(Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the so-called “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration law, but struck down the rest. Could the ruling impact how California law enforcement deals with undocumented immigrants? And with both presidential candidates vying for Latino voters this fall, how could the decision influence immigration policy in an election year?

Guests:
Rory Little, professor of law at UC Hastings College of the Law
Karthick Ramakrishnan, associate professor of political science at UC Riverside
Gabriela Villareal, policy manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center

  • Rhet

    What’s fueling the anti-immigration movement is primarily two things: The concern that jobs are being taken by foreigners, which is a concern that people in every country on the planet have and is perfectly justified. Second is the problem with the drug cartels in Mexico, who are making inroads into America where they not only sell drugs but do money laundering at American banks like Wells Fargo / Wachovia and B of A. The recent police action in Aurora Colorado where cops handcuffed 40 US citizens and pointed shotguns at childrens’ heads was a response to a cartel-friendly bank being robbed.

    Wells Fargo:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
    http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/wells_fargos_prison_cash_cow/

    Aurora CO:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/554728_392755290761978_704060660_n.jpg

    • Sam

      That’s silly however, immigrants are not in any way responsible for the job losses but the businesses who hire the immigrants, and the fact that global economic policies cause patterns of migration. Anybody who is blaming a poor farmer from El Salvador for the loss of their job is misplacing their anger.

      • Rhet

         The poor worker comes here knowing he can find illegal work. He is aware that employers are willing to break the law. Heck I could go to Europe today and find illegal work myself. It would be sucky work, maybe even dangerous. But the employers seek out illegals to avoid costs of conforming to society’s demands for fair, safe jobs. Illegal workers are culpable, just as people who receive stolen property are culpable.

      • TrainedHistorian

        This is not a matter of blaming individual workers. Rapid increases in supplies of labor through rapid increase in (or even unlimited immigration) leads to reduced wages for workers but increased returns to capital owners no matter what anyone’s intentions might be. Wishful thinking or euphemisms cannot do away with this.fundamental law of supply & demand. If you do not understand why an unlimited supply of labor through immigration (or high levels of natural increase) leads to reduced wages (and in some cases higher under or unemployment), I suggest you take an elementary economics course. For starters,try Googling “marginal product of labor” and “diminishing returns to labor.” (Or you you might try reading some of demographer Ron Lee’s work on real wages).
        And contrary to your example, only a small portion of illegals are in the underpaid farm labor force. Most are in econmic areas that Americans & legals will do: construction, restaurant work, retail, etc. So yes, they do displace some current workers in these during periods of slow economic growth, and depress their wages even in periods of better growth.

  • Nemo

    Out of curiosity: under Scalia’s theory of state sovereignty, could one state exclude the citizens of another state from moving from one state to another?

  • Chemist150

    If CA has 3 million illegal immigrants and spend $11 billion (~1%CA budget) a year on them, each illegal would have to spend $700 a week at 10% tax to pay for themselves. If they buy $50 gas each week then subtract $125 due to ~24% tax. If they pay $500 a month in rent (often higher), subtract another $125-250/week. If they buy food, easily another $50/week. Left with $275/week to pay for them to pay for themselves, add any fees they pay, insurance, misc car repair…. A big add is from those that have a intermediate employer that is required by law to deduct taxes (income(state, fed), SS, medicare..) they cannot get back. <—huge deal.

    Now consider them doing jobs that need to be done that most citizens elect not to do. Some earn so little that if they claimed taxes, they wouldn't pay any. They allow us to have cheap food at the grocery store actually pay for themselves through local economics, and people want to kick them out why?Sure, some money is sent back to Mexico but they local stimulation they create pays for itself and in no way compares to what our politicians are giving the Chinese through the deficit and huge trade imbalance. They come here, sacrifice themselves so that their children can have a chance at a better standard of living and education and that sounds like good parents to me.And that's why the politicians don't actually kick them out… Because they've done the math.

    • TrainedHistorian

      It’s very dubious that they’ve really “done the math”, and your math is dubious.  A more rigorous study than yours (Google “High Cost of Cheap Labor”) finds that each household headed by an illegal imposed a net cost of about $3000/household at the federal level. Even though it’s true that they pay more into SS & Medicare than they get back, they end up getting back more than other households in Medicaid, emergency care, foodstamps, legal system, cost of their children in schools, etc. (BTW the reason illegals often access such social programs is they have citizen children). Bottom line of this study, the reason illegals end up paying less than they get is that they earn relatively low wages and thus do not pay as much as those in higher income brackets. This is the problem with thinking that “cheap labor” is a net benefit to the economy as a whole, & everyone in it. Yes, it benefits individal employers/companies, but they pass on the costs of paying such low wages to other taxpayers,

      • Chrisco

        More like trained propagandist in citing the totally biased and agenda-driven CIS study.

  • Sam

    What is a “reason” to think someone is illegal except for their accent, skin color and culture? Isn’t the US Supreme Court here legalizing de facto racial profiling?

    • Chemist150

      There is a part of Mexico that is more dominantly white and blond hair.
      Like pocket populations in the US, one cannot base it solely on skin color legitimately.

  • Exnomax

    I lived in a border town my whole life. (in Mexico). border with Yuma AZ. well… I never saw a Caucasian field worker. never. usually Caucasian never works on the fields picking up lettuce and broccoli. that is a job that Hispanics perform. so go ahead and get rid of all of them. and then try to get ” real Americans” to work in there. I would love for the border to be closed for a month. and then see what happens.

    • Rhet

       They’re already replacing field workers with robots in Salinas, CA.
      What’s what happens when we put our trust in business people.

    • You are an idiot, the bottom line is that if they (anyone entering the US illegally) come into this country in an illegal way its breaking the law..your arguement of the field worker is null and void the field work is just a small part of the workforce..look at our restuarants and hotels.give me a break!!! BREAKING THE LAW IS BREAKING THE LAW!!

  • Since when did it become wrong to catch anyone breaking the law?? ugh

  • Obama sucks!!

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor