by Anne Wakefield

An influential new force has joined the expanding lineup of frustrated and angry critics of the federal government for its repeated failures to undo this nation’s widening immigration mess.

After digesting an extensive study covering the impact of federal inaction on local government entities, which it ordered last year, and conferring with a cross-section of its membership and officers, the International City/County Management Association is circulating its findings and recommendations to the Obama administration and Congress.

ICMA serves 9,000 municipal and county jurisdictions throughout the world. Its management decisions, it maintains, “affect 185 million individuals living in thousands of communities, from small villages and towns to large metropolitan areas.”

The Washington, D.C.-based organization is calling on U.S. political powerbrokers to heed the findings of its report by incorporating four principles into a comprehensive U.S. immigration strategy:

1. Overhaul U.S. policy to reflect current economic and social realities, including appropriate enforcement.
2. Place control at the national level and immigrant integration at the local level.
3. Conduct federal enforcement activities that consider the impact on communities and local governments and promote human rights.
4. Redistribute resources equitably that are generated by immigrants.

ICMA deputy executive director Elizabeth Kellar told Hispanic Link News Service and other participating media during a March 5 teleconference, “The absence of a comprehensive approach creates public health and safety issues for our country. Local government managers see the consequences of a patchwork approach to immigration in their communities every day.”

The report, “Immigration Reform: An Intergovernmental Imperative,” stated that the current piecemeal efforts jeopardize the safety and security of citizens and immigrants alike, while imposing significant burdens on the economic and social fabric of localities.

Additionally, it said, the confusion creates intergovernmental tensions that may impede effective working relations on other issues.

Nadia Rubaii-Barrett, the report’s author, elaborated during the teleconference, “To be competitive in an increasingly interdependent and connected world, the United States needs to articulate and implement a comprehensive and coordinated intergovernmental strategy to maximize the benefits of immigrants and minimize the dangers and costs of uncontrolled immigration.”

Two affected local officials also spoke, sharing their “on-the-ground” experiences.

Ron Carlee, county manager of Arlington County, Virginia, emphasized that local governments “must set the tone for a welcoming, tolerant and inclusive environment. Otherwise, there is a danger of unintended consequences from exclusion. Creating a culture of fear and distrust of law enforcement makes a community less safe. Denying educational opportunities to students who may continue to live in this county makes a community less safe. Denying such basic services as well baby care, immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases makes a community less safe.”

Michael (Dave) O’Leary, city administrator of Shelton, Washington, added, “The idea is to build trust so we can get people to report crimes and then bring violators to justice. This is hard work. Many immigrants have come from places where law enforcement is to be feared. Over time, we have madeprogress. Occasionally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel come to town and conduct surprise arrests. Our city is caught between the goals of our national government enforcing immigration laws and those of our local government protecting people. Immigrants tend to see law enforcement as one entity. When ICE does its work, it undermines ours.”

Concluded report author Rubaii-Barrett, who chairs the Department of Public Administration at Binghamton University’s College of Community and Public Affairs, “Professional local government administrators, who see on a daily basis the potential for positive immigrant contributions to their communities and the negative economic and social consequences of the current failed policies, understand that a comprehensive immigration strategy must begin with a clearly articulated division of responsibilities and the establishment and enforcement of sensible immigration policies that meet the economic and social needs of the 21st century without sacrificing security.”

To access the ICMA report, visit icma.org/immigrationwhitepaper.

(Anne Wakefield is a reporter with Hispanic Link News Service in Washington, D.C. Email: ­anneleew@aol.com). ©2009

by Nadia Rubaii-Barrett

Several conditions contribute to the creation of what might be called “a perfect storm” as local governments tackle the issue of immigrant influx into their communities.

First, for many years, the sheer numbers of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, entering the United States has been increasing.

Second, the diversity of recent immigrant populations in terms of the countries from which they come, the languages they speak and their cultural values differs more noticeably from the U.S. population than earlier waves of immigrants.

Third, immigrants are choosing to settle in places that are well outside the traditional gateway cities and states. As such, cities, counties, towns, villages, in urban, suburban and rural areas and across every state in the nation have experienced immigration in ways they have been largely unprepared for.

These conditions have been compounded by the lack of a coherent federal policy on immigration. We have outdated admissions criteria and severe backlogs in the processing of applications and background checks. The immigration and naturalization component of the federal bureaucracy has not received nearly the attention and resources as has enforcement in a post 9/11 environment. And the enforcement component of federal policy alternates between being practically non-existent to rather heavy-handed.

The final straw from a local government perspective is the disproportionate distribution of resources. Several well-respected studies have documented that immigrants are net contributors to the U.S. economy. But two-thirds of the taxes they generate goes to the federal government, while two-thirds of the costs are borne at the state and local level.

The revenues collected by the federal government are not being redistributed down to the local governments to compensate them for the costs they incur.

So what does all this mean for professional local governments? In a nutshell, it means the ability of local governments to meet their local priorities.

Ensuring public safety and public health, promoting economic development and fiscal responsibility and fostering a sense of community among residents are repeatedly being challenged and compromised by the burdens they face due to the federal government’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities with respect to immigration.

For example, when immigrants, even those who are here legally, are afraid to report crimes or cooperate with police because of fear of detention or deportation, the ability of local governments to promote public safety is compromised.

If immigrants are afraid to seek medical attention for fear of having their immigration status checked, they may spread contagious disease and compromise public health not just for immigrants, but for the native-born population. If immigrants avoid preventative health care and rely on emergency medical services, communities shoulder unnecessary costs.

If local governments opt to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security through so-called 287(g) agreements the time local officials spend enforcing federal immigration laws reflects resources a local government does not have available to invest on local priorities. A January 2009 report from the U.S. General Accountability Office cautions of the lack of consistency in goals and enforcement practices in these programs, which creates tremendous liabilities for local governments.

Pent-up frustrations with the lack of federal action have made the issue of immigration a highly 4contentious and divisive one in some communities. Community cohesion is jeopardized if the local government finds itself having to pit the native-born population against the newcomers.

The report, prepared for the International City/County Management Association, ­explains the vast array of ways in which local governments are responding to these challenges.

Some are declaring sanctuary for undocumented migrants. Others are passing harsh anti-immigrant ordinances with penalties for anyone employing or even housing them.

Some are signing 287(g) agreements with the ICE. Some have passed English-only laws and others have encouraged bilingualism or multilingualism and cultural competence among their employees. Some have opened day laborer centers or hiring halls to help immigrants find employment, and others have prohibited these types of facilities.

This patchwork of local policies jeopardizes the safety and security of citizens and immigrants alike, strains small and large businesses relying on immigrant labor, imposes significant burdens on the economic and social fabric of localities, and creates intergovernmental tensions that may impede effective working relations between Washington and local governments on other issues. Hispanic Link.

(Nydia Rubaii Barrett, Chair of the Department of Public Administration at Binghampton University’s College of Community and Public Affairs, authored the report “Immigration Reform: An Intergovernmental Imperative,” for ICMA. This summarizes her presentation to Hispanic Link News Service and other interested media on “the perfect storm” confronting Congress and local governments on the issue).