From the Dispatch

States Seek to Repeal Broad Anti-Immigrant Laws

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:36:00 +0000

As state legislatures begin to pick up speed early in the 2012 session, a growing number of states that passed broad anti-immigrant laws over the past two years are seeing the error of their ways. Citing widespread economic devastation, a dramatically-worsened business climate, and a loss of public support, four states out of the five that passed laws based upon Arizona and Alabama’s flawed models are now seeking to repeal their anti-immigrant laws.

In the last two weeks alone legislators have announced efforts to repeal state anti-immigrant bills in Georgia, Utah, Arizona (home to SB 1070, the first broad foray into misguided state-level immigration enforcement), and Alabama — where legislators are reportedly seriously considering rewriting HB 56.

Alabama’s law set a new floor for anti-immigrant proposals that encourage racial profiling, imposed barriers to children getting a public school education, and burdened law enforcement with onerous and often unfunded immigration enforcement responsibilities. Alabama’s case is particularly instructive given a new University of Alabama study released just this week which found that implementing the law would result in devastating annual losses of up to 140,000 lost jobs, an $11 billion reduction in the state’s GDP, and up to $265 million in lost state tax revenue.

Georgia, whose House Democratic Caucus announced its effort to repeal its anti-immigrant laws at a packed public hearing last week, also introduced a companion proposal to delay implementation of the flawed federal E-Verify program — which has been shown to be a jobs killer due to its astronomical error rate — until 2015 for businesses with less than 50 employees.

Perhaps most notably, a growing number of legislators from states that have already seen the economically disastrous effects of misguided immigration enforcement are throwing their support behind a more measured approach to state immigration policy. State Senator Jerry Lewis, who replaced the now-infamous Senator Russell Pearce after his historic and unprecedented recall by Arizona voters last November, is one of the core backers of the Arizona Accord, a common-sense effort backed by a cross-section of leaders from the business, faith, government, and nonprofit sectors. The Accord’s common-sense principles — which mirror those of several state immigration “compacts” proposed in 2011 — reinforce the need for federal comprehensive immigration reform, the folly of burdening local police and sheriffs with immigration enforcement duties, the need to integrate immigrant families into communities statewide, the economic benefits immigrant workers bring to state economies, and the need for a humane and inclusive approaches to immigrant families and residents.

Senator Lewis’s support for the Arizona Accord reflects a political reality now being thrown into stark relief across the nation: elected officials with anti-immigrant platforms have steadily-dwindling public support. The recall of Senator Pearce by Arizona voters broadcasts this message loud and clear. Voters are increasingly looking for common-sense, pragmatic approaches to immigration — and it’s clear that state legislators from both sides of the aisle are listening.

(Alvin Melathe contributed to this article.)

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.

View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/020212.children.jpg

White House Announces Changes to S-Comm Program In Response to Pressure from Activists and State Legislators

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:26:40 +0000

Last week, the Department of Homeland Securityannounced major changes to its signature (and maligned) immigration enforcement program, Secure Communities - promising toreview pending immigration deportation cases based on newly-reinforced guidelines that prioritize deporting immigrants who commit violent crimes. The proposed changes provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents with guidance to consider factors such as whether an undocumented young person would be eligible for the federal DREAM Act; the severity of the misdemeanor or offense the undocumented individual allegedly committed; and whether or not the immigrant in question has close family members who are legal permanent residents or US citizens. The Department of Homeland Security also announced plans for case-by-case reviews of the roughly 300,000 undocumented residents already in deportation proceedings, many of whom have not been convicted of any crime at all yet remain in danger of being deported. State legislators and immigrant rights activists, who have long been calling for an end to the program, applauded the announcement while continuing to ask the program be dismantled and reiterating their support for comprehensive immigration reform from Washington.

The recent announcement came after intense pressure and displeasure among activists and immigrant rights organizations aimed at the Department of Homeland Security for its August 5th decision to unilaterally impose the maligned 'Secure Communities' program on states and localities despite years of assertions from the Department of Homeland Security that the program was voluntary and states and localities needed to enter into a Memoranda of Agreement with the federal agency in order to participate in the program. In response to widespread support for suspending the program, Governors of three states (New York, Massachusetts and Illinois) sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security requesting to withdraw their entire states' from participation in the 'Secure Communities' program. Numerous other lawmakers (including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus) and law enforcement officials such as San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey have weighed in with their strong opposition to the program, citing its chilling effect on immigrants who witness or are victims of crimes yet are reluctant to contact police for fear of themselves or their family members being deported. The Department of Homeland Security's response in early August was to announce that all states' and localities' participation in the program is mandatory and unilaterally rescind all 39 existing Memoranda of Agreement (which according to DHS were unnecessary in the first place based on a 2002 federal law that established a database between law enforcement agencies and ICE, yet does not dictate how that database should be used).

The federal Secure Communities program, created in 2008, is the centerpiece of the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement strategy and aims to focus on deporting undocumented immigrants who also commit violent crimes. The program essentially runs all individuals picked up by state and local law enforcement through federal immigration databases as they are booked, not if and when they are convicted. In practice, the program raises numerous racial profiling and due process questions: the vast majority of individuals picked up by police and sheriff's deputies through the program haven't committed any crime, and are often flagged on suspicion of committing low-level misdemeanors such as driving with a broken tail light or not stopping at a stop sign. In fact, data released earlier this spring found one in four deported nationally through the program between 2008 and early 2011 have not been convicted of any crime; only 15% of those deported or flagged for deportation through the program committed violent crimes.

Source:Wall Street Journal

According to Bridget Kessler of Cardozo School of Law, one of several organizations who obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request: “The ratio [of undocumented individuals who have committed no crime at all] jumps to over 50 percent in Boston, certain areas of California, and in multiple examples across the country.”

These numbers raise questions about how S-Comm may allow local police to cover up profiling and circumvent due process as they apprehend undocumented residents: the overwhelming majority of which have committed small misdemeanors rather than violent crimes.

Last week's piecemeal announcement has not, however, slowed down two weeks of public actions and hearings decrying 'Secure Communities' and calling for its end. Immigrant rights advocates, meanwhile, are still unclear on the implications of the recent announcements on California's TRUST Act, which has gained considerable momentum in the California State Legislature this year and has cleared initial hurdles in the state's upper chamber. The proposal would allow local governments to decide whether to opt in to participate in the federal “Secure Communities” enforcement initiative, or to tailor their participation to meet local needs. It would also prevent racial profiling, protect children and victims of domestic violence from being deported, and ensure access to due process and representation for individuals who are accused but never convicted of a crime.

