State Dept. Official: S.C. Immigration Law Hurts U.S. Abroad

From The Associated Press:

By MEG KINNARD

Dec. 9, 2011

COLUMBIA – South Carolina’s tough new immigration law has not only already damaged the country’s reputation with other nations but could also endanger U.S. citizens as they travel abroad, according to a top-ranking U.S. State Department official.

“Act No. 69 undermines the diverse immigration administration and enforcement tools made available to federal authorities and establishes a distinct state-specific immigration policy, driven by an individual state’s own policy choices, which clashes with U.S. foreign affairs priorities, risks significant harassment of foreign nationals, and has the potential to harm a wide range of delicate U.S. foreign relations interests,” according to a statement by Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns.

Burns, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia and Jordan, is a career diplomat and foreign service officer who said he is tasked with helping the secretary of state form U.S. foreign policy.

His statement was filed as part of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Gov. Nikki Haley over the state’s new law, which takes effect Jan. 1. Prosecutors want to halt the law while their lawsuit challenging its constitutionality moves forward.

The measure requires law enforcement officers to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Justice officials are challenging similar laws in other states.

Burns wrote in court documents the law interferes with federal authorities’ jurisdiction over immigration and could subject U.S. citizens to retaliation when they travel.

“U.S. immigration laws must always be adopted and administered with sensitivity to the potential for reciprocal or retaliatory treatment of U.S. nationals by foreign governments,” Burns wrote, warning that the law’s severity risks antagonizing governments into not wanting to help the U.S. with various foreign policy issues, collaborate on trade agreements or cooperate in counterterrorism activity.

The law also undermines the U.S. standing in multilateral bodies, Burns wrote, and can confuse other countries that see it as evidence of the country’s inconsistency on immigration policies.

“By creating a patchwork of immigration regimes, states such as South Carolina make it substantially more difficult for foreign nationals to understand their rights and obligations, rendering them more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment,” he wrote. “

Some of those other countries have already weighed in against South Carolina’s new law. Sixteen Latin American and Caribbean nations have filed “friend of the court” briefs in the lawsuit, voicing fears the new law would lead to their citizens facing state-sanctioned discrimination.

A hearing in the case is set Dec. 19. In their own court filings, South Carolina officials have said that the federal government “lacks statutory authorization to bring this action” and criticized the U.S. Justice Department for waiting so long to bring its lawsuit.

Rep. Gutierrez Backs Lowcountry Man Facing Deportation

From The (Hilton Head) Island Packet:

By ALLISON STICE
astice@islandpacket.com
Published Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A Ridgeland immigrant facing deportation will have a U.S. congressman on his side today when the two appear before Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities to argue that ICE should drop the case.

Known for his staunch support of immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., will accompany 27-year-old Gabino Sanchez to his first appointment with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Sanchez was arrested by the Ridgeland Police Department after a traffic violation on Nov. 2 and was later placed on an ICE “hold,” meaning that ICE is deciding whether he must leave the country because he is not documented.

Gutierrez will argue that Sanchez, who was brought to the United States as a teenager and who has two U.S.-born children, is not a high priority for deportation based on an ICE policy in June that states the agency should direct its resources toward deporting criminals.

Sanchez, who does not have criminal record and is the sole provider for young children who are citizens, does construction and landscaping work. He fits the bill for undocumented immigrants who should be spared by the new policy, Gutierrez spokesman Douglas Rivlin said. (more…)

S.C.’s Anti-Immigrant Law Is An Indefensible, Lost Cause

From The Post & Courier:

(The Sort That Is Too Often Popular Around Here)

By Brian Hicks

Sunday, November 13, 2011

It’s pretty embarrassing when third-world countries think South Carolina is backward.

Last week, 16 Latin American and Caribbean nations asked to join the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against the state’s new illegal immigrants law. They say South Carolina’s law — which basically calls for police to demand papers from anyone who doesn’t look like the rest of us — is racial profiling.

Obviously, you don’t have to live in an industrialized nation to see that.

Make no mistake, there is an illegal immigration problem in this country, and the feds aren’t solving the problem. But states jumping into the fray makes about as much sense as Joe Citizen going out and busting criminals because the cops need help.

All this is going to do is cost the state a lot of money and not really do a lot of good. But then, that’s not really the point. The point is to pander to people stirred into a frenzy by right-wing talk show hosts.

Talk about a banana republic.

Emotion, not policy

If you need any proof this is more about politics than solving problems, just take it from the top.

Gov. Nikki Haley’s spokesman, Rob Godfrey, says the governor’s job is to “protect the citizens of South Carolina.” Which is a neat trick to pull off from Michigan, California or New Jersey — wherever she’s out raising money this week.

Godfrey threw around buzzwords sure to stir up the right, mentioning unions and the ACLU. That’ll get ‘em foaming at the mouth. Never mind that the ACLU’s only role is to defend the Constitution that these people are usually howling to protect from meddling politicians.

And the funny thing is, this law is unconstitutional. Just ask North Charleston state Rep. David Mack, who warned his fellow lawmakers about that before they passed this sham of a law.

“The law is fundamentally wrong, regardless of how one feels about the issue, because it encourages racial profiling,” Mack says. “If some Latino family that is here legally wants to go out for ice cream on Sunday night, are they going to be stopped every time because they look different?”

He’s right. But logic doesn’t matter when the goal is to appeal to raw, and ugly, emotion.

Fiscally responsible?

With or without the legal might of Latin America, this lawsuit is going to cost South Carolina a lot of money.

And ultimately, it’s a losing cause. There is really no defending it. Well, not since we got civil rights.

Mack points out that an illegal immigrant law that does nothing but cost us money is sort of like a voter ID law that costs $1.5 million a year to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

So much for conservatives being fiscally responsible.

We are going to blow a lot of money that we don’t have to defend a political stunt. And as if the state didn’t look reactionary enough, now we have places like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala dissing us.

When you have Central America saying that you are uncivilized, it might be time to re-examine your priorities.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.