Michigan immigration plan shows key role of state, local officials

By Charles Anzalone

Snyder’s recommendation, seen as a relatively open and accepting policy in the immigration debate, proves the federal government’s current “one-size-fits-all” approach to immigration policy-making is a mistake, says Su, associate professor in the UB Law School.

“Immigration policy is established at the federal level,” Su says. “But the impact of those policies — and immigration more generally — vary from state to state, locality to locality.

“The current, uniform, national immigration policy simply does not account for this reality.”  

Because all of the nation’s immigration policy is centralized in Washington, D.C., there is not much room for state and local input, Su explains. And this ignores the valuable creativity and innovation coming from state and local municipalities closely aware of their particular immigration situation. The Detroit proposal is an excellent example of how these local governments can offer valuable suggestions and solutions, based on individual needs and circumstances.

“Countries like Canada are already starting to decentralize immigration policy-making by allowing for a greater provincial role,” says Su. “Instead of continuing to exclude states and localities from the political negotiation over immigration, federal policymakers would do well to formally include them in the process.”

The Michigan governor’s proposal asks President Obama to set aside 50,000 work visas over the next five years to attract talented immigrants to live and work in bankrupt Detroit. Snyder says his immigration proposal sends the message that “Detroit is open to the world.”

The proposal follows two other pro-immigration plans Snyder proposed last week. He opened an Office for New Americans to attract and help immigrants better adjust to life in Michigan, and then designated his state as a center to expedite visas and permits for immigrants who want to open businesses in the state with investments of at least $500,000 and 10 employees.

These proposals are exactly the kind of local, innovative thinking that addresses immigration according to regional needs rather than a blanket policy set in Washington that ignores specific circumstances, Su notes.

He has been interviewed extensively on immigration in recent years, often expressing his views that the most important changes in immigration follow state laws and local reaction to national mandates, not comprehensive national law.