Full Resources from this Article

White House Announces Changes S-Comm Program In Response to Pressure from Activists and State Legislators

Progressive States Action - State Legislators Welcome New DHS Deportation Guidelines as a Step Forward, Reiterate Call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Progressive States Action - S-COMM a Scam: New DHS Mandate that States Participate in Secure Communities Devastating, Disingenuous
Progressive States Network - DHS Reverses Course, Mandates State Participation in Costly, Ineffective ‘Secure Communities’ Program
Progressive States Network - PSN 2011 Immigration Roundup: AZ Copycat Bills Fail, Common-Sense Policies Advance, State Economies Hang in Balance
Progressive States Network - Opting for Real Security, More States Withdrawing From ‘Secure Communities’
The Wall Street Journal - States Rebel Over Deportations
Deportation Nation - New Data: Secure Communities Still Sweeping Up Low-Level Offenders, Non-Criminals
The New York Times - U.S. Issues New Deportation Policy’s First Reprieves
The New York Times - Federal Policy Resulting in Wave of Deportations Draws Protests

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/sr082511.jpg

DHS Reverses Course, Mandates State Participation In Costly, Ineffective “Secure Communities” Program

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:47 +0000

Last week, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a decision stating their intention to mandate that states participate in the controversial, ineffective, and costly “Secure Communities” immigration enforcement program. This decision generated confusion and controversy given that the Secure Communities program had previously been described by DHS officials as a voluntary option for states. The announcement last Friday afternoon, which came as a surprise to many advocates, immediately invalidated the roughly 40 agreements that DHS had entered into with individual states or localities regarding their implementation of the program – agreements which the department once argued were required, but which are they now claim are unnecessary.

In a letter sent separately to 40 governors and other officials announcing their unilateral termination of these agreements, John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), spelled out the Administration’s new claim that “ICE has determined that an MOA [memorandum of agreement] is not required to activate or operate Secure Communities for any jurisdiction,” adding that “once a state or local law enforcement agency voluntarily submits fingerprint data to the federal government, no agreement with the state is legally necessary for one part of the federal government to share it with another part.” DHS now claims that an existing federal immigration law that creates a shared database between law enforcement agencies and ICE renders the agreements unnecessary – yet, notably, the law nowhere spells out how this database should be used.

As Progressive States Network has reported, Secure Communities had been coming under increasing fire in the states as officials recognized its high cost, lack of effectiveness, and devastating results to communities. In just the last few months, the governors of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts all withdrew their states’ participation in the program, with others (including Colorado) considering doing the same. This movement towards opposition came amid widespread concern about the impact of the program — whose purported aim is to identify and deport dangerous criminals but which often ends up flagging and deporting undocumented immigrants who have committed no crime at all, with devastating effects for families (which often include U.S. citizen children) and community policing efforts. The sudden unilateral push for the program’s implementation in the states comes as the Obama has deported record numbers of people — approximately 1 million over the past two years.

Reaction to the Friday afternoon announcement from DHS by pro-immigrant state advocates and legislators was swift and unsparing. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles in California released a statement claiming that, “from the beginning, S-Comm has been shrouded in lies and deception — and it is increasingly clear that its stated aim of targeting serious criminals was just a smokescreen for achieving record numbers of deportations for an ‘enforcement-only’ approach.” The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights issued a press release stating, “once again DHS is trying to rule by fiat... this is not Libya, where security agencies make up the rules as they go along.” Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY) sent a letter to ICE Director Morton urging the agency to “think about the impact you are having on local communities.. particularly when local police are deemed frontline enforcers of broken immigration laws,” and warned that “we cannot jeopardize local law enforcement in the pursuit of ever larger numbers of deportations.”

As ICE convenes public hearings across the country in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston (Dallas already hosted a public hearing earlier this week) featuring members of the agency’s Advisory Task Force to investigate growing allegations of racial profiling and widespread detentions and deportations, immigration advocacy groups such as the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and other organizations are planning widespread protests in Tucson, Arizona; Chicago; Boston; and Oakland, California, among others, as part of a week of resistance to Secure Communities, planned for next week.

State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, a group of state lawmakers representing 36 states advancing practical, common-sense immigration measures, called the DHS announcement “devastating” and “disingenuous,” and underscored how the decision “imposes yet another unfunded immigration enforcement mandate on states as they confront ballooning budget deficits and stagnant job growth.” In addition, civil rights groups are considering whether to proceed with legal action that would block the implementation of the decision. The strong reaction should not have come as a surprise — as the New York Times noted, more than 200 immigrant advocacy groups had recently signed a letter demanding that the administration suspend Secure Communities entirely “until changes are made to ensure that illegal immigrants who are not criminals are not deported.”

A report out of Oregon this week highlighted the stakes of DHS’s misguided decision for countless families and communities across the nation who stand to be torn apart as a result. An investigation by The Oregonian concluded that of the 624 people deported under Secure Communities in that state in a little over a year, 155 were convicted of the lowest level of non-violent crime, and a full 175 —or 28 percent —were not convicted of any criminal violation whatsoever. Romeo Sosa, executive director of Voz Workers' Rights Education Project, stated that participation in Secure Communities has visibly increased tensions in immigrant communities in Oregon and resulted in "a silent deportation,” adding “I think everyone agrees we want to promote public safety, but this is not the answer.”

Full Resources from this Article

DHS Reverses Course, Mandates State Participation In Costly, Ineffective “Secure Communities” Program

Progressive States Network - Opting for Real Security, More States Withdrawing from Secure Communities
Progressive States Network - PSN 2011 Immigration Roundup
State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy - S-COMM a Scam: New DHS Mandate that States Participate in “Secure Communities” Enforcement Program Called Devastating, Disingenuous
Immigration Impact - DHS Terminates Secure Communities Agreements with States, Continues to Implement Program
USA Today - Federal immigration-check requirement draws ire
The Oregonian - Program to deport criminals sweeps up noncriminals in Oregon as well, foes say

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/cm081111.jpg

PSN 2011 Immigration Roundup: AZ Copycat Bills Fail, Common-Sense Policies Advance, State Economies Hang in Balance

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:21:37 +0000

(Note: With legislative sessions largely adjourned in statehouses across the nation, this week’s Dispatch is the third in a series of issue-specific session roundups from Progressive States Network highlighting trends in different critical policy areas across the fifty states.)

