Acting like Arizona is bad for business

[richard herman]

by Richard Herman & Robert L. Smith

On July 28th, a federal judge blocked parts of Arizona
's new anti-immigration law. On Thursday, the rest of it went into effect. And while the court ruling against the law is being hailed as a victory for the Obama administration, the law is still very popular with Arizonans and the public at large. Nevertheless, this law will in the end be bad for Arizona's businesses, and bad for the rest of the country if other states follow suit.

To understand why, consider this story.

Last year, when President Barack Obama went to the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen to pitch Chicago as host of the 2016 Summer Olympics, an IOC member confronted Obama and described the "pretty harrowing experience" of entering America as a foreigner.

Obama responded that he hoped the world would see "that America, at its best, is open to the world."

As we all know, the IOC wasn't convinced, and as a result Chicago lost the projected $4.4 billion in expected business that would have come from hosting the games.

The world is taking notice that the U.S. is becoming a less-welcoming place, and it's hurting our businesses and our economy.

Post-9/11 security concerns, anxiety over America's changing demographics and anger over job losses due to global competition have accelerated America's souring relationship with immigrants, and not just immigrants here illegally.

And the xenophobia fueled by Arizona will only make matters much worse.

Twenty states are now considering passing a law like Arizona's, which requires local cops to act as federal immigration agents and question the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Similar proposals are being pushed even in Ohio and Michigan, northern states where the undocumented immigrant population is minuscule.

While border states are rightfully concerned about illegal immigration and its consequences, a patchwork of state and local immigration laws isn't the answer. That will inevitably lead to profiling based on race and class, hard feelings and a pattern of harassment that will extend to U.S. citizens who cannot quickly produce the proper papers.

That could be a problem for the 21 million adult citizens who, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, lack government-issued photo identification. The lack of ID is especially common among the elderly, the poor and African-Americans. Some 30 million women citizens don't have documents to prove citizenship that reflects their current names.

National security also will be undermined as federal agents, responding to calls from local police, are pulled away from serious investigations to go and pick up an undocumented busboy.

And almost certainly, illegal immigrants will become loath to report crimes and cooperate with local police, out of fear of being arrested.

But another significant problem with Arizona's approach is that it will raise wariness among international visitors and legal immigrants, many of whom are coming to invest in a business or take a job that matches their special skill.

Anyone would think twice about moving to a place where they might arouse suspicion for looking foreign.

The new, chillier welcome comes at a bad time.

Lured by increasing opportunities abroad, many Chinese, Indians and other professionals who earned advanced degrees in America are moving back to their homelands or to third countries. They have grown impatient with visa quotas that make them wait five to 10 years for a green card.

These are the people we should be recruiting, not scaring away, as Fay Beydoun, the director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce, argued in a recent interview with The Michigan Messenger.

"Michigan has worked hard to recruit international investors and companies, as well as American high-tech businesses," she said. "This has created thousands of jobs. Why would we want to drive these investors away with a law that makes Michigan hostile to immigrants? Why would you bring your business to Michigan knowing that the police might stop you or your employees, just because of how you look. This proposal will cost us jobs."

She not talking about just a few jobs. According to a 2008 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, foreign firms employed more than 5 million American workers through their U.S. affiliates and have indirectly created millions of additional jobs. More than 30 percent of direct hires are in manufacturing.

What's needed isn't patchwork state laws that play on our worst prejudices about immigrants but comprehensive immigration reform that tightens the border, legalizes undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria and, most important, streamlines the nation's outdated system that encourages illegal immigration.

A smart new immigration plan would also place a greater emphasis on attracting high-skill immigrants -- the innovators and entrepreneurs who make America more competitive and create jobs.

Whether Arizona legislators admit it or not, immigrants of all kinds will now shy away from Arizona. What would be tragic is if they started shying away from America.


----------------------

Richard Herman and Robert L. Smith are the co-authors of "Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy" (2009 John Wiley & Sons). Learn more about the book at http://www.immigrantinc.com/


http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/artic...iness/19566601

[sheltonharlow]

The one significant word your keep leaving out is ILLEGAL! We are a nation of Legal immigrants (my own wife is Japanese, and became a citizen 2 years ago).

