The State of Black America, Part Two: The Nation’s Debate Over Illegal Immigration and How it Impacts Us

Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2007
By: Michael H. Cottman

EDITOR'S NOTE: "The Nation’s Debate Over Illegal Immigration and How it Impacts Us" is the second in BlackAmericaWeb.com's six-part State of Black America series. Coming Thursday: What the Iraq war is costing blacks.



While the Bush administration and Congress grapple with the complexities of immigration reform, the debate among blacks about Hispanic laborers has focused primarily on one emotionally-charged question: Are illegal immigrants taking jobs from black Americans?

With Hispanics now regarded as the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, immigration has become a flashpoint issue that transcends Capitol Hill. Today, the subject of illegal immigration is being debated on black radio, in barber shops and during community meetings across the country.

From Los Angeles to Louisiana, blacks are often split. Some take a hard line and even support building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States, while others say blacks and Latinos should form a strategic political alliance and embrace immigration reform as a modern-day civil rights issue.

According to a recent survey of BlackAmericaWeb.com’s user audience, 45 percent said Congress should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. Nearly 50 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants are placing an undue burden on America’s social services, and about 30 percent said illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from low-income blacks.

"It’s a reality that Latinos are taking jobs, and there is a debate among African Americans," Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.


Kilpatrick said while Latinos are accepting jobs in the areas of housekeeping and minimum-wage jobs at restaurants and construction jobs, she supports those immigrants who are in America legally.

"I support a plan for everyone to be here legally, pay taxes and become citizens," Kilpatrick said in an interview. "But if not, they should return to their home country."

How Congress will ultimately resolve the issue of illegal immigration is anyone’s guess. "This is not a quick fix," the congresswoman said.

The issue has intensified for many Americans in places like California, Texas, Florida and New York, where Hispanic residents are rapidly becoming the majority in many neighborhoods. In Dallas, for example, a Dallas-based pizza chain has been flooded with hate e-mails after starting a controversial program to accept Mexican pesos.

"This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico," one e-mail read. "Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans," another e-mail stated.

Hilary Shelton, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the NAACP, said the issue of Hispanic workers and jobs must be explained in the proper context.

CHECK THE STATS: Scroll down to the bottom of this page to read the results of BlackAmericaWeb.com's poll on immigration.

"Let’s put this into perspective," Shelton told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "The discussion is about low-paying jobs. These are not big-career positions. We’re talking about minimum wage jobs -- and in some cases sub-minimum wage jobs -- that don’t offer health insurance. The people who benefit most from undocumented members of our community are the employers."

Peter C. Groff, publisher of Blackpolicy.org and executive director of the Center for African American Policy at the University of Denver, said the immigration reform debate is complex.

"This is a rather tough issue from an African-American standpoint," Groff told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "On the one hand, there is this history of sacrifice that we share with major immigrant groups in the United States. So, on many levels, we have these indisputable social & cultural bonds, particularly with Latinos, Africans and West Indians."

"And then, on the other hand," Groff said, "there is this festering dilemma of competition for jobs, affordable housing and other resources -- this notion that 'they' are taking jobs from 'us.' That’s a troubling notion for black people, considering we’ve been here longer and fought so many years to attain higher levels of wealth, professional development and education. So, the interesting question is this: Why would we want the low-end, entry level, manual labor jobs typically secured by non-English speaking and mostly Latino immigrants?"

PODCAST: Senior Correspondent Michael Cottman
talks with Peter Groff about the impact of illegal immigration on black America.

As the debate about immigration heats up this year, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a political analyst and syndicated columnist, said there is an important connection between immigration reform and civil rights.

"Last spring, immigration rights groups loudly demanded that civil right groups take part in immigration rights marches and endorse immigration reform bills in Congress," Hutchinson wrote in a recent column. "They branded the immigration battle the new civil rights movement, and insisted that if Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive he would have backed up their claim."

"It’s risky to say what King would have done on that score," he said. "Yet it’s almost certain that given King’s passionate support of the mostly Latino led and targeted farm workers movement in California, and his glowing praise of farm worker leader Cesar Chavez, he would have regarded the immigration reform fight as a bonafide civil rights battle."