As comprehensive immigration reform remained stalled in Washington, D.C. in the first half of 2011, common-sense state legislators across the nation took up the fight in their legislative sessions, defeating expensive and misguided enforcement bills that targeted undocumented immigrants and their families. Despite the deluge of SB 1070 copycat bills promised by anti-immigrant groups, attempts to mimic Arizona’s anti-immigrant law largely failed, as did a far-right effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution by revoking citizenship for children born in the United States. Encouragingly, state legislative sessions saw a wide variety of innovative and common-sense proposals that sought to expand opportunity for all residents, both immigrant and native-born, through approaches emphasizing access to education, workforce development, and community policing.

The business community in several states stepped up their opposition to broad anti-immigrant proposals this session, citing the devastating impact of enforcement-only bills on their states’reputations, tourism industries, workforces, and agricultural sectors. One main galvanizing factor behind this increased activism from the business community has been the realization that it is extremely expensive to be anti-immigrant — and that an enforcement-only approach has been shown to wreak havoc on state economies and workforces. In fact, recent studies and news reports have estimated that at least 100,000 Latino families (many of which include U.S. citizen children and legal permanent residents in addition to undocumented workers) departed Arizona after the passage of SB 1070 in 2010 for more welcoming states such as New Mexico — which will likely benefit from increased sales and income tax receipts due to immigrant consumers’ purchasing power. According to economic projections, similar “attrition through enforcement” policies will only serve to further decimate the economies of the states that adopt them, depriving them of desperately-needed revenue in addition to a stable workforce.

From the widespread rejection of Arizona copycat bills and newer anti-immigrant attacks in the states to the growing momentum behind providing opportunity through tuition equity for students, ensuring safer communities through community policing, and withdrawal from the flawed federal E-Verify program, states made fateful choices on the future prosperity of their economies as they wrestled with immigration policy in 2011 sessions.

Promised Deluge of Arizona Copycat Bills Largely Defeated

Despite a predicted influx of state bills modeled upon SB 1070, Arizona’s 2010 “show me your papers” law, an overwhelming majority of state legislatures defeated or refused to advance similarly broad anti-immigrant bills during 2011 sessions.

Of the 22 states where such measures were introduced this year, 16 defeated their proposals outright (a few remain pending in committee in legislatures with year-round sessions, but are not expected to advance). Only 4 states of the 22 — Utah, Indiana, Alabama, and South Carolina — actually enacted SB 1070 copycat bills this session, and all immediately saw legal challenges. Preliminary court injunctions barred implementation of the laws passed in both Utah and Indiana, following the same path as Arizona, where an injunction continues to be in effect as the Obama Administration and U.S. Department of Justice lead the charge against SB 1070 in court. Lawsuits are currently pending in both Alabama and South Carolina.

Utah passed a trio of well-intentioned but misguided bills in the last few days of its legislative session, which included some troubling provisions such as a statewide guest worker program, and would also confer state residency on undocumented workers who meet a stringent set of criteria. Many of the provisions included in Utah’s trio of bills are either legally questionable, or would first need a federal waiver in order to be implemented.

While Arizona’s law continues to be the most renowned and maligned, Alabama’s recently passed bill is certainly the most expansive and troubling, with provisions that include immigration status checks on students enrolled in the state’s public schools. These basic rights are already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1983 decision, Plyer v. Doe, which affirmed the rights of all children, including undocumented students, to a public school education. (Alabama’s law, which is scheduled to go into effect on September 1st, will be challenged in court by a broad spectrum of legal groups including the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund on August 24th.)

Legislative sessions this year also saw the overwhelming defeat of attacks against the 14th amendment and U.S. citizenship. These legally questionable proposals, advanced by an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-affiliated group called State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) were introduced in roughly 16 states and were not enacted in any state, with Arizona coming closest to passing a law. They sought to bar the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from obtaining U.S. citizenship and to rewrite a part of the Constitution that first gave citizenship to African American slaves and their children after the Civil War.

State Compacts: Advancing Common-Sense Conversations

One popular effort pursued by many states to convene common-sense, solutions-based conversations on immigration policy were the development of state compacts. Compacts essentially aim to develop a set of principles on immigration policy and define what makes sense for a specific state, and in doing so bring together members of the business, faith, and law enforcement sectors along with members of state government and community leaders.

Utah was the first to develop such a state compact on immigration, which included a progressive set of principles that: emphasized that immigration policy remained squarely under the purview of the federal government; underlined that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the state’s laws and not serve as de factoimmigration agents; emphasized the need to keep families together, including immigrant families; acknowledged the critical role immigrant workers play in the state’s economy; and emphasized the need to integrate and welcome immigrants in society.

Unfortunately, despite the progressive and forward-looking principles articulated in the Utah Compact, these principles were transformed into a trio of misguided bills that largely focused on immigration enforcement and bestowed the doubtful distinction on the state of being the nation’s first SB 1070 copycat law. Still, several other states (see map below) continue to consider their own compacts, largely as key organizing tools to bring together a set of key and diverse constituencies critical to advancing state conversations on immigration.

States Take up the DREAM: Tuition Equity Advances

With immigration reform stalled in Congress, states played an increasingly prominent role in the national policy debate in 2011. One proposal that saw significant action this year has been tuition equity — legislation that allows qualifying undocumented students to attend public colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates. In a reflection of widespread voter support for the federal DREAM Act, which Congress again failed to pass last winter, state proposals to ensure tuition equity for all in-state students gained significant momentum this session. Tuition equity bills were introduced in 10 states, and were signed into law in Connecticut and Maryland while passing one chamber in Colorado and Oregon. In addition, California passed a bill that builds upon and further expands financial access to higher education for undocumented students by allowing them to receive privately-funded scholarships. (Unfortunately, Maryland’s bill will be challenged in a ballot initiative the fall of 2012 after anti-immigrant activists obtained enough signatures to put the issue before the state’s voters.)

These efforts to expand educational access and affordability are often critical to immigrant working families because out-of-state tuition costs are significantly higher — up to 450% more than in-state tuition rates — and usually apply to undocumented students as well as others who have not lived in-state long enough to qualify. Broad support from the business community was critical to advancing state tuition equity proposals. In both Colorado and Oregon, coalitions of executives from high-tech companies stressed their current and growing need for college-educated workers, and emphasized that tuition equity proposals would help them meet their future workforce development needs.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, two-thirds of the occupations that are expected to grow the most rapidly by 2018 will require a college degree or some form of post-secondary education. Tuition equity proposals allow state education systems to prepare students to meet this need by getting an affordable college education. State tuition equity laws are not new ideas, and have been tried and tested in state legislatures as well as affirmed in the courts. California was the first to pass its tuition equity law in 2001, which was unanimously upheld by the California Supreme Court in November 2010. This spring, the US Supreme Court declined to hear, without comment, yet another challenge to California’s tuition equity laws brought by anti-immigrant legislators and activists.

Colorado’s ASSET bill (“Advancing Students for a Stronger Economy Tomorrow”) was passed by the Senate this session but failed to receive enough support in the House, where it lost a vote along partisan lines. In addition to receiving support from business groups, the bill received strong support from immigrant and education advocates and is well-positioned for a strong push next session. Despite not being enacted this year, Oregon’s effort was notable for the fact that the primary co-sponsors included a bipartisan group of legislators.

As the DREAM Act’s ultimate fate remained uncertain, state tuition equity laws continued to gain momentum late in sessions this year — just last month, a bill was introduced in Pennsylvania. In total, 13 states have passed laws granting greater educational access and opportunity to talented and aspiring undocumented students.

Community Policing: Partnering with Law Enforcement for Safer Communities

The introduction of community policing legislation in many states in 2011 reflected a growing trend of state lawmakers and law enforcement officials alike questioning the value and impact of immigration enforcement proposals. This year, strong and promising models to strengthen the security of communities emerged in California (AB 1081) and Illinois (HB 929). In addition, anti-racial profiling legislation was introduced in Rhode Island and other states that added immigration status to the list of characteristics included in racial profiling by law enforcement.

In California, the TRUST Act (“Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools”) aims to chart a more sensible course on immigration enforcement while strengthening local community policing efforts that have proven to be successful. The bill passed the Assembly earlier this year, and has cleared initial hurdles in the upper chamber. Most notably, it would allow local governments to decide whether to opt in to participate in the federal “Secure Communities” enforcement initiative, or to tailor their participation to meet local needs. It would also prevent racial profiling, protect children and victims of domestic violence from being deported, and ensure access to due process and representation for individuals who are accused but never convicted of a crime.

Illinois’ Smart Enforcement Act, which passed the state’s House in May, also allows local sheriffs and law enforcement more discretion to opt out of participation in the Secure Communities program, while requiring the program to focus on apprehending violent criminals. It would also mandate data collection on all immigrants and other individuals picked up through the program.

Finally, Rhode Island introduced an innovative bill aimed at discouraging racial profiling and traffic stops by law enforcement based on perceived immigration status. Their proposal requires police to document the “reasonable suspicion” behind a decision to conduct a traffic stop, bars law enforcement from using a traffic stop as a pretext to inquire about individuals’ immigration status, and limits the ability of police to question passengers in a vehicle when there are no grounds to suspect illegal activity.

As efforts to strengthen community policing efforts gained traction in many states thanks to support from law enforcement, the Secure Communities program has come under immense pressure for negatively impacting community policing efforts. State and local elected leaders from around the country have voiced opposition to the controversial initiative responsible for annually deporting over 400,000 non-criminal undocumented immigrants, costing states millions in the process.

A growing understanding emerged of the high cost of flawed immigration enforcement initiatives to communities and to state budgets alike as the governors of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts all withdrew their states’ participation in Secure Communities this year, and as governors in other states (including Colorado) considered doing the same. This growing number of governors leading the push to opt out of the program came amid widespread and growing alarm about its fundamental inaccuracy and impact, splitting families and deporting record numbers of people — a total of nearly 1 million over the past two years, roughly 450,000 annually under the Obama administration.

Lawmakers Fight Flawed, Costly E-Verify Programs

Unfortunately, state legislatures saw a growing number of state “E-Verify” proposals even as yet another flawed federal bill was introduced in Congress this summer. Despite being intended to flag undocumented workers, the E-Verify system actually fails to identify over half of all ineligible applicants run through the system. In addition, studies have shown that requiring employers to use E-Verify is extremely costly to local businesses and state economies.

States and state legislators are fighting back hard against mandatory E-Verify, citing its negative impact on states’ economies, its crippling effect on small businesses, and its ultimate impact as a job killer at a time when states continue to grapple with large budget deficits. State Senator Luz Robles (D-Utah) critiqued a bill which required businesses to use E-Verify in her state by warning its supporters they would “be creating a mess and a more complicated system for small businesses,” and that it would “not solve the problem of illegal immigration.”

Still, eight states passed some form of mandatory E-Verify legislation this session: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. (States such as North Carolina and Alabama expanded mandatory use of E-Verify to all employers, and South Carolina and Alabama included E-Verify portions in their broad SB 1070 copycat proposals.)

These state and federal bills came as the U.S. Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision upholding Arizona’s employer sanctions law, originally passed in 2007. In a May 2011 decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the court upheld Arizona’s law that strips state licenses away from businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers and requires all employers to use E-Verify. However, the decision did not address other egregious and intrusive state immigration laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070.

The Outlook for 2012 and Beyond

With state-level attacks on workers sweeping the nation as a central priority of the right wing, fewer states than expected passed wage enforcement legislation in 2011 ― proposals that seek to enforce wage and hour laws, enhance workplace protections, and crack down on employers seeking to duck paying payroll taxes by misclassifying full-time workers as independent contractors. However, some progress was made. Thirteen states introduced wage enforcement proposals in 2011, and both Iowa and California passed wage enforcement bills in one chamber. Iowa’s proposal focused on wage theft; California’s would have increased the State Department of Labor’s ability to crack down on employers who defraud workers. It is likely wage enforcement proposals will continue to be introduced in 2012.

More broadly, states will continue to grapple with immigration in 2012 sessions, particularly given the dim prospects for large-scale comprehensive immigration in Congress in a major Presidential election year. In the meantime, many progressive and forward-looking states and legislators are already preparing to introduce and re-introduce proposals that focus on real solutions and that expand opportunity for all residents, both immigrant and native-born.

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/Immigration-Flag.png

Opting For Real Security, More States Withdrawing From “Secure Communities”

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:35:12 +0000

As states continue to reject misguided anti-immigrant SB 1070 proposals — sixteen have defeated or tabled broad immigration enforcement bills this session alone — governors are joining the chorus of state lawmakers speaking out against expensive and ineffective immigration enforcement programs. A groundswell of opposition to Secure Communities, the flawed federal immigration enforcement program, is emerging in state after state.

In the last month alone, three states — Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts — have withdrawn wholesale from participating in the federal Secure Communities immigration enforcement program. During the past week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and New York Governor Mario Cuomo both announced they would suspend their states' participation. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is also questioning the program's effectiveness, and announced this week that he will be re-examining the state's participation in the controversial program. Municipalities are also speaking out against Secure Communities — this week the Los Angeles City Council approved a resolution to withdraw the city from participation in the program.

New York and Massachusetts join Illinois, where Governor Pat Quinn was the first to announce his decision last month to rescind his state's participation in the flawed and ineffective federal program, itself currently under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General.

Secure Communities is essentially a data-sharing initiative, but one with wide implications for community policing and state immigration enforcement. The federal Department of Homeland Security enters into agreements with states — often without notifying state and local law enforcement of the fact — to require that all who are stopped by police are screened against federal immigration databases as they are booked. This often means that individuals picked up through Secure Communities are those who were stopped by police on suspicion of committing a misdemeanor such as driving with a broken tail light or not stopping at a stop sign. In practice, the majority of those picked up through Secure Communities have committed no crime at all. Nevertheless, if an individual is found to lack immigration status — even if they have not been convicted of any crime — that individual is automatically flagged to immigration authorities, detained, and often rapidly deported.

The program, initially billed as a voluntary agreement with no additional resources made available to states, purports to focus on apprehending and deporting immigrants who commit violent crimes. Yet despite these lofty goals, the effort has been shown to be woefully ineffective: more than half of those picked up through the program are undocumented immigrants who have in fact committed no crimes at all, and are nevertheless quickly deported.

Law enforcement professionals such as legendary New York former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau and Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank have applauded the decisions by Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, noting police officers' lack of interest in enforcing federal immigration laws and the damage caused to community policing practices when local law enforcement become de facto immigration agents. As a result, law enforcement officers burdened with these additional duties often find their time and attention diverted from pursuing violent criminals in communities. They point out such programs deter immigrant residents from serving as witnesses and assisting police with investigating crimes, making communities as a whole less safe. Analysts also note municipalities that have adopted community policing strategies such as New York City; New Haven, Connecticut; and Travis County, Texas have seen their crime rates plummet once police officers have informed immigrant residents they will not be asked for proof of immigration status when interacting with law enforcement.

Many legislators and advocates are also raising concerns about the high costs being forced upon state and local law enforcement agencies as a result of misguided and ineffective immigration enforcement initiatives such as Secure Communities. Many believe the program, which began in 2008 and is slated to operate in every state nationwide by 2013 is woefully ineffective and have in fact done little to address violent crime while resulting in record deportation levels – roughly 400,000 annually under the Obama Administration, which surpasses deportation levels seen under President Bush.

Full Resources from this Article

Opting For Real Security, More States Withdrawing From “Secure Communities”

Resources [coming first thing Thursday morning]
Progressive States Network - States Continue to Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Laws as Concerns About Economic Effects Grows
Progressive States Network - Fact Sheet: The High Cost of Immigration Enforcement for States
Drum Major Institute - Why Local Immigration Enforcement Doesn’t Add Up For States
The New York Times - Resistance Grows
Uncover the Truth Campaign - Toolkit on Secure Communities

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/sr060911.jpg

States Continue to Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Laws as Concern About Economic Effects Grows

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:41:35 +0000

As another round of state legislatures begin to wrap up their 2011 sessions and a flurry of positive action on immigration continues to gain momentum, it is becoming increasingly clear that anti-immigrant bills have failed to gain much traction at all in state legislatures across the nation. Even Arizona, which led the anti-immigrant charge by passing the now-infamous SB 1070 last year, is now reconsidering the wisdom of its actions and surveying the resulting destruction of its economy. Arizona’s legislature killed numerous additional anti-immigrant proposals earlier this session after a group of sixty CEOs of companies sent a letter to State President Russell Pearce outlining the devastating effect SB 1070 and the resulting boycotts have had on the state, including over 3,000 lost jobs in the tourism industry alone.

In the last week alone, two more states defeated proposals modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070, bringing this session’s grand total of states defeating copycat bills to twelve. The latest additions to the list are Tennessee and Oklahoma, which both saw their anti-immigrant bills fail in the past week, largely in response to questions and concerns about high implementation costs from legislators and advocates alike.

In Tennessee, State Rep. Joe Carr (R), the prime sponsor of HB 1380, pulled his bill, which sought to grant state law enforcement officers broad authority to stop and apprehend individuals they believe had a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. Carr cited critics’ concerns the bill would result in a greater burden on the strained state budget: according to the state budget analysis group, these would include an annual $9 million in additional costs and over $950,000 in unfunded mandates for local governments associated with interrogating and detaining immigrants. This session also included bills to allow municipalities to bar refugees from being resettled in their communities and another proposal to bar undocumented students from enrolling in public school - both proposals were defeated.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s SB 1070 copycat proposal, HB 1446, was defeated after legislators on both sides of the partisan aisle expressed concerns about its high implementation costs. The state’s business and faith leaders also spoke out forcefully against the bill, citing the likelihood it would harm the state’s already-struggling economy. Oklahoma also has the dubious distinction of passing a previous broad anti-immigrant bill in 2007 which was subsequently barred by the state courts. The previous law barred undocumented residents from accessing any form of public services (a provision already part of federal immigration law) other than emergency medical care. This exception was, unfortunately, not enough to assuage the fears of the state’s undocumented residents, who were afraid that visiting state emergency rooms would result in their deportation. In fact, many immigrant families living in fear avoided accessing emergency medical assistance, resulting in at least one death of a US citizen - a child born to undocumented immigrants who could have sought care for their child’s preventable medical condition.

Finally, Georgia, one of only two states to pass an anti-immigrant law earlier this year that closely mirrors Arizona’s, is already feeling the heat from business and faith leaders as well as immigrant rights advocates. Farmers and the agricultural industry worry that immigrant workers will shun the state, jeopardizing lucrative cash crops like Vidalia onions, which are a $140 million annual industry in Georgia and depend on the manual labor of immigrant workers, some of them undocumented.

Aries Haygood, a farmer with 500 acres of Vidalia onions, depends on immigrant manual labor and told a reporter he was concerned about the impact of Georgia’s anti-immigrant law will have on his workforce:

“Our biggest fear is that because of the way the bill could be structured we won't be able to find enough workers to do the work that we need done in a short amount of time.”

Clearly, many other states share these same concerns at a time when when we can ill-afford reckless and harmful economic policy.