No American is against LEGAL immigration. Follow the rules, obey our laws, become part of the American Dream and you're welcome with open arms..

But if you sneak in, break our laws, abuse our social, education and medical institutions, take jobs away from people here legally and prove to be a further burden on the rest of us, we want you gone.

Remember...Legal immigration is what made this country the best on the planet. ILLEGAL immigrants are invaders.

[Raf]

The one significant word your keep leaving out is ILLEGAL! We are a nation of Legal immigrants (my own wife is Japanese, and became a citizen 2 years ago).

No American is against LEGAL immigration. Follow the rules, obey our laws, become part of the American Dream and you're welcome with open arms..

But if you sneak in, break our laws, abuse our social, education and medical institutions, take jobs away from people here legally and prove to be a further burden on the rest of us, we want you gone.

Remember...Legal immigration is what made this country the best on the planet. ILLEGAL immigrants are invaders.

It is not as simple as illegal vs legal immigration. You must remember that our immirgration system is antiquated and is a relic of our euro-centric policies. The vast majority of our immigrants now come from central america and mexico. Our quota system is not set up for this and should be re-examined. Many of these immigrants come from very poor circumstances and cannot afford to wait 10 to 15 years waiting just to simply be deined a green card.

I am not an advocate of illegal immigration, however i am very sympethitic to it. It's not like an illegal immirgrant is taking "high paying" quality jobs here. They are typically performing functions that many americans would not do in this day in age (see farm labor/janitoria/domestic help). If you were poor, hungry and had no hope but heard that if you make it to the states, there is at least a steady paycheck if you toil in the fields, wouldn't you do that?

Whatever happpended to bring me your poor, your tired blah blah blah, not your privilaged, educated, and racial bias.

[ColoGI]

ILLEGAL immigrants are invaders.

New commenters spreading their fear-based fear and fear phrases are what make this country great, yessir!

[stroskey]

You must remember that our immirgration system is antiquated and is a relic of our euro-centric policies. The vast majority of our immigrants now come from central america and mexico. Our quota system is not set up for this and should be re-examined. Many of these immigrants come from very poor circumstances and cannot afford to wait 10 to 15 years waiting just to simply be deined a green card.

I don't have an opinion on the situation but based on this post it sounds like because different people are coming in the laws should change to accommodate them. Am I reading this wrong? If that's the case why have the laws at all if we are going to change them based on who is breaking them? People continue to drive drunk but we don't change the law because it's easier to not enforce than enforce it.

I do wholeheartedly agree that immigrants are not taking "American" jobs and that argument is tired. Come to the Midwest and tell me "they took our jobs". All the farmers around here are 100% white. In fact, the only Hispanic workers I know all work at a turkey plant for about $10/hour. You could say they lowered the wage from what whites made because from 1900-1980 meatpacking was the highest paid factory job but that all went away in the 1980s due to increased competition and other factors. 1980s was before a huge Hispanic push in our meatpacking.

[Raf]

I don't have an opinion on the situation but based on this post it sounds like because different people are coming in the laws should change to accommodate them.

It's more like our immigration laws were written to favor labor shortages to whom Europeans filled in from the late 18th and early 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed since then, but our immigration system and policies have not. We are now in the 21st century and have problems with "filling in gaps" for not just low wage service sector jobs or labor intensive jobs to which the latino immigrants are filling from the south of the border, but also high tech jobs to which immigrants from the indian sub-content want to fill but cannot (lack of H-1 B visas). This indicative of a problem with the immigration system as whole. So shouldn't the system reflect the needs of our economy?

[Otis]

ILLEGAL immigrants are invaders.

I don't think you'd get any argument from Native Americans on that count. Happy Columbus Day!

[mgk920]

I don't think you'd get any argument from Native Americans on that count. Happy Columbus Day!

