Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
State and Local Immigration Law
More States Introduce Costly Immigration Enforcement Bills in 2012
04 days ago
Despite the devastating consequences of state immigration laws in Alabamaand Arizona, legislators in other states have introduced similar enforcement bills this year. Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly immigration enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessions—some which are modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070. While study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are costing state economies, disrupting entire industries and driving communities further underground, state legislators clearly aren’t getting the message.
Last month, legislators in Mississippi introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper immigration documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi House and Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to send to Governor Haley Barbour’s desk for a signature soon.
In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus recently introduced SB 590, a bill which requires police to determine the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect are unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration documents. Missouri’s bill, like Alabama, however takes the law a step further by requiring schools to verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents. Remember that the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabama’s immigration law, HB 56, last October. Missouri’s legislature passed the bill out of committee last week—a bill likely to cost Missouri millions.
The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month, HB 2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant. Tennessee’s copycat bill, HB 1380—which requires police to question the immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumented—was put on hold this month due to budgetary concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslam’s public support of the bill days earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last year due to $3 million price tag, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Carr, doesn’t seem like he’s giving up.
“Putting it behind the budget doesn’t kill it. It basically parks it,” Carr said. “We are prioritizing the state’s stance on illegal immigration based on the financial resources we have. We’ve got a very targeted approach to tackle illegal immigration here in the state.”
In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates and Senate recently changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently introduced two Arizona copycat bills—SB 460 and its companion bill HB 1060—which allow police to determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without documentation. Although SB 460 failed this week after a split vote in the Senate’s Courts of Justice Committee, it’s companion bill, HB 1060, was recently assigned to Virginia’s House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
And that’s only some of the immigration legislation moving through state legislatures. Other states have introduced other enforcement bills this year, each likely to hurt local businesses, families and state coffers.
Just this week, a report out of the University of Alabama estimated that Alabama stands to lose $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax due to their extreme immigration enforcement law, HB 56. Utah’s copycat law HB 497 (temporarily blocked last year) has cost the state $85,000 to defend, according to government reports. Arizona lost $490 million in tourism revenue last year, $86 million in lost wages, 2,800 lost jobs and more than $1 million in legal fees in defending SB 1070.
As states continue to move forward on these and other immigration enforcement bills, one wonders how much larger the writing on the wall has to be before state legislators realize these laws are costing taxpayers. Yes we need solutions to our immigration problems, but creating a complicated and costly patchwork of state laws isn’t bringing us any closer to that solution.
Photo by Africa Studio.
Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law Could Cost State Billions, Report Finds
06 days ago
Implementing Alabama’s extreme immigration law (HB 56) would be incredibly expensive. That is the bottom line of a new report by University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy entitled A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Alabama Immigration Law. According to the report, the law could cost Alabama up to $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax. The loss includes 1) implementation, enforcement, and litigation expenditures; 2) increased costs and inconveniences for citizens and legal residents and businesses; 3) reduced economic development opportunities because it creates a poor business climate; and 4) the economic impact of reduced aggregate demand due to some unauthorized immigrants leaving and therefore not earning and spending income in the state.
Addy creates an estimate of the costs of HB 56 by using a model that assumes that unauthorized workers vacate jobs in agriculture, construction, accommodation, and food service and that between 40,000 and 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 and $35,000 leave the state. Different estimates are provided for losses of 40,000; 60,000; and 80,000 workers. He concludes that the law would result in:
- A reduction of 70,000 to 140,000 jobs;
- A reduction of $2.3-$10.8 billion in Alabama’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or 1.3-6.2 percent of the stat’s 2010 GDP;
- A reduction of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections;
- A reduction of $20 to $93.1 million in local sales tax collections.
Although HB56’s proponents often claim the bill will bring potential benefits to the state, Addy does not find significant state savings from decreased benefits for unauthorized immigrants. He concludes that unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and are not a drain on the economy. Furthermore, he does not see increased public safety as a likely outcome because unauthorized immigrants are not responsible for disproportionately high crime rates.