Full Resources from this Article

States Continue to Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Laws as Concern About Economic Effects Grows

Associated Press - States’ Immigration Efforts Fizzle
Progressive States Network Blog - Connecticut Poised to Become 13th State to Adopt Tuition Equity Legislation
Progressive States Network - As Obama Touts National Immigration Reform, Flurry of Positive Action in the States
The Arizona Republic - SB 1070 Copycats Losing Ground
Phoenix Business Journal - CEOs to Lawmakers: Back Off Immigration
Nashville Public Radio - Two of Carr’s Three Immigration Bills Deferred a Year
Progressive States Network - Utah Legislatures Passes Trio of Well-Intentioned But Misguided Immigration Bills
DMI Blog - When Silence on Immigration Becomes Deadly
News Oklahoma - House Votes Down Immigration Bill
National Public Radio - Georgia Farmers Brace for New Immigration Law
Macon.com - Immigration Crackdown Worries Vidalia Onion County
Progressive States Network - Fact Sheet: The High Cost of Immigration Enforcement for States

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/sr052611.jpg

As Obama Touts National Immigration Reform, Flurry of Positive Action in the States

Ben Secord — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:34:42 +0000

On Tuesday, President Obama reiterated his hope for comprehensive immigration reform in a speech delivered in El Paso, Texas. Yet while federal reform remains stalled, many states have continued to push forward with advancing common sense approaches to immigration policy. In just the last few days alone, there has been a flurry of positive activity as states reject the destructive politics of scapegoating and division exemplified by Arizona’s SB1070 in favor of pragmatic solutions that will grow their economies and keep their communities safe.

Last week, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn announced that he would be pulling his state out of the controversial Secure Communities program. Despite its stated mission of deporting convicted criminals, the costly federal enforcement initiative has resulted in a disturbing number of deportations of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton responded with a visit to Springfield to defend the program, advocates were quick to support Governor’s Quinn’s decision to opt out of the program, which is supposed to be voluntary. Josh Hoyt, director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights pointedly noted, “This is not Libya. Director Morton does not have the power to issue decrees.”

This week in New York, a group of 38 lawmakers sent Governor Andrew Cuomo a letter urging him to withdraw the state from the program, two months after a similar letter was sent by other elected officials, including 19 New York City Council members. The officials applauded Gov. Quinn’s action in Illinois and urged Cuomo to follow suit, stating that “given New York’s immigrant heritage and our leadership role in the nation, we firmly believe that our state, too, must immediately end this destructive program.”

In Maryland, Governor O’Malley signed legislation on Tuesday granting in-state tuition to qualifying undocumented students at the state’s four year institutions. In doing so, Maryland becomes the 11th state to offer increased educational access and opportunity to talented and motivated immigrant students. Maryland Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, a member of State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy (SLPIP) and a longtime champion of the bill, celebrated at the signing, saying, “We've got guts. We were willing to go against the tide and stand up for something that is the right thing to do.”

It was also another bad week for Arizona-style copycat measures. Both of Florida’s immigration enforcement bills died as their session came to a close last week. This came despite the surprise, last-minute passage of SB 2040 in the Senate, a vote that was called with no floor debate, but did not advance further before the end of the session. In Maine, a copycat version of Arizona’s law was withdrawn on Tuesday by its sponsor, a clear sign that lawmakers are starting to consider the consequences of pursuing similar anti-immigrant bills that are nothing more than desperate stabs at political opportunism.

Finally, in Utah a federal judge blocked implementation of the state’s recently passed immigration enforcement bill on Tuesday, just fourteen hours after the law took effect. The ruling, following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, deals yet another blow to questions regarding the constitutionality of immigration bills modeled after Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. The temporary injunction will be in effect until the next hearing, scheduled for July 14th.

By successfully advancing pragmatic state-based approaches to immigration, state lawmakers and other elected officials continue to build momentum for a comprehensive national solution to our broken immigration system.

Full Resources from this Article

As Obama Touts National Immigration Reform, Flurry of Positive Action in the States

White House – Building A 21st Century Immigration System
Progressive States Action – State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy
Immigration Policy Center – Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You
Progressive States Action – Immigration Policy Options 2011
Progressive States Network – Nine States Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Bills

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/bs051211.jpg

Nine States Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Bills

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:02:55 +0000

The steady drumbeat of states recognizing the error of enforcement-only anti-immigrant legislation continues. This week, Iowa and Kansas join the list of nine states to date (including Virginia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, and Washington) that have defeated their broad (and misguided) anti-immigrant bills this legislative session.

Advocates in Iowa report that both anti-immigrant proposals, HF 27 and SF 102, are effectively dead after they failed to advance out of their respective committees. At the same time, the state senate continues to consider a good example of practical and enlightened state policy on immigration: wage law enforcement. Iowa's wage law enforcement bill, S311, focuses on going after bad-apple employers who attempt to cheat their workers (both documented and undocumented, immigrant and native-born) out of their wages.

And Kansas, home to notorious anti-immigrant lawyer Kris Kobach (the architect and author of Arizona's infamous SB 1070 and now Kansas Secretary of State) recently defeated its broad anti-immigrant proposals based on SB 1070. The rejection of the bill came amid concern from legislators on both sides of the partisan aisle that the measure would expose churches to prosecution for providing spiritual and material support to suspected undocumented immigrants through its “safe harbor” clause, which threatens any individual who knowingly or unknowingly provides any form of support - even a car ride - to an undocumented immigrant.

Virginia, which saw over ten anti-immigrant proposals offered in its state legislature this year, effectively defeated all of them after the state senate created a special subcommittee to consider (and reject) the state’s list of misguided bills.

It's worth noting that the business community and industry leaders have been one of the most consistent and effective sets of voices expressing concern over the impact and implications of anti-immigrant legislation. Advocates in Virginia note that Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy (a coalition which unites powerful Chambers of Commerce from throughout the state with influential agribusiness associations) played a critical role in defeating the state’s anti-immigrant bills by pointing out the detrimental effect broad anti-immigrant proposals would have on the state's economy, industries, and, by extension, its tax base.

In fact, the idea that being anti-immigrant is bad for business continues to ring loud and clear in Arizona, where economists project the state will lose nearly $500 million in lost tourism revenue alone, and also stands to lose roughly 3,000 jobs. This week, over 60 Arizona business leaders (including executives from US Airways, Intel, and The Arizona Republic newspaper) sent an open letter to Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce urging him to not advance any more broad anti-immigrant bills, noting the dramatic and negative impact of SB 1070 on the state, already ground zero for astronomical foreclosure rates.

As states continue to consider immigration legislation, they would do well to follow the lead of the business community to enact positive, pro-immigrant legislation that expands opportunity for all residents - both immigrant and native-born - common-sense strategies that will be key to rebuilding prosperity and ensuring economic security for our states.

