Impact of the Anti-Immigration Laws in Arizona and Hispanics Participation in the Political System - Research Paper Example

?Explore the impact of the anti-immigration laws that have been introduced by Arizona and the participation of Hispanics in the U.S. political system. The immigration issue has been taking the spotlight in recent decades in America. It has been a lingering concern for many Americans who are increasingly starting to question the long-held mantra that the United States is the land of almost infinite opportunities. There is a growing fear among the citizenry that such limitless opportunities are no longer the case today or that they no longer are as easy as they were in the past. The US government has actually wavered in terms of addressing the issue head-on. For instance from 1960 to 1970, a major immigration policy reform was enacted with the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and afterwards, many thought that it was enough. No significant immigration policy was introduced well until the 1990s. Recent developments, however, are significantly putting pressure on immigration policymaking. The US is considered to have the highest immigration rates globally and that more than a million people legally immigrate to the country annually, leading foreign-born citizens to constitute 13 percent of the entire American population. (Bardes, Shelley and Schmidt 2008, p. 482) This figure excludes the immigrants that cross the US border illegally. The former American Ambassador to Mexico, Jeffrey Davidow (2007) summed up the prevailing sentiment: While race race-baiting and violent anti-immigrant sentiment had largely disappeared from the American political vernacular, there was a nagging anxiety about the growing number of foreigners in the United States. Americans were asking, “Where did all these people come from? (11)” With the current protracted economic downturn, the high and constant flux of the inflation rate, the governments accumulating debt and budget deficits, as well as the high number of job losses, the public is increasingly fearful that immigrants would take away jobs that should have been taken by Americans in the first place. Surveys conducted from 1960s until today demonstrate the increasing concern of Americans for immigration (Simcox 1997, 129) It is in this respect that the strict anti-immigration policy was enacted by the state of Arizona. This paper will examine the laws enacted by the state against immigration and its impact, particularly in the participation of Hispanics in the American electoral process. Background: The Arizona Anti-Immigration Laws Prior to the enactment of the series of Arizona anti-immigration laws, two significant immigration statutes were enacted in the US: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Both of these legislations aim to manage immigration with the former focusing on permanent immigrants instead of the temporary entry in order to check the flow of undocumented migrants; while the latter, enhancing the existing law and including the permission for the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) authorization “to bar reentry to the United States if an alien overstayed his/her visa deadline for departure” (Adams 56). Many were not satisfied with the results of these measures. To borrow Adams’ words: The spirit and framework of both the 1986 and 1996 immigration laws failed to address the grassroots flow of aliens at the source – the official government attitude and immigration policy avoidance by Mexico. In spite of the fact that from 1994 to 2001 (pre-9/11) the annual U.S. border enforcement budget of the INS and the Border Patrol nearly tripled to over $2.5 billion, the immigrant flow continued nearly unchecked (56). A good part of the years after, a growing debate emerged as to how to best address the issue. In 2004, as part of the increasing impact of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York, immigration policy took an increasing relationship to terrorism and border security. For example, the United States Visitor Immigration Status Indicator Technology program – an enhanced mechanism for border security – was enforced by the Bush administration as well as the Operation Gatekeeper, which erected fences and lights, addition to the unprecedented increase in border patrol officers. Several other proposals were put forward, but no significant reforms were enacted until an Arizona state law was passed in November 2004. This law was almost the same as the Proposition 187 – earlier approved but struck down as unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court. More popularly known today as Proposition 200, the Arizona version also requires proof of citizenship in order for people to avail of public services such as health care, education, child care, application for driver’s license and so forth. In addition state employees who fail to check and verify the immigration status of people that apply for the public service benefits are criminally liable as such would constitute failure to enforce the law. In addition, criminal charges are also waiting for those people and organizations that will hire illegal migrants. The Proposition 200 attracted intense attention and has stirred passionate debates in regards to its constitutionality, the precedence it would create, as well as the short-term and long-term impact of the law. Effect The Arizona anti-immigration policies, particularly the Proposition 200 had an immediate and widespread impact across the US. The following developments were identified by LaRosa and Mora (2007) in their discourse of the US-Latin American relations: Similar laws began to be legislated in other states; Since 2005, more than forty extremist, radical anti-immigrant vigilante groups have been organized in twelve states; The “Real ID” law has been passed by the US Congress, which followed the Arizona model of preventing undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses (259). Several other policymakers are emboldened to file stricter measures. A case in point is the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 or more popularly know Sensenbrenner Bill filed by Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Had this bill been signed by the President into law, it would criminalize all undocumented persons as “aggravated felons” and that anyone proved to be aiding them would be also held liable with an aggravated felony (LaRosa and Mora 261). The bill sparked widespread protests across America, starting with a controversial homily by Cardinal Roger Mahoney, who criticized the Sensenbrenner Bill. Thousands thronged the streets of cities like Los Angeles, Denver and Phoenix, demonstrating against the bill. On March 2006, Sensenbrenner Bill was dropped in favor of a more moderate immigration measure. Presently, there are other more strict bills filed in Arizona legislature that seek to implement harsher restrictions on what undocumented immigrants can do. The Hispanic Factor Proposition 200 has immediately energized the Hispanic minority into action. Currently, the law is being challenged by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) based on the following principle: 1) that it violates federal law by establishing its own authority to establish its own immigration enforcement system; 2) that it would “jeopardize the health and well-being of families and children who depend on public benefits for their basic necessities”; 3) the law violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, mandating that no individual should be denied access to health services and basic education (Romero 2008, 74). The Arizona anti-immigration laws, wrote Hondagneu-Sotelo (2007), threaten the existence of immigrants, as they push them further away from society’s benefits into more marginalized and clandestine lives: Both militarized