Anti-BVBL

USAToday reports:

Three West Coast mayors are asking the leaders of other cities to take a stand against workplace immigration raids that they say hurt local economies and may force companies to relocate.

At the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors this week in Miami, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will ask their colleagues to challenge how the government raids businesses in search of illegal workers.

They want Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to focus on businesses that exploit workers, such as those that violate wage and safety laws, not “responsible employers” that contribute to economies, their resolution says.

“We’ve never taken the position that you shouldn’t enforce the law,” Villaraigosa says. “What we’ve said is, in a time of limited resources, we should prioritize our enforcement. At a time when we don’t have the resources to go after criminals, we’re going after legitimate businesses and workers instead. That doesn’t make sense.”

The resolution will be discussed by a committee Saturday and, if approved, will go to all the mayors for a vote Monday.

Again, if this wasn’t so sad it would be funny. Arizona is looking at ways to get workers from Mexico into the United States to aid their industries, agriculture, steel, travel/tourism etc… Radical idea here folks require those that are already here to become legal and offer them a path! Then we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot by damaging our commercial, residential real estate markets, protect businesses and productivity, and stop the non-sense of kicking them out before we have to invite them back.

Could our reputation in the forecoming months get much worse?

Last month, Prince William County had the most new filings of any Washington area jurisdiction, followed by Prince George’s, Fairfax, Montgomery, Loudoun and the District, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a California-based company that tracks real estate trends.

When foreclosures rise, crime often follows, researchers said. A 2005 study by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Woodstock Institute found that, holding other factors constant, each foreclosure in a 100-house neighborhood corresponded to a 2.4 percent jump in violent crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601288_2.html

Admin is busy, so I (Elena), thought this would be a great topic to discuss today.  What I want to know is, how does the pro “fully fund the immigration resolution” side, reconcile this quandry:

A) The resolution is working because we have seen an exodus of hispanics from neighborhoods, the ones that people complained about were responsible for overcrowding, chickens and roosters in their yards,  day laboreres at 7-11 ’s, ESOL enrollment reduced, etc.     Where did these people live, well, they lived in homes, either as renters or has homeowners.  Were they ALL “illegal”, I would venture to say NO, but even if they were, their houses are empty now, and  forclosure consequences to these neighborhoods are the same, irregardless of the immigration status of the occupants who once lived there.

OR

B) The resolution is NOT responsible for the increased forclosure rate, ESOL dis-enrollment, or the multitude of empty shopping centers, or the mass exodus of hispanics from neighborhoods. Therefore, the resolution is not working and is a waste of money from the pro resolution perspective.

Let me clarify one point,  I am not suggesting the resolution is responsible for the ENTIRE forclosure disaster, I AM suggesting that the reason PWC is DOUBLE that of our neighbors, and is number one in the region for forclosures, is the one variable that sets us apart……………the illegal immigration resolution.

Pay close attention to the charts. We have double the foreclosure rates of surrounding jurisdictions and the homes are being sold so cheaply that it is bringing the value down for everyone’s home. It seems as if some are so desperate to put a ‘positive’ spin on what’s happening by calling us a ‘Jewel of Recovery’ which is particularly odd phrase.

Dr. Fuller will be extremely useful over the next couple years as we attempt to map the recovery process. I would agree 100% with him about the shift from owners to rentals; this is going to further exacerbate problems in these older neighborhoods which is another reason why the County should invest in additional zoning enforcement officers.

For those who are unaware, Prince William County was not the first locality that FAIR influenced in adopting anti-immigrant ordinances. Before PWC, there was Riverside, NJ & Hazelton PA. Riverside, NJ rescinded their resolution because of the economic impact combined with the certainty of incurring significant costs for defending it against litigation. Hazelton, PA has been stricken down in court but is under appeal. This should send a very clear message to Supervisors - this is not a path we want to follow.

Don’t Make Our Mistakes:
Lessons from Riverside, New Jersey in the Costs of Attacking Immigrants

Riverside, New Jersey presents a cautionary tale of the devastating economic consequences of anti-immigration legislation. Come hear firsthand about the economic benefits that immigrants provide and what happens when a local community puts anti-immigration politics ahead of common sense.

