In 2007, Progressive States Network launched our State Immigration Project to support efforts by legislators and advocates to challenge anti-immigrant policies and promote smarter, humane policy that would address the real concerns of voters over illegal sweatshops and integrating new immigrants into their communities. Since then, while some states have continued to enact punitive measures against new immigrants, other states have chosen a more constructive direction – building policies aimed at creating one America that unites and lifts living standards for all, immigrant and native alike.

The key to challenging anti-immigrant movements in the states is to respond with legislation that puts supporters of such anti-immigrant policies on the defensive. Where their goal is to pit African-American voters against Latinos, legal immigrants against undocumented immigrants, and native-born workers against undocumented workers, progressive leaders need to promote policies that unite people across those divides. Leaders must highlight that those leading the anti-immigrant charge are actually campaigning against the interests of working families of all races and immigrant status.

Progressives should focus not only the facts that challenge anti-immigrant myths, but also identify policies that undercut the political alliances that anti-immigrant forces are trying to build around these myths. In this document, we highlight five sets of policies that can directly challenge those right-wing views on immigrants and build alternative political coalitions:

• Wage Enforcement as Immigration Policy: Much of the anger at immigrants derives from fears that sweatshops and sub-minimum wage labor will undermine wage standards. Punishing employers who violate wage laws will politically unite all workers, immigrant and native alike, and actually strengthen the progressive political base. If wage enforcement bills are attached to anti-immigrant bills, many in the business lobby will break their current alliances with rightwing, anti-immigrant politicians.

• Encouraging Immigrant Integration and Naturalization: Progressives need to emphasize that all available evidence shows that most immigrants are eager to become full members of our communities if given a chance. Legislators need to highlight policies that help all immigrants better integrate into society, and unite the interests of legal and undocumented immigrants along with the members of their communities who are already voting citizens.

• Immigrants and Public Benefits: While state leaders and advocates need to stress the studies show how undocumented immigrants actually pay substantial taxes and use limited public benefits, they also need to demand studies that reflect the lost benefits to citizens and the costs to taxpayers from onerous anti-immigrant enforcement rules. Progressive leaders can show that broad-based benefits for all residents are the best investment in the long-term, and should demand that the federal government, which receives billions in taxes paid by undocumented workers, share those revenues with states to expand services for communities with heavy immigrant populations.

• Voting Reform versus “Voter ID” Attacks: Given the complete lack of evidence that non-citizens have illegally voted in U.S. elections, progressives need to challenge the voter ID requirements that are disenfranchising many legal voters. While voter ID laws need to be defeated, the other part of progressive mobilization should be demanding that voting be made easier, through reforms like same day registration and voting by mail, for people who are forced to overcome any new barriers to proving their legal right to vote.

• Immigrant Outreach as Public Safety and Anti-Terror Policy: Most law enforcement groups recognize that it is harder to protect victims of crime when millions of people living in our communities are afraid to speak to the police when they either see a crime or are victims themselves . Progressive leaders can highlight this reality by promoting policies that protect undocumented immigrant victims and witnesses of crime when they contact the police, and encourage community-policing efforts involving undocumented immigrant communities.
  

Each of these sets of policies emphasize why better inclusion of immigrants in our communities, not sanctions, are the best
approach. The key is to use legislative campaigns to actively focus public debate on areas where public attitudes towards immigrants are most positive, and to direct frustrations over the economy at the corporate interests who are most responsible for stagnating family incomes.

Different policies will, no doubt, be promoted in different states. In a number of states where heavy immigration in the modern era is a relatively new phenomenon, political leaders are facing more fear from the public, and may have to be more strategic in the policies they promote. In such states, a heavier focus on issues like wage enforcement policies may be the best option to create the greatest unity among progressive constituencies. In other states, where long-term immigrant communities are politically mobilized in broader local alliances, passing more proactive immigrant policies can help change the national narrative and emphasize the strong pro-immigrant constituencies across the nation.

Given the justifiable concern by voters surrounding illegal sweatshops, a number of state leaders are looking beyond punishing immigrant workers, to concentrating on raising wages for all workers, and increasing penalties for wage law violators across the board.

While many advocates of “fighting illegal immigration” claim to be doing so in the name of helping low-income workers, it is remarkable that almost none of them are addressing the pervasive theft of low-income worker wages by employers violating wage laws. Instead of promoting a narrow tactic like sanctions against employers of undocumented workers, which only drives the problem of low-wage employment underground, cracking down on sweatshops and wage violators would be one of the most effective deterrents to employers recruiting undocumented immigrants. If all employers have to pay a decent wage, the attraction of hiring undocumented immigrants would diminish tremendously. Since going after employers who violate wage laws will politically unite all workers, immigrant and native alike, cracking down on those abusive employers will actually strengthen the progressive
political base.

Where anti-immigrant politicians proposed workplace sanctions against immigrants in 2008, a number of progressive leaders in states proposed bills or amendments that highlighted the broader illegality of broken wage and safety laws that undermine workplace standards for all Americans.

Anti-Immigrant Bills Stall where Wage Enforcement Seen as Better Solution: A number of states that initially debated purely anti-immigrant measures recognized that failure to enforce state wage laws is the crux of the economic problem outraging state voters:

• In Connecticut in 2007, a bill was introduced that would have made it a criminal offense to hire undocumented workers, but instead it was modified into a state law to go after all employers who commit workers’ compensation premium fraud to cheat workers out of benefits.

• When the Iowa Senate approved SF 2416, a bill to toughen enforcement against employers violating Iowa state wage laws, it stalled movement in that chamber of an anti-immigrant bill approved in that state’s House—and killed anti-immigrant legislation for 2008.

• When the Kansas House in 2008 voted to gut an anti-immigrant bill and added provisions to severely punish employers violating wages laws and exploiting undocumented immigrants, it led to deadlock with a purely anti-immigrant bill in the state Senate that lacked those wage enforcement provisions.

Increase Penalties for Wage Law Violations

Despite the media focus on a handful of states passing anti-immigrant measures, the unreported story has been the increasing crackdown by state governments on wage law violators as a response to the growing underground economy. A few examples include:

• The Arizona and Ohio minimum wage ballot initiatives passed by voters in 2006 included new triple damages against employers violating their state wage laws.
• In 2008, Massachusetts made it the law, SB 1059, that triple damages will be mandatory for violations of that state’s
  wage law.
• Iowa SF 2416 (approved in the Senate) would have established triple damages for wage law violations and created significantly larger civil penalties, including severe penalties for retaliation against employees reporting violations.
• Responsible contracting laws in a few states and cities now deny public contracts or operating licenses to wage law
  violators. See Los Angeles Responsible Contractor Ordinance for one example and San Francisco’s city minimum wage for provisions that authorize city agencies to revoke permits or licenses for businesses that violate the law.
• A number of jurisdictions are increasingly applying “theft of wages” statutes to enforce criminal sanctions against wage law violators. Many states already have “theft of wages” statutes on the books, so that all that is needed is to enforce these provisions. See NELP’s Using Criminal Theft of Service Laws To Enforce Workers’ Right to be Paid (NELP) for more on how to use such criminal theft statutes or add them to a state’s criminal code.

Fight Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

States are also increasingly targeting the employer tactic of misclassifying employees as “independent contractors,” which excludes workers from minimum wage, prevailing wage, overtime, health and safety, and right to organize protections. Because of these problems, cracking down on misclassification of independent contractors is becoming a priority for many states:

• In 2007, Minnesota and Colorado both enacted new laws cracking down on misclassification of employees as
  “independent contractors” to evade state wage laws.
• In 2008, legislatures in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin all introduced new laws to crack down on
  employers misclassifying employees as independent
  contractors to evade wage laws.
• In 2008, Utah, SB 159 makes it fraud to misclassify an
  employee to avoid the obligation to obtain workers’
  compensation insurance coverage, and SB 189 establishes a council to study how to reduce costs resulting from the
  misclassification of workers.
• The New York Attorney General’s office has aggressively
  pursued wage claims against joint employers, including against large supermarket and drugstore chains for unpaid wages due to delivery workers misclassified as independent contractors.
• Connecticut’s 2007 law, Pub. Act. No. 07-89, provides that employers who misrepresent the number or type of their
  employees for purposes of the workers’ compensation system, can be issued a stop work order and ordered to pay a fine of up to $1,000. In 2008, Connecticut HB 5113 and SB 454 established a commission to review the problem of employer misclassification for purposes of avoiding obligations under state and federal labor, employment, and tax laws.

See Also:

• National Employment Law Project, Combating Independent Contractor Misclassification in the States
• Workplace Fairness, Contractors
• Cornell University Institute for Labor Relations, The Cost of Worker Misclassification in New York State (Feb. 2007)
• Office of Minnesota Legislative Auditor, Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors

Expand Coordination and Funding by Enforcement Agencies

Whatever the penalties and the law, one key to enforcement is making sure agencies are well-funded and creatively coordinate their work for maximum effectiveness. Instead of promoting a narrow tactic like sanctions against employers of undocumented workers, which only drives the problem of low-wage employment underground, New York State has created a new Bureau of Immigrant Workers’ Rights. This new agency has already moved forward in cracking down on low-wage law violators - sending a van out to churches and community groups to encourage immigrant workers to come forward to report wage law violations – teaching an important lesson that outreach, not pushing immigrants into the shadows, is the key to raising wage standards for all.

One reason for this trend towards wage enforcement is that state governments lose billions of dollars in revenue each year due to the failure to enforce state wage laws. Instead of wasting state money on costly, wasteful local enforcement of immigration laws, stepped up wage law enforcement will more than pay for itself. For example, a February 2007 report by Cornell University researchers estimated that 704,000 of the seven million private-sector workers in New York state were misclassified as independent contractors, costing the state $175 million in unemployment insurance taxes each year and undermining those workers’ rights. Another study by New York’s Fiscal Policy Institute estimated that off-the-book wage payment violations the state was losing $26 million in unpaid income taxes in the construction industry alone.

• A California Joint Enforcement Strike Force on the Underground Economy was created over a decade ago; a 2005 state labor department report found that in one year, various agencies investigating labor and pay reporting violations collected over $100 million in citations and assessments.
• In New York, a new state joint task force of state labor, tax and worker compensation agencies conducted a dramatic sweep this year of 117 employers, finding 2,078 illegally misclassified employees and another 646 workers who were owed minimum wage and overtime pay totaling $3 million. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick created a similar task force earlier this month via Executive Order 499.
• Illinois, along with a number of other states, has mandated a state study commission to collect data and information on lost tax revenues due to independent contractor abuses.

Enforce Wage Laws Against Employers Using Immigrant Workers

In the words of New York’s highest court, applying state wage laws fully against employers of undocumented workers is necessary since weak employment rights for undocumented workers makes “it more financially attractive to hire undocumented aliens [and] would actually increase employment levels of undocumented aliens, not decrease it.” To deter employers seeking to exploit the vulnerability of immigrant workers:

• California, through passage of SB 1818 and New York in Balbuena v. IDR Realty by the New York Court of Appeals, has declared that all legal remedies are available to workers regardless of immigration status.
• To assure that workers understand their rights at work, Iowa and Nebraska have laws requiring translators on the job
  where more than 10% of the workforce is non-English-speaking. See Iowa Code section 91E.2.
• New Mexico HM 15 requests that the federal government establish an immigrant worker program that will prevent the unnecessary loss of life for undocumented workers and provide for worker safety.
• See Also:National Employment Law Project, A Comparison of State Day Labor Laws, and Drafting Day Labor Legislation: A Guide for Organizers and Advocates

Strengthen Legal Services for Low-Wage Workers

A number of states are increasing funding for legal services, often a critical ally for low-wage workers seeking to enforce their rights.