While Congress works on immigration legislation, some black Americans are also asking exactly how many illegal immigrants are living in the United States. Depending on the source, the numbers range from about 7 million up to 20 million or more.

"Nailing down such figures is impossible," according to The Christian Science Monitor. "Even settling on a ballpark figure is difficult, given the official sources: the US Census, apprehensions along the US-Mexico border and social service agencies. For one thing, illegal immigrants avoid responding to census questionnaires, states a 2005 report by Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. in New York."

A number of black professionals told BlackAmericaWeb.com privately they are becoming impatient with undocumented immigrants putting a strain on health care services, schools and after-care programs.

Healthcare for illegal immigrants between the ages of 18 and 64 cost American taxpayers $1.1 billion in 2000 -- or about $11 per household -- according to a recent released by the Rand Corp . The study put the cost in Los Angeles County at $204 million, according to The Los Angeles Times.

"They should build that wall," said one black corporate professional from Los Angeles, referring to a call by some congressional leaders to construct a 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States.

But Groff told BlackAmericaWeb.com that blacks and Latinos should find common ground and consider working together.

"We should be forming coalitions that focus on a wide array of similar socio-economic and political issues," Groff said. "Forming black-brown coalitions as a way to counter unreasonable anti-immigrant sentiments should be a top priority."

"Rapid Latino population grown is both real and inevitable as they are now the largest minority group in the United States," he said. "As the African-American population in the U.S. steadily decreases, we have to evaluate what may happen in the next 20 years as more Latinos register to vote and are elected to office. We then have to consider partnerships as a way to offset diminished numbers and political power."

"We’ll also have to face the prevalence of Latino anti-Black racism by finding ways to counter it," Groff added. "That said, the moral conflict posed here is that African-Americans should be the last people on Earth jumping on an anti-immigrant bandwagon."

Supporters of overhauling immigration rules began a congressional push to give temporary legal status to up to 1.5 million illegal immigrant workers to provide a labor pool for U.S. agriculture.

The proposal is a recycled version of parts of a bill that stalled after passing the Senate last year. House Republicans blocked negotiations on the measure, sticking with a get-tough stand against illegal immigrants before the November elections.

Those wanting to liberalize immigration laws hope the combination of a Democratic majority in Congress, support from President Bush and a perceived backlash against anti-immigration rhetoric in the elections will help power the comprehensive immigration proposals.

Under the bill, illegal immigrants who can show they have labored in agriculture for at least 150 work days for the past two years would become eligible for a "blue card" bestowing temporary legal status. Their spouses and minor children also could get a blue card if they already live in the U.S.

People with these cards who work an additional three years, at least 150 days a year, or five years, at least 100 days a year, would be eligible for legal residency. But they first would have to pay a $500 fine, be up to date on taxes, have no record of committing crimes involving bodily injury or threat of serious bodily injury or have caused property damage of more than $500.

The blue card program would end after five years, unless it is renewed. The bill would reduce the time it takes to get a visa for an immigrant who wants to come to the U.S. to work in agriculture.

Congress has altered immigration rules to give temporary legal status to up to 1.5 million illegal immigrant workers to provide a labor pool for U.S. agriculture. Some hope a Democratic majority in Congress will help strengthen the comprehensive immigration proposals.

The legislation requires illegal immigrants who can show they have labored in agriculture for at least 150 work days for the past two years would become eligible for a "blue card" temporary legal status.

The blue card program would end after five years, unless it is renewed. The bill would reduce the time it takes to get a visa for an immigrant who wants to come to the U.S. to work in agriculture.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), who has sponsored an immigration bill in Congress and whose Houston district includes a large number of Hispanic immigrants, said she is disappointed that congressional leaders have not supported fair immigration legislation.

