As the business community continues to embrace the increasing diversity of the American workforce, by changing business practices, cities and towns are at odds over the immigration issue. The foreign born population in the U.S. has increased 57% from 1980 (19.8 million) to 2000 (31.1 million). However, it actually sank 26% in Buffalo, NY; 23% in Pittsburgh; and 11% in Cleveland. Neal Peirce, a national journalist, wrote a column detailing how Cleveland, once known as a city of immigrants, has a group of civic and ethnic organizations that are looking to attract immigrants to the City through communitywide immigration forums sponsored by the region's largest newspaper, the Plain Dealer.
Mr. Peirce highlights one of the civic leaders behind the effort in Cleveland, Richard Herman highlighting his motivation to "focus heavily on economics" by comparing the business success of Toronto and its 43% foreign-born population. Herman suggests Toronto is successful because burgeoning immigrant clusters spark technology start-ups, small neighborhood proprietorships, real estate investments and international trade. The premise is based on skilled immigrants introducing intellectual and financial capital. In 2000, Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs alone headed 29% of Silicon Valley's technology businesses, collectively accounting for $19.5 billion in sales and more than 77,000 jobs.
In 1979, former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates enacted Special Order 40 that prohibits police officers from "initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person." However, the LAPD police are allowed to inquire about immigration status once a crime suspect has been arrested and processed for a felony or multiple misdemeanors. Many people call this and similar policies a "Sanctuary" policy as they could generally limit city employees, including police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities and thereby give illegal immigrants "sanctuary" from the law. Cities with similar policies are New York City, Chicago, San Diego, Austin, and Houston.
In contrast, other cities are looking to enforce immigration laws, and support the removal of illegal immigrants, by taking action against employers. The most notable is the Town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania where the Town Council passed an ordinance on July 13, 2006 to deny business permits to employers who hire illegal immigrants and fine landlords a $1,000 a day for renting to illegal immigrants. Hazelton also included in their ordinance that all City business must be conducted only in English.
Four other Pennsylvania towns have adopted similar ordinances, along with numerous other cities across the country who have taken tough approaches in varying degrees such as Riverside, New Jersey and Valley Park, Missouri. Even the town of Mint Hill, in Mecklenburg County, NC, has proposed an English-only provision. The English language-only provision can work for City purposes, but employers have highlighted the need to have safety manuals in multiple languages to ensure work site safety by those employees who are not fluent in English.
The variety of actions now being taken by local governments is a direct result of inaction at the federal level to address both legal and illegal immigration issues. The focus of this study and its four study components -- public safety, economic development/workforce, education, and healthcare -- highlight areas where local government can have an impact on immigration, yet they also reveal that action is very much needed, and soon, by the federal government.
