FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Napolitano and Immigration Policy

by TOM BARRY

What does the likely nomination of Gov. Janet Napolitano as head of the Department of Homeland Security signal for immigration policy?

The hopeful interpretation by immigrant advocacy organizations is that Napolitano’s appointment, along with the new immigration task force in the transition team, are signs that immigration reform will be a priority for the Obama administration. The Arizona governor’s public support for comprehensive reform and the inclusion of immigration as one of the top issues for the Obama transition team signal for some observers that the new administration will not sideline immigration issues.

Others, including the main anti-immigration groups, see Napolitano as a law enforcer who supports tough employer sanction laws and strengthened border control, and who has declared the Arizona-Mexico border a “state of emergency.”

Certainly, there is relief that Michael Chertoff, a right-wing ideologue and Republican loyalist, will soon be gone. But he will leave a legacy in the two Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that implement immigration enforcement and border control—Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Over the past three years, under his assertive leadership, the two agencies have sharpened their objectives and operations and found a sense of purpose that was previously lacking when their predecessor agencies were under the Justice Department and later under the fumbling direction of the first DHS secretary, Tom Ridge.

Following the lead of the anti-immigration institutes (FAIR, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies) and rightwing think tanks (Heritage Foundation), Chertoff came to Homeland Security with a new interpretation of the department’s immigration law enforcement and border control operations: commitment to a strict enforcement regime to protect the country against foreign terrorists, and to reassert the “rule of law.”

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the restrictionist camp found that their messaging about the “illegality” and “criminality” of illegal immigrants took on a new resonance. And they proceeded to upscale their “what don’t you understand about illegal?” message, which had echoed through the anti-immigration grassroots forces, to a more conceptual framing of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants now represented a threat to the “rule of law” inside a nation that had just come under foreign attack by foreign outlaws.

An October 2005 Heritage Foundation essay, “Rule of Law at Stake in the Immigration Debate,” helped propel the rule-of-law framework into the mainstream media. Written by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, a Heritage Foundation fellow, the essay was broadcast by Fox News. Meese and foundation colleague James Jay Carafano wrote: “We need to encourage federal, state, and local governments to enforce our laws and work together to improve the security infrastructure at points of entry. Enforcement should include prosecuting benefits fraud, identity theft, and tax evasion, in addition to immigration violations.”

The “rule of law” framing for immigration works well for anti-immigration groups since it allows them to chart a course that is ostensibly separate from the nativists, economic populists, and white supremacists that make up much of the base of the movement. It’s a message derived historically and fundamentally on liberal principles of a government by laws rather than by royalty, aristocrats, and other elites.

Another part of Chertoff’s legacy is his straight-out acknowledgement that immigration policy is flawed, but until there is a new, more comprehensive law in place, DHS has a mandate to enforce existing law.

Napolitano is by no means an anti-immigration hardliner. However, as a lawyer, former federal prosecutor, and a governor who has insisted on more border control and has stood behind a tough employer-sanctions law, she will fit easily into the “rule of law” framework for directing ICE and CBP operations.

It’s a framework that has already been adopted by the Democratic Party and to a certain extent by Obama.

When asked by CBS’ Katie Couric about his illegal immigrant aunt, Obama appealed to this framework as one that should prevail in immigration policy.

Couric: “You have an aunt who’s been living in this country apparently illegally, and your campaign says any and all appropriate laws should be followed. So would you support her being deported to Kenya?”

Sen. Obama: “If she is violating laws, those laws have to be obeyed. We’re a nation of laws. Obviously that doesn’t lessen my concern for her. I haven’t been able to be in touch with her. But I’m a strong believer you have to obey the law.”

During the campaign, Obama repeatedly said, as did Hillary Clinton, that, with regard to the immigration issue, America can be “both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.”

Acknowledging that the immigration restrictionists have dominated the immigration debate, the Democratic Party and its allies have over the past year desperately sought to reframe the immigration crisis while at the same time attracting the allegiance of Latinos and “New Americans.” Their new language about immigration policy—”nation of laws,” “rule of law,” and “required legal status”—started popping up everywhere, from the pronouncements of immigrant-rights groups to the Democratic Party platform.

Instead of promising an “earned path to citizenship,” as it has in the past, the party stated that illegal immigrants will be required to “get right with the law.”

“For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law,” states the party’s platform. “We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.”

As governor, Napolitano has attempted to navigate between the vocal and highly-organized anti-immigrant forces on one side and the business community and humanitarian/human rights groups on the other. While realistic about the impossibility of completely sealing the border, she has called for more border patrol agents, deployed the state’s National Guard, and supported increased federal-state cooperation in immigration law enforcement, albeit at the same time opposing the immigrant crackdown launched by the notorious immigrant-bashing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and vetoing measures that would have denied social services to illegal immigrants.

All the while, Napolitano has complained that the responsibility for addressing immigration-related issues lies with the federal government. She says she supported a tough legalization law, and, like Chertoff, has been an outspoken advocate of temporary and guestworker programs.

As Homeland Security secretary, Napolitano can be expected to follow the lead of Chertoff and the Democratic Party in insisting that current immigration laws be strictly enforced; as ICE and CBP routinely put it, “to reassert the rule of law” in immigration and border control. In the absence of a reform law that provides a path to citizenship for the country’s 11 million illegal immigrants, the “rule of law” route forward will be a victory for those calling for restrictive policies on legal and illegal immigration.

Like Chertoff, she will have no power to shepherd through Congress a new immigration policy. What she can do, however, is reject the practice of her predecessor of using the strict enforcement of immigration law as a deterrence strategy. Through highly publicized raids on worksites and through the shackling and imprisonment of immigrants, the DHS has sought to use the law to terrorize existing immigrant communities as part of a strategy to deter future illegal immigration. The consequences have been violations of human rights, family separation, and sowing fear in entire communities.

Napolitano can also use her position as a bully pulpit to explain that the rule of law is not an end goal. It’s a path to justice. America is both a nation of laws and one where justice prevails—or it should be.

TOM BARRY directs the TransBorder Project of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. He blogs at http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/.

 

 

 

 

Tom Barry directs the Transborder Program at the Center for International Policy and is a contributor to the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail