At a mayoral candidates’ debate in 2009, fiscal conservatives Steve Cushman and Dale Francisco presented opposing views of undocumented immigrants in Santa Barbara. Francisco took the Tea Party position that they were parasites who were a terrible burden on the community; if elected he would consider raids on local businesses to apprehend and deport immigrants. Cushman stated that most undocumented immigrants are good, hard-working people who make an important contribution to our community. Who’s right?
Economic Reality: Every industrialized country has seen the need to import low-wage immigrant labor to do the hardest, least attractive jobs—only this country denies them legal entry. Until recently, economic reality has prevailed. We have tolerated a porous border and not applied sanctions to employers. This policy has had the support of political elites, the business community, and orthodox economists. Even then-United States Senator Pete Wilson pleaded with California Governor Ronald Reagan to let undocumented workers into California because “the crops are rotting in the fields.”
The Tea Party cry, “Deport the illegals,” if applied to California’s $37 billion a year agricultural industry, would provoke a depression. Opportunistic politicians now blame immigrants for taking American jobs. But the “good” jobs of the past were not lost to low-paid immigrants working in homes, fields, and kitchens—they were exported to Asia by our most respected corporations.
Moral Reality: Over the years, hard-working immigrants have established roots in Santa Barbara, raised families, and made a vital contribution to our local economy. After having, in effect, invited them to come work for us, don’t we have a moral obligation to treat them with simple human respect and dignity?
They are hardly leeches. Contrary to what Francisco believes, immigrants were long ago cut off from almost all social services, including those normally available to poor working families. They pay the same sales and income taxes as anyone else of their income level. Nor did they “jump the line ahead of those patiently waiting for visas.” There is no line for unskilled workers, only for those with family members in the U.S. or with special job skills.
A good example of how immigrants in Santa Barbara are being mistreated is the massive impoundment of their cars by local police. PUEBLO asked for a change in the SBPD impound policy; Francisco accused PUEBLO of promoting criminality and enabling illegal behavior. However, PUEBLO has never criticized the SBPD for citing unlicensed drivers—an offense that carries a large fine. Rather PUEBLO criticized the department’s misinterpretation and discriminatory enforcement of another law, a 30-day impound law intended to punish convicted DUI drivers whose licenses had been revoked or suspended, as well as drivers who had never held a driver license.
At the time that law was passed, unlicensed immigrants were given drivers licenses. But since 1994, they have been denied, so that today 80 percent of impounded cars come from undocumented immigrants who are being punished through massive 30-day impoundments and exorbitant storage fees ($1,500-plus).
There is no credible evidence that these are dangerous drivers. And, contrary to assertions by the mayor, the impound law is discretionary on the part of law enforcement, not mandatory. Moreover, its constitutionality is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which earlier held that towing a car that was not a safety hazard violates the Fourth Amendment. PUEBLO merely asked for modifications of the department’s application of the impound law, in keeping with policies adopted by other police departments.
In cooperation with PUEBLO, I did an in-depth analysis that uncovered a number of police abuses. Example: the SBPD acknowledges that it is Constitutionally permissible to stop a vehicle only if it is observed committing a violation. Since random checkpoint stops indicate that less than two percent of the vehicles on the road at night are driven by undocumented immigrants, it is statistically impossible that some officers on Directed Patrols are impounding over a third of the cars they stop (usually without giving any other traffic citation) unless they are illegally targeting immigrant-driven cars for stops.
The department makes big money from impoundments through fees collected when cars are recovered. This money is used to pay overtime for the officers who participate in Directed Patrols—the program is now “self-funded.” The problem of police corruption throughout California involving impoundment fees was highlighted in a report issued by the Center for Investigative Reporting that was carried by the New York Times.
Our report contains a great deal of additional information on the misconduct of certain officers of the SBPD, on the department’s mistaken interpretation of state law, and on the department’s failure to do training or conduct oversight on the activities of its traffic officers. The department’s only response has been continued stonewalling and repetition of the same tired slogan, “None of our officers profile.” The Latino community knows better, and so should fair-minded citizens with a moral conscience.
Related Links
- Previous story: Police Chief Keeps Car-Impound Policy [ January 6, 2011 ]
Russell Trenholme is a former philosophy professor and businessman, and author of a book called Free Trade and Comparative Advantage: Why Most Economists Are Wrong, accessible via his website, freetradeexposed.info. He and his wife have lived in Santa Barbara since 2000.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
Thanks for the informative article. This impound practice is the representative of our twisted immigration, wage and employment policies. It is unconscionable. The narrow view of tea party activists types like Council Member Dale Francisco is what gets us into economic trouble. Now we know how everyone on our council reports how they make/made a living. Does anyone know how Dale Francisco supports himself in his luxurious Santa Barbara Upper East lifestyle? After tax-payer subsidized college Francisco only worked a for just a few years.
BTW the Russel Trenholme's website mentioned below ends in .info rather than .com
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is the left siding with capital against labor in favoring lower wages via illegal immigration?
