Crime Plays Role of Red Herring In Illegals Debate

There's a talk going on tonight at the Prescott Library about the relationship between Arizona and Mexico, the similarities and the differences. I don't know if the idea was to foster understanding and enlighten Arizonans who are demonizing Mexicans as illegal aliens or if it was a long-planned cultural event, but I think it will be interesting to see what kind of turn-out it gets.

In the past few years as the economy has soured, there has been a tendency to place blame on any identifiable group for what's occurred. It's not so easy to point the finger at Wall Street firms, investment bankers, mortgage companies and our own government regulators -- the issues are complex and greed has guided both investors and investees. But hey, illegal immigrants are simple bad guys who make great targets.

One of the main reasons given for Arizona's passage of the Senate bill 1070 is an increase in crime along the border. There are absolutely no facts to back up this assertion. None. In fact, FBI statistics show that violent crime has steadily dropped over the past four years -- by an astounding 1,500 incidents. Property crimes posted from 2005-2008, the latest figures available, have also plummeted by 8,000. During the same period, the state population grew by 600,000 people.

Statistics on any crime committed by illegal immigrants is difficult to pinpoint, but judging from the stories I read in the newspapers, I'd say the vast majority of violent crimes in this state are committed by angry unemployed middle-aged white men with guns.

In addition to lower crime, there are far fewer people sneaking into the country. As a matter of fact, the peak year was in 2000 before 9/11 when 600,000 illegal border crossers were caught. In 2009, it was only 241,000.

So why did the bill get enough momentum to pass? It was the backlash to the death of a border rancher by a drug smuggler who shot him as he was heading back into Mexico. This is not an epidemic of crime. The state senator who introduced the bill, Russell Pearce, has been photographed chumming around with white Supremacists. The bill was written by a Republican functionary from Missouri. It's purely a political issue that's being used to whip up fear among conservatives, especially since John McCain may be in trouble for the first time in decades in his bid for re-election as a U.S. Senator. This is one issue that I think will backfire on both a state and national level as the federal government is forced to step in and create reasonable immigration laws for our neighbor in the South.

A lot of upset people are only too happy to say they support the law, even though it does nothing more than the law in Phoenix's Maricopa County already does -- police there have been questioning people apprehended in crimes about their citizenship for years. The difference now it that they have the full blessing of the state to do so and to put people in jail who may have been living here for years if they have a broken tail light on their car. Talk about an austere policy.

I could not imagine how this law would go over in New York. Certainly Long Island has had its own issues with illegal immigrants living 20 to a house in Farmingdale, for instance, or committing crimes against each other. I was on a grand jury once in Suffolk County and immunity had to be given to illegals to get them to testify about murders that occurred against their own people. That will become nearly impossible to achieve in this state with the kind of law that instantly criminalizes them, despite assurances to the contrary.

In New York, also, there are illegal immigrants from just about every country in the world. Some just overstay their visas, some fell in love but did not marry, some are working as long as the work lasts before heading home. Some shouldn't be here. Some blend right in. But as long as we live in a free society, not a police state, there will be some who do not follow legal procedure. If we are a compassionate country, we will do the right thing and make a judgment as to whether they should be deported or not, and try to keep an open door policy overall.

Economic Impact on Arizona Hardens Hearts

When Moses approached the Pharaoh and demanded that he "Let my people go," the Pharaoh turned away. Plagues and pestilence followed, and ultimately the death of all of the firstborn children of the Egyptians.

Arizona's new law, which does not take into account individual cases, the immigrants who have lived with their families here for decades or the possibilities of abuse by law officials, is patently cruel. In reaction to the law, the cities of Tucson and Flagstaff in Arizona are suing the state, the mayor of Phoenix has voiced his opposition, and even the Suns basketball team has spoken out against it by wearing jerseys inscribed with "Los Suns."