A number of states have also increased funding from so-called IOLTA accounts – lawyers’ accounts whose interest is used to fund low-income legal services – by requiring that banks provide competitive interest rates. Florida –the first state back in 1981 to use interest on lawyer accounts to fund legal services – was also the first state in 2004 to require banks to offer competitive interest rates on those accounts, increasing revenue from that source from $22.7 million in fiscal year 2004-05 up to $67.3 million by the following year. New York and other states have since joined Florida with similar programs.

Since the federal Legal Services Corporation bars funding for many immigrant workers, some states are working to provide funding for immigrant workers denied fair treatment. One model is New York’s proposed A2289 in 2007, which would provide legal services for immigration and immigrant worker matters excluded from federally-funded legals services.

See Also:

• New York Governor’s Office, New State Regulations to Increase Funding for Civil Legal Assistance to Eligible Poor New Yorkers
• ABA Journal Report, Expressing Their Interest: Rise in Rates Swells IOLTA, and Legal Services Gain
• Brennan Center - Access to Justice: Opening the Courtroom Door

Encourage Private Action Against Wage Law Violators

To supplement often under-funded public enforcement and legal services agencies, states can also encourage unions and other workers’ advocates to help bring legal actions against wage law violators.

• Laws can be modeled on California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which allows present and former employees to collect not only damages for unpaid wages, but also twenty-five percent of the civil penalties that are normally paid to the state as well.
• San Francisco’s city minimum wage ordinance, authorizes community groups and unions to file complaints, without having to show that the workers not being paid are their members.
• A number of states give outside labor advocates
  access to non-work areas of employer property to educate employees on their rights. Massachusetts, California (see §20900 of the CA Agricultural Labor Relations, Solicitation by Non-Employee Organizers regulations) and a few other states give farmworker advocates access to agricultural fields; states including California, Colorado and New Jersey require mall owners to give union organizers, as well as others, access to sidewalks, parking lots and interior public spaces.

Block E-Verify to Prevent Discrimination Based on National Origin

The most typical workplace anti-immigrant bill has required employers to use the often inaccurate federal “E-Verify” system of employee verification, a pilot ID system used by the Social Security administration that was never meant to be used on a mass basis by employers. Most in the business community recognize that the inaccuracy of E-Verify may open them up to anti-discrimination lawsuits. And, many worry about the broader economic damage of inducing many legal workers to flee states rather than face such discrimination by inaccurate systems. Oklahoma Republican State Rep. Shane Jett voted for Oklahoma’s HB 1804 mandating E-Verify last year but now says it “will be the single most destructive economic disaster since the Dust Bowl.” In Tennessee, despite the new legal sanctions against hiring undocumented workers, employers have shunned the federal E-Verify system as unreliable, with only 542 our of 117,903 employers initially registering to use E-Verify.

• To respond to the problems of E-Verify, Illinois, in 2007, enacted HB 1744. The bill prohibited employers from enrolling in the E-Verify system until the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases could make a determination on 99% of the tentative non-confirmation notices issued to employers within 3 days—something they cannot yet do. The law was suspended during a federal lawsuit against the law, but it highlights basic standards that should be required of any employment verification system to avoid discrimination.
• The spring of 2008 also saw a decision by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma prohibiting a state from penalizing employers who do not use a federal verification program. As the court decision plays out, progressives can continue to introduce legislation urging employers and the federal government not to use E-Verify (see proposed bill Rhode Island HR 8031).
• To directly deal with discrimination against legal immigrant workers, New York’s proposed A4603 would amend the state executive law and the civil rights law to clearly outlaw discrimination because of alien status.

See Also:

• Electronic Privacy Information Clearinghouse, E-Verify System: DHS Changes Name, But Problems Remain for U.S. Workers
• National Immigration Law Center, How Errors in Basic Pilot/E-Verify Databases Impact U.S. Citizens and Lawfully Present Immigrants
• NILC, Why States and Localities Should Not Require Participation in the Basic Pilot Program
• Government Accountability Office (GAO), Testimony on challenges of implementing a mandatory E-verify system
• National Employment Law Center, Basic Pilot / E-Verify: Not a Magic Bullet

Make it a Crime to Coerce Labor based on Worker’s Immigration Status

States are increasingly protecting the victims of human trafficking and punishing employers and others who coerce immigrants to perform labor under threat.

• In 2006, Colorado enacted SB 06S-005, and in 2007, Virginia enacted a similar bill, HB 1921, to make it a felony to coerce labor by threatening to destroy documents relating to a person’s immigration status or by threatening to notify law enforcement that a person is in violation of federal immigration law.
• In 2008, anti-trafficking laws were passed in Maine (LD 461), New Mexico (SB 71), Oklahoma (HB 1021), Utah (HB 339, amending SB 81), Tennessee (HB 71), and Missouri (comprehensive anti-immigrant bill HB 1549).

Stop Government Purchases from Domestic and Overseas Sweatshops

While states cannot change the bad trade policy that has undermined the economy of Mexico and other countries from where immigrants frequently emigrate to the U.S., states do have the power through their own purchasing decisions to help end the global sweatshops that drive undocumented immigration. California, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, along with sixty cities, counties and school districts, have changed their procurement policies to ban government purchases from contractors violating internationally recognized labor rights.

In Oklahoma this year, state Representative Rebecca Hamilton filed HB 3067 to address some of these roots causes of immigration. The bill repealed portions of last year’s anti-immigration law, and instead, made it illegal for the state of Oklahoma to contract with any company that has closed American facilities and opened new factories outside the country, unless they operate those factories in compliance with United States wage, safety and human
rights guarantees.

See Also:

• Progressive States, Stopping Immigration at the Source: Anti-Sweatshop Legislation
• Global Exchange, Sweatfree Campaigns
• AFL-CIO, Stop Sweatshops
• Sweatfree Consortium, Model Resolution to Join the State and Local Government Sweatfree Consortium
• Sweatfree Communities, Procurement Officials in the Sweatfree Movement

While anti-immigrant forces raise fears that recent immigrants resist integration into American society, progressives should emphasize that all available evidence shows quite the opposite – if given a chance, most new immigrants are eager to become full members of our communities. Studies by research groups like RAND have shown that Latino immigrants, for example, are assimilating into the economy at the same rate as earlier waves of European immigrants.

Politically, progressives can promote legislation that helps all immigrants better integrate, which will unite the interests of legal and undocumented immigrants along with the members of their communities who are already voting citizens. Especially if anti-immigrant politicians oppose policies that help legal immigrants, it will emphasize that all the rhetoric about the problem being “illegal” immigration is empty, and the bigotry is aimed at the whole racial or ethnic community.

Illinois has created the most comprehensive “New Americans Policy” involving business, religious and community leaders to expand English language programs, welcome centers, jobs programs and document translation programs aimed at new immigrants; but a number of states have promoted a range of legislation to better integrate new immigrants.

Expand Access to Adult English Classes

Despite claims by anti-immigrant groups that new immigrants do not want to learn English, all evidence shows that there are millions of immigrants literally begging to learn English, only to find insufficient classrooms teaching in their communities. In Los Angeles, for example, 50,000 students remain on waiting lists for English language classes, even though schools teaching ESL run 24 hours a day.

Many business leaders recognize that problem and want better language training programs, diverging sharply from anti-immigrant groups wanting to deny such help. A number of states have proposed directed funding to help new immigrants learn English and integrate more easily into their communities:

• Illinois’s SB 1446, also know as the “We Want to Learn English Initiative” was enacted in 2007. It requires the Illinois Community College Board to administer a program for lawful immigrants and refugees to learn English, and move towards becoming full members of American society. The initiative provides for an annual budget of $25 million, with no less than half of the funds appropriated for the Initiative being disbursed through community-based, not-for-profit organizations, immigrant social service organizations, faith-based organizations, and on-site job training programs.

• Minnesota’s HF 979 / SF 923 in 2007 increased funding for affordable and accessible adult English language instruction.

• New York’s proposed A2289 would establish a program to provide resources to community-based organizations to facilitate adult English and civics instruction, along with assistance with the citizenship process.

See Also:

• Migration Policy Institute, Adult English Language Instruction in the United States: Determining Need and Investing Wisely, July 2007
• American Immigration Law Foundation, ESL Education Helps Immigrants Integrate, Interest remains high despite a national shortage of ESL programs, 2002
• Pew Hispanic Center, English Usage Among Hispanics in the United States

Create Government Offices to Assist the Naturalization Process for Aspiring Citizens

States and local governments can take action to further assist naturalization – from improving registration procedures at driver licensing offices and other government offices, to assisting in the naturalization process. Illinois’ Office of New Americans has become the leader among the at least 15 states that have offices to tailor services to immigrants and help with naturalization.

States can create government offices or fund organizations to assist immigrants to successfully complete the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship through naturalization. A few recent examples include:

• In February 2008, Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire signed Executive Order 08-01, creating a New Americans Policy Council to promote naturalization, English skills, and public-private partnerships for integration. The Washington state legislature took the additional step of providing $340,000 in funding to promote community economic development and build the capacity of organizations across the state that provide naturalization assistance to legal permanent residents. Arizona SB 1096 appropriates funds for English language learners, and Missouri HB 2010 provides funds for naturalization assistance to certain legal immigrants.

• In fall of 2007, New Jersey created a Blue Ribbon Panel on Immigrant Policy to develop strategies to better integrate immigrants in that state, and New York announced a $6 million initiative to fund nineteen state organizations that help New York immigrants become United States citizens. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s FY 2009 budget proposed increasing funding for that state’s Citizenship for New Americans Program from $500,000 to $1.5 million.

States can also enact refundable tax credits for naturalization expenses:

• Indiana’s SB 240 would create an Adult Education Tax Credit which would give employers a credit of up to $300 per employee and up to $5,000 per year for payment of an employee’s expenses related to adult education programs, including citizenship training.

• Minnesota’s HF 747 would create a specific Citizenship Income Tax Credit.

• Texas’s HB 240 would require school districts to grant students an excused absence from school when appearing at a governmental office to complete paperwork required in connection with the student’s application for U.S. citizenship or to take part in a naturalization oath ceremony.

States can also improve government communication and coordination over programs promoting immigrant integration:

• Illinois’s SB 1746 enacted the Latino Family Commission in 2007, which will advise the Governor and General Assembly, as well as work directly with State agencies to improve and expand existing policies, services, programs, and opportunities for Latino families. In 2008, Illinois approved SB 783 to provide funds for more bilingual personnel in public agencies.

