Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Utah’s New Immigration Law

by STEWART J. LAWRENCE

Utah’s deepening internal debate over how best to handle its large  illegal alien population is raising interesting new questions about  the proper dividing line between federal and state authority over  immigration matters.  It’s also threatening to cause major political  headaches for the Obama administration.

The Justice Department, in its recent lawsuit against Arizona,  claimed that the Constitution gives the federal government nearly  exclusive authority to make the nation’s immigration laws.  Accordingly, states have no right to pass their own  enforcement laws that are more stringent than federal policy,  especially if such laws might infringe on the rights of other citizens, or the rights of the aliens themselves.

But what if a state wants to pursue an enforcement approach that is  far less strict than current federal policy?    And what if, in  addition, it wants to devise its own visa policy to allow illegal  aliens to be conditionally legalized as “guest workers”, so that they  can openly labor and pay taxes to the state?   Doesn’t this law also  contravene federal authority, and isn’t it also unconstitutional?

Amazingly, that’s just what Utah is now proposing, after its  Republican governor intervened to prevent the state legislature from  passing its own version of an Arizona crackdown law.  Momentum behind a  copycat law in Utah was slowed after a federal district court judge  ruled that the heart of Arizona’s law, SB 1070, was likely  “pre-empted” by federal law, and issued a temporary injunction  blocking SB 1070’s full implementation.

But rather than dropping the matter, the state’s governor decided to  convene a roundtable of key stakeholders to come up with a better  approach.  Out of these discussions came the proposal for a state  guest worker program that would effectively bypass, or at least run  parallel to, current federal visa policy.

The basic idea is that Mexican and Utah state officials would sit down  to discuss their respective labor situations, and out of these  discussions a system for regulating the importation of Mexicans into  Utah would be established and administered more or less jointly by the  two sides.

There’s only one problem:  there’s no way to square this system with  current federal law.  In fact, it’s far more of a threat to the  principle of federal authority than Arizona’s law, which does not  directly impact decisions regarding who is granted legal entry into  the US.   It’s almost as if Utah is establishing its own foreign  policy with Mexico – at least in the realm of immigration.

Naturally, the Utah business community loves the idea, because it  provides guaranteed access to cheap labor.  And many immigrant rights  supporters think it gives Mexicans a leg up.  Anyone with a visa won’t  be deported, and may eventually get a shot at permanent residency,  though the approach currently being discussed doesn’t explicitly  provide for that possibility.

The federal government currently administers two small-scale guest  worker programs, one exclusively for agricultural workers, known as  H-2A, the other for other unskilled occupations like landscaping,  shrimping, and tourism, known as H-2B.   About 100,000 workers are  “imported” annually to work in these occupations, but they are required to  leave the country after their temporary work contracts expire.

In theory, the Utah program would be broadly compatible with H-2A and  H-2B,  except that state officials would be intimately involved in  determining who qualifies for a visa, and under what conditions they  could work.  That completely flies in the face of the elaborate  federal institutional procedures for managing H-2A and H-2B, in which  state officials play an ancillary role at best.

What’s fascinating, of course, is that Utah is making the same defense  of its program that Arizona is:  because of the void in federal  policy-making left by the failure of the US Congress to reform the  nation’s immigration laws, Utah has to act to protect its own citizens  from the consequences of that failure.

Only now the argument comes more from the more liberal or “pro-immigration”  side of the debate.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has said nothing about how  it plans to approach the Utah law.   But attorney general Eric Holder  has recently spoken out on the subject of “sanctuary” cities –  localities like San Francisco that have refused to cooperate with  federal immigration authorities in the identification and  apprehension of illegal aliens.

When challenged by conservatives to explain why the administration is  going after Arizona, but not San Francisco, Holder said there was a  “big difference” between localities that were “going beyond” federal  law and those that were only “passively resisting” it.   But that  argument won’t hold up in the case of Utah, whose challenge to federal  authority goes far beyond the realm of law enforcement alone.

In fact, Utah may still decide to pass a less aggressive Arizona-style  enforcement law as a complement to its new guest worker scheme.  And  last spring the governor also asked the legislature to mandate that  the state’s employers utilize the federal workplace enforcement system  known as E-Verify, to prevent illegal workers form getting hired.  Eleven other  states, including Arizona, are doing the same, even though the program, at the  federal level, is still largely voluntary

If all of these measures pass, Utah would become the first state in  the nation to offer its own model for “comprehensive” immigration  reform – a guest worker program, plus stepped up police and workplace  enforcement –  probably the broadest challenge to federal immigration  authority in the nation’s history.

But one item is missing:  a sweeping legalization program that would  ensure that all aliens currently in the country – or at least  Utah – would get green  cards.

Could this be the future GOP model for immigration reform, once  Republicans re-gain control over Congress in November, which now  seems likely?   Stay tuned, the US immigration debate is about to  get a lot more interesting.

STEWART J. LAWRENCE is a Washington, DC-based an immigration policy specialist.  He can be reached at stewartlawrence81147@gmail.com

Stewart J. Lawrence can be reached at stewartlawrence81147@gmail.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]