Addy also responds to arguments that the new immigration law is responsible for decreased unemployment in the state. Contrary to what proponents of the law are claiming, it does not appear that legal residents and citizens are filling jobs previously held by unauthorized immigrants. Also, in the four sectors that most often employ unauthorized workers (agriculture, construction, lodging and eating establishments), unemployment is not falling.
The report concludes that the costs of the new law are large and certain, while any potential benefits are unclear. “From an economist’s perspective, the question Alabama and its legislature have to ponder is this: Are the benefits of the new immigration law worth the costs.” Based on the work of Addy and others, the answer has to be a resounding “no.”
Photo by Willamor Media.
Nativist Group Twists Facts on Effectiveness of Arizona’s Immigration Law
01 week ago
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has outdone itself when it comes to shoddy research. In a recently released report on “demographic changes” in Arizona, FAIR utilizes an almost random assortment of statistics to make its case that the state’s unauthorized immigrants are fleeing in droves thanks to get-tough immigration policies. The report occasionally pays lip service to the impact on unauthorized immigration of the 2008-2009 recession, as well as persistently high unemployment rates that continue to this day. Yet FAIR concludes, without evidence, that state-level immigration enforcement has been the single most important factor causing the decline of the unauthorized population. In reality, this conclusion is not supported by the data which FAIR presents.
FAIR’s report is painfully self-contradictory. It opens with the bold statement that the “efforts of Arizona policymakers to deter the settlement of illegal aliens in the state and to encourage those already in the state to leave have made major advances in their objective.” To bolster this statement, the report offers a bountiful supply of numbers on declines over the past few years in the size of the state’s foreign-born population, foreign-born Latin American population, and unauthorized immigrant population—not to mention reductions in the poverty rate, birth rate, and crime rate. Strangely enough, some of these statistics—such as those on the drop in crime—document trends which began before Arizona had enacted any harsh immigration laws.
The report does mention, offhandedly, that punitive state immigration policies may not account for all of these demographic trends given the presence of other factors, such as “the effects of the recession, loss of jobs and growing unemployment.” Yet this acknowledgment of reality is immediately followed by the muddled argument that “the confluence of all of these factors constituted a strong message that Arizona was no longer a desirable destination for illegal aliens and that already settled illegal aliens faced increased exposure to identification and deportation.” At the very end, the report is back to making the sensational and unsubstantiated claim that the state’s demographic changes “resulted from local law enforcement activities as well as legislative changes designed to make Arizona less accommodating for aliens seeking illegal work in the state.”
While FAIR is certain that get-tough laws in Arizona have provoked an exodus of unauthorized immigrants, other observers with a less fanciful attitude towards data sound a note of caution. For instance, Juan Pedroza of the Urban Institute has pointed out that “it’s tough to tell whether (and how many) immigrants have left a community if you are looking right after a state passes a law. It can take years of evidence to test claims of a mass exodus.” Moreover, “growing evidence suggests that most immigrants (especially families with school-age children) are here to stay, except perhaps where local economies are particularly weak.”
In a related vein, a report released last year by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) evaluated the impact of the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which made it mandatory for the state’s employers to use the federal E-Verify employment-authorization system. The report found that, while the law did motivate some unauthorized immigrants to leave the state, it also pushed many of those who remained “into less formal work arrangements.” As a result, “policymakers must weigh the sought-after drop in unauthorized employment against the costs associated with shifting workers into informal employment.” In other words, reality is more complicated than FAIR’s misinterpretation of demographic statistics would suggest.
FAIR’s numerical screed against unauthorized immigrants in Arizona does not rise to the level of serious research. Too many variables go unaccounted for, too many assumptions are made, and too many conclusions are predetermined. State-level immigration enforcement is one among many factors that influence the decision of an unauthorized individual or family in Arizona as to whether they should stay or leave. Untangling those factors involves complicated research of a kind that FAIR cannot provide.
