February 18, 2012

Jim Cuervo Laws By Emerson Rezende In April 2010 Arizona passed the toughest anti-immigration laws of the country. Soon, other states followed suit and bills strongly influenced by the SB 1070 were enacted in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah. While supporters of the new laws declare that the measures are aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, it appears to be doing more than that, by targeting the maintenance of a way of life. The use of state laws to circumvent federal regulations in order to maintain a way of life is not a new tactic. Jim Crow laws reigned supreme, especially in the South, for almost a century. It would seem to an observer that once again states are resorting to the same strategy, however, with an accent this time - Jim Cuervo Laws. Alabamas draconian anti-immigration laws went as far as making it a crime to rent or give shelter to undocumented immigrants, transport one, and required schools to collect immigration status of all enrolled children and their parents. Some provisions of the law were blocked by a federal appeals court but the message was heard loud and clear: you cannot live here, you should not go to school here, and cannot enter into a contract with people here. You had better go back to where you came from! Of course, these provisions only pertain to illegal immigrants but think again, do they really? As the Jim Crow laws of the past, the underlying objective of these laws is to prevent ubiquitous changes to the status quo. It is estimated that Alabama may be home to about 130,000 undocumented immigrants, that is roughly 2.7% of a population of 4.7 million. Although the data indicates that the total population of Latino or Hispanic origin has increased and is currently estimated at 185,602, it is still very small compared to Afro American at 26% of the total population or white at 69.8%. The Alabama state legislature claims these laws were passed because it finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness. One may cite ambiguous studies from conservative parties suggesting that undocumented immigrants abuse the welfare system or that immigrant works for lower wages than other Americans do. The facts do not support the claim. Overall, the per capita income for Latino families is higher than that of African Americans and Native Americans for example. Access to the welfare system is limited to those with legal documentation and immigration status, except emergency medical treatment. Some may point out the growing rate of incarceration among Latinos however, according to a 2010 report by the Alabamas Department of Corrections the offender population is 99.9% Black or White. Latino, American Indian, Asians, or others account for 0.1%, in absolute numbers that is about 40 people. It is undisputed that Latinos represent the fasted growing minority population in the United States. The 2010 U.S census puts the population of Latino & Hispanic at 50.5 million, a 43% increase from the 2000 census, totaling about 16.3% of the total population. The majority of those are legal residents, born or naturalized citizens. As Latinos start moving into neighborhoods, white people start to leave, an uncomfortable uneasiness develop and the phenomenon of segregation lives on. While demographic shifts, because of migration or immigration is part of the history of this country it remains

February 18, 2012

an earnest obstacle to a truly diverse but equal society. Separate-but-equal doctrine has been substitute by diverse-but-separated. Whilst segregation is a strong word, it is still a euphemism for what these laws really meant to African Americans in the United States: They meant not only separation, but also: famine, subjugation, abuse, unemployment or slavery through peonage and other mechanisms, inferior education or no access to education at all, lack of representation and participation in the political process. The consequences have reverberated and our society still suffers. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case against the Arizona immigration law early this year, in another showdown between state rights and federal powers ensuing since McCullock v. Maryland (1819.) We can only hope that this court will not repeat Plessy v. Ferguson. More importantly however, is that Congress must act. The immigration issue is a serious one and our leaders must move beyond the rhetoric and superficiality of the matter and provide a resolution. We cannot hide behind inertia or the letter of the law to deny justice.