Immigration, Localism, and Next Best Things
Whether due to the dramatic failure of last year’s attempt at comprehensive reform or to the essential similarity of the two candidates’ positions, the issue of illegal immigration has so far kept a fairly low profile in the presidential campaign. Given McCain’s heterodoxy, this may be a blessing. In the absence of a federal solution, state and local governments have begun to take matters into their own hands. This may be a blessing, too.
A new ruling of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission has given the city of New Haven further leeway to continue the policies that have made it a flagship “sanctuary city.” The government of New Haven, in an effort to make the city more hospitable to illegal immigrants, began issuing municipal ID cards that allow residents to open bank accounts and interact with local law enforcement without presenting federal identification. (There was, among others, a concern that forcing illegal immigrants to deal exclusively in cash made them targets for robbery.) Anti-immigration groups sued for the names of residents who applied for ID cards, but the state FOIC has issued a preliminary ruling denying their request. While New Haven is rolling out a carpet, towns in Rhode Island and New Jersey are slamming their doors, cracking down on illegal immigrants and businesses that employ them, and police officers in Prince William Country, VA, are now required to check the immigration status of everyone they arrest.
Hard-liners on both sides have reason to hope that drastic local action may pressure the federal government to respond. Illegal immigration is a matter of national citizenship, and so its ultimate solution will necessarily be federal. Until such a solution materializes, however, local solutions have their own advantages.
Certain parts of the country view the influx of illegal immigrants into their communities as a threat. These fears may be primarily economic, cultural, or simply reactionary, but it remains that, so long as these immigrants lack the privileges of citizenship, communities are within their rights to expel them. The state of Arizona has had success in doing so through the adjustment of incentives (eliminating job opportunities through the prosecution of firms that employ illegal immigrants, etc.), and the replacement of illegal labor with legal. If Congress remains at an impasse on the issue of illegal immigration and McCain’s leadership remains ambiguous, those who oppose the eventual extension of citizenship to illegal aliens would do well to begin with their cities and states.
If cities wishing to drive illegal immigrants from their communities have the freedom to do so, then it follows that those cities wishing to draw illegal immigrants into theirs must have that freedom, too, within the bounds of the law. This may not be such a bitter pill for immigration opponents to swallow. Advocates for illegal immigrants have had to answer the charge that the current wave of immigration is different from others insofar as it is illegal. Some have answered with the slogan “No human being is illegal”—an obvious falsehood, and especially irritating when it is draped in Christian rhetoric. There are others who accept the argument that residency should not be divorced from citizenship, and who for this reason want citizenship granted to the illegal aliens who clearly desire permanent residence in the United States. It is unclear whether any kind of “path to citizenship” plan will succeed on the national level, and I will leave aside the question of whether or not such a plan to be advisable. However, insofar as programs like the New Haven ID card are meant to reinforce the idea that participation in a community must mean participation in its politics, they are a first step towards breeding the respect for law and government that illegal immigration undermines.
A permanent solution must either grant national citizenship to illegal immigrants or decisively refuse to grant it, but, given that some cities have decided to welcome illegal immigrants into their communities, better that they should do so in a way that doesn’t erode the importance of citizenship. “Sanctuary cities” isolate the cultural impact (and the government services drain Richard cites) of immigration to those areas that have decided to welcome it, while places like Arizona and Prince William County have the consolation of knowing that they are writing the book from which the federal government may soon be taking a page.
If a national solution is not in the offing, these local policies may be the next best thing, both as stop-gap solutions and as data points for the national discussion. After all, both sides can agree that nothing succeeds like success.
Comments
It seems Miss Rittelmeyer is just mapping the logic and reality of sanctuary city arrangements, not endorsing them. Nice post.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Obama should stop fighting the illegal immigration amnesty candidate and instead make it clear that he intends both to consolidate his own black base and to reach out to blue-collar whites by insisting that immigration be both strictly legal and strictly limited, and by promising to support a constitutional amendment declaring American English to be the only official language of the United States severally and collectively.
As things stand, the Latin American colonies from Southern California to Southern Florida are America’s Kosovos in waiting, as are comparable, fast-growing pockets further north. The election of McCain would only make things worse. But the election of Obama could make them better. Will he grasp the nettle?
If so, then, since he would undoubtedly want a second term, he must be held to his commitments. Especially now that the Democratic Party’s ranks are being swelled by former Republicans such as Bob Conley, alienated by the Republican Party’s abandonment of its historic belief in real national security through strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, through economic protection, and through the avoidance of needless wars.
, http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com
Click to flag this comment as abusive
All that has to happen is the elimination of all forms of welfare and the immigration rate will drop by more than half.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I like your comments Hellen but I think it would be best for the federal gov to stay out of it altogether. This way people will have the choice to live in a sanctuary city or not. Let the results show which is the better way to go and lets not send any extra federeal money to the sanctuary cities. A state should be allowed to decide that they wish to make their state and cities sanctuaries for illegal aliens and the rest of the courtry should not have to pay for them making that decision.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Decentralization and eventual separatism are the only long-term solutions. Dissolve the US into regions and city-states where immigration policy can be as liberal or as restrictive as locals want.
http://www.attackthesystem.com
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jupiter,
I disagree that colonization of the US by Asians would be the result of secession and decentralization. More likely, most localities would enact fairly restrictive immigration policies, and even more restrictive citizenship and welfare policies. Yes, there would be enclaves of “come one, come all” immigration policies and it would mean the de fact ceding of the Southwest to Mexico, but that’s going to happen anyway. Present day immigration policy is imposed on all American communities by elites who desire cheap labor, more clients for the welfare state and more demographic groups among whom to foster hostility.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The crumbling economy will be the biggest mover towards enforcing our immigration policies. I live 20 minutes away from New Haven and with unemployment creeping up the extra competition for jobs is a much bigger issue now than it was even from the end of last year. The thing about sanctuary cities is that they they are not an island unto themselves they affect the surrounding areas.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“If cities wishing to drive illegal immigrants from their communities have the freedom to do so, then it follows that those cities wishing to draw illegal immigrants into theirs must have that freedom, too, within the bounds of the law.”
Since the gist of Miss Rittelmeyer’s article is predicated on the above passage, it seems to me that it’s critical to note this passage makes no sense. If illegal immigrants are indeed illegal, harboring them cannot by definition be within the bounds of the law.
And this should NOT be a matter for state and local governments to decide. I too pride myself on being a localist. But immigration is definitely a function of a central government. And Americans should insist that our central government get out of areas it is not authorized to be in, and insist that it deal with issues within its purview.
Unless states and cities begin doing immigration checks at their borders, there will be no way to keep illegals out. And that defeats the free trade component of our Constitution.
Miss Rittelmeyer sounds like an open border wolf in sheep’s clothing to me.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.