See Also:

• Progressive States, IL: Policies to Bring Immigrants into Economic Mainstream
• New Americans Policy Council, For the Benefit of All: Strategic Recommendations to Enhance the State’s Role in the Integration of Immigrants in Illinois
• Illinois Coalitions for Immigrants and Refugee Rights,
  The New Americans Initiative
• NCSL, State and Local Immigrant Offices

Provide In-State Tuition and Scholarships for All State Residents

One key to integrating the children of new immigrants into our communities is making sure they can get a college education. In 2006, Nebraska joined nine other states that have passed laws, often called DREAM acts, to provide the in-state tuition rate to undocumented immigrants who attend state colleges and universities. In 2007, the Connecticut legislature voted to do so as well, although unfortunately the Governor in that states vetoed the bill. Attempts to repeal Nebraska and Utah’s DREAM acts failed in both states in 2008.

States can also ensure access to state or locally funded financial aid and scholarships, regardless of immigration status:

• California’s SB 1, which was enacted by the legislature in 2007 but vetoed by the governor, would have made California high school graduates who meet the non-resident in-state tuition requirements eligible for a fee waiver at community college, and enabled them to participate in the Cal Grant state financial aid program.

• In 2007, New York’s proposed A4653 would have expanded scholarship opportunities for immigrant students.

See Also:

• FIRM, In-State Tuition Campaigns
• University of Houston Law Center, State Legislation Concerning Undocumented College Students (Fall 2007)

Protect Immigrants from Private Discrimination

To prevent local discrimination against immigrants, legislation should add immigration and citizenship status to the grounds of prohibited discrimination under fair housing laws and/or prohibit cities, counties, and landlords from making inquiries into immigration status.

• California AB 976 was enacted in October 2007 to block local ordinances that promote housing discrimination against immigrant community members; the bill also prohibits landlords from making inquiries about immigration status or request documentation in most cases.

• In 2007, Texas’s proposed HB 2676 would have prevented any political subdivision from requiring landlord not to lease to a prospective tenant solely on the basis of their immigration status and would have prohibited landlords from inquiring into a tenant’s immigration status.

• In late May 2008, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay struck down an ordinance passed by the city of Farmers Branch, Texas prohibiting landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants, finding that the ordinance was preempted by Federal law. See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of
  Farmers Branch.

Prevent Abuses Committed by “Notarios” and Others Hurting Immigrants Through Fraud

A number of states are taking action to stop the abuses committed by “notarios” and others who harm community members by engaging in fraudulent and unauthorized practice of law.

• California’s AB 630, which was enacted in 2006, requires a person acting as an immigration consultant to submit to and pass a background check by the Department of Justice and FBI. It also requires a registration with the Secretary
  of State.

• Kentucky’s HB 166, also passed in 2006, prohibits any person in the business of providing immigration assistance from giving legal advice and requires registration with the Attorney General’s Office before providing immigration assistance services in the state. The bill also requires providers to post signs that specify that the provider is not an attorney and may not give or accept fees for giving legal advice.

• Indiana’s SB 445, passed in 2007, requires any non-attorney who advertises as a notary public or notario publico to include a disclosure stating that the person is not an attorney, and contains criminal penalties for failure to do so or for accepting payment for legal advice.

• Additional 2008 bills passed included Georgia HB 1055, Wisconsin HB 468, and South Carolina HB 4400.

Other General Resources on Immigrant Integration Policies`

• Migration Policy Institute, Leaving Too Much to Chance: A Roundtable on Immigrant Integration Policy
• Urban Institute, Immigration Studies: The Integration of Immigrant Families in the United States
• Grant-makers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, Investing in Our Communities: Strategies for Immigrant Integration (2006)
• CLASP, The Challenges of Change: Learning from the Child Care and Early Education Experiences of Immigrant Families (2007)
• Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), New Workers, New Voters: Why Massachusetts Should Recruit, Retain, and Train Newcomers (2008)
• Immigration Policy Center, From Newcomers to Americans: An Integration Policy for a Nation of Immigrants
  (April 2007)

Many of the attacks on immigrants are focused on the idea that undocumented immigrants use more benefits than they pay in taxes. Advocates first need to highlight the multiple studies that have shown that even when you total up the limited services for which they do qualify – public school education and emergency medical care for example – undocumented immigrants pay significantly more in state taxes than states spend on those benefits. The Texas State Controller, for example, estimated that undocumented immigrants added over $17 billion to the state economy and paid over $400 million more in taxes than they received in benefits from the state.

Progressives need to emphasize three key points beyond educating the population:

• When draconian ID requirements are imposed, legal citizens, not undocumented immigrants, lose more benefits under such policies;
• The costs of trying to screen out undocumented immigrants are higher than their current burden to taxpayers;
• Federal level anti-immigrant politicians have made the problem worse for state and local leaders by denying federal aid for communities needing financial help.

State leaders need to both document the myths promoted by anti-immigrant forces, but also promote policies that emphasize the ways investing in public services reflects our common values and the long-run economic benefits from such investments.

Commission Studies Showing Taxes Paid and Economic Contributions by Immigrants, Both Legal and Undocumented:

To bring to light the real facts about the costs and real benefits of immigration, a number of states are proposing commissioned studies on the economic role and contributions of immigrants, including workforce participation, business or jobs generated, revitalization of neighborhoods, and taxes paid.

• Virginia’s HB 1673, passed in April 2007, creates the Virginia Commission on Immigration to study, report, and make recommendations to address the costs and benefits of immigration on the Commonwealth.

• Maryland passed HB 1602, establishing a 3-year Commission to Study the Impact of Immigrants in Maryland, including a study of the demographic profile and impact of immigrants, and the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration. The Commission’s recommendations are due by January 2011.