Photo by Tania Zbrodko.
Immigrants, Latinos and Asians Contribute More to Your State Than You Think
03 weeks ago
Immigration has never been a numbers game. When people think of immigration in America, they likely call to mind fear-fueled myths perpetuated by immigration restrictionists, like “immigrants are stealing American jobs” or “immigrants are a drain on our system.” Sadly, numbers and facts have rarely been part of the discussion, especially as state legislatures continue to take immigration law into their own hands. Today, however, the Immigration Policy Center published 50 state fact sheets updated to show just how much immigrants, Latinos and Asians contribute to our country as consumers, taxpayers, workers, entrepreneurs and voters—facts state legislators would do well to consider before passing legislation that drives immigrants, undocumented and documented, from their state.
Legislators in Alabama passed one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws (HB 56) last year in response to the state’s “immigration problem.” According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Alabama’s undocumented population was 2.5% of total population (or 120,000 people) in 2010—lower than in 22 other states. While Alabama’s undocumented may be smaller than other states, however, their economic contributions are not. Alabama’s undocumented contributed more than $130 million in state and local taxes in 2010.
As Alabama continues to drive undocumented immigrants and their contributions from the state, they also run the risk of alienating documented immigrants, Latinos and Asians in the process. Alabama’s Latino and Asian populations’ combined purchasing power was nearly $6 billion in 2010. Alabama faces a $979 million budget gap in FY2012.
In California, whose undocumented population paid $2.7 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, some recently attempted (and failed) to overturn the California DREAM Act—two laws which allow undocumented students to enroll in California’s public colleges and universities and apply for state-based funding. Studies show that by 2025, California will not have enough college graduates to keep up with economic demand. The California DREAM Act may play a critical role in boosting the number of college grads.
Another part of Georgia’s extreme immigrant law (HB 87) went into effect this month, requiring people to show certain forms of identification before they can get among other things, professional business licenses. While this may seem pretty standard, business leaders in the state are worried that this will slow commerce, cause serious processing delays, and hurt an already struggling economy. At last count, Latino and Asian businesses in Georgia had sales and receipts of $20.6 billion and employed nearly 110,000 people.
State legislatures, the majority of which convene this month, are likely to continue to consider restrictive immigration legislation this year, but it’s critical that they consider exactly how much these punitive laws will cost their state. States are far from fully recovered from the economic recession and many still face large budget shortfalls into FY2013, according to Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Facts don’t lie. Immigrants, Latinos and Asians have and will continue to account for large and growing shares of state economies and populations. Can state legislators really afford to alienate such a critical part of its labor force, tax base, and business community?
Immigration Impact’s Top 11 Blogs of 2011
01 month ago
A review of immigration issues for 2011 reads like a rollercoaster of American politics. Some state legislatures, for example—backed by restrictionists groups—attempted to pass harsh enforcement-only immigration laws. Some states succeeded; others struck down these bills; and a few even passed progressive immigration laws like tuition equity for undocumented students. At the federal level, Congress failed yet again to take major action on immigration, but allowed a few humanitarian and refugee issues to pass. The Obama administration deported a record high number of immigrants, but at the same time issued prosecutorial discretion guidelines in an attempt to prioritize enforcement efforts. While our top 11 blog posts—those most read, shared and commented on in the past year—couldn’t possibly tell the whole immigration story of 2011, the list does provides an interesting snapshot of what moved people and prompted reactions throughout the year.