IMHO, the word 'native' is wrong here in that the deep ancestors of North America's Aboriginals also immigrated, in their case from Asia (via the Bering Strait land bridge of the last Ice Age). The very fact that individuals from ALL of the various ancestral groups can inter-marry and successfully reproduce tells me that there is a common ancestry between them. IIRC, the human species is 'native' in sub-Saharan Africa.

What Arizona is trying to do is to get a handle on the whole situation WRT immigration by setting their state laws to mirror existing Federal laws and to then enforce them.

Mike

[Hink]

IMHO, the word 'native' is wrong here in that the deep ancestors of North America's Aboriginals also immigrated, in their case from Asia (via the Bering Strait land bridge of the last Ice Age). The very fact that individuals from ALL of the various ancestral groups can inter-marry and successfully reproduce tells me that there is a common ancestry between them. IIRC, the human species is 'native' in sub-Saharan Africa.

What Arizona is trying to do is to get a handle on the whole situation WRT immigration by setting their state laws to mirror existing Federal laws and to then enforce them.

Mike

Really? Come on now. I think Native is a term that can be given after a long period of time. I don't consider myself a native of poland or germany? Why would I? I wasn't born there. I have never even been there. I am a native of the United States. We screwed over Native Americans. It was there land. Is there really an argument here?

[ColoGI]

Really? Come on now. ... Is there really an argument here?

Nope. None. Our country keeps getting greater, apparently.

[wahday]

IMHO, the word 'native' is wrong here in that the deep ancestors of North America's Aboriginals also immigrated, in their case from Asia (via the Bering Strait land bridge of the last Ice Age). The very fact that individuals from ALL of the various ancestral groups can inter-marry and successfully reproduce tells me that there is a common ancestry between them. IIRC, the human species is 'native' in sub-Saharan Africa.

O...K...This argument seems like something one might say in response to the assertion that America's First People were a different "species," but no one has said that (a species being the defining category for organisms that can reproduce with one another and create fertile offspring). Perhaps "native" is an inaccurate term as it might imply these people evolved on this continent, but replace "Native American" with "First Peoples" or "First Nations" and the arguments still stand.

[Hink]

Nope. None. Our country keeps getting greater, apparently.

What does our country getting "greater" have anything to do with Native Americans? Or are you arguing that because our country is lost/confused/jumbled/mixed up in our politics that Native Americans aren't really native, but from another country first.

Our current situation is the same it has been for the last 50 years. We have a process, we have laws, our Federal government enforces them. States do not have the ability to do this. This isn't a states right argument. There really is no argument. I am confused as to this is argument is justified.

[ColoGI]

What does our country getting "greater" have anything to do with Native Americans? .

I asserted above:

New commenters spreading their fear-based fear and fear phrases are what make this country great, yessir!

We then had another fear-based fear phrase fear comment:

the word 'native' is wrong here in that the deep ancestors of North America's Aboriginals ...individuals from ALL of the various ancestral groups can inter-marry ... the human species is 'native' in sub-Saharan Africa.

thus my "keeps getting greater" observation.

HTH.

[Hink]

I asserted above:

New commenters spreading their fear-based fear and fear phrases are what make this country great, yessir!

We then had another fear-based fear phrase fear comment:

the word 'native' is wrong here in that the deep ancestors of North America's Aboriginals ...individuals from ALL of the various ancestral groups can inter-marry ... the human species is 'native' in sub-Saharan Africa.

thus my "keeps getting greater" observation.

HTH.

Got ya Carry on...

[stroskey]

We have a process, we have laws, our Federal government enforces them. States do not have the ability to do this. This isn't a states right argument. There really is no argument. I am confused as to this is argument is justified.

Why does California get to pass marijuana laws in direct conflict with Federal law and the Feds say "don't prosecute". Isn't this the same thing - states passing laws on Federal turf? I really don't buy the argument that states have NO authority over protecting their land. I don't care about immigration as the issue, but if one group has said they will not enforce laws why can't the "second string" come in and enforce the same laws? Why do neighborhood watches exist - shouldn't the police and the police only be protecting the streets?

