Taking a stand

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell voted against a City Council resolution that called on Congress to enact comprehensive reform to address the root causes of illegal immigration. His reasoning: People he talked to didn't seem to care about the issue all that much. Perhaps the mayor should start hanging around a different crowd.

By some estimates, as many as 20 states are thinking of following Arizona's controversial lead by passing their own laws to crack down on illegal immigrants. Arizona's law, which is scheduled to go into effect today, allows law enforcement officers to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect of being in the United States illegally.

This week, a federal judge in Phoenix heard from lawyers representing the federal government and the State of Arizona. The Obama Administration argues that Arizona lawmakers were poaching on an exclusive federal preserve when they decided to pass the anti-illegal immigrant law.

Arizona's defense is that its law merely parrots federal regulations that aren't enforced. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the law can go into effect, but put on hold its most contentious aspects, including the proof-of-citizenship provision.

If the state prevails, the trickle of undocumented housekeepers, day laborers, gardeners, and others already leaving Arizona will turn into a flood. Reportedly, even some legal immigrants are preparing to flee the state.

And where will Arizona's estimated 400,000 unwanted residents go? Some will stay where they are, hoping to wait out the storm. A few might even return to their homes south of the border. But most will simply pack up and head for another state.

So the Arizona law won't solve the problem of illegal immigration; it just shifts the problem to other states near and far, including Ohio. That makes Arizona's law Ohio's problem, and gives local communities an interest in federal immigration policy.

Each year, Ohio plays host to thousands of migrant workers, without whom many crops would not be harvested. If laws similar to Arizona's gain acceptance, racial profiling would be the inevitable result, and migrant workers would be among the main targets.

Had Mayor Bell voted in favor of the City Council resolution, he would have been saying to those workers: You are welcome in Toledo. And he would have put lawmakers in Columbus on notice that while Toledo wants comprehensive federal immigration reform, it is not interested in legislation of dubious constitutionality that preys on people's irrational fears as well as legitimate concerns.

That goes as well for the six council members who voted against the resolution. Councilman George Sarantou's argument - that immigration policy has nothing to do with Toledo - was shortsighted and provincial.

A court battle in Phoenix has little resonance among Toledoans who are worried about keeping their jobs and homes. But local officials have to know when to pay attention to the big picture, especially when their constituents are distracted by their own concerns.

Mayor Bell and City Council could have weighed in on an important national issue with local implications. Their refusal to do so was a failure of vision and leadership.