Arizona Fights against its Future

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" on Friday, it brought back memories of the bruising battle that occurred in neighboring California in 1994 over Proposition 187, called at the time the "Save the State Initiative." Although the methods used to combat illegal immigration are different (The California measure relied on the denial of services in health care, public education, and social services, whereas Arizona empowers the police to arrest immigrants for violations of immigration law), the volatile environment contributing to the enactment of these two measures was quite similar, and their likely fate, i.e. being struck down on constitutional grounds, is the same.

Just as California was on the brink of becoming an "all minority" state back in 1994, so too, Arizona today is on a similar threshold.  Both states straddle the border with Mexico. At the time of Proposition 187's passage in California, that state received the bulk of illegal border crossings. That distinction has now passed to Arizona.

With far fewer blacks, fewer Asians, and more whites than the national average, Arizona possesses a growing Latino population (The state is now 4th in the nation in the percentage of Latinos to total population).  By combining its above-average Native-American population (4.9%) with its Mestizo and Latino populations (30.1%), you arrive at a total of 35% of the state's population. Add in Asians and blacks, and you're at 41.7%.

An interesting picture emerges: many among the non-Hispanic white majority (58.4% of the population) probably worried about their future in the coming "all-minority state" - a minority that will be largely Latino. Some of these people, moreover, are older transplants from other states, who chose to live out their retirement in sunny Arizona, perhaps never expecting to find so many new neighbors different from themselves.

Of course, most of the people supporting the new law would vehemently deny that there is a racial element behind its passage. In their minds, the new law is simply an attempt to combat immigration lawlessness, especially lawlessness that disproportionately impacts their state. However, human psychology suggests that the mind operates on various levels, some conscious and others less so. Information is often filtered and distorted to suit the predilections of the unconscious mind. Facts that don't accord with the bias of the believer are ignored.
 
How many anti-immigrant Arizonans, for example, have puzzled over the historical mismatch between abundant job openings in the U.S. service sector and the limited supply of legal visas to fill those openings? Or how the new  law, described as a "law enforcement tool," will help to apprehend gang and crime syndicate members when residents in affected communities fear communicating and coooperating with the police?

Are there any lessons to be drawn from the Arizona situation?  First, demographic change is a challenge to the political leadership of any state or political jurisdiction. Second, public policy can be driven in constructive or harmful ways, depending on the decisions of political leaders, many of whom in this case seem to be pandering to extreme elements, rather than following their better instincts.  

Arizona will have to live for many years to come with the consequences of this law. A Boycott Arizona movement is gaining momentum. Criminal elements will find it easier to conceal their operations, as immigrant communities circle the wagons to protect the undocumented. And business will suffer as workers flee the state. Although the wave of demographic change may be resisted for a few years, in the end, Arizona will have to deal constructively with the challenges of diversity, or face a future of economic stagnation and social strife.
                                                                                                     Nick Montalto

Proposed New Jersey budget harsh on low-income immigrants

The austerity budget announced by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, if adopted by the legislature, will have dire consequences for many of the State's immigrants.

The entire budget of $3.7 million for the Center for Hispanic Policy, Research and Development is slated to be eliminated, jeopardizing the survival of many Latino and immigrant-serving organizations in New Jersey. Such organizations function as trusted hubs of information and services within immigrant communities and perform an important bridging function between government agencies and members of culturally and linguistically isolated communities,

Adult education has also taken a major blow. The appropriation of $10 million for support of New Jersey's network of adult high schools has also been eliminated, undoing a century-old partnership between the State and local schools districts to encourage local public schools to become centers of community learning, and closing doors of opportunity for the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the community, many of whom are first or second generation immigrants.

Finally, 12,000 legal immigrants have been dropped from New Jersey's FamilyCare program, apparently for the reason that they've been permanent residents for less than five years and - despite the downturn in the economy and severe job losses within the immigrant community -- the administration feels that they are not entitled to publicly-financed benefits, even though they meet all other criteria for participation.  The proposed budget also ends all funding for FamilyCare outreach, a program that has been instrumental in reaching socially isolated communities, including immigrants.

The pain, however, doesn't stop there. Other programs, with broader mandates but with a high profile within lower-income communities, are also being eliminated.  New Jersey After 3, for example, which provides supervised after-school activities, involving tutoring, physical exercise, and the arts, largely in low-income African-American and Latino communities, is also on the chopping block.

Surely, there must be a better way of putting New Jersey's fiscal house in order, without placing such a disproportionate burden on the most vulnerable members of society.