The 11 most popular blog posts of 2011:
11. Thousands of Children Stuck in Foster Care after Parents Deported, Report Finds (November 4)
10. The Facts (and Numbers) Don’t Matter in Alabama (October 12)
9. Despite Limits, How Padilla v. Kentucky Will Endure (January 27)
8. States that Passed Arizona-style Immigration Laws Now Face Costly, Uphill Legal Battles (June 3)
7. DHS No-Match Rule is Another Nail in Economy’s Coffin (October 27)
6. New Report Reveals Devastating Effects of Deportation on U.S. Citizen Children (April 26)
5. The List: A Modern Day Witch Hunt in Utah (July 15)
4. How Immigrants Can Help America Rise Again (February 2)
3. DHS Announces Expansion of Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines (August 18)
2. What ICE’s Latest Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion Means for Future Immigration Cases (June 6)
However, the most popular blog this year by far was Immigration Policy Center Director Mary Giovagnoli’s post on the inclusion of the term “anchor baby” in the American Heritage Dictionary—a term initially included without context:
1. “Anchor Baby” Added to New American Heritage Dictionary (December 2)
The editors at the American Heritage Dictionary quickly changed the definition to include the words “disparaging” and “offensive.” And the popularity of the post—featured in USA Today, the New York Times, on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report and across the Twittersphere—proves that words have meaning and that many people really do care about how we use them. Without the readers, activists, advocates and scholars who want a constructive and thoughtful debate on immigration—laid out in the hope of practical policy solutions—we would be left with the uninformed, hateful, divisive rhetoric too often slung around this issue.
No one knows which headlines we’ll be reading in 2012 or which blog posts will be the most popular, but we do know that many Americans are tired of the inflamed rhetoric and failed enforcement policies—policies which continue to hurt families and cost communities. People want real solutions to immigration. As we head into 2012, an election year, we can only hope that common sense and smarter policies prevail.
New Reports Track Devastating Impact of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law on Residents
01 month ago
Despite recent court decisions and interpretations from the state’s Attorney General that limit implementation of Alabama’s draconian immigration law, HB 56, much of damage has already been done. Two recent reports by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the AFL-CIO further illustrate the ways in which HB 56 is complicating many aspects of daily life. Both organizations sent delegations to Alabama to interview a wide variety of Alabama residents and found that the fallout goes well beyond the official implementation of the law’s provisions and extends to personal relationships. Both found that the law is just one part of an agenda to deny people fundamental rights.
HRW points out that the provisions of HB 56 not only deny unauthorized immigrants education, utilities, housing, and other basic necessities, it also denies them fundamental rights. Unauthorized immigrants are denied due process and access to the courts, which cannot enforce contracts between an “alien unlawfully present” and any other party. Immigrants also have unequal access to remedies for victims of crimes because they are fearful of calling the police when they are victimized by crime. People who “look” or “sound” like immigrants are subject to discriminatory document verification.
HRW found that since the law was implemented, employers have refused to pay their employees, landlords have refused to make critical repairs, and lawyers, judges, and court interpreters have threatened to report suspected unauthorized immigrants. Countless children have lost valuable time in school as parents have withdrawn them, or are simply afraid to drive them to school.
The law has also created an environment in which harassment, discrimination, and abuse are prevalent. Private individuals and businesses have taken it upon themselves to demand proof of legal status from people they suspect of being unlawfully present. One woman reported that a clerk at a major discount store told her she needed proof of U.S. citizenship to fill a prescription. HRW also reported that strangers make disparaging or abusive remarks in public, and that school children are being traumatized and bullied by their classmates.
Even commenting on the negative impact of the law is sufficient to raise the ire of some Alabamans. In the AFL-CIO report, Steve Dubrinski, the owner of Max’s Deli, explained how his business had been affected after he publicly expressed concerns about his business because his fully documented Latino workers may leave the state. Dubrinski received ugly hate-filled emails, and a local radio talk show host called on people to boycott his deli. Dozens of people posted negative online reviews claiming that people should not patronize Max’s because the workers are all “illegal.”
These stories are shocking and heartbreaking and they need to be told. Staunch supporters of the law may not care that HB 56 violates international human rights or that it engenders discrimination and harassment or that daily life is becoming exceedingly difficult for immigrants—these are the intended consequences of the law.
