Editor's Note: For anyone who is examining the issue of immigration reform with a fully intact ethical conscience, the proposed Utah Pilot Accountability Permit Program (UPAPP) put forth this week by State Senator Luz Robles (D) and Sutherland Institute Director Paul Mero should be unsettling and deeply disturbing. In fact, in comparison to Rep. Stephen Sandstrom's proposed enforcement legislation, wholly criticized in previous posts, Robles' proposal is, in fact, potentially more socially ruinous. To its core, it perpetuates a second-class status for undocumented immigrants and does little to assuage the vulnerabilities with which they must contend.
However, content to put their own deeply misguided interpretation to the rule-of-law concept and to temptingly packaged versions of political catchphrases and slogans, Robles and Mero see illusionary visions of political clout to be earned at the forthcoming legislative session. But at what price? Clearly, many – including some well-known names in the Hispanic/Latino/Chicano communities – are anxious to jump on the bandwagon and endorse this appalling proposal.
Sadly, the voices of individuals who would be most affected by any of these proposals – and particularly those whose earnest stories of work and hoped-for success have been told in this blog – do not echo in the statements heard this week. Only Tony Yapias has come forward to call out rightly the profound errors embodied in this proposal.
In Utah, Robles could have taken the leadership cue and elevate the public discussions about immigration reform with the virtues of prudence and sober analysis that take into consideration the ethical and pragmatic aspects of reform in their full scope. Those virtues are missing in her proposal.
Unfortunately, the tone of the public discourse with regard to immigration is not sufficiently mature enough to tackle the challenges of achieving meaningful immigration reform that respect mutually the essential rights of human dignity and economic justice and balance them accordingly with a classically liberal conceptualization of the rule of law.
Before turning to Mark Alvarez, a Salt Lake City attorney who has written regularly about immigration for this blog, for his specific analysis of UPAPP, I'll add a further preface. As our elected officials at the national and state levels have clearly abdicated their responsibilities for being wise stewards on this issue, the time has come for direct action. For those seeking to engage meaningful protests that compel substantive legislative action, the work and experience of Cesar Chavez from the 1960s should be the model here. Perhaps then the voices of those most directly affected will finally get their fair hearing.
As a start, here are some lessons of just how bad politics really does make bad policy:
Lesson 1: The Constitution applies to state-level immigration proposals of all types. Robles has opposed an Arizona-style proposal as unconstitutional on the basis of the federal authority over immigration. Among other problems, UPAPP sets up a Utah work permit in direct conflict with federal laws that prohibit immigrants from employment without authorization. UPAPP is unconstitutional.
Lesson 2: Politics should not trump honesty. UPAPP contains a clause directing the governor to obtain necessary waivers, exemptions or authority to implement a state immigration scheme. This is misleading, perhaps dishonest. Robles and others working on UPAPP have spent months trying to gain federal approval for a state scheme. They have failed to get it.
Lesson 3: Politics should not trump common sense. It is not rational for Utah, a state without international borders and with less than one percent of the national population, to have a separate immigration system from the other 49 states. It is fiscally irresponsible for Utah to set up a state immigration scheme when status will have to be determined by the federal government. UPAPP pretends to make the undocumented pay for this. Yeah, that's lucid.
Lesson 4: Separating the undocumented into an official subclass is wrong and offensive to human dignity. UPAPP would implement a system of Type A (2 year) and Type B (18 month) cards for undocumented immigrants living in Utah. Those who applied would go through background checks to join a human subclass subject to rigid card-carrying requirements. Those who did not get their card would be subject to being photographed and fingerprinted by the police and then reported to federal authorities. In addition, those who let their card lapse would be ordered out of Utah. Mero does not want to live in a police state. Apparently, it's okay to impose that on the undocumented. Mero morality.
Lesson 5: The undocumented are neither objects nor merchandise. They are human beings. UPAPP supporters talk about how well the economy will function with cheap labor available from cardholders. They talk about increased tax revenues, perhaps to disguise how much this could cost Utah taxpayers. News bulletin: Undocumented workers already pay taxes. Mostly, they are law-abiding human beings like most of the rest of us. Directive to UPAPP people: Treat all of us with the respect due all human beings.
Lesson 6: The arrogance and ambition of Robles and Mero are exceeded by their stupidity and blindness to the consequences of their action. Some undocumented immigrants have perceived UPAPP as immigration reform that allows them to get work permits and permanently reside in the Utah. Some have called to see how to apply for Utah work permits. Shame on the drafters and proponents of UPAPP!
In every iteration, the Robles-Mero proposal is as imprudent as the Sandstrom option. The rhetoric is fatally flawed in both instances. One would have expected that Robles, supposedly mindful of her constituency and the principles that allegedly formed her guiding political ideology, would have wisely avoided the dangers of submitting to partial truths. Instead, she could have risen above the fray and set forth a more fully nuanced perspective of the rule-of-law notion that prudently addresses concerns on both sides of the political aisle.
Try to decide the difference. Sandstrom's proposal is catch and release. Robles' option essentially is brand and release. The kicker: Innocent individuals pay for a privilege not backed by law.
Shameful.
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Boletin Diario :
Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com
Foro Debate :
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion
Ahora en FACEBOOK : Red Democratica
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml
Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2009
Keep the candle burning
I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm
FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA (1998-1999).
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org
Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment