On May 1st, International Workers' Day, mass protests and demonstrations were held simultaneously in over 70 cities across the United States. Public opinion has described the scale of these events as the "largest supporting movement for immigration law reform since 2006." The United States is a "melting pot" for immigrants; however, the issue of illegal immigration remains a difficult, chronic social ailment. While running for president, Barack Obama vowed to push for immigration reform, but there has been little progress to date. This April, Arizona became the first state to enact an immigration law, which has been dubbed by public opinion as the "vanguard of reform for immigration issues." However, as soon as this "toughest immigration law" was introduced, it sparked intense opposition across the United States.
On May 1st, International Workers' Day, simultaneously in over 70 cities across the United States, mass protests were launched, with the scale of the events described by public opinion as the "largest supporting movement for immigration law reform since 2006." During this wave of protests, tens of thousands joined the march in Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the country located in the West. Participants accused President Obama of failing to fulfill his campaign promises and of having yet to push for immigration reform. Correspondingly, thousands also took to the streets in New York, the largest city in the country located in the East, strongly urging the federal government to take immediate action to advance relevant legislation and effectively protect the rights of immigrants.
Regarding these massive protests, an immigration law recently enacted by Arizona is considered the direct trigger. On April 23, the state's Governor, Republican Jan Brewer, signed a bill targeting illegal immigration, which categorizes illegal immigration as a "crime" and bans illegal immigrants from entering Arizona. This "SB 1070," which will take effect on July 29 of this year, also mandates that police can stop and question people suspected of being illegal immigrants, and that employing illegal immigrants or even transporting them by car is illegal; police have the authority to arrest illegal workers.
Upon its introduction, the bill sparked widespread controversy across the U.S. President Obama stated on April 28 that Arizona had introduced the "toughest immigration law" in the United States and that he believed it was "a mistake for the state to allow local law enforcement to suspect and question workers who might not have valid identification documents," noting it could potentially "undermine our core values that we all cherish." Obama stated that the influx of thousands of illegal immigrants is "indeed a problem" for the United States, and the federal government should take more measures, but these must be within the context of comprehensive reform, particularly to "uphold the rule of law and the United States' identity as a nation of immigrants."
The protests on May 1st even affected the capital, Washington, D.C. As a march of thousands passed the White House, about 30 people were arrested by police for violating the rule that "protests in front of the White House must remain in motion" by choosing to sit on the ground, including Illinois Federal Representative Luis Gutiérrez.
However, some individuals wearing T-shirts saying "We Are All Arizona" expressed support for the state's new immigration law. Public opinion has pointed out that in the absence of federal immigration legislation, Arizona is acting as a "pioneer of reform," and "its spirit is commendable."
"Reform Model" Triggers Chain Reaction
Analysis suggests that the reason for the strong reaction in American society regarding Arizona's immigration law is the concern that it will trigger a chain reaction, leading other states to enact equally harsh laws based on their own circumstances.
Sure enough, not long after Arizona passed the "toughest immigration law" in the country, Kris Kobach, the lawyer who helped draft the legislation, stated that four other states had already "sought guidance" from him on how to pass similar laws.
Kobach said: "Arizona is the leader in the movement for immigration reform in the United States. Since the U.S. lacks a federal immigration policy, if we are to solve this puzzle on a state-by-state basis, Arizona is the model." He declined to reveal which four states wanted to emulate Arizona, citing attorney-client privilege.
Kobach also noted that unlike other states, where immigration reform was historically pushed through referendums, the new immigration law was the result of a "fair debate." State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the bill, said he had previously submitted four bills regarding the issue of illegal immigrants, and that Arizona had held a state-wide referendum on the topic, which resulted in 75% of voters supporting the push for immigration reform.
However, Arizona's actions have also sparked significant concern and criticism. Isabel Garcia, a lawyer in the state, slammed the bill as "setting the most dangerous precedent in the United States, violating our right to due process."
Arizona Becomes a Target of Public Criticism
On May 2nd, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," also criticized the approach taken by Arizona. She said, "The Arizona immigration law goes beyond the state's authority and will provoke disputes over racial issues, as people may be questioned about their immigration status simply because of their accent."
Many observers fear that harsh immigration laws will exacerbate racial discrimination. The Arizona Republic, the state's largest newspaper, published an editorial on the 2nd stating, "The federal government has abandoned its duty to manage state borders, and in response to public concern, Arizona politicians have proposed a solution to the immigration problem, which resulted in a state immigration law that makes Hispanics feel fearful, but the law has no effect on limiting illegal immigration."
During the national mass protests on May 1st, tens of thousands in Phoenix, Arizona, and other cities joined the national "choir" of protest against the state's immigration law. Meanwhile, the federal courts have received three lawsuits regarding the immigration law, and California, as a major hub for immigrants, has even proposed an economic boycott of Arizona.