Americans who want a practical solution to our immigration problems understand that laws intended to make life miserable for certain persons are not the way to go. All Americans must also ask themselves whether HB 56 represents the best America has to offer or whether we can do better.
As Iowa Caucuses Approach, Signatories of Iowa Compact Hope to Reframe Immigration Debate
01 month ago
Exhausted by the base immigration rhetoric prevalent in the GOP presidential debate, a group of concerned Iowans is seeking to reframe the issue in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses next month. Last week, business, faith and city leaders in Iowa signed the Iowa Compact—a list of five principles meant to guide how people discuss immigration. Signatories of the compact, which is modeled after Utah and Indiana’s Compact, urged politicians “to stop playing politics on the issue” and said that state level fixes, like enforcement-only legislation, do “not address the root problem of immigration” but instead hurts economies and communities.
Similar to other compacts, the Iowa Compact includes five guiding principles: 1) Immigration is a federal issues; 2) Local law enforcement needs to focus on serious crimes and avoid policies with negative economic and humanitarian consequences; 3) Immigration policies should help families stay together: 4) Immigrants are beneficial to Iowa’s economy; and 5) Iowa needs to welcome immigrants.
And with the Republican primary caucuses less than a month away, Compact signatories hope GOP presidential candidates take notice. Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, believes “there has not been enough thoughtful discussion in the debates” thus far. The mayor of Perry, Iowa, Jay Pattee, agrees:
During the Republican presidential primary season, the rhetoric on immigration has reached a new low. This type of debate is not only extreme and divisive, but it serves as a distraction from a genuine policy debate.
Other signatories, like those in the business and law enforcement community, also want to send the message that Congress’s inability to reform our broken immigration system is hurting state economies and what’s worse, has given rise to enforcement-only immigration laws which put law enforcement officers at odds with communities.
According to Perry, Iowa’s police chief Dan Brickman, “the lack of federal action on immigration reform has put his officers in an awkward spot at a time when they can’t afford to take on additional responsibilities or alienate their residents.” Nearly 40% of Perry’s population is Hispanic.
Martha Willits, chief executive of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, said foreign-born workers are crucial to Iowa’s economy since, according to the group, the state’s primary population growth comes from minorities.
We know from our business partners that work force is a critical issue, particularly finding workers with the right skills … We want to keep foreign-born students who are trained at our universities and intern in our businesses. But we can’t because of our makeshift laws. We need comprehensive reform.
Other signatories include the CEO of Banker’s Trust, the oldest and largest independently owned bank in Iowa, and the Iowa Nursery and Landscape Association, who relies on immigrants for workers.
Hopefully, communities across the U.S. will realize that immigrants are vital to their state’s economic prosperity and enact policies that welcome them, like in Dayton, Ohio, rather than bash them in debates and drive them from the state through anti-immigrant legislation.
Federal Verification System Won’t Help Alabama Determine Legal Status Under New Law
01 month ago
While the devastating impacts of Alabama’s over-the-top immigration law, HB 56, continues to be felt by Alabamans, there have been a recent string of victories. In addition to a federal judge’s ruling this week temporarily blocking state agencies from denying mobile home registrations to immigrants who cannot prove legal status, the state’s Attorney General also recently issued a memo limiting the scope of the law. It is becoming more and more evident that enforcing HB 56 is not as clear cut as its proponents thought it would be.
Section 30 of the Alabama law makes it a felony for an “alien not lawfully present in the United States…[to] enter into or attempt to enter into a business transaction with the state” or a political subdivision.” From the beginning it’s been clear that state agencies are interpreting “business transaction” very broadly resulting in devastating consequences. For example, since HB 56 went into effect, there have been numerous stories of people in Alabama being denied government benefits and services—including water, gas, and sewer service—if they’re unable to prove their lawful status.
