baltimoresun.com

« O’Malley: Anti-Ehrlich claim a 'tactical' error | Main | Obama, health care overhaul popular in Md., not U.S. »

July 15, 2010

O'Malley calls Ariz. law expensive, problematic

In his most extensive comments yet on a debate that is emerging as a campaign issue nationally, Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley predicted Thursday that Arizona’s controversial new immigration law would be “problematic” and costly.

“I believe this law is problematic in the long term, especially as it will inevitably be applied,” O'Malley told Washington radio station WTOP.

The Arizona law, which takes effect this month, requires police in that border state to determine the immigration status of a suspect they have stopped for any reason if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally.

Polls indicate the law is popular both in Maryland and nationwide. Supporters describe it as a necessary response to the failure of the federal government to secure the borders

Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit last week seeking to stop Arizona from enforcing it.

O'Malley said border protection was the responsibility of the federal government, not the states.

“We cannot substitute for a lack of federal enforcement by turning all municipal, county and state police into a giant immigration service, nor do we have the money to create large detention camps to hold people until they can prove their citizenship,” he said.

Republican former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., O'Malley's likely opponent this fall, expressed support this week for the Arizona law.

“It's no surprise, but I oppose what the Justice Department has done,” Ehrlich said. He said the “wholesale failure of federal policy” gave state leaders the right to try to address immigration on their own.

O'Malley has offered mild support for the federal lawsuit, saying President Barack Obama is taking a “principled stand.” He reiterated that position on the radio show.

But at a National Governors Association conference last weekend in Boston, O'Malley was among the elected officials apprehensive about the lawsuit, according to the New York Times. The Times said several Democratic governors were concerned about the timing of the lawsuit during what is already expected to be a difficult election cycle for their party.

O'Malley and six other Democratic governors are seeking reelection this fall.

O'Malley told WTOP’s Mark Segraves that he had expressed concerns privately at the governors meeting that debating immigration moves the discussion away from the subject voters want to talk about: creating and saving jobs.

“Any issue that does not address that concern distracts us from what people want us to be working on,” he told Segraves, characterizing his concerns.

O'Malley said that Maryland's policy had been to have federal immigration authorities work with local police departments “from time to time.”

“I believe that the Arizona policy is much more of a blanket approach that leads our country down a path of requiring people to carry citizenship papers or face an indeterminate amount of detention before any sort of trial,” O'Malley said.

Posted by Julie Bykowicz at 3:20 PM | | Comments (9)
Categories: Immigration, People
        

Comments

Can O'Malley cite the differences between the Arizona Law which he opposes and the Federal Law which he supports. Other than being a Democrat that is.

Did anyone ask MOM why Maryland is a sanctuary state for illegals, costing taxpayers an estimated 1.5 billion dollars a year?

THE FACTS ARE THAT JAN BREWER DID THIS TO GET REELECTED, HERE ARE FACTS.

1, HOW MUCH MONEY $$$$$$$ IS ALLOCATED TO ENFORCE THIS LAW?? NONE.

2, HOW MANY NEW POLICEMEN / WOMEN SHES HIRED TO HOLD AND PROCESS THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS? NONE.

3, HOW MANY NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES SHES HIRED TO PROCESS THE THOUSANDS OF DEPORTATION CASES?? NONE.

4, HOW MANY NEW JAILS SHES BUILT TO HOLD THE THOUSANDS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS? NONE.

5, HOW MANY BUSES / PLANES SHES BROUGHT TO DEPORT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THOSE WHO ARE ORDERED BY THE IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO BE DEPORTED?? NONE.

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THESE FACTS? THE REPUBLICAN STATES ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS THEIR PLATFORM, THEY WILL LOSE BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG TIME.
ALL ARE GODS CHILDREN. NO HUMAN IS ABOVE ANOTHER. ALL ARE CREATED BY ONE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN.
I AM NOT SAYING DON'T CLOSE THE BORDERS I AM SAYING STOP THE FOOLISH HATE AND IGNORANCE.

This week, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) came out with a report entitled, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, which discusses the costs of unauthorized immigration to the United States. As usual, FAIR has put out a highly misleading fiscal snapshot of the costs allegedly imposed on U.S. taxpayers by unauthorized immigrants and completely discounts the economic contributions of unauthorized workers and consumers. Moreover, FAIR inflates their costs in a variety of ways and conveniently ignores any contributions that would offset these costs.

While the publication is long and deals with a wide range of issues that warrant more dissection by credible economic experts, the trade publication Education Week has already begun the deconstruction with an item that sheds light on their misleading claims about providing English language services in schools.