Full Resources from this Article

Nine States Reject Broad Anti-Immigrant Bills

Progressive States Network - Midway Through Session, Anti-Immigrant Bills Continue to Fail Nationwide
The Washington Post - Businesses Will Fight Immigration Legislation
Immigration Impact - State Legislators Attempt to Reframe Enforcement-Only Approach to Immigration
Hispanically Speaking News - Effort to Defeat Anti-Immigrant on 287(g) in Iowa
The Kansas City Star - Kansas House Committee Bottles Up Anti-Immigration Bill
The Arizona Republic -60 Executives Say ‘No’ to More Immigration Bills
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failing State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/sr031710.jpg

Utah Legislature Passes Trio Of Well-Intentioned But Misguided Immigration Bills

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:28:24 +0000

In recent weeks, a bipartisan approach to immigration policy in Utah has gained widespread national attention as a collaborative, pragmatic effort with the active involvement of many different stakeholders and communities. But late last week, months of hard work on the part of Utah state legislators in pursuit of inventive and effective immigration solutions ended in disappointment as a trio of misguided immigration bills were quickly introduced and passed by Utah’s state legislature with little opportunity for public input or debate. Despite the good intentions of so many, the results of this effort do nothing to address the need for common sense immigration policies that expand opportunity for all, and they are not a model for other states to follow.

The three bills in question – HB 497, HB 116, and HB 466 – are now on their way to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, awaiting either his signature or his veto. As a legislative package, the measures do little to truly bring Utah’s immigrant residents into the folds of society or to encourage their economic contributions to the state. And despite State Rep. Stephen Sandstrom's claims to the contrary, the provisions of HB 497 – an echo of Arizona’s infamous SB 1070 – will still green light racial profiling against a whole spectrum of Utah residents, many of them legal immigrants and American citizens. These radical enforcement provisions will only serve to dramatically expand racial profiling and erode the progress state and local law enforcement are making toward developing trust with local residents.

As might be expected given such quick moving legislative developments, confusion reigns about the provisions included in Utah’s trio of immigration bills. While passed as a package, the central pillar of the three bills is HB 497 – the bill slated to go into effect first. Here are the main elements of each bill, accompanied by an explanation of why each will prove destructive to Utah’s communities and state economy:

HB 497: If signed into law, this bill would be the first of the three to take effect, as soon as 60 days after it is signed by the governor. The proposal is an echo of Arizona’s infamous (and broadly unconstitutional) SB 1070, which is still currently on hold after a federal court ruling blocking its implementation. While HB 497’s language is slightly different from that of SB 1070, its intention and impact is the same: it grants state and local law enforcement officers broad authority and discretion to enforce federal immigration laws whenever they stop, detain or arrest individuals. In fact, HB 497 removes the ‘reasonable suspicion’ language in SB 1070 that concerned the federal courts, thereby opening the door even further for police to racially profile residents. Finally, HB 497 would have high implementation costs because it effectively deputizes state and local law enforcement as immigration agents, resulting in increased costs to law enforcement that will further dig into Utah’s budget deficit.
HB 116: If signed into law, this bill would establish a state ‘guest worker’ program – separate from the federally-administered farm worker program – where Utah would set eligibility criteria to grant state temporary worker permits that would allow some immigrants to work and reside in the state. Under the program, a small proportion of the state’s undocumented residents who met certain eligibility criteria would be eligible for state residency and work authorization. But the specific language in the bill makes it clear that it is set up to fail. The bill would be contingent on the federal government granting a ‘waiver’ to the state to issue such permits, and would only take effect in 2013, or 6 months after the federal government issues such a waiver. This proposal is also very likely unconstitutional, because only the federal government has the authority to grant visas and work authorizations. Indeed, the state legislative counsel ‘note’ at the end of the bill acknowledges the bill is likely unconstitutional given that it usurps authority from the federal government to regulate immigration and immigrant work authorization. There is no precedent for the federal government to grant Utah the waiver that would be necessary for HB 116 to take effect, and it is highly unlikely that the federal government would take such an action.
HB 46: If signed into law, this bill would create a 27-member state commission to issue various recommendations on immigration policy for Utah, and would authorize Utah’s governor to enter into a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Mexican state of Nuevo León to allow Mexican temporary workers to work in Utah. Its implementation would presumably operate under the confines of federal immigration law, though the process for this is still unclear.

Despite the disappointment in Utah, the vast majority of states have rejected Arizona-style approaches to immigration policy this session. And legislators in more and more states are considering common-sense alternatives to the measures listed above, including:

Instead of burdening already overwhelmed state and local enforcement officers with enforcing federal immigration laws, state legislators are advancing community policing legislation that explicitly bars police from enforcing federal immigration laws and allows them to focus on keeping residents safe by building trust with communities, witnesses, and victims of crimes – an approach is supported by immigrant advocates as well as law enforcement organizations.
Instead of instituting a state guest worker program – an approach taken in the past by the federal government which resulted in widespread worker exploitation – state legislators are advancing measures to enforce existing wage and hour laws, which apply to all workers regardless of their immigration status.
And instead of entering into a piecemeal guest worker program with Mexico, state legislators are focused on updating our nation’s outdated immigration system by advocating for and passing a broad immigration overhaul that provides a path to citizenship for those already living and paying taxes in the United States and allows our nation to welcome the workers and entrepreneurs it needs to continue to rebuild our economic future.

These are the types of constructive, common-sense, responsible immigration laws being pursued by State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy (SLPIP), a growing group of state lawmakers from 32 states and counting. For more information on SLPIP, see http://www.progressivestatesaction.org/campaigns/immigration.

Full Resources from this Article

Utah Legislature Passes Trio Of Well-Intentioned But Misguided Immigration Bills

Progressive States Network – Midway Through Session, Anti-immigrant Bills Continue to Fail Nationwide
Progressive States Network – Immigration-Related Bills To Move in 2011 State Legislative Sessions
Los Angeles Times – On immigration, momentum shifts away from Arizona
Immigration Policy Center – Is Utah’s ‘Immigration Solution’ All It’s Cracked Up to Be?
Service Employees International Union – SEIU’s Medina: Utah Immigration Bill Well-Intentioned, But Wrong: Dangerous for Workers
ColorLines – New Bills Don’t Make Utah the ‘Anti-Arizona’ on Immigration
Progressive States Action – Misguided Utah Immigration Bills Are Not A Model For Other States To Follow

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/sr031011.jpg

Midway Through Session, Anti-immigrant Bills Continue to Fail Nationwide

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:40:25 +0000

While a few states (notably South Carolina) are coming perilously close to passing proposals based on Arizona’s now-infamous anti-immigrant SB 1070, a growing number have shifted gears in 2011 toward a more measured, practical, and progressive approach to state immigration policy. These states are reconsidering the wisdom of entertaining, let alone enacting, anti-immigrant bills that will only increase costs for cash-strapped states at a time when they are confronting historic budget deficits and painful decisions on how to trim -- not expand -- their state budgets.

