Republicans were going to go after another of Obama’s “inapprorpriate” positions in support of state laws that provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Well, here ya go:

This all might be a little too late. it is difficult to change public perceptions of a candidate with 19 days left to go in the election. But if there is an underlying distrust or soft support among working class white, an ad like this might just be able to pry 1-2% back to McCain or to the sidelines…especially if the Dow keeps rising. I’m just sayin’.