In response, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange recently issued new guidance to state agencies limiting the definition of business transaction and limiting the circumstances under which state agencies should check immigration status. Strange concluded that “‘business transaction’ includes professional licenses, such as a nursing license or a license to practice law. It does not embrace the provision of services that governmental entities may provide such as water, sewer, power, sanitation, food, and healthcare.” This is a very important development that will hopefully mean that state residents are not denied critical life-saving services.
However, under this new interpretation, local government agencies must still verify legal status in order to issue business and professional licenses and other services, and these agencies are complaining that enforcing the law is “almost impossible.”
They have been told they must verify applicants’ legal status using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, but the fact is that SAVE is not really set up to do that. SAVE is an electronic, fee-based system used to verify that a person has the immigration status his documents indicate or that the immigration information he has provided is accurate for government benefits and licensing agencies or other lawful purposes. SAVE is not a magical database that can provide a simple yes or no to the question of whether someone is legally present in the U.S.
Furthermore, state agencies must apply to use SAVE, but the federal government has not approved the vast majority of Alabama agencies for SAVE yet. The provisions of Alabama’s law may fall outside of what SAVE was intended for, and it remains unclear whether Alabama state agencies will be approved to use SAVE.
Some people have suggested that state agencies, and even private entities, use the E-Verify system to verify legal status. But E-Verify can only confirm work authorization, which is not the same as legal status. There are many people legally present in the U.S. that are not authorized to work here.
People keep hoping for a magic database that they can plug anyone’s name into and get a simple “legal” or “illegal” response. That database does not exist. Immigration is an incredibly complex issue, and Alabama is finding out that enforcing its new immigration law is not smooth sailing.
Photo wranger.
Federal Judge Blocks Yet Another Provision of Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
01 month ago
As if people needed more proof that Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, is bad for the state, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of yet another provision of the law this week. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson temporarily enjoined enforcement of Section 30 that, as applied, requires mobile home owners to provide proof of lawful status before renewing their registration. Judge Thompson’s ruling, in which he calls Alabama’s law “discriminatorily based,” is the latest in a series of blows to the harsh law—a law that even Alabama’s own attorney general and governor find problematic.
Judge Thompson ruled Monday that enforcement of Section 30—as applied to the requirement that individuals must prove legal status in order to renew mobile home registration—violates the Fair Housing Act. The case involved two unauthorized immigrants who sued Alabama because they could neither register their mobile homes in the state nor drive their unlicensed homes out of the state. According to Judge Thompson, Section 30 left these men—and their U.S. citizen children—“between a rock and a hard place.”
“They face civil and criminal liability for not paying their manufactured home tax, while simultaneously facing civil and criminal liability if they attempt to remove their homes from the state,” he wrote. “They can neither stay, nor can they go.”
In his ruling, Judge Thompson also commented that HB 56 is “discriminatorily based” given the difference in treatment of children in mixed-status homes and children in general. According to Judge Thompson, HB 56’s departs “from an established tradition in Alabama of assisting children regardless of their parents’ actions”—a difference he said is likely “driven by animus against Latinos.” Civil rights groups agree. The Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, and others lauded the judge’s ruling, which they say calls the law for what it is, “a race-based attack on Latinos and their ability to stay in their homes.”
In fact, a new report released by Human Rights Watch documents the widespread abuse or discrimination reported under the law. Alabama’s new law effectively “denies unauthorized immigrants and their families, including US citizen children, their basic rights, threatening their access to everyday necessities and equal protection of the law,” the report says.
Meanwhile, state leaders have been under fire from Alabama’s business community following the arrest of a visiting Mercedes executive and Honda employee under HB 56. In an about-face, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange recently sent a letter to state lawmakers recommending they repeal problematic sections of HB 56. And just last week, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley announced that he would revise the law following a complaint by the Birmingham Business Alliance (BBA), the state’s largest business organization.