In the same vein, why do some cities specifically say they will not look for illegal immigrants and the Feds don't crack down on them for usurping Federal power?

[Hink]

Why does California get to pass marijuana laws in direct conflict with Federal law and the Feds say "don't prosecute". Isn't this the same thing - states passing laws on Federal turf? I really don't buy the argument that states have NO authority over protecting their land. I don't care about immigration as the issue, but if one group has said they will not enforce laws why can't the "second string" come in and enforce the same laws? Why do neighborhood watches exist - shouldn't the police and the police only be protecting the streets?

In the same vein, why do some cities specifically say they will not look for illegal immigrants and the Feds don't crack down on them for usurping Federal power?

I get your first part. Although I have issues with whether or not they can pass a law that is in conflict with Federal law. If California tries to pass a statewide approval of a specific amount of marijuana, I think the Federal government will have to step in. California doesn't have the authority to do that.

I get your point that we should be able to govern our own systems - but that isn't exactly how we are set up. Even strong conservatives who throw the constitution into everything will back up the concept of the supremacy clause as is has to do with marijuana. They seem to ignore it when it deals with Arizona, but unfortunately it still holds. State governments cannot govern that which the Federal Government has the authority to govern. Immigration is Federal.

Not upholding a Federal Law isn't the same as enforcing a law the Federal government should be enforcing. It is Federal Government's responsibility to assure that its laws are being enforced.

[stroskey]

Not upholding a Federal Law isn't the same as enforcing a law the Federal government should be enforcing. It is Federal Government's responsibility to assure that its laws are being enforced.

What happens when the enforcing agency refuses to enforce their own laws? That's the problem I see, not anything to do with immigration.

In theory shouldn't the government be more mad that one state is legalizing an illegal act (spitting in the face of Federal law?) and another state is assisting and willing to help in the enforcement of a Federal law? If Federal law says you can't be here illegally how is AZ overstepping their bounds by making sure people are here legally? Aren't they, in short, just verifying things the Feds said should be verified?

[ColoGI]

I get your first part. Although I have issues with whether or not they can pass a law that is in conflict with Federal law. If California tries to pass a statewide approval of a specific amount of marijuana, I think the Federal government will have to step in. California doesn't have the authority to do that.


Not upholding a Federal Law isn't the same as enforcing a law the Federal government should be enforcing. It is Federal Government's responsibility to assure that its laws are being enforced.

Personally, albeit billions of $ have been wasted in the drug wars, IMHO this is a tacit admission that MJ is not in the same schedule as heroin. That placement was a political deal struck many decades ago for bad reasons. Feds are stepping aside on a social justice issue and asserting states' rights.

This is not to say there isn't widespread hokum happening with the medicalization of MJ, indicated around here by "clinics" every 500 feet on certain streets...

[naysh3]

The one significant word your keep leaving out is ILLEGAL! We are a nation of Legal immigrants (my own wife is Japanese, and became a citizen 2 years ago).

No American is against LEGAL immigration. Follow the rules, obey our laws, become part of the American Dream and you're welcome with open arms..

But if you sneak in, break our laws, abuse our social, education and medical institutions, take jobs away from people here legally and prove to be a further burden on the rest of us, we want you gone.

Remember...Legal immigration is what made this country the best on the planet. ILLEGAL immigrants are invaders.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

[wahday]

I think Stroskey raises an excellent point about states rights, responsibilities and roles in pushing the federal government toward a desired action. I honestly had never thought to equate what Arizona is doing to California, but it is an apt comparison. There are differences, of course (which I will get to in a moment) but I think overall, the two are related. Both are responding, at least in part, to violence along the border.

In the case of Arizona, the violence (exaggerated as it may have been by the Governor's unfounded assertions of "beheadings in the desert") or at least fear of it spilling over into the state provide the impetus (excuse?) to enact this legislation. Personally, I think the central argument against it is that it significantly violates basic civil rights, specifically the 14th amendment that says that unreasonable search and seizure are prohibited. Some may say that the illegal residents are not citizens and so are not covered by this protection, but how many legal residents do you have to go through to find the illegal ones? What about their rights?