The answer is they don't care about the illegal aliens. Leftists like Trenholme despise bourgeoise "white"America and
importing 10% of Mexico's people is the fastest way to change things.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So now we've gone from "illegal alien" to "undocumented Immigrant" to "immigrant". In spite of the PC trend of the terminology, these folks are here illegally, consuming taxpayer-funded resources. If impounding a vehicle helps convince them to leave, good.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DonM, how do YOU make your living? Not my business, right? Same goes for your constant harping on Francisco. Did you listen to Obama's speech the other night? The part about discussing issues instead of personalities? Listen up....
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Deja esto descansar, POR FAVOR! Translation: Give this a rest already, PLEASE!
Don't care what color, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, whatever you are, you drive a car w/out a license, registration & insurance, you get pulled over or stopped @ a sobriety checkpoint, guess what? You're going to jail, your car is getting impounded & that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Of course, constant "squeaky wheel" tactics by PUEBLO (just another ACORN) & other "activists" will keep this issue on the forefront.
Russell, Don, I'm so very sorry you hate yourselves for not being 1 of us "brownskins" & forcing yourselves to try to live like in the 3rd World hellholes some of us come from.
Yeah, we know, it's all Dubya's fault, alright, move on, nothing new to see here.
Nothing like the self-hating Anglo syndrome to make the world (well, @ least in this neck of the woods) go around.
It all comes down to simple law & justice: Break a law, pay the consequences.
No World Bank economic conspiracies or black ops @ work, just simple action/reaction mechanics.
As a Latino male I've been pulled over, but it was for speeding on a couple of occassions & guess what? I didn't go to jail.
I've also been stopped @ sobriety checkpoints, wasn't drunk & guess what? I didn't go to jail!
Funny how that works when you got your licnse, registration & proof of insurance! IT'S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!
Yeah, got a ticket for speeding, deserved it, but life went on & I was respectful to he officer & NEVER blamed it on race.
I think this has something to do w/ what my dearly departed mom would kindly remind me of: "Somos visitantes aqui, respeta las leyes, respeta la jente, haorra tu importancia." Translation (as close as possible): "We're guests here, respect the laws, respect the people, earn your keep."
Of course, an attitude like that probably makes us NOT seem as Latino as some of you self-hating Anglo folk may want.
Not being fair to immigrants? Fair? What is fair? THERE IS NO SUCH THING! Maybe in stalinist/socialists states where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. There is however, wrong & right.:
Wrong: Driving w/out a license, registration or insurance. Consequence: CAR IMPOUNDED, GO TO JAIL.
Right: Driving w/ a license, registration & insurance. Consequence: NONE.
What is so hard to see here? Dejalo descansar, POR FAVOR! :) henry (actually, enrique, by birth)
hank (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Drywall, construction, bricklaying, meatpacking -- wages all halved by illegal immigration.
Info technology, hi-tech, accounting -- wages all halved by H1-B, L1-A mass legal immigration working as indentured servants to large corporations.
Samuel Gompers -- an immigrant from England founded the AFL because he realized infinite immigration meant infinitesimal wages.
Listen to Pete Seeger singing "Which Side Are You On". Astonishing that the Independent, PUEBLO and the Democrats are on the same side as the 1930s mine owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM0...
revisionist (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that people who aren't licensed or insured should have their cars taken away. It's not unfair, it's smart. The people that get in accidents and don't have insurance mess up the insurance rates for the rest of us who are doing things legally... I sell insurance and am constantly asked by my customers why auto rates are going up. There are a lot of accidents caused by people without insurance and those claims go on the not at fault driver's insurance, and it helps to drive the rates up, plain and simple. I imagine that the uninsured / unlicensed drivers are also more like to hit and run too because they are afraid to get into trouble. It costs the paying citizens money to make up for their lack of following the law.
It's not about taking sides so much as about following the laws. If you're not legal then you need to take the bus just like legal, unlicensed Americans need to take the bus. Why should they get away with breaking our traffic laws? Advocating for a race to be able to break American laws because they are willing to do grunt work is stupid, it makes no sense... American teenagers may be willing to do grunt work too, if there were any jobs available for them, and I would still be against them driving without a license or insurance. What's the difference?
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whats up with the HTML code glitch for all italics?
Follow the money. Do not attack the messenger or the immigrant who only is behaving rationally because laws are not enforced and socioeconomic opportunities are available. Who benefits from widespread illegal immigration?
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
January 15, 2011 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So who gets the money, David? Francisco? Bush?
BTW, I'm not attacking the ILLEGAL immigrant (you seem to 'forget' the distinction at times). I fully expect people to do what is in their own self-interest, e.g. illegals coming here to earn a living, councilman (Das) living in an illegal rental (what an example he is). So make it hard or impossible for them to earn/rent. Enforce the law.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Cushman stated that most undocumented immigrants are good, hard-working people who make an important contribution to our community. Who’s right?"
I live in California, ground zero and welfare state for illegal aliens (not immigrants).
According to a report by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, member of the California Budget Committee, it costs Californians $10.5 Billion a year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. We have a State Budget deficit of $19 Billion.