Yet, despite overwhelming concern that HB 56 is hurting state—complaints from farmers, business groups, and the American Federation of Teachers, court rulings, and acknowledgements from conservative lawmakers that this law needs to be changed—there are still those, like state Sen. Scott Beason, the bill’s sponsor, who believe Alabama is “moving in (the) right direction.”
Clearly, the voices of those being hurt by Alabama’s immigration law may need to get even louder before people like state Sen. Beason wake up and notice the large enforcement elephant sitting in Alabama’s living room.
Photo by zimmytws.
Supreme Court to Weigh in on Injunctions Against Arizona SB 1070
01 month ago
Earlier today, the Supreme Court announced what many supporters and opponents of Arizona SB 1070 long expected: that the Justices will themselves have the final word on the validity of the injunctions entered shortly after the law was enacted last year. Technically, the question before the Justices is simply whether four of the law’s provisions should be temporarily blocked pending resolution of a larger legal challenge. In addition, the Court will not consider claims raised in a separate lawsuit by numerous immigrants’ and civil rights groups. But in the decision it ultimately issues, the Supreme Court may well provide broad guidance about what role, if any, local police may play in enforcing federal immigration law—which could in turn affect legal challenges to copycat laws in other states, such as Alabama.
How did the case get to the Supreme Court?
Soon after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, the federal government filed suit alleging its provisions conflicted with, and were thus “preempted” by, federal immigration law. A district judge in Phoenix entered a temporary injunction against four of the law’s provisions while permitting others to go into effect. A federal appeals court in San Francisco then upheld the injunction, causing Arizona to file a petition with the Supreme Court.
Which provisions of SB 1070 will the Supreme Court consider?
The Justices will evaluate the temporary injunctions against the following four provisions of SB 1070:
- Section 2(B), which requires local police officers to investigate the immigration status of any person they stop or detain whom they possess “reasonable suspicion” to believe is unlawfully present in the United States;
- Section 3, which makes it a crime under Arizona law for foreign nationals to fail to carry or apply for registration papers provided by the federal government;
- Section 5, which makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants to solicit, apply for, or perform work without federal employment authorization; and
- Section 6, which authorizes local police officers to arrest foreign nationals whom they have “probable cause” to believe have committed an offense making them deportable from the United States.
The Justices could vote to uphold or overturn the injunction against all, none, or some of the provisions.
When will the case be argued and decided?
The Supreme Court did not set a date for oral argument, though it will likely occur in March or April 2012. Regardless of when the case is argued, the decision, as always, is likely to come by the end of June 2012.
Why did Justice Kagan recuse herself from the case?
The order announcing the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case also stated that Justice Kagan recused herself from the matter. While no specific reason was given, it is fair to assume she took part in internal discussions about the suit—which was filed shortly after her nomination to the Supreme Court—during her previous stint as Solicitor General. To prevail, the United States will likely need votes not only from Justice Kennedy, who is often a “swing” vote in controversial cases, but from one of the other four Republican nominees (Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito).
What happens if there is a 4-4 tie?
If the Justices split 4-4, the ruling of the Ninth Circuit would automatically be upheld—but would not create “precedent” or otherwise be binding on lower courts. As a result, the status quo would stay in place unless and until the Justices considered a separate challenge. However, if Justice Kennedy and the Court’s remaining Democratic nominees were to rule against Arizona, it would strongly suggest the federal government would win a case argued before all nine Justices.
If Arizona wins, will states have a “green light” to enact copycat laws?
Certainly not. At present, the Supreme Court is only considering whether the four provisions of SB 1070 should be temporarily blocked while the underlying legal challenge is resolved. In addition, the suit brought by the federal government involves a much narrower set of issues than a companion case brought by a coalition of immigrants’ rights groups. Finally, even if the Supreme Court finds the injunctions were not required against the law as written, it would not prevent future suits from challenging how the law is actually implemented.