'Nature abhors a vacuum" is a familiar idiom, first heard by many people when a science teacher was attempting to explain that empty or unfilled spaces are unnatural because they go against the laws of nature and physics. The same apparently is true when it comes to making laws. If the federal government is unable to pass laws on an important matter - say, immigration - many if not most state legislatures rush to fill the void by promulgating their own rules. The result is not always pretty.
Immigration law and reform are properly the province of the federal government. Lately, though, it has been unwilling to accept that task. It's a bipartisan failing. Presidents and legislators of both parties have dithered and accomplished nothing to promote reform.
There's been talk in Congress of wiping the current slate of laws clean and establishing new and more sound regulations. That's come to naught. So have stop-gap proposals about erecting various fences and changing enforcement protocols. The problem of illegal immigration, however, remains. No wonder, then, that individual states, left to deal with the issue on their own, have undertaken the task on their own. That's rarely a good idea.
Indeed, what's emerged from the states' attempt to fill the federal vacuum is a hodge-podge of proposals and rules that range from the truly nutty to the mildly useful. In the long run, most of the states' efforts are likely to be in vain. Whatever passes muster in state capitals probably will face legal challenges on the grounds that it usurps federal authority. The U.S. already has taken such a step in Arizona, challenging that state's overly harsh requirement that individuals carry documents proving that they are in the United States legally.
Arizona-type laws are popular topics wherever immigration reform is on the agenda. Discussion, though, is not limited to that type of regulation. Some states are considering useful rules. They would require employers to verify the status of workers before hiring them or create some sort of amnesty program. Other proposals, though, are, in the words of one seasoned observer, "just plain crazy."
One proposal, for example, would make it illegal for a driver to pick up undocumented day workers. Others would require that driver's license exams be given in English only. Tennessee and Georgia are not exempt from such activity. Legislators in both states are considering lots of proposals that relate directly to immigration. It remains to be seen how far down the legislative road such proposals will advance.
There is a remedy for state involvement in immigration reform. That, however, would require the federal government to act responsibly, an action that has been in short supply. There is, though, a good starting point if U.S. legislators and the White House want to regain control of the immigration issue.
They should work to approve the currently derailed DREAM Act, officially the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors bill. That legislation harms no one and benefits many. It creates a provisional path to legalization for young illegal immigrants who go to college or who volunteer for military service. If youngsters follow the rules, they can achieve legal status; if they fail to do so, they cannot. Even the most jaded legislators should be able to accept the fairness of those standards.
Reforming immigration state by state is, at best, a fool's errand. It's nearly impossible to fix a federal problem that way. The legislative and executive branches of the federal government are best equipped to advance immigration reform, but first they must accept responsibility to act. At the moment, sadly, neither seems to have the gumption or the guts to do so.