Fabiola Santiago is my favorite Miami Herald columnist. I share her sensibility. As I read what she wrote, I say “yes” again and again. Recently she wrote about the disgraceful anti-immigrant sentiment expressed in legislation by lawmakers who came from immigrant families. Miami, she writes, was once celebrated for its ethnic mix. Now Republican legislators are obediently following the xenophobic governor, who is a Christian nationalist. Would DeSantis have let them in? Probably not.
She writes:
Immigrant-hate-stoking Florida Gov. DeSantis should be persona non grata in South Florida. But gullible voters eagerly follow charlatans.
There are plenty of reasons to whisk away the welcome mat — DeSantis has attacked practically every distinctive feature we once stood for — none more repulsive than his loathing of undocumented immigrants, encapsulated in an immigration bill making its way through the Legislature.
This is a region risen from the tears and triumphs of decades of immigration, and BD — Before DeSantis — even Republican politicians held us up as an example of the heights a diverse community can reach.
Before the abhorrent “Florida blueprint” DeSantis is peddling nationwide — autocracy, anti-gay, anti-Black and anti-women’s rights, anti-immigrant measures — we were heralded as America’s model city of the future.
Now, GOP state lawmakers stand in solidarity with inconceivable intrusion in our communities by a governor with runaway ambition. Simply put, both versions of the same proposal, House Bill 1617 and Senate Bill 1718, are a slap to the face of our immigrant families — and native-born Americans who have welcomed immigrants into their lives, whether through friendship or marriage.
Families of mixed immigration status, people who straddle two worlds, are a Florida trademark. But if bills pass both chambers, these Floridians could potentially become criminals in the eyes of the law.
If signed by the governor, the new and possibly unconstitutional law would criminalize hosting immigrants in your home and driving them to school, work or anywhere else.
Doing so would be tantamount to harboring a fugitive and abetting them. Who and how authorities get to decide who is here illegally or who isn’t is tough to tell. And neither DeSantis nor the state decides immigration matters.
The bill also mandates random raids on businesses to check employees’ immigration status, again not the purview of state government, and forces hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.
All of these proposals, which should have been dead on arrival when filed, have passed two House and Senate committees….
“This bill will negatively impact not only tens of thousands of mixed-status families living in Florida but will also impact thousands of businesses across the state,“ former Miami congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell told me. “Immigrants have been the backbone of Florida’s economy from the agricultural sector to the hospitality industry. Will Gov. DeSantis raid every business in the state to enforce this law?”
Perhaps not the businesses of his donors, but he will target those of random Hispanics and other minority groups.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/article274039665.html#storylink=cpy
Pastors in Florida worry that they will face criminal charges if they provide a ride to church services to an undocumented immigrant.
The ACLU of Florida summarized the bills:
Criminalizes Floridians who shelter, support, and provide transportation to undocumented immigrants, including those who have overstayed their visa or who have lived in Florida for decades and have US born children. Makes it harder for immigrants to provide for their families. Harms businesses by authorizing FDLE to conduct random checks of businesses to ensure compliance. Prohibits public funding for community IDs and requires hospitals to inquire of Medicaid patients whether they’re lawfully allowed in the country and to collect that data.
Florida’s hospitality and tourism industry won’t find it easy to hire people to clean hotel rooms, work in kitchens, and do other low-wage jobs. Where will the agriculture industry find people to tend and harvest their crops?
Despite protests, the compliant Florida legislature seems sure to give Governor DeSantis whatever he wants.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As my friend whose parents fled Castro after supporting the Revolution said about the Cuban Community . “After me close the door” Needless to say she tries to stay away from Florida. But we find this in many immigrant groups in spite of our National myths.
DeSantis’ full fascist is on display. What’s next, raids by the Florida militia in which poor migrants are pulled from their beds in the middle of the night? This latest regressive, ill-conceived injustice will likely hit Florida in the pocketbook. DeSantis stands to lose support from tourism, construction and agricultural businesses, and I hope he does. DeSantis gets lots of money from developers that often hire the undocumented. His polling is already in decline, and this short-sighted plan should further hurt his big ambitions.
This repulsive legislation is just more evidence that there is no low to which DeStalinist won’t go.
It’s easier to employ homegrown kids to do the work than have to put up with all these immigrants who mooch off the public dole.
This essay does not advance your preferred narrative, but it shows who is actually responsible for the exploitation of undocumented children by employers. BTW, this conservative writer is strongly anti-Trump, so this blog’s typical ad hominem attacks won’t work in this case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-biggest-scoop-that-had-the-smallest-consequence/?lctg=547fd3bd3b35d0210c8de6bc&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MJ_20230424&utm_term=Jolt-Smart
Why are red states like Iowa and Arkansas getting rid of child labor laws? Not happening in New York, California or other blue states.
You don’t know what ad hominem means. According to the Oxford Dictionary definition, which you don’t have to spend more than a nanosecond to find on Google, is “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” Your use of “this blog’s typical” is actually a perfect example of the Oxford definition of “ad hominem.”
Now on to the argument you (Harlan) Crow about. The political straw man you create, one upon which this entire case study rests, is that liberals claim the government is always the correct solution. Here is just one more example that shows how wrong it is. This is once again based on a misunderstanding of the process and what it is designed to do. The concept of government oversight, the Truman Committee, was born out of contractor abuse and other supply issues that could be fixed and lead to both cost savings and more effective use of government resources. Remember that last bit for later. Between the end of the was and when Jack Brooks, another liberal Democrat, assumed the chairmanship of the House Government Oversight Committee, it was seen as a minor post that looked only into issues that were legislatively approved. In his term the mandate expanded to include all functions of the Executive Branch. But his purpose was to focus how resources could be used more effectively in way to lead to greater efficiencies. It was through his leadership that the federal government made its first move to computerize its operations, which at the time saved millions of dollars and made government functions faster and more responsive, which was what Brooks focused on. Later John Conyers assumed the chairmanship.
When Dan Burton became chair in 1995, the focus became saving money and proving malfeasance for its own sake, not to turn governing functions into political footballs. What we see today from the right is the most noxious form of this argument elevated by some ideologues as “original thinking” and that libels like “strongly anti-[Idiot]” pass for arguments that are not ad hominem. This “article” is a perfect example. If these charges prove to be true, they should be addressed and made whole and better. Simple, that’s called government oversight. If you want to make the victims of these policies into some sort of politically independent martyrs, we will point out you factual inconsistence and call you out of them. But I somehow doubt that was your intention.
Your attempted condescension is laughable. Whenever a rare dissenter on this blog links to National Review or another responsible conservative outlet (there are many outlets that aren’t responsible), this blog’s host and her acolytes say to ignore it based simply on who published the essay. That’s attacking the person, not the idea = ad hominem. Don’t they teach anything in ed schools?
The point of the NR essay is that the lack of border security has resulted in these children being exploited. Biden plans to NOT improve border security which you no doubt agree with.
Martha,
I would love to see bipartisan cooperation on immigration. We need immigration. We need hotel workers, farm workers, restaurant workers. We don’t need open borders. I never heard anyone say they want open borders. Both parties should collaborate to have a sane immigration policy. Where I live on Long Island, in an agricultural-tourism area, there is a very serious labor shortage. Employers want workers. The local high school grads don’t want to make hotel beds or pick farm products. Ideas?
So, you’re sayin’ you’re incapable of stringing together two ideas without guidance. Got it.
Hang on. You know the people really pushing open borders just want cheap labor? I dont understand how progressives can be for unlimited immigration, given what it does to the labor market (destroys it and destroys wages). This is particularly true for bonded (ie illegal or visa) immigration, as the workers have no way to fight back. Its progressive to push back against immigration.
John,
I don’t know anyone who wants open borders. I assume, like you, that it’s people who own factory farms and slaughterhouses, where there’s high turnover because the work is so ugly.
What progressive wants open borders?