Home > Insight

Local legislation comes up weak on immigration
By Geof Wollerman
gwollerm@mscd.edu

The history of human immigration is as old as, well, human history. Ever since the first tribes moved out of Africa and began spreading the roots of culture and commerce, people have sought to live, work and raise families in areas outside of their home turf. Now, after millennia of continental migration, forced expulsion, war, climate change and exploration, the global community now finds itself in an era of convergence. People from Asia to Europe to South America are seeking to assimilate themselves into a new and homogenous world culture of the 21st century: a culture of free-market, liberal democracies, or what Francis Fukuyama, in reference to the contemporary culmination of political thought, once called “the end of history.”

This is a fine and inevitable development in the long term, but in the short term it is causing quite a few problems—not just here in the United States, but in every developing region in the world where opportunities exist and oppression is minimal. And problems, from a political standpoint, necessitate legislation.

Here in the United States, in spite of national lawmakers’ failure to reach an immigration reform compromise—or rather because of it—Colorado legislators last week acted quickly and (somewhat) decisively, allowing a vote to be put on the upcoming ballot that, if passed, would charge the state attorney general with filing a lawsuit against the federal government for failing to enforce national immigration laws. This is certainly the boldest step any state has yet taken in addressing the immigration issue—particularly by recognizing that immigration enforcement, first and foremost, is a federal issue.

The passage of what legislative leaders are calling the “toughest package of immigration laws in the country” introduced by an individual state were the result of a special five-day session convened by Gov. Bill Owens. Along with the ballot measure, the legislature also voted to require employers and state services to verify the legal status of applicants and employees, and introduced another ballot measure asking voters to approve a change in tax laws that would prevent businesses from collecting tax breaks for unauthorized aliens.

Compared with national proposals, the Colorado measures are less sweeping and controversial. But unlike national proposals, Colorado’s were passed. National proposals from the Senate and House, perhaps owing to their dramatically different approaches to the issue, could not be reconciled by lawmakers, and with a midterm election coming up in the fall, the controversial topic is likely not to be dropped until next year.

The recent focus on illegal immigration is indicative of just how radical and sudden the progress of globalization has been. And proposed solutions to the problem, on both a national and a state level, are indicative of the timidity involved by lawmakers; even the recent Colorado measures simply seek to enforce bans on activities that, ostensibly, were already illegal. Politicians are unwilling to commit themselves to any broad, sweeping vision of reform that is not reactionary in nature. What that progressive vision may look like, or if it is even feasible, remains to be seen.
Like the war against terrorism, the fight against illegal immigration is rooted in paranoia, vague statistics and, unfortunately, misinformation. And there is no way to simply stop immigration. Until we can alleviate poverty and daily suffering on a global scale, it is here to stay, and from all indications, we have yet to see the worst of it.

This is not the first time the United States has faced serious problems with illegal immigration. In 1954, faced with growing numbers of illegal workers slipping into the country due to soft enforcement and corruption on a local level, President Dwight Eisenhower authorized a roundup and deportation program dubbed “Operation Wetback.” Between June and September that year, 80,000 illegal immigrants were taken into custody and, according to The Christian Science Monitor, “an estimated 500,000 to 700,000” left voluntarily.

While a measure such as Eisenhower’s would probably not settle well with many citizens these days, it is proof the United States has been aggressive about immigration in the past, and that any proposal put forth in the last two years looks weak and indecisive in comparison. Admittedly, the issue is far more complicated today than it was 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for pragmatic, aggressive decision making—especially if it’s sensitive to global concerns and the realities of the marketplace.

The United States, in both its foreign and domestic policies, can never again afford to be an isolationist country. Colorado has taken a step in the right direction by recognizing the issue and advocating a solution; but the step is not nearly as bold as its purported to be. Colorado, as a key swing-state in the upcoming 2006 and 2008 elections, needs to continue its work and broaden its vision. And other states need to join Colorado in its push for real federal reform—reform that recognizes the realities of a 21st century global community. Otherwise, the United States will continue to tread water in the pool while the rest of the world dives in around us. If no action is taken, whether we like or not, soon there might be nowhere left to swim.