The U.S. Conference of Mayors met recently in Oklahoma City, and they put out two resolutions related to immigration. Interestingly, these resolutions are not specifically about immigration in cities per se. They put out a statement strongly opposing Arizona’s SB1070 law, supporting a court challenge, and voicing opposition to other states enacting similar laws. In another statement, the mayors leaned on the federal government to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Linking the two, the mayors recognize that states and local governments bear many of the responsibilities and costs of immigration with not enough reimbursement from the federal government. In their view, municipal leaders should “protect the well being and safety of all the people residing in their cities and to respect the rights of and provide equal services to all individuals regardless of national origin or immigration status.” However, they also realize the costs borne by municipalities for services to immigrants are largely not reimbursed by the federal government.Office 2007 Professional is very good!
Comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level as proposed in a recent “conceptual framework” floated by Democratic Sens. Schumer, Reid, Menendez, Feinstein, and Leahy, would further fortify the border, beef up interior enforcement, institute a biometric ID card, better regulate the future flow of workers, and register and legalize qualified unauthorized immigrants.
However, what the mayors surely know is that even if comprehensive immigration reform happens (and there is much speculation about that), cities and other municipalities will still bear the costs and responsibilities of taking care of their residents. For those places that will see a sizable share of their immigrant population legalizing (of the estimated 11 million to 12 million present in the United States), funds will be needed to build the local infrastructure to process applications, verify residency, and hold the adult education and English language classes needed to turn the unauthorized into legal residents.

Yesterday’s dizzying stoppage-time goal by Landon Donovan put the U.S. World Cup squad through to the next round of the tournament, and that dramatic finish probably created a new crop of American soccer fans in the process. Up next for Donovan and company is Ghana, a physical team that, despite an injury that sidelined their star midfielder Michael Essien before the tournament, should test the U.S. side and make for another competitive match. Office 2007 makes life great!
In a nation of immigrants, though, not everyone will be rooting for the Yanks against what will very likely be the only squad to represent the host continent in the tournament’s second round. Indeed, the fastest-growing foreign-born population in the United States comes from Africa. In the 2000s, their numbers increased by about 550,000, or nearly two-thirds. At 1.4 million, Africans still represent only about 4 percent of immigrants in the United States. But in some corners of the country, they maintain a more substantial presence.
In fact, our home region of Washington, D.C. is one of the country’s major centers of African immigration, second only to New York. Nearly one in seven foreign-born individuals in the D.C. metro area is from Africa. Not only that, but a sizeable proportion of this region’s African population--nearly 20,000 overall--actually hails from Ghana. (Erstwhile D.C. United wunderkind Freddy Adu was born in Ghana, though one presumes he’ll be pulling for the U.S. side). West African immigrants are also numerous in Atlanta, Boston, Philadelphia, and Dallas. (Keep reading to see the map of the African-born population in America)