Such official studies will just reinforce the message of other reports from Arizona, Arkansas, California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, Washington DC, Long Island, NY, and Arizona that new immigrants both pay taxes and contribute significantly to our state economies.

See Also:

• National Immigration Law Center, Immigrants and the US Health Care System
• Texas Office of the Controller, Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy
• Congressional Budget Office, The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments
• Conservative think-tank America’s Majority Foundation, Immigration and the Wealth of States
• Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Assessing the Economic Effects of State Laws Addressing the Employment of Foreign-Born Unauthorized Workers
• Immigration Policy Center, Undocumented Immigrants as Taxpayers
• Immigration Policy Center, Assessing the Economic Impact of Immigration at the State and Local Level (April 2008)
• National Immigration Law Center, Paying Their Way and Then Some

Measure Costs of Burdensome ID Rules for Receiving Benefits

While the justification for passing these anti-immigrant laws was to save taxpayer money, follow-up studies have shown little evidence of any savings – hardly surprising since there was little evidence beforehand that undocumented immigrants were receiving so many benefits. ID requirements are usually so extreme that many legal citizens are turned away. For example, Colorado passed a law that prevented state agencies from even accepting a U.S. passport as documentation to obtain a driver’s license, leading to the irony that one of the state’s main proponents of the bill saw his daughter rejected for a license. The sad result, as the National Immigration Law Center notes, is that “U.S. citizens are less likely than noncitizens to have the documents required by the new verification laws.” (p.7) While the law was amended to allow passports and a few other documents, the law has still inflicted burdens, both financial and personal on citizens of the state.

In fact, one study in Colorado found that the law there was costing the state an additional $2 million in increased administrative costs without any identifiable savings. In Kansas, the Wichita Eagle highlighted that Kansas spent $1 million last year to comply with federal proof-of-citizenship requirements for the state SCHIP program and caught only one undocumented immigrant using the program. And as an article in USA Today emphasized, the reality is that anti-immigrant proposals may be discouraging families from getting early treatment for sickness or injuries, just increasing the cost when they show up at the hospital in an emergency.

But, if such ID rules save the taxpayers little money, the impact on legal residents and citizens can be severe. This was highlighted when the federal government imposed new identification requirements for new applicants for Medicaid. The result? Initial estimates were that 1.2 to 2.3 million citizens lacked the documents required by the new rules and were in danger of losing coverage. Follow-up studies by both the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Medicaid rolls declined in 44 states after Congress imposed the new requirements – and most of those losing coverage were legal residents eligible for coverage but unable to produce the necessary documents. For other social programs covered by the states with the new anti-immigrant laws, confusion and fear led people to lose other benefits. States should commission their own studies to show the impact of benefit ID laws in hurting legal residents of their states.

See Also:

• Progressive States, Kids are collateral damage in immigration witch hunt
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New Medicaid Citizenship Documentation Requirement is Taking a Toll: States Report Enrollment is Down and Administrative Costs Are Up
• Government Accountability Office (GAO), Medicaid: States Reported that Citizenship Documentation Requirement Resulted in Enrollment Declines for Eligible Citizens and Posed Administrative Burdens (June 2007)

Protect Privacy of Users of Public Benefit Programs:

State leaders can highlight the lost privacy that anti-immigrant witchhunts engender by pursuing policies and resolutions that limit questioning and recording of immigration status by city and state agencies, except where required by federal law.

• Texas proposed HB 2381 to prohibit an officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital to inquire as to the immigration status or nationality of a person who needs or receives emergency services, unless the information is necessary to provide those services to the person.
• New York’s proposed SB 6738 would prohibit state officers or employees from disclosing a person’s immigration status.

Make Services Available to Victims of Human Trafficking

One area where the public has great sympathy for extending public benefits is to immigrant victims of trafficking, domestic violence, and other serious crimes.

• Florida HB 7181, California SB 1569, and North Carolina SB 1078 all make public social service benefits available to victims of trafficking, domestic violence, and other serious crimes.
• Hawaii HCR 204 proposed a resolution to have the state investigate existing obstacles, in statute, rule, or policy, that limit or deny benefits to victims of trafficking and assist such victims in attaining needed services.

Provide Health Care for Immigrant Communities:

Many states are providing health care to immigrants, both legal and undocumented, recognizing that long-term investments in education and health care will pay off with a more skilled and healthy workforce in the future. More than half of the states spend their own funds to provide services to at least some immigrants ineligible for federal services.

• Illinois’ AllKids program extended its coverage to children of all income levels, regardless of immigration status. It was joined by Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York and California as those states continued to expand health benefits for many immigrant children. In 2007, the state of Washington extended health coverage to all children in families up to 250% of the federal poverty line (moving to 300% in 2009), again, regardless of immigration status.
• In California, even Republican Governor Schwarzenegger has said he wants to include all undocumented immigrants in any plan for universal access to health care, because as he argued in a speech announcing his own plan in January, “the decision for my team was, do we treat them in emergency rooms at the highest cost available or we do it right and do it efficiently?”
• In 2007, Rhode Island’s HB 5412 provided for assistance to legal immigrants ineligible for federally funded services while its proposed SB 415 would extend health coverage to children who do not meet citizenship requirements.

