the disappearing rights of unauthorized immigrants in the united state doris marie provine justice...
TRANSCRIPT
The disappearing rights of unauthorized
immigrants in the United State
Doris Marie ProvineJustice Studies, School of Social Transformation
Arizona State UniversityTempe, Arizona, USA
The problem: How to help undocumented immigrants
claim membership with deportation on the rise.
In an increasingly transnational world, nation states continue to jealously control de jure citizenship and rights.
Public opinion is hostile.
Are de facto rights possible?
Can this political project gain traction?
The trend in the US – multi-level exclusion:
Municipal ordinances denying access to public services, e.g. library cards, bus passes.
State laws restricting driver’s licenses, requiring verification to work, mandating local police assist in immigration enforcement.
Federal stepped up enforcement, including 287g and now Secure Communities. 400,000 deportations per year.
Crimmigration – immigration offenses treated as crimes with fewer procedural protections – biggest federal crime
A small counter-trend,some examples
Non-citizen voting in municipal elections
Recognition of foreign identification as valid (example: Matricula consular)
Municipal identification cards
In-state (reduced) tuition for undocumented resident students
Construction of day-labor centers
Today’s presentation has 3 goals:
1.Re-frame past capacities of undocumented residents as rights.
2.Critically examine role of states in denying these rights.
3.Explore links to broader social trends.
Goal 1: Re-framing rights
Avoid the top-down trap of describing rights exclusively as constitutional and statutory grants and protections.
Embrace also rights in action, quasi-common-law approach.
Define rights as capacities that have been available to undocumented immigrants.
Frame the present as living with a contradiction: rights and deportation.
Some rights undocumented residents
have enjoyed: To buy and sell property, sign leases, own real estate
To contract labor services, employ people, open stores
To write wills, marry, divorce
To sue for damages, negotiate settlements
To rent equipment, cars, boats
To move freely in the community
To campaign, protest, boycott
To go to school, including college and graduate school
But undocumented immigrants now live with the rights/deportation contradiction:
2 examplesPostville Iowa, before and after the federal raid
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s undocumented grandparents
The (past) reality of rights should frame the discussion of (current)
state-imposed restrictions on these
rights
2. The role of the US states in maintaining/containing the
rights/deportation contradiction
US Constitution gives plenary immigration enforcement power to the federal government.
States can however regulate licensing and benefits, requiring legal status in some cases. Limits unclear.
States are the primary locus of immigrant integration.
Until recently their immigration policy efforts were rare.
The new state-level policy activism
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Bills introduced
570 1,562 1,305 1,500 1,400
Laws enacted
84 240 206 222 208
Resolutions adopted
12 50 64 131 138
Rights scorecardEnacted laws that affect significant
numbers of undocumented
residents:2006 2008 2010
Removes rights
3321 participate
3520 participate
4425 participate
Protectsrights
64 participate
76 participate
12 9 participate
Protection vetoed
1 0 5
Major players:defined here as at least 2 enacted
statutes
States that reduce rights: 2006: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Virginia, 2008: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Virginia 2010: Arizona,……………………… Virginia and for
the first time: Minnesota, Nebraska, West Virginia
States that protect rights: 2006: Colorado and Virginia 2008: Colorado 2010: none (California, 3 statutes, all vetoed).
Rights that have been reduced, aggregated by
year:
Em-ploy-ment
Education Health Driving/ID Firearms Law Enfor. Public Benefits
Omnibus0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
201020082006
Rights that have been protected (some vetoed)
Employ
men
t
Educ
ation
Health
Driver
s L/ID
Law e
nfor
ce
Public
Benef
.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
201020082006
Trends in state-level legislation:
Enacted statutes much fewer than proposals, and not all are broadly relevant.
# of states participating is growing.
More protective legislation is being enacted, but it is often vetoed.
Some restrictive states also protect.
Foci shift: Employment steady, high restrictive Voting died after 2006 Law enforce down, but omnibus laws replace these Driver’s licenses are steady and restrictive Others are small and no pattern
Omnibus laws send a stronger message, vis
Alabama:
Makes working undocumented, renting, failing to comply with federal registration laws state crimes.
Knowing hiring -> loss of business license.
Public schools must report immigration status of their students.
Counseling, harboring, or shielding an undocumented immigrant is a crime.
3. State restrictions link to broader social trends:
Crime-immigration nexus – political identification of crime with immigrants and immigration as a crime (Hagan, Levi and Dinovitzer 2008).
New destinations and racial threat hypothesis – increasing numbers and new settlement sites create public anxiety -> legislation (Singer et al.)
Politicized places – national partisanship politicizes immigrant increases (Hopkins 2010)
Membership theory (Stumpf 2006)
Stumpf notes evidence of increasing exclusivity of
membership rules:
Rejection of rehabilitation as goal of punishment (since 1970s). Ex-cons as quasi-citizens.
Hardening of federal immigration law (since 1996). Enforcement trumps integration.
Rise of “suspicious” immigrants (since 2001). Justifies detention and removals.
She does not note, but could have, the restrictive trend in state legislation since 2005
Angry outlier states push for “attrition through enforcement.”
Populist anti-immigrant rhetoric is accommodated with bills and some resolutions. More states participating.
Extreme omnibus bills (and laws) are on the rise.
But membership also has its advocates:
In ambitious cosmopolitan cities that seek to extend membership for economic reasons.
In religious communities linked by human rights concerns.
Within local law enforcement to enhance public safety.
In the Obama administration for political reasons.
In some state legislatures – vis protective legislation.
And, hopefully, among scholars who frame the legislative trend for what it is – a massive, radical denial of rights long accepted and valued in communities that affects us all.