State and Local
Why Some States Considering Immigration Legislation Might Be Jumping Off the Arizona Bandwagon
Following the district court’s ruling enjoining the most controversial provisions of SB 1070 last week, some states are now deciding whether or not to move forward with their own version of Arizona’s immigration legislation—or are at least considering dumping the Arizona-style provisions that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton temporarily halted. Currently, 22 states have introduced or are considering introducing similar legislation. State legislators are citing fear of costly lawsuits and a charged political environment in which restrictive immigration legislation might not pass as factors in their decision. The city of Fremont, Nebraska, for example, recently halted the enforcement of its enforcement legislation (which prohibits the hiring of or renting to undocumented immigrants) in the face of legal challenges from civil rights groups. Read More
Judge’s Decision Doesn’t Stop Arizona from Combating Border Violence
Yesterday, Phoenix district court Judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities. The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals. Read More
Arizona Judge Delineates Between State and Federal Authority
Washington, D.C. – Today, Phoenix district court judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal… Read More
Enforcing Arizona’s SB 1070: A State of Confusion
Arizona and the federal government await a decision from a Phoenix district judge on whether enforcement of SB 1070 will move forward on July 29th, or whether all or some parts of the law will be enjoined. Meanwhile, local law enforcement is struggling to interpret SB 1070 and provide training to officers, which could be further complicated if the judge allows only some parts of the law to go forward. In this new report released today by the Immigration Policy Center, journalist Jeffrey Kaye reveals that "instead of 'statewide and uniform practices' as directed by the governor, Arizona police agencies have developed a patchwork of guidelines based on varying interpretations of the law." Kaye's reporting includes interviews with police officials, who cite concerns with implementing the new law, and a review of training materials that suggest the implementation of SB 1070 will differ from one jurisdiction to another, and even within police agencies, and "will be burdensome, costly, and distort priorities." Read More
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we've started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead. Read More
The Impact of SB 1070: Usurping the Federal Government’s Ability to Set Enforcement Priorities
What proponents of laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 fail to understand is that state and local enforcement of immigration law actually jeopardizes the federal government’s ability to set priorities for immigration enforcement. SB 1070 would divert scarce federal resources away from finding dangerous criminals throughout the United States, focusing instead on detaining and deporting non-violent immigrants in one state: Arizona. Read More
J.D. Hayworth Challenges Administration on Immigration Enforcement Just Weeks Before National Guard Deploys to Border
Over the weekend, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth challenged the Obama Administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement—just weeks before the Administration is set to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico Border. On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that the National Guard will begin deployment on August 1, with more than 500 soldiers going to Arizona and the rest to New Mexico, California and Texas. The President has also requested that Congress appropriate $600 million in supplemental funds for “enhanced border protection and law-enforcement activities.” Read More
A Closer Look at the Seven Lawsuits Challenging Arizona Law S.B. 1070
Almost immediately after Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070 into law, lawsuits were filed in federal court in Arizona challenging the law. The lawsuits all seek the same result—a halt to the law’s enforcement—although each suit argues different grounds. Some suits cite civil liberty violations, racial profiling and unlawful regulation of federal immigration law, while another suit states that the police training videos exacerbate conflicts between federal and state law. As July 29, 2010, the date S.B. 1070 is set to go into effect, draws near, litigants and supporters on both sides of the lawsuits are seeking swift resolutions. Ultimately though, the timing of any resolution will depend on the court. Read More
The List: A Modern Day Witch Hunt in Utah
It’s the stuff of fiction. A vigilante group with a vaguely patriotic name creates a list with the help of someone—perhaps a disgruntled government-employee/mole—who is fed up with the system (think Michael Douglas in Falling Down). The list contains the names, social security numbers and other private information of hundreds of people whom the vigilantes deem “undesirable.” The list even identifies pregnant women and their due dates and recommends that they be first on the list for “elimination.” The list is delivered to a wide range of government, law enforcement and media groups, accompanied by a letter insisting action be taken to