JGL Eye

By JOSEPH G. LARIOSA

(Journal Group Link International)

Razing Arizona as Many Politicians Refuse to Speak the “I” Word due to Midterm Elections

C HICAGO (jGLi) – In this upcoming midterm November elections, there is an unspoken word among politicians that they would rather not mention – the “I” word as in Immigration.

While some say supporters of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer would like to bring the conversation up to another level, others would rather shy away from it and discuss the weather or other trivial matters.

The controversial law, Senate Bill 1070, signed by Brewer in late April 2010, would require police officers to question and detain Latinos and others who they "reasonably" suspect of being undocumented.  If a person doesn’t immediately present documents proving that he or she is legally in the US, he or she may be criminally prosecuted for trespassing, jailed, and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation.

Some immigration lawyers, like my friend, Arnedo Valera of the Washington, D.C.-based Migrant Heritage Commission, call this provision “racial profiling and increases the likelihood of arbitrary arrest and detention instead of effectively curbing undocumented aliens in Arizona.” Attorney Valera is happy to say that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton struck this controversial provision down.

While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, California has cooled off the immigration debate somewhat when it denied Governor Brewer’s bid “for an expedited hearing in September,” appealing Judge Bolton’s ruling, a hearing will be held on Nov. 1, a day before the Nov. 2 elections, it quieted the debate on the larger Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.

After all, even if the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling, either party will surely elevate the case to the Supreme Court, which could finally raise the topic to the national level that it rightfully deserves.

Either way, the decision will only delay the agony of losers and the ecstasy to the winners of the case.

SIDE ISSUE

W hile the issue would only resolve the issue if Arizona police are authorized to investigate immigration cases that belong to federal immigration enforces, some observers hope the debate would end up with the bi-partisan members of the U.S. Congress coming together and passing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform law that will allow the 12 million illegal immigrants to a path to citizenship.

The most prominent voice sidetracking this debate is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who proposed amending the Constitution to make clear that babies born in the U.S. called "anchor babies" do not automatically receive American citizenship.

Mr. Graham would like to amend the controversial 14th Amendment of 1868 that granted citizenship to people born within the United States (excluding non-taxed Indians, who were granted citizenship in the 1920’s) regardless of their parents’ race, citizenship, or place of birth.

He told Fox News, "There's another problem we have in this nation that I think is novel and needs to be fixed. If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases say there's a constitutional right to that. I would like to deal with the 12-million (illegal immigrants) firmly and fairly. You can't stay here on your own terms. You have to learn English. You have to pay fines. You have to get in the back of the line if you want to be a citizen. But I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

UNFOUNDED FEAR OF "ANCHOR" BABIES

S enator Graham has a good point. But his fears of illegal immigrants coming to America to “drop and leave” babies are unfounded.

How can an illegal immigrant "drop and leave" when she is staying?

If they are done at all, they are done by wealthy visitors with U.S. visas, which are a minority, and not by millions of illegal immigrants, who come here to work and pursue their American Dreams, and don’t leave.

Besides, he does not need to worry about the 14th Amendment because according to Seattle, Washington-based state Private Attorney General Paul Mitchell, this 1868 Amendment was unconstitutional when the Senate and the House of at least 10 Southern States, including his home state of South Carolina, were not allowed to ratify it by the U.S. Congress, quoting the opinion of Dyett v. Turner (1968).

Mr. Mitchell, as a result, has also filed an amendment to the 14th Amendment, minus the “birthright” provision being espoused by Senator Graham.

But because an amendment is a long shot, it behooves on Senator Graham to support the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that is more doable.

Senator Graham should now, instead, join his fellow Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana to support one of the components of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill– the Dream Act.

Sen. Dick Durbin (IL-Dem.) told a community gathering in Chicago’s southside three weeks ago that the Dream Act used to have the support of 11 Senate Republicans. “But ten of them backed away, leaving us with Senator Lugar as the lone Republican co-sponsor of this bill. Please thank Senator Lugar for keeping the faith and reach out to other Republican senators.”

The Dream Act would offer a narrow legalization program for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and have stayed in school and out of trouble.

The passage of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act will pay homage to immigrants, who have made this country the most-powerful nation on Earth.

Among them was Albert Einstein, a German immigrant, who provided the scientific formula that created the Atomic bombs that ended World War II. # # #

Editor’s Note: To contact the author, please e-mail him at:  (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)