It costs $11,000 in state funds and $9,000 in federal funds a year to educate one illegal alien's child. Show me one illegal alien that has only one child and pays $20,000 a year in income taxes, if he pays any taxes at all!
In the L.A. Times, 9.3/10, it costs L.A. County $570 Million a year in welfare and food stamps for just illegal aliens' anchor babies.
Bottom line: "Mr Cushman, get down from your ivory tower and see for yourself that we cannot afford the "important" illegal alien contribution to our communities. I am on a fixed income and I could lose my home if California succeeds to raise property taxes.
Carmen3 (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I understand that it is the chamber of commerce type organizations, conservatives and the republican party that are responsible for driving down wages.
Dale Francisco is a politician born out of propaganda and paranoia. He has no sense of representation or justice. Francisco chooses to ignore minority rights and even supported the mean and hateful Prop H8ate ballot initiative. Francisco calls human beings "vagrants," jumps out of his council chair, angrily challenging those who question this "representative." Francisco has no introspection and is intolerant of opposing opinions, challenging difference of opinion as "disingenuous" or essentially calling the public and council colleagues as liars.
Knowing how representatives support themselves is a valid question for qualification especially for the high and mighty pious candidate. You should be knowledgeable about your representatives so you know what types of conflicts of interests that may present themselves during governmental processes.
So all we know about Dale Francisco is what he tells us. Mostly popular prattle, hypocritical and disingenuous
comparisons. As Dale Francisco tires of sashaying between Figueroa Street book sellers, perhaps seeking a meal in Los Arroyos does he ever consider the immigration status of his friends in these establishments; serving up a taco or burrito or washing the plate.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW illegal immigrants own property here. They pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes etc. It is hypocritical to not treat these humans fairly regardless of their immigration status.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2011 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Economic Reality: Every industrialized country has seen the need to import low-wage immigrant labor to do the hardest, least attractive jobs—only this country denies them legal entry."
How many? What about Japan and New Zealand? Do they simply allow unchecked immigration, or is the author saying that we are the only country that has no guest worker program?
The core issue is that Mexico has done a deplorable job managing itself; how dare the Billionaire Boys Club that runs that country (as they sit on their natural resources) criticize the U.S. for daring to speak up when the effects of unlimited immigration have an obvious detrimental effect. The answer is right under our noses, but of course we have been conditioned not to discuss it: the answer is that if life were better for people in Mexico, they wouldn't have to cross the border en masse (risking their lives in the process) to come here and these businesses that hire them would actually have to pay a decent wage to citizens and legal immigrants. (Something that people who are truly interested in fair work conditions understand)
What Trenholme, PUEBLO, and all the other open-border supporters fail to realize is the issues of overcrowding, (family planning is simply too touchy a subject now that it's clear the main population increase is from immigration/the attendant higher birth rates) and the fact that while many celebrate the changing demographic, if we keep encouraging low-skilled semi-literate people to immigrate here in unlimited numbers, the doctor-to-patient ratio will get to the point where the crowds in the emergency rooms will be spilling out onto the streets because the children of these immigrants are far less likely to go into the medical field as compared to children of decades past.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 16, 2011 at 3:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So they want a special pass for those in this country illegally?
If one of those "undocumented" unlicensed and UNINSURED drivers hits your car or kills your kid... do they get a pass for that too?
WTF people... clue in... this is not targeting anybody but unlicensed/uninsured/ILLEGAL drivers. If there is s disproportionate amount of illegal aliens caught up in that sweep, that only tells you that there is a lot of unlicensed/uninsured operators in that group. Anyone in that class is a danger to be on the road... just ask someone that has been in an accident with one of them.
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2011 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They need to be legally eligible for drivers' licences again. Their lack of legal status as residents is a separate matter. Forcing the two issues together results in more uninsured & clueless drivers on the road. Printing "Citizen" or "Non-citizen" on the CDL should placate the indignant indigenes.
Splain me why I'm wrong, cartoonz.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2011 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't that what public transportion is for? Or a bike? But please do not drive until you are legal.
qmagoo (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2011 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please is a weak argument, qmagoo.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hank - of all the postings yours was dead on. Beautiful. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ppl that earn below average wages are often recipients of tax-payer funded entitlements so the economic impact of denying work to illegal immigrants shouldn't be looked at as how much the cost of any given product will be but instead, how much is it costing CA to make up the difference for their cost of living via welfare programs and education.
SantaBarbaraDianne (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2011 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Illegal Alien is the legal definition. Making it the equivalent of a "hate term" is purely political.
Wages in construction jobs in California have been cut by more than half over the past 10 years because of the influx of illegal aliens. Arrest the Contractors and take their license if they are recidivist. Arrest the illegal aliens and send them back to whatever country they bailed on.
Besides being wrong, Trenholme is a part of a national political strategy that is being foisted on us by illegal immigrant advocates in many cities. His vernacular is strangely identical to the same fallacious claims being made all over the U.S. At least admit you are a fraud...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2011 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)