According to the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), FAIR's report suffers from three fatal flaws:

* The report notes that the single biggest "expense" it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be tax-paying adults. It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents.
* The report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs.
* The report ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.

In contrast to FAIR's report, the Perryman Group estimated that if all unauthorized workers and consumers were somehow removed from the U.S. economy, the United States would lose $552 billion in total economic activity ("expenditures"), $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 2.8 million jobs." This doesn't count the billions it would cost to actually implement a mass deportation program.

Another argument FAIR makes, which makes it hard to glean what their solution would be is the high cost of deporting undocumented workers which FAIR blames on the immigrants themselves. It's a somewhat circular argument to say that the cost of undocumented immigrants includes the cost of failing law enforcement efforts. So, in essence, FAIR is saying that the deport-them-all approach costs too much money and doesn't work. Yet their "solution" is to spend even more money on enforcement.

FAIR's data is meant only to reinforce their vision of "attrition through enforcement." It is not rooted in an effort to move the immigration debate forward. Therefore, passing comprehensive immigration reform - which would yield a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years - is the only sound economic decision the United States can make.

SOURCE Immigration Policy Center

"Unauthorized", "undocumented", "natural born citizens". What you mean but cannot bring yourself to say is "Illegals". Why don't you go sneak into Mexico and see how that goes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh yeah, when one of them assaults, rapes, murders and just steals from you and/or someone in your family, come on back and lets talk about that!
You are a bhl no doubt.

I think the immigration law is an example of profiling and would not be as effective as it's painted to be. What sort of suspicions would an officer be looking for to warant asking for proof of citizenship? Overcrowded car?
Profiling by police officers is done everyday and in some cases it does help catch criminals, but for the most part its done for NO justifiable reason.

John,
Illegal immigrants are crossing the border into Arizona, killing American citizens and bringing drugs with them and you say Governor Brewer signed the immigration law to get elected. I guess you are used to a governor such as O’Malley who welcomes illegal immigrants into his state. Is the Arizona legislature who drafted the legislature also guilty of doing it to get reelected? And the law enforcement officials who want to protect Arizona citizens also did it to get reelected. Get real.

You say that the Republicans are trying to make immigration their platform. There is barely any more room on their platform what with the horrible economy, the Stimulus Bill, Obamacare, the Bailout Bill, The Earmark Bill, our escalating Public Debt, loss of 8 million jobs, broken campaign promises, bribing candidates with federal jobs, failure to pursue the New Black Panther case in Philadelphia, the Gulf Oil clean up disaster (took 86 days), and lack of a coherent foreign policy. Yeah, you are right. The Republicans are sure scrambling to find fault with the last 18 months in Washington D.C.

The Times said several Democratic governors were concerned about the timing of the lawsuit during what is already expected to be a difficult election cycle for their party. So, they're not concerned about doing something the electorate doesn't like. They're concerned that the electorate might hold them accountable for it. Leftards

I guess the governor doesn't read the Sun paper. The recent poll in the Sun showed that 66% of the Maryland voters disagree with him.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Headlines from The Baltimore Sun
About the bloggers
Annie Linskey covers state politics and government for The Baltimore Sun. Previously, as a City Hall reporter, she wrote about the corruption trial of Mayor Sheila Dixon and kept a close eye on city spending. Originally from Connecticut, Annie has also lived in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where she reported on war crimes tribunals and landmines. She lives in Canton.

John Fritze has covered politics and government at the local, state and federal levels for more than a decade and is now The Baltimore Sun’s Washington correspondent. He previously wrote about Congress for USA TODAY, where he led coverage of the health care overhaul debate and the 2010 election. A native of Albany, N.Y., he currently lives in Montgomery County.

Julie Scharper covers City Hall and Baltimore politics. A native of Baltimore County, she graduated from The Johns Hopkins University in 2001 and spent two years teaching in Honduras before joining The Baltimore Sun. She has followed the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Pa., in the year after a schoolhouse massacre, reported on courts and crime in Anne Arundel County, and chronicled the unique personalities and places of Baltimore City and its surrounding counties.
Most Recent Comments
Sign up for FREE local news alerts
Get free Sun alerts sent to your mobile phone.*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for local news text alerts

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
  • Breaking News newsletter
When a big news event breaks, we'll e-mail you the basics with links to up-to-date details.
Sign up

Blog updates
Recent updates to baltimoresun.com news blogs
 Subscribe to this feed
Charm City Current
Stay connected