Featuring:

David Verduin: Business owner and president of the Riverside, NJ Coalition of Business Owners and Landlords

Matthew T. Crosson, Esq.: President of the Long Island Association

Mayor David Nyce: Mayor of Greenport Village

Professor Mariano Torras, Ph.D: Author of The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on Long Island, New York

Moderated By:

Andrea Batista Schlesinger: Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

April 15th
6:00PM - 8:30PM

Touro College Law Center
225 Eastview Drive
Central Islip, NY 11722

Space is limited
Admission is free

Please RSVP by email to:
longislandwins@gmail.com
or by phone to 516.304.5642

Doug Madison, who spoke at Citizens’ Time, owns Mailbox Junction in Woodbridge and has seen his business drop off considerably.   Madison believes it’s because Hispanic families are feeling unwanted in the County.  This is someone who has never spoke out before who considers himself a conservative Republican who’s obviously suffering financially.  Someone had better realize you can not remove a large percentage of our population without suffering severe economic consequences. Then combine those results with an inhospitable atmosphere and we are talking about a long recovery process. Take what is happening in PWC and imagine the effects on our national economy.  It won’t be just businesses that ‘cater to illegals’ that will be adversely affected.  We are an economic community, intertwined in ways that are unimaginable.  Do you realize that every time a house within a few mile radius of yours is foreclosed, you immediately lose value in your home.  The businesses that this gentleman patronages will suffer a drop in their bottom lines.  Our economy appears very delicate and we should not be venture blindly into these uncharted territories.

According to the DC Examiner Prince William County jails are overcrowded with more than 300 inmates being housed in other localities some 4 hours away.  But BVBL surmises that this ‘piece of the puzzle doesn’t really belong.’

Let me get this straight.  ‘Illegals’ are removing their kids from County Schools and moving to surrounding jurisdictions so that’s a cost savings to schools; but the foreclosures and the plummeting real estate market are unrelated?  Now, after touting about hundreds of immigration violators being detained, reports about jail overcrowding suggest only a ’tangential relationship’?  Do they believe we’re that gullible?

There has been no cost benefit analysis performed to prove whether or not this resolution would even save us money.  And, now the initial costs have doubled with no confirmed savings.  Plus, guaranteed either Clinton, Obama or McCain will be the next President which bodes well for a national response that incorporates some form of legalization; yet we continue to flush millions down the commode.  But that no additional monies are allotted for zoning enforcements which seemed to be one of the primary concerns expressed by residents during Citizens Time runs counter to logic.  In hindsight, this whole thing is going to look like a major SNAFU which won’t help any long-term political aspirations for either Stewart or Stirrup.

Virginia can now follow in Arizona’s footsteps by asking immigrants to return after they have been told to leave.  Now this is almost too funny.  First, we tell them to go, and now need them to return.  According to this Washington Post article, entitled - ‘2 States Consider Guest-Worker Programs‘, Colorado and Arizona legislators are now under labor shortages and are investigating ways to ‘obtain their own foreign labor.’ 

Republican state Rep. Bill Konopnicki, a restaurant owner and an author of the bill, said the labor shortage in Arizona had been mounting for several years. It grew worse after passage of a new state law that punishes businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. That law has pressured many immigrants to leave.

 You know this reminds me of a song by The Clash: Should I Stay or Should I go?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An’ if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know!

This indecision’s bugging me
If you don’t want me, set me free
Exactly who’m I’m supposed to be
Don’t you know which clothes even fit me?
Come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

Is it just me or is this insanity?  We’re going to ask them to leave so we can ask them to return.  Here’s a radical idea - Let’s ask them to stay!  If they’ve been here a decade, pay taxes and aren’t criminals - put them on a path to legalization.

I have found an interesting thesis that I wanted to share.  I do not necessarily subscribe to the theory of keeping illegal immigrants “illegal”, but this theory does pose some food for thought from an economic standpoint.  I will post the summary and the link so that everyone has an opportunity to read it in its entirety. 

“Immigration reform is one of the most divisive issues confronting U.S. policymakers. The rise in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States over the past ten years—from five to twelve million—has led to concerns about the effects of illegal immigration on wages and public finances, as well as the potential security threats posed by unauthorized entry into the country. In the past year alone, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared a “state of emergency” over illegal immigration, and President Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, which authorizes the spending of $1.2 billion for the construction of a seven-hundred-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In this Council Special Report, Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego approaches immigration through the lens of economics. The results are surprising. By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy—a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection. Moreover, Hanson argues that guest worker programs now being considered by Congress fail to account for the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration, which benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor. Hanson makes the case that unless policymakers design a system of legal immigration that reflects the economic advantages of illegal labor, such programs will not significantly reduce illegal immigration. He concludes with guidelines crucial to any such redesign of U.S. laws and policy. In short, Professor Hanson has written a report that will challenge much of the wisdom (conventional and otherwise) on the economics behind a critical and controversial issue.”

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12969