[KR: An oped by an old friend and law professor at Santa Clara University. He urges a conversation about whether it is a good thing for immigration policies to become more local. A worthy question, but also worth asking how the current policy and normative debates are different from the debates during the mid-1990s when state governments were the relevant battlegrounds (and remain so even today). Also worth noting books such as those by Ron Hayduk (Democracy For All) which note that progressive policies towards immigrants in the United States, including voting rights, were historically found at the local and state levels first.
Mr. Gulasekaram’s oped ends on a fairly optimistic note. The evidence today indicates that the majority of immigrants live in politically progressive cities. However, there are more jurisdictions today who have passed explicitly restrictive ordinances versus sanctuary ones, although high legal and economic costs may slow the advancement of Hazleton-like ordinances. Still, it may be little comfort to an undocumented immigrant in a restrictive state or locality to know that there are other places in the U.S. with more liberal policies.]
THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE: Coming Soon - A City ID?
‘Both sides might consider focusing on their shared faith in local action.’
Pratheepan Gulasekaram
San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2007
While immigration has been historically cast as a federal responsibility, state and city governments have seized upon the U.S. government’s immigration deadlock by stepping in to fill the void. In the first eight months of 2007, local jurisdictions passed more than 170 immigration-related laws - more than doubling the number from 2006.
Not surprisingly, San Francisco has entered the fray. Having already declared the city a symbolic haven for undocumented immigrants, the Board of Supervisors recently proposed issuing municipal ID cards to all city residents. These cards would help undocumented people apply for jobs, access city services and open bank accounts - all to ensure that the immigrant population is employed, educated, willing to report crimes and treated with dignity.
Yet lurking behind the ID proposal is a fundamental constitutional issue. Opponents of the plan argue that the city’s proposal violates the U.S. Constitution because it frustrates principles of federal supremacy and power with regard to immigration matters.
Although the opposition’s claim has legal merit, it is not without irony. Just a few months ago, pro-immigrant forces used the same argument to persuade a federal court to overturn a restrictive ordinance against illegal immigrants in Hazelton, Pa. That measure would have denied such immigrants employment, social services and housing.
(more…)