border initiatives and new immigration laws make up an aggressive system of exclusion and marginalization, expressed in multiple forms of violence against immigrants at the physical border and in the environment in which they now live (106). Hispanics fear the institutionalization of inequality in the legal system through the measures such as the Arizona anti-immigration initiatives. Furthermore, and most importantly, Hispanic Americans were able to make the anti-immigration policy issue into one of the most important in the recent elections for the US Congress, governorships and state jobs last November. This factor is the reason why Democrats have edged Republican opponents in recent electoral exercises. There is the case, for instance, of California ex-Governor Pete Wilson whose political career abruptly ended after he backed the notorious Proposition 187 back in 1994. According to Contreras, “Wilson laid the groundwork for Hispanics bailing on the Republican Party and turning California into an almost total Democratic state. Over three-quarters of Hispanic voters rejected Proposition 187”(25). Wilson and the Republican experience in California demonstrate the dynamics of the Arizona’s own Proposition 200 among Hispanics possible behavior in the political environment. Arizona, like the states, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, has sizable Hispanic population. During the 2004 national elections that catapulted George W. Bush to the presidency, these four states were considered to be Republican strongholds, conservatively and consistently electing GOP candidates. The Republicans have maintained their extreme anti-immigration stand and the recent developments have driven the electoral trend in favor of the Democrats. The pro-immigrant agenda of the party is highly important in electing the President in the dynamics of the Electoral College representation. The Hispanic influence during the election is expected to increase since the minority accounts for half of the US population growth (Winters 2008, 214 The impact of this fact is demonstrated in several real experiences such as the 2006 elections, which came amidst the maelstrom of immigration debate. Writing in the context of Arizona’s story, Winters documents: GOP incumbent J.D. Hayworth, whose campaign was built largely on his opposition to illegal immigration, was upset by challenger Harry Mitchell, 51 percent to 46 percent. Mitchell supported introducing a guest worker program for immigrants. In Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District, where 18 percent of the electorate is Hispanic, Democrat Gabrielle Giffords beat anti-immigration GOP candidate Randy Graf 54 percent to 42 percent in a district a Republican previously held (214). The previous governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, was a Democrat. The incumbent, Jan Brewer – the one who signed Proposition 200 into law was reelected by a slim margin during the gubernatorial elections last November. The only factor that somehow neutralizes or tempers the full Hispanic defection to the Democratic Party is the Republican’s conservative position on social issues. Hispanics are known for their conservative orientation, valuing family, morality and religion. There are scholars and academics who point to the fact that the Hispanic minority is one of the most ambivalent among the electorates. Taylor and Ornstein (2005), for example, claimed that Hispanics are a heterogeneous group that is somewhat disconnected from American politics “and with little immediate prospect of creating the kinds of institutions necessary to activate and coalesce their members” (228). However, the immigration issue, particularly the harsh measures being adopted in states like Arizona, may prove to be just the variable that could solidify the Hispanic into one solid, block vote, significantly altering the American political landscape. This favors the Democrats most because they are increasingly seen as the party that cares for immigrants’ rights and welfare. Conclusion Successive US administrations have refused or failed to develop and implement concrete anti-immigration policies like the one being adopted in Arizona today because enforcing such an initiative could have negative implications, politically and may even cause civil unrest. In addition, as with the case of the Proposition 187 legislated in California, the Arizona anti-immigration law is in danger of being rejected as unconstitutional. The legal battle that immediately followed its enactment is already proved to be a protracted and controversial one, taxing the state’s resources, including the careers of the state’s politicians. Furthermore, the Hispanic minority is increasingly becoming relevant as they unite to deal with the anti-immigration wave sparked by Proposition 200. As they are being forced to a corner, they have no recourse but to fight back, organizing into a formidable pressure force in electoral exercises. All in all, it is easy to understand how the Proposition 200 constitutes a short-term solution to the American immigration problem. As has been cited by this paper, the root cause of this dilemma lies in Mexico. There is a need to improve on the country’s economic and security capability in order to stop people from crossing the border illegally in search for jobs. Finally, there is also the need to consider whether immigration is entirely bad for America. Immigration has been part of its history and tradition. The founders of the country were immigrants in pursuit of better lives not unlike the immigrants being subjected to harsh penalties in their desire for better lives. Most of them are not out to take the white man’s jobs. Most of them are working in plantations, mills, processing plants and farms. In fact, statistics have repeatedly revealed that they contribute to the American economy. Surely, there is a better way in addressing the problem – one that is not particularly cruel but, instead, alternatives that are humane and fair. This is important especially that there studies that found “no direct, scientifically reliable evidence to support the notion that appreciable numbers of migration decisions were being influenced by the availability of public services” (Cornelius 2004, 20). References Adams, John. Bordering the future: the impact of Mexico on the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Bardes, Barbara, Shelley, Mack and Schmidt, Steffen. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Contreras, Raoul. The new American majority: Hispanics, Republicans & George W. Bush: accession to the White House. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2002. Cornelius, Wayne. "Controlling 'Unwanted' Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993-2004." Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. 92 (2004): 1-33. Davidow, Jeffrey. The bear and the porcupine: the U.S. and Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2007. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierette. Religion and social justice for immigrants. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007. LaRosa, Michael and Mora, Frank. Neighborly adversaries: readings in U.S.-Latin American relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Romero, Fernando. Hyperborder: the contemporary U.S.-Mexico border and its future. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. Simcox, David. "Major Predictors of Immigration Restrictionism: Operationalizing 'Nativism'", Population and Environment. 19 (1997): 129-143. Taylor, Andrew and Ornstein, Norman. Elephant's edge: the Republicans as a ruling party. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. Winters, Michael. Left at the altar: how the Democrats lost the Catholics and how the Catholics can save the Democrats. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Read More