See Also:

• National Immigration Law Center, Comprehensive Health Care for Immigrants: A Sound Strategy for Fiscal and Public Health
• National Immigration Law Center, Immigrant-Friendly Health Coverage: Outreach and Enrollment
• UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research, Immigration, Health & Work: The Facts Behind the Myths
• UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research, Expansion of Health Insurance in California Unlikely to Act as Magnet for Undocumented Workers
• Archives of Internal Medicine, Health Care Access, Use of Services, and Experiences Among Undocumented Mexicans and Other Latinos

Pass Resolutions Asking Federal Government to Provide Funding for Local Immigrant Services

Since the federal government collects many taxes from undocumented immigrants, including social security taxes, for which the federal government has to pay no benefits, a number of programs have been designed to funnel those revenues back to the states. Programs like the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) were designed to channel some of those increased tax revenues to states that are particularly impacted by new immigrants, to help them deal with increased costs that local tax revenues might not fully cover, yet the Bush administration and others have argued for cutting its funding. In fact, federal policies continue to deny help even for legal immigrants who clearly pay taxes. A clear example is the failure to include funding for legal immigrant children in the recent SCHIP bill approved by Congress.

Recognizing that the federal government collects taxes from immigrant workers without providing funds even for federally-mandated health care services, proposed California SJRX1 asks the Congress and President of the United States to enact legislation that would provide full reimbursement for the costs of providing federally mandated health care services to anyone, regardless of immigration status.

• In 2008, a number of states introduced bills requesting federal reimbursement for state immigration-related expenses, including Arizona HCM 2011, Minnesota SF 886 and HB 771, Oregon HJM 24, Virginia SJR 120, and South Carolina HR 4347. New Mexico successfully passed HJM 3.

• Utah’s HB 262, enacted in March 2008, calls for the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to study all available remedies the state has for seeking reimbursement from the federal government for costs incurred from illegal immigration.

Voting Reform Versus “Voter ID” Attacks

The charge that undocumented immigrants voting is a major problem is, unfortunately, nothing but a big lie, stoking hate on pure fiction.

The cynical goals of voter identification laws pushed by the right-wing are exposed by a basic fact – there is zero evidence that undocumented immigrants are illegally voting. At its “Truth about Fraud” website, for example, the Brennan Center for Justice has highlighted that fraud is a red herring used by the right-wing to disenfrachise legal voters through abusive identification rules. This is emphasized by the national scandal of the Bush Administration firing U.S. Attorneys, in part because some of those appointees refused to go along with partisan pressure to generate non-existent cases of voter fraud. Five years of investigations revealed no real evidence of voter fraud by an administration as determined to find non-existent voter fraud as non-existent WMDs in Iraq.

Hold Hearings or Create Commissions to Expose the Lack of Immigrant Voter Fraud

State leaders need to expose the fraud in anti-immigrant myths about non-citizens voting in large numbers, and use such hearings or commissions to refocus debate on the real ways voters are disenfranchised – by burdensome election rules and voter suppression tactics.

See Also:

• Progressive States, Fighting Vote Suppression by the Rightwing
• New York Times, “In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud”
• Brennan Center, The Truth About Fraud
• Project Vote, The Politics of Voter Fraud
• Century Foundation, Where’s the Voter Fraud?
• Eagleton Institute, Testimony presented to the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (February 8, 2007).

Pass Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Acts

Too often, we see have seen disturbing campaigns to intimidate voters based on their race or use other tactics to suppress the vote of legal voters. States need Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Acts to create strong penalties for groups that suppress voter turnout through deception and intimidation. If anti-immigrant forces are going to raise fraud as a justification for voter ID bills, then progressives should demand through proactive legislation and amendments attached to their bills, that all forms of fraud, deception and intimidation be removed at the ballot box. The Kansas House attached anti-voter intimidation provisions (see Sec. 12) to the immigration bill debated in that state.

See Also:

• Center for Policy Alternatives, Voter Protection Model Bill
• NAACP LDF and MALDEF Uncover Significant Voter Intimidation Attempts During Recent 2006 Election Cycle
• People for the American Way, The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America

Pass Laws to Make Voting Easier Once People Manage to Register to Vote

In states moving to create greater hurdles to registration and voting, progressives need to demand simplification of the process once people produce the necessary ID.

• Registration to vote and voting itself should be combined, as a number of states have done with same day voter registration laws. In 2007, both Iowa and North Carolina approved same day voter registration laws. See IA HSB 204.

• When Oklahoma in 2008 debated a voter ID bill, opponents in the Senate attached election day registration and other real election reforms which helped create a deadlock with the state House, which only wanted a bill that would disenfranchise voters.

• States also need to reform database procedures, following best practices to improve voter matching and verification after registration, to avoid problems when voters show up on election-day.

While anti-immigration forces seek to paint immigrants as a dangerous criminal force, the facts show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the general population proportionately. But more importantly, most law enforcement groups recognize that it becomes harder to protect victims of crime, particularly immigrants themselves, when millions of people living in our communities are fearful of talking to the police when they witness a crime or are a victim of one. A report endorsed by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the police departments of New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and city departments serving over fifty million residents outlined:

“Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities. If the undocumented immigrant’s primary concern is that they will be deported or subjected to an immigration status investigation, then they will not come forward and provide needed assistance and cooperation...Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance
from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”

Progressive leaders can frame reasonable treatment of immigrant communities as critical to promoting public safety.

Community Policing in Immigrant Communities

Progressives should emphasize that we do not improve public safety by making immigrants afraid to cooperate with the police or anti-terror authorities. States should condemn turning every police officer or, even worse, every social worker into a potential immigration enforcement agent, because it undermines community policing and other known effective law enforcement approaches.

Rhode Island’s HB 5237 and New Hampshire’s HB 404 would prohibit the use of state and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship who are in violation of federal immigration laws.

Hysteria over immigrants encourages racial profiling by law enforcement, so proposals like Texas HB 2428 / SB 150 would prohibit law enforcement profiling based on a person’s immigration or nationality status.