With many states halfway through their legislative sessions, several have already rejected broad anti-immigrant proposals, including Colorado, Virginia, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. Nebraska State Senator Charlie Janssen, the chief sponsor of an SB 1070 copycat measure, recently acknowledged that even he didn't think he had the votes to pass his bill out of committee. In addition, several states (including Montana and South Dakota) have summarily defeated dubious proposals to revoke the US citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrant parents -- bills that directly (and intentionally, according to its own proponents -- seek to gut and challenge our Constitution. These triumphs of sanity over political opportunism reflect just how much states need sound and practical immigration polices that don't needlessly burden taxpayers, local police departments, court systems, prisons, and detention centers.

Fiscal notes, or cost analyses conducted by neutral government budgetary analysis agencies, have underlined the high costs (often tens of millions of dollars) associated with broad anti-immigrant state bills. By providing greater clarity and detail on the high costs of onerous state immigration enforcement and restrictive laws, many fiscal notes have actually served to help defeat these bills or diminish their changes of passage by simply outlining just how expensive it is for states to be anti-immigrant. Some state fiscal notes attached to anti-immigrant proposals that have successfully raised alarms include:

Utah’s Legislative Fiscal Analysts Office recently attached an $11 million price tag to Rep Stephen Sandstrom’s SB 1070 copycat proposal
Kentucky’s State Legislature recently estimated the cost of an anti-immigrant SB 1070 copycat proposal at a total $89 million per year (including $40 million per year in increased prison, court, and foster-care fees) -- a price tag that appears to have served to effectively defeated the bill

Arizona, ground zero for costly and ineffective anti-immigrant state legislation (and which even last year was home to one of the deepest state budget shortfalls as well as one of the nation's highest foreclosure rates) has already lost tens of millions of dollars in tourism and convention funding alone, and is projected to lose nearly $500 million in lost tourism revenue alone and roughly 3,000 jobs. In addition, Arizona's elected officials continue to break the bank with their anti-immigrant laws. Recent public records filings revealed Governor Jan Brewer's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund has already spent $1.5 million in legal fees to defend SB 1070 -- which itself remains on hold after a fall 2010 federal court ruling.

Other municipalities have literally paid the price for their anti-immigrant ordinances, according to data compiled by the Center for American Progress in a recent report:

Hazelton, Pennsylvania is in the tank for at least $2.8 million with some estimates totaling $5 million as it defends its ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Riverside, New Jersey, suffered a severe local economic downturn before the city rescinded its anti-immigrant ordinance.
Farmers Branch, Texas, has spent nearly $4 million in legal fees and is expected to spend at least $5 million to defend its anti-immigration statute with no end in sight.
Prince William County, Virginia, dramatically scaled back a tough immigration statute after realizing the original version would cost millions to enforce and defend in court.
Fremont, Nebraska (population roughly 20,000) increased the city’s property tax by 18% to help pay the estimated $750,000 in legal fees for its anti-immigration ordinance which it intends to defend.

For their part, police and law enforcement officers have shown little interest in adding the enforcement of federal immigration laws to their already-full plates. A number of police and law enforcement leaders have recently reiterated their opposition to enforcing federal immigration laws, including Houston and San Antonio, Texas' Chiefs of Police; Texas’ Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia and law enforcement officers in Wyoming.

Voicing concern about the potential for racial profiling and loss of trust, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said, "Any state requirement that forces local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws is a really, really bad idea."

As anti-immigrant legislative efforts fail in 2011 sessions, a number of states that either considered passing anti-immigrant laws or defeated progressive immigration proposals in the past are now changing their tune. These states are instead pursuing common-sense, progressive state immigration legislation that expands opportunity for all residents, both immigrant and native-born -- measures that are garnering even broader support than before SB 1070's passage.

Tuition equity proposals have generated a particularly high amount of momentum this legislative session, with bills already introduced in ten states. These include some states that narrowly defeated similar proposals in past years, and where legislators previously opposed to tuition equity have updated their stances and are pledging their support. Oregon's bipartisan SB 742 was introduced by Republican State Senators Morse and Nelson, who previously voted against Oregon's tuition equity proposals in 2009. Senators Morse and Nelson are also working closely with colleagues in the Oregon House on a companion bill, along with a broad range of community and advocacy groups including the Oregon Students Association and Western States Center. In addition, Colorado's tuition equity bill, SB 126, 'Advancing Students for a Strong Economy Tomorrow' or ASSET, has gained several new Senate sponsors who also previously opposed the state's last tuition equity proposal in 2009. ASSET, which is also sponsored by State Representatives Miklosi and Williams, handily passed out of the Senate Education Committee in mid-February, and is expected to pass the Senate next week and move into the House for consideration.

Full Resources from this Article

Midway Through Session, Anti-immigrant Bills Continue to Fail Nationwide - Suman

Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch - Legislators Work With Anti-Immigrant Hate Group to Gut 14th Amendment
Center for American Progress - Unconstitutional and Costly: The High Price of Local Immigration Enforcement
Tucson Citizen - Arizona immigration bill legal defense cost $1.5 million
Immigration Impact - What’s In Your Wallet: Fiscal Notes Give States Pause over Enforcement Laws
Houston Chronicle Texas Politics Blog - Police chiefs, sheriffs denounce immigration measures
Colorado Higher Education Access Alliance - Colorado ASSET Senate Bill 126: Advancing Students for a Stronger Economy Tomorrow
Immigration Impact - Some States ‘Just Say No’ to Harmful Immigration Enforcement Laws
Immigration Impact - Will State Legislators Continue to Pull the Plug on Restrictive Immigration Measures?
Immigration Impact - Progressive Immigration Measures Pick Up Steam at the State Level
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failing State Versus a Positive Approach to Immigrant Integration
Progressive States Network - Despite Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric in Some Statehouses, Promising Developments in State Immigration Policy
Progressive States Network - Immigration-Related Bills to Move in 2011 State Legislative Sessions

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/sr030311.jpg