In addition, 15 cities and 12 organizations have decided to boycott the state for conventions or events. Arizona will suffer a tremendous economic blow from those who are angered by the new law. At least $10-$12 million in convention business in Phoenix alone has been lost, and far more will be lost if the law is not repealed. And the law will not go into effect until July.

There is a tremendous financial problem, too, in enforcing the law, since there are an estimated half a million illegal immigrants living in the state now. I saw firsthand as a reporter in Texas writing about a border detention center in Laredo that it's not as simple as a lot of proponents think it is. Families, including young children, were among those detained there -- babies in jail, in essence. Some Mexican adults there had worked legally in the country for years, then one year stayed instead of going back to Mexico after their seasonal work was over. Many blended in easily in border towns, where the majority of residents were Mexican. The vast majority were not criminals in any sense, other than they did not manage to get legal status in this country.

I saw firsthand what a lack of immigrants in a city can do -- St. Louis suffered from a lack of innovation and economic strength during the many years when immigrants were practically nonexistent there. Now that there has been several waves of new immigrants, the city is thriving. A recent New York Times story on the positive impact of immigration -- legal and not -- is convincing evidence that the overwhelming result is a good one.

A "buy Arizona" campaign is being launched on May 29 to rally those who support the law to bring business and tourism to the state. Obviously they don't think the economic impact will be that severe, and that the state will weather it OK.

A report on CBS 5 News in Phoenix tonight mentioned that the new law is attracting neo-Nazis and other hate groups to the state who approve of the law. It's just one more sign that the law is wrong.

I wonder what it will take for Arizona's legislature to see the truth that the law will not only fail to stop the border problems, but will create even greater ones. Economic disaster? Broken families? Hate crimes? Only time will tell. I hope that the state eventually lets SB 1070 go.

Arizona as Egypt in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Fiction writing has absorbed my attention over the past few months, especially since I'm working on a children's chapter book that I plan to finish a first draft of by September. So I have considered writing on many topics in my blog, ranging from Mother Teresa, hedge fund managers and Jihad to the joys of Spring, the oil spill in the Gulf and the role of Christians in caring for the earth. But I let the feeling pass on all of those topics.

However, this week there was a topic I could no longer ignore. My thoughts crystallized yesterday as I was reading about the Old Testament "Law" for my Education for Ministry class. The rather comprehensive lesson broke down the structure and background of the laws and put them in context. Hospitality toward foreigners or strangers is mentioned several times. One law required Israelites to leave crops in the corners of their fields as charity for the poor, widows, orphans and travellers. As the lesson puts it, "because of Israel's experience as sojourners in Egypt, even resident foreigners were considered as covered by the covenant."

The obvious Hebrew examples involve Abraham traveling to Egypt when he and his clan were in need of water and food; then the tribes working for the Egyptians, and eventually becoming enslaved by them, because of their need for work, until Moses led them away. Parallel to that, the illegal immigrants in this country were often lured here for work, and effectively "enslaved" by low wages with no benefits as they sent money home to their families or tried to save enough to bring them here without endangering their lives. Many died in the desert carrying fliers inviting them to work on farms and ranches along the border.

Logically speaking, the Arizona law technically does nothing to stem illegal immigration as it is written. Everyone from Mexico knows that what they are doing is illegal, but they do it anyway. This is not a new issue, nor is it an issue that is unique to Arizona as a border state. The difference is that Mexicans have become a scapegoat in a down economy for the ills of the state -- which are many right now. Border towns have crime, but most of it is caused by drug smugglers, who will not be intimidated by this law.

The law, which goes into effect in July, has already had the impact of making Latinos who live in the state or elsewhere -- or anyone who plans to visit from another country -- feel unwelcome in Arizona. Even those who are legal are fearful of its law enforcement officers. Perception is reality, and the perception of a large number of people from across the United States and the world is that Arizona does not welcome anyone who looks like he or she might be an illegal immigrant. As a consequence, Arizona is a pariah state right now.

I have many more thoughts on the subject, which I will address in another blog entry.