"My bill attempted to craft this as a civil rights issue, and that is, to give a sense of fairness to individuals who had been in this country and had worked and paid taxes and wanted to come from under the shadows," Jackson-Lee told Democracy Now. "We looked at this in a holistic viewpoint that, in fact, if you identify the undocumented individuals, they become investors in this society."

According to the BlackAmericaWeb.com survey, 51 percent of respondents said immigration reform is an effort for big business to import cheap labor, and nearly 40 percent of blacks surveyed said Congress should make tightening U.S. borders a top priority in 2007.

"With our communities having the highest unemployment rate," Jackson-Lee said, "with the administration and this Congress being very unconcerned about the plight of African-American males and the plight of poor quality schools, yes, I can sympathize and empathize with the African-American community about what they perceive to be a population group that takes jobs."

---

Associated Press contributed to this story

One of the main things that is never talked about in these articles is legal status. Good old citizenship!! I mean, isn't that an important issue... especially in a debate such as this?

Okay ... so America is a melting pot. We're supposed to welcome anybody ... everybody, come one, come all!! I get that. But, was there not a Constitution and a Bill of Rights written for citizens of the United States that should be specific and directly regarding those which fall under that criteria and qualification? I mean, is it too much to ask that I get to enjoy the benefits and privileges of rights and laws that were written to protect me and provide certain certainties to me before I am asked to share them with someone who, by whatever circumstance, does not meet the requirements of being an American citizen, as I do?

Whether or not they take jobs, whether or not they put more into or take more out of the economy, whether or not they are straining the healthcare and education systems for the rest of us still has nothing to do with giving a person who is not even in this country legally …. entered by breaking our laws, no less … rights which are supposed to be reserved for someone like me who is in this country legally, who has had generations of ancestors living here before me and who has time, history, investment and the natural born right to consider myself a citizen of the United States of America??

Where is the line drawn? What is really the difference if there is no differences?

Illegal immigrants are in this country to stay. The barn door was left open and the horses came in instead of going out!! You can shut it now if you want to, but the damage has been done. As with all messes, you have to clean them up … and whatever the final outcome of is of this immigration debate our government is having, if there is a solution to be had, I'll have to cross that bridge when I get to it.

I am not Mexican-phobic either! To the contrary … I have had great times and been treated very well by the Hispanic people I've encountered some of which I've become good friends with. I've been to ball games where I was surrounded by Mexicans on all sides, and have ate, drank and been merry all for the price of admission! A Hispanic girl sitting in front of me and my Dad one day made sure he stayed cool by spraying him with a Dodger Ball fan! And she was spraying her grandma too! I have been at the beach and been invited to their parties, been invited to the houses of co-workers and had a ball, in fact, when it comes to hospitality, I've been treated better by Hispanics out here than some of my own people! So, I am not a Mexican-basher.

But there are certain rights … some of them are still being written into law … that I, as a citizen am supposed to be entitled to. And I don't think that it's asking too much that those rights are adequately afforded to me before we just allow everybody else to reap the benefits of them as well. An K-12 education is something that is promised to every citizen born here. There's not a universal health care plan, but there should be. My state driver's license has been the federally accepted method of identification, like, forever!! Social services, social programs, jobs, housing … I was led to believe that these are the kinds of things and opportunities that are supposed to be offered to me because of my investment and citizenship in this country.

The experts say that there are now more Hispanics in this country than African Americans. And if those numbers aren't right, now … they definitely will be soon enough! And not all of them are here legally. The count ranges from anywhere between 12 million and 20 million (which I can't understand because how can you even misplace 8 million people to the point you can't even count them? But, so be it.). It is also estimated that 24.9 percent of Black Americans are living below the poverty line. 36 million Americans overall … Americans … as in citizens!

I really don't think that it is unreasonable to want … make that expect … the government to take care of home first. If you've got Americans in trouble, it is up to the gov't to reach out and provide as much assistance is necessary to put them back on track. Regardless of ethnicity or circumstance But based on the premise of citizenship. Which I thought was supposed to stand for something. But I find myself wondering what that is.

quote:

“Illegal is illegal,” Mr. Barletta said in an interview. “There is no race in illegal.”