See Also:

• National Immigration Law Center, Laws, Resolutions, and Policies Instituted Across the U.S. Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws by State and Local Authorities (updated April 2008)
• Major Cities Chiefs Statement on Immigration- Police chiefs statement on need for separation of local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement
• Appleseed, Forcing Our Blues into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement
• Vera Institute of Justice, Strengthening Relations between Police and Immigrants and Building Strong Police-Immigrant Community Relations: Lessons from a New York City Project
• CAUSA, Collaboration with federal immigration enforcement hurts community policing
• USA Today, Chiefs, mayors order local cops: Leave catching illegal immigrants to the feds
• National Immigration Forum, Police in “New Immigrant” States Say Asking Them to Enforce Immigration Laws Would Harm Public Safety

Protect Immigrant Victims and Witnesses to Crimes, Particularly of Domestic Violence

Progressive leaders can ally with both law enforcement and victims’ rights groups by promoting policies that protect immigrant victims of crime when they contact the police, and by encouraging community policing efforts in immigrant communities.

Even as some states and local communities have promoted local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, other states and communities have instead encouraged victims and witnesses of crime, particularly those suffering from domestic violence, to come forward without fear of police inquiry into their immigration status.

• In 2008, the Virginia legislature introduced two bills, SB 441 and HB 307, prohibiting law enforcement officers from inquiring into the immigration status of any person who reports being a victim or witness of a crime.

• Rhode Island’s proposed HB 7967 offered similar protections for immigrant victims and witnesses, but also prohibits local law enforcement from entering into any agreements to enforce federal immigration laws. SB 2237 would add a requirement that officers maintain confidentiality if an immigrant’s status is known, and requires training and cooperation with community organizations to implement the law.

• California and Hawaii both proposed bills focusing on protecting immigrant victims of domestic violence. California AJR 42 urges the U.S. Congress not to change the current policy allowing immigrant victims to pursue permanent resident status. Hawaii HB 2140 requires the state Department of Human Services to establish a pilot program to assist undocumented immigrant victims.

• New Jersey’s Attorney General Anne Milgram issued an August 22, 2007 directive to law enforcement officers, prohibiting officers from inquiring about or investigating the immigration status of any victim, witness, or person requesting assistance from the police. The directive also prohibits
  racial profiling.

See Also:

• Letter to Congress from the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women. Describing the impact that REAL ID will have on battered women
• National Immigration Project, Noncitizen Survivors of Domestic Violence, including Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Its Effects on Victims of Domestic Violence
• Violence Against Women Network, Somewhere to Turn: Making Domestic Violence Services Accessible to Battered Immigrant Women, A ‘How To’ Manual For Battered Women’s Advocates and Service Providers
• Electronic Privacy Information Center, REAL ID and Domestic Violence

Issue Licenses and Identification

While only a few states still issue drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, progressive leaders need to emphasize that many top law enforcement officials are on record supporting such drivers license identification programs as a way to bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, and better track state residents for law enforcement purposes.

Top officials who have publicly supported these measures include former New York police chief William Bratton, who now heads Los Angeles’ police force, and anti-terror officials like Richard A. Clark, the counter-terrorism czar for Presidents Clinton and Bush.

Eight states do not require proof of legal status to obtain a driver license: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington, with none of them suffering ill effects to public safety.

There are a number of models for removing bars to undocumented immigrants receiving licenses:

• New Jersey A2607 would permit the state to issue driving privilege cards, with the same privileges and legal responsibilities of a basic driver’s license, to persons who cannot prove ID or lawful presence in the country.

• California SB 60 would require compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005, but would also require the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue a driver’s license that permits driving, and is not acceptable by a federal agency for federal identification or for any other official purpose, to an applicant who does not provide valid documentary evidence of lawful status under the federal act.

Many Americans are concerned about lost privacy in all aspects of our lives, so another approach is to combine licensing laws for immigrants with a more general policy denying the DMV the right to inquire about a wide range of personal information, from legal status to gender orientation, as long as the person can produce some reasonable identification.

See Also:

• National Immigration Law Center, Why Denying Driver’s Licenses to Undocumented Immigrants Harms Public Safety and Makes Our Communities Less Secure; Immigrants & Driver’s Licenses: Resources for Advocates, Driver’s Licenses for All Immigrants: Quotes from Law Enforcement
• New York Coalition for Immigrants’ Right to Driver’s Licenses, Equal Access for All Communities
• City of New Haven, New Haven’s Elm City Resident Cards Fact Sheet

Condemn Private Vigilantism

A number of proposed bills condemn vigilante or hate activity targeting immigrants:

• California AJR 16, adopted by both chambers in 2007, urges local, state, and federal government officials, when crafting immigration policy that affects the United States-Mexico border, to take steps to recognize and protect the human rights of immigrants, and publicly denounce xenophobia and anti-immigrant bias as having no place in immigration policy.

• Arizona HCR 2011 is a proposed resolution against civilian patrol groups in Arizona. The resolution opposes individualized groups that are not formally affiliated with any federal or state law enforcement agency and whose members take it upon themselves to invade Arizona.

General Public Safety Resources

• NCLR, State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Law, A Toolkit for Advocates
• National Immigration Forum, State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws
• Public Policy Institute of California, Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?
• National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), Over-Raided, Under Siege: U.S. Immigration Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants (or executive summary)
• Border Action Network, Human and Civil Rights Violations Uncovered
• Immigration Policy Center, Enforcement Without Reform: How Current U.S. Immigration Policies Undermine National Security and the Economy (2008)
• Robert J. Sampson in Contexts, Vol. 7, No. 1, American Sociological Association, Rethinking Crime and Immigration (March 2008)
• Immigration Policy Center, Immigrants and Crime: Setting the Record Straight