Under intense pressure, Arizona was forced to make certain amendments to the immigration law on May 3rd. Regarding police authority to question suspected illegal immigrants, the amended law stipulates that police may only verify an individual's immigration status if they have already stopped the person for other reasons and simultaneously suspect them of being an illegal resident. The amendment also removed language that allowed ethnicity to be the "sole" reason for suspicion, as such wording could lead to claims of racial discrimination in law enforcement.
Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the Immigration Policy Center, pointed out that Arizona's amendments to the immigration law indicate that the bill was flawed, and that this was a concession made by the state legislature under heavy pressure. However, the fact that the state signed the law and then amended it reflects the impulsiveness in the state's legislative process: "It's like firing the gun before taking aim."
New York State to Establish "Immigration Amnesty Commission"
However, influenced by Arizona's example, New York State has indeed begun to show ambition in the field of immigration, preparing to implement relevant measures in the state. New York Governor David Paterson stated on May 3rd that the state would establish an amnesty commission to specifically review the cases of legal immigrants facing the risk of deportation.
Speaking at the annual conference of high-level judges in New York State, Paterson said that some of the state's immigration laws, particularly those regarding deportation, were embarrassing and lacked flexibility. New York is a city filled with vitality and hope; "In New York, we believe in a fresh start, and in New York, we believe in rehabilitation." These words from Paterson will undoubtedly bring a glimmer of hope to those "problem immigrants."
Analysis points out that the Obama administration has pursued a relatively tough line in interpreting and enforcing existing immigration laws, and many legal immigrants with criminal records in the United States are therefore facing deportation. New York State has several related lawsuits, which is the direct reason for the state's intent to establish an amnesty commission. The "Immigration Amnesty Commission" will consist of five experts, all selected from current state employees, who will decide the fate of "problem immigrants" facing deportation due to minor offenses or convictions.
However, this move by New York State has also attracted much criticism. Analysts believe that while there were originally only a small number of pardon cases awaiting processing in New York, the establishment of the "amnesty commission" will lead to more requests for pardons, and the number of cases to be processed may eventually reach hundreds. More importantly, although the Obama administration intends to push for comprehensive immigration reform, there are no signs of it adjusting its tight policies. The New York Times editorialized that this move by New York State is contrary to the position of the federal government.
Fate of 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Becomes the Focus
Regarding the intensifying immigration problem, people from all walks of life in the United States have differing views. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton stated on April 28 that the United States needs more immigrants to reduce the fiscal deficit and ensure the long-term prospects of U.S. fiscal health.
Clinton said that maintaining an appropriate ratio between taxpayers and those receiving government support is key to avoiding large-scale fiscal deficits. The current situation in the U.S. requires the creation of more jobs to allow more people to work, which in a sense implies the need for more immigrants. "There is no other way to reduce the fiscal deficit other than increasing the number of immigrants in the United States."
However, Clinton did not mention the issue of illegal immigrants; the future and fate of 12 million illegal immigrants are the focus of controversy for all parties. One argument suggests that illegal immigrants not only make economic contributions to American society but also never enjoy the benefits of social security, and the federal government should provide these illegal immigrants with a path to eventually become U.S. citizens. Another argument points out that illegal immigrants not only exacerbate employment pressure in American society but also create conditions for criminals, and even terrorists, to infiltrate the United States, which will endanger U.S. national security.
During the Bush administration, the government advocated for "digesting" illegal immigrants into U.S. citizens and pushed for immigration reform twice, but both attempts failed. Since the Obama administration took office, it has taken a tough line on immigration issues. According to statistics, U.S. immigration authorities deported 387,790 people in 2009, compared to 264,503 people during the Bush administration in 2008.
Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, a Republican rival of President Obama during the presidential campaign, originally supported Bush's immigration policies but has now shifted from lenient to tough. He emphasized that before addressing the status of illegal immigrants, the United States must first secure its own borders to prevent the formation of more illegal immigrants.
Regarding the immigration issue, the attitude of the American public also shows clear differences. After Arizona passed the immigration law, a poll of 1,079 adults conducted by CBS News and The New York Times showed that 51% of people supported the bill, with 9% even suggesting that "the immigration law should be stricter," while 36% felt the law was "somewhat excessive."
On the issue of illegal immigrants, 65% believe it is a "very serious problem," and 78% stated that "the government should take more measures to stop illegal immigrants from pouring into the United States." However, a majority of respondents believe that laws regarding illegal immigrants "should be formulated by the federal government, not by states on their own."
New York Times Square Incident Rings Another Alarm
After Obama moved into the White House, he did intend to push for immigration reform. Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, originally planned to introduce an immigration bill last September, but the schedules of the White House and Congress were essentially occupied by health care reform, and there is little sign of progress even today.