March 13, 2007
City’s Immigration Restrictions Go on Trial
By JULIA PRESTON



SCRANTON, Pa., March 12 — In a test case about the power of cities to crack down on illegal immigration, a federal trial opened here Monday in which municipal restrictions in Hazleton, Pa., are being challenged as discriminatory and overreaching.

City officials in Hazleton were the first in the country to adopt ordinances intended to drive away illegal immigrants by punishing local landlords for renting to them and employers for giving them jobs. The restrictions, which have yet to take effect, have been imitated by at least 80 towns and cities.

“The city has responded rationally to a very real threat,” Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in the opening statement on behalf of Hazleton. Mr. Kobach described a surge in violent crime and gang warfare since 2005 that city officials attribute to a growing population of illegal immigrants.

The trial, before Judge James M. Munley of Federal District Court, is the result of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is the first challenge to the municipal ordinances across the country to be heard in a federal trial.

The rights groups say the ordinances encourage discrimination against Hispanic residents, violate federal and state housing laws, and overstep the powers of a local government to deal with immigration, which has been almost exclusively a federal matter.

Witold Walczak, the legal director for the Pennsylvania A.C.L.U., said Hazleton did not have the authority to inquire into its residents’ immigration status. “Law regarding immigration can and must be passed only by Congress,” Mr. Walczak said in an opening statement, warning that the ordinances could unleash racial vendettas in which neighbors would make complaints about Hispanic residents based on their appearance.

Judge Munley’s ruling could be a major marker of how far local governments can go to limit illegal immigration. In another closely watched case, a state court judge in St. Louis on Monday struck down similar employment and housing laws adopted by Valley Park, Mo., a suburb of St. Louis.

In that case, the blunt ruling by the judge, Barbara W. Wallace, means that “as a matter of state law, no city in Missouri should be doing this,” said Linda M. Martínez, one of the lawyers who brought the challenge.

Most of the ordinances that followed Hazleton’s have faced state and federal challenges. So far, not one of the tougher measures has gone into effect, according to a roster compiled by the Puerto Rican rights group.

After first adopting the ordinances last July, Hazleton revised them several times in response to questions raised by opponents. City officials announced another revision on Monday, saying they would eliminate two words that appeared to leave open the possibility that complaints could be brought against tenants solely on racial grounds.

Hazleton’s mayor, Louis J. Barletta, the driving force behind the laws, said his basic purpose remained the same: to make Hazleton hostile territory for illegal immigrants.

“Illegal is illegal,” Mr. Barletta said in an interview. “There is no race in illegal.”

Mr. Barletta said he was spurred to action last year by the daytime shooting death of a Hazleton man, Derek Kichline, in which two illegal immigrants have been accused.

One ordinance withholds business licenses from employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. Another requires all tenants to register with City Hall, presenting proof of identification that the authorities can check against federal databases.

Mr. Barletta said that some Hispanic businesses had complained of losing customers and that some immigrants had moved away.

“We witnessed many people leaving in the dark of night,” he said. “We have to assume they were illegal aliens.”

Testifying against Hazleton, José Luis Lechuga, a legal Mexican immigrant who said he had lived in the city for 16 years, recounted how his grocery specializing in tortillas and chorizo and his restaurant with home-cooked tacos had failed in recent months. “Many people did not want to come to Hazleton anymore because they did not feel safe,” Mr. Lechuga testified. Hazleton residents “look at us as enemies now.”

Under cross-examination by a Hazleton lawyer, Harry G. Mahoney, Mr. Lechuga confirmed that his financial troubles had started well before the ordinances were passed, and he acknowledged that many of his customers might have been illegal immigrants.

Still, the court testimony left an impression of a harsh social change in Hazleton for some Hispanic residents.

“I saw a lot of fear” after the laws were adopted, said one resident, Agapito López, a retired ophthalmologist. “It was hurting my people. Latinos are a family.”

Judge Munley ruled Friday that the illegal immigrants who were plaintiffs in the case did not have to appear in court but could present their depositions as evidence, meaning they would not face cross-examination.

