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 We have outdated admissions criteria and severe backlogs in the processing of applications and background checks.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).