Obama may still be waiting, but the public has gradually lost patience. This March, 100,000 people across the U.S. gathered in Washington to call on the Obama administration to pay attention to the issue of illegal immigrants and to initiate immigration reform as soon as possible. Promoting family reunification was originally a goal of U.S. immigration policy, but now many illegal immigrants are starting to worry about family separation. During the protest, Denis held a sign asking his two daughters, "Can you bear to see your father separated from you?"
In the face of strong public voices, the White House has remained calm. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration needs to prioritize resolving financial reform and energy legislation, and that the immigration bill must wait. President Obama's personal attitude has tended to be positive; on April 20, he called Republican Senator Scott Brown from "Air Force One," urging him to support the immigration bill that the Democrats will propose in the future. On May 5, President Obama further stated that he will ask Congress to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform this year. Obama said that the U.S. immigration system has serious problems, and the way to fix these problems is through comprehensive reform, and that gaining bipartisan support is the only way to solve the problem.
However, it is not easy for the Obama administration to push for comprehensive immigration reform. First is the difficulty in unifying the stances of the two parties. Congress will hold midterm elections this year, and both parties are on high alert, making it unlikely for the Republican Party to give the green light to the immigration bill. Second, the public's attitude toward the immigration bill is difficult to reconcile. Although President Obama explicitly criticized Arizona's "toughest immigration law," public support for this criticism is not strong, making it "fraught with difficulties" to balance the interests of all parties in society. Finally, the immigration issue also shows regional differences; states in the South and Midwest generally support Arizona's immigration law, while some states in the East and West tend to accept illegal immigrants and advocate for more lenient immigration laws. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to introduce a federal immigration law that can be widely accepted by all parties.
As the saying goes, when one wave subsides, another rises. While social controversy over the Arizona immigration law was still spreading, the failed car bomb attack in New York's Times Square on May 1st sounded another alarm for people from the perspective of immigration approval procedures. The Pakistani-born suspect, Shahzad, first entered the United States on an F-1 student visa, received an H-1B work visa after graduation, and finally obtained a green card and eventual naturalization through his wife, who is a U.S. citizen. People cannot help but worry whether there are loopholes in the naturalization approval procedures of U.S. immigration policy.
It is not difficult to judge that the controversy over immigration laws in the United States will continue for a considerable period of time. Before President Obama finally makes up his mind to introduce a new federal immigration bill, the future and fate of the 12 million illegal immigrants will remain an unknown. But in any case, as a pathfinder for immigration reform, the outcome of this Arizona immigration law might provide some inspiration for future federal immigration bills.
Evolution of U.S. Immigration Legislation
Historically, immigration acts have been the foundation of the United States. They were born with the U.S. and have been continuously revised throughout history, viewed as a barometer for U.S. policies in different stages of development.
In early immigration legislation, "undesirable" immigrants were strictly excluded to ensure that high-quality human capital became the driving force for U.S. development. After the country's founding in 1776, Congress authorized the President to ensure that foreign immigrants entering the United States were "disease-free and of good character." The Alien Act of 1798 further authorized the President to "deport foreigners deemed harmful to national security." The 1808 constitutional amendment banned the importation of slaves. In 1875, Congress clearly categorized foreigners who were not allowed to enter the United States, including prostitutes, the mentally ill, criminals, and beggars.
Immigration laws since the last century have attempted to standardize immigrants entering the U.S. through a quota system. In 1921, Congress established immigration quota regulations for the first time, limiting the total number of foreign immigrants entering the United States each year to 350,000, and stated that immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere could not exceed 3% of the total number of citizens from that country in the U.S. in 1910. In 1924, Congress established a permanent quota system, specifying that the total number of immigrants from all countries in the world outside the Western Hemisphere could not exceed 150,000 per year.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished racial quotas and implemented a "first-come, first-served" policy, stating that the total annual immigration from Eastern Hemisphere countries be 170,000, with no more than 20,000 from any single country. The 1976 amendment went further, canceling the difference between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres and stipulating that the annual immigration quota for each country would not exceed 20,000.
In 1978, Congress made large-scale revisions to the immigration law, determining that the total number of immigrants permitted to enter the United States annually could not exceed 290,000. The Refugee Act of 1980 established application procedures for "refugees" and "political asylum," while reducing the global immigration quota to 270,000.
There have also been significant changes in historical U.S. immigration laws regarding Chinese immigrants. In 1882, the United States issued the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting the entry of Chinese laborers until 1943. The 1892 amendment stipulated that Chinese laborers in the U.S. must register with the government, and if they failed to present their registration certificate a year later, they would be deported. In 1943, the United States promulgated the act to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act, stating that Chinese residents could immigrate to the United States.