Last year, Hazleton also adopted an ordinance making English the city’s official language. That law is the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Munley, but it is not at issue in this trial.

This Congress is starting to put me to sleep.
Same , different day.

March 13, 2007
Kennedy, Eager for Republican Support, Shifts Tactics on an Immigration Measure
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, March 12 — Facing a rebellion from some crucial Republicans, Senator Edward M. Kennedy has abandoned efforts to produce a new immigration bill and is proposing using legislation produced last March by the Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Republicans, as the starting point for negotiations this year, lawmakers said Monday.

Mr. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a principal architect of immigration legislation in the Senate, now controlled by Democrats, said he was shifting gears in hopes of winning Republican support and speeding the passage of immigration legislation this spring. Four of 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted last year for the committee’s bill, which would tighten border security, create a temporary worker program and legalize illegal immigrants.

President Bush said Monday in Guatemala that he hoped to see an immigration bill completed by the fall and that he was working with Republicans to define a position most could support. “If we don’t have enough consensus,” Mr. Bush said, “nothing is going to move out of the Senate.”

Mr. Kennedy and a Republican colleague, Senator John McCain of Arizona, had spent several months trying to produce a new immigration bill that was expected to be introduced this month. But several Republicans protested that they had been shut out of the negotiations. They began drafting their own bill, led by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican moderate who led the debate on immigration in the Judiciary Committee last year.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, who led Republican lawmakers in championing immigration legislation last year, has appeared to be backing away from that role, several Congressional aides said.

Conservatives have sharply criticized Mr. McCain, a leading Republican presidential candidate, for supporting efforts to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

Senior aides in both parties said Mr. McCain told several colleagues last week that he was stepping away from the bill because he was troubled by labor provisions it included. Eileen McMenamin, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, disputed that assertion, saying he “remains committed to passing a comprehensive immigration bill.”

Mr. Kennedy said that he hoped Mr. McCain would continue to be deeply involved in the push for immigration legislation but that he would “certainly understand” if he could not be, given the demands of the presidential campaign.

“We will value as much time and effort and energy as he can put into this,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. “I recognize that he’s a presidential candidate and that’s going to take a big part of his time.”

Mr. Kennedy dismissed the notion that his efforts to produce a new immigration bill had failed. He said he had decided that the committee report was “the best starting point” because it had bipartisan support and because it would allow lawmakers to move swiftly toward passage, with a vote as early as May.

“We’ve had extensive hearings on the essential aspects of this bill,” Mr. Kennedy said. “We are effectively ready for markup and going to the floor.”

Mr. Specter, who said Mr. Kennedy first suggested the new approach on the Senate floor on Friday, said he was still weighing whether to support it. He said he and several Republican lawmakers had met with White House officials when it became clear they would not be included in the negotiations between Mr. Kennedy and Mr. McCain.

“We’ve gotten fairly far along on the outlines of a bill,” said Mr. Specter. “Nonetheless, I think it is desirable to work jointly with the Democrats.”

Mr. Specter said he would consult with his Republican colleagues and White House officials before deciding. The bill passed by the Judiciary Committee did not include several measures included in last year’s Senate legislation, including a provision to compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before applying for citizenship.

Mr. McCain declined a request for an interview, but Ms. McMenamin said he supported Mr. Kennedy’s approach. “The most important thing is that they come to some sort of consensus on immigration reform,” she said. “This is a good way to arrive at it.” She said Mr. McCain had told his staff to remain deeply involved in negotiations on the legislation.

It's mindboggling to me how all of a sudden illegal=Mexican ... as if there's no African or Asian or even European illegal immigrants in this country!

"Racism" seems to be the favorite tag word these days when a particular group is trying to draw attention to itself. Suddenly, it's "racism" laws that are being broken when gays want certain rights. It's "racism" laws that are being broken when illegal immigrants are being targeted for having illegally crossed the borders into this country.

Simply amazing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EbonyRose,

********************
BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Before there was ANY history, there was BLACK history.

BUY BLACK!!!