Post by BrianSullivan on Jul 29, 2010 4:20:38 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20100728/NEWS/8030301/Shore-residents-weigh-in-on-ruling-vs-Arizona-immigration-law
The news that a federal judge blocked key parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law from taking effect provoked strong reactions from Shore activists on both sides of the debate Wednesday.
Jackie Biddle Shuler, a Long Branch nurse, lawyer and a member of the Latino Bar Association, called the ruling "a start."
Biddle Shuler said it had been not just her hope but her legal opinion that the controversial law wouldn't stand up in federal court. Immigration enforcement is a federal issue, she said, "and for a state to try to circumvent that, it sends a bad message."
Frank Argote-Freyre, a Freehold resident and activist in the Latino community who serves as chairman of the statewide Latino Action Network, said he was "ecstatic" about the judge's ruling, "because she blocked the most pernicious and objectional aspects of that law, the ones that could lead to racial profiling." As a border state, Arizona is "in a different situation" than New Jersey when it comes to immigration laws, Argote-Freyre said, but "we have an enormous immigrant population in New Jersey, so I think we can relate to those issues. What I don't think we can relate to is that solution."
Argote-Freyre said the United States needs comprehensive immigration reform.
"With a lack of federal authority, local governments move in to try to take up the cause," he said. He said he hopes Wednesday's ruling will chill some of those efforts.
"A flag has been raised that they're likely to lose in federal court, at least for a time being," he said.
Brian Sullivan, another Freehold resident, had a different view. He's watched his town struggle with illegal immigration problems, he said, and he sympathized with the Arizona lawmakers whom he said were trying to make up for a lack of leadership at the national level.
"Little towns like ours have to pay for the federal government's failures," he said. He thought it was "predictable" that a federal judge would strike down what he thought was a fair attempt by Arizona to control its border.
"Washington is very hostile toward Arizona," he said. But Sullivan agreed with one assertion made by some on the other side of the debate. "It's going to be a very long fight," he said, "but it's not over."
Lydia Valencia, the grass-roots overseer of Lakewood's new muster zone for largely undocumented day laborers, said the judge's injunction was "heartening."
"We really don't feel it is at all fair to limit people from congregating where they want," said Valencia, the head of the Puerto Rican Congress, a statewide Hispanic advocacy group. "This is about personal freedom."
Even the Lakewood zone — a specified parking lot where contractors are now required to pick up laborers, rather than random street corners — prohibits a certain amount of liberty for the workers, according to Valencia. However, the township and the state as a whole have been much more lenient toward immigrant rights than Arizona, and she holds little fear that the southern law will be adopted here.
Shai Goldstein, executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, welcomed Wednesday's decision.
But, he said, "While it's a decision, it's not an answer."
Goldstein said he hopes Bolton's ruling will provide Congress with the push it needs to act on immigration reform, which he said should ensure a path to citizenship for immigrants.
"Immigration enforcement is a federal issue and must be addressed by the federal government. . . . We can't have 50 states establishing 50 different (immigration) policies," Goldstein said.
He added, "We have to come up with a practical solution that doesn't focus on just one aspect of immigration reform."
PageKim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com
The news that a federal judge blocked key parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law from taking effect provoked strong reactions from Shore activists on both sides of the debate Wednesday.
Jackie Biddle Shuler, a Long Branch nurse, lawyer and a member of the Latino Bar Association, called the ruling "a start."
Biddle Shuler said it had been not just her hope but her legal opinion that the controversial law wouldn't stand up in federal court. Immigration enforcement is a federal issue, she said, "and for a state to try to circumvent that, it sends a bad message."
Frank Argote-Freyre, a Freehold resident and activist in the Latino community who serves as chairman of the statewide Latino Action Network, said he was "ecstatic" about the judge's ruling, "because she blocked the most pernicious and objectional aspects of that law, the ones that could lead to racial profiling." As a border state, Arizona is "in a different situation" than New Jersey when it comes to immigration laws, Argote-Freyre said, but "we have an enormous immigrant population in New Jersey, so I think we can relate to those issues. What I don't think we can relate to is that solution."
Argote-Freyre said the United States needs comprehensive immigration reform.
"With a lack of federal authority, local governments move in to try to take up the cause," he said. He said he hopes Wednesday's ruling will chill some of those efforts.
"A flag has been raised that they're likely to lose in federal court, at least for a time being," he said.
Brian Sullivan, another Freehold resident, had a different view. He's watched his town struggle with illegal immigration problems, he said, and he sympathized with the Arizona lawmakers whom he said were trying to make up for a lack of leadership at the national level.
"Little towns like ours have to pay for the federal government's failures," he said. He thought it was "predictable" that a federal judge would strike down what he thought was a fair attempt by Arizona to control its border.
"Washington is very hostile toward Arizona," he said. But Sullivan agreed with one assertion made by some on the other side of the debate. "It's going to be a very long fight," he said, "but it's not over."
Lydia Valencia, the grass-roots overseer of Lakewood's new muster zone for largely undocumented day laborers, said the judge's injunction was "heartening."
"We really don't feel it is at all fair to limit people from congregating where they want," said Valencia, the head of the Puerto Rican Congress, a statewide Hispanic advocacy group. "This is about personal freedom."
Even the Lakewood zone — a specified parking lot where contractors are now required to pick up laborers, rather than random street corners — prohibits a certain amount of liberty for the workers, according to Valencia. However, the township and the state as a whole have been much more lenient toward immigrant rights than Arizona, and she holds little fear that the southern law will be adopted here.
Shai Goldstein, executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, welcomed Wednesday's decision.
But, he said, "While it's a decision, it's not an answer."
Goldstein said he hopes Bolton's ruling will provide Congress with the push it needs to act on immigration reform, which he said should ensure a path to citizenship for immigrants.
"Immigration enforcement is a federal issue and must be addressed by the federal government. . . . We can't have 50 states establishing 50 different (immigration) policies," Goldstein said.
He added, "We have to come up with a practical solution that doesn't focus on just one aspect of immigration reform."
PageKim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com