Imagine if Philadelphia decided that the drug problem in their city was out of control and that federal laws and enforcement of drug crimes were insufficient. So, they enact some legislation to allow police officers to stop anyone who "looks like they might be a drug dealer" and search them. "Hey, if you don't have drugs on you, you shouldn't be worried" some might say, but I'm sure most people would agree that this would be a gross violation of civil rights. Because, what? If you are say, Black and get pulled over, searched, hassled, etc. on your way to a wedding or an important meeting its really ok because you didn't have anything on you to begin with? We citizens are supposed to be able to move about freely without fear of government harassment (what they may have called tyranny back in the day) . I really don't see the Arizona situation as any different. Yes, people are here illegally, but the question of HOW you identify them is the core question for me. You can't just go around pulling over "Mexican-looking" people and searching their belongings for evidence of their legality. The current solution in that state is entirely inconsistent with our core founding values, IMHO.

Similarly, in California, the legalization proposal has also been catalyzed by violence along the border. Its not because of illegal immigration, per se (although the same channels that smuggle people also smuggle drugs) but the basic idea that the Feds are not doing enough to stem the tide of cross-border issues is fueling the current popularity of the referendum. I have a little more sympathy for the California proposal in that it does not so obviously trample anyone's civil rights. California also has a history of introducing laws that push the rest of the country in a particular direction with respect to key issues. I'm thinking here about emissions controls. As I kid I never understood why on the Price is Right they would always say the cars had "California Emissions" but now I know that they enacted stricter rules that later were adopted country wide. People said it was foolish and that companies just wouldn't sell their cars in that state. But if you think California is low on cars, you've been living in a rabbit hole. But they bucked the system and enacted laws that went beyond federal regulations. That was rather risky (or risqué) at the time because some argued it amounted to meddling with trade regulation that was perceived to be the exclusive domain of the feds.

[stroskey]

Great point. I think states should be able to go above and beyond federal law but not less.

[Whose Yur Planner]

I like what Wahday and Stoskey said. For me, it is a 14th amendment issue. Plus, didn't we get into trouble with the whole profiling thing anyway? I'm also not a big fan of a national identity card/passport/whatever which is what this will lead to. We have enough of the pieces in place for a totalitian state as it is.

We should make the path to legal citizenship easier. This should be coupled with tighter illegal alien enforcement. A guest worker program is a great idea. I agree with the idea that the recent immigrants take the jobs that no one in America will do. I've seen to many businesses and people take advantage of the current system which encourages illegal immigration. With a reformed system should come tougher crackdowns on those who employee illegal aliens.

Af for the whole federalism agrument, which is an underlying issue here. The rule of thumb has always been you can go more restrictive than the next layer of government above you. You just can't contradict. Further, it's up to you to enforce the more restrictive regs. The best example being speed limits.

[Gotta Speakup]

The posting title doesnt ask if the law is constitutional, only if it makes economic sense. Assuming this means that the costs vs. the benefits should be assessed:

The benefits might include:

Lower government expenses
Less crime
Some people may want to move or invest in Arizona

The costs might include:

Lower tax revenues
Higher enforcement expenses
Higher legal expenses
Higher labor costs
Some businesses would lose money
Some people may choose not to move to, invest in, or visit Arizona

[wahday]

The posting title doesnt ask if the law is constitutional, only if it makes economic sense. Assuming this means that the costs vs. the benefits should be assessed:

The benefits might include:

Lower government expenses
Less crime
Some people may want to move or invest in Arizona

The costs might include:

Lower tax revenues
Higher enforcement expenses
Higher legal expenses
Higher labor costs
Some businesses would lose money
Some people may choose not to move to, invest in, or visit Arizona

Another cost might include protracted legal wrangling with the feds at the expense of other important state-wide issues. I'm not just talking about the money, but the attention of the governor and legislature that could be devoted to other important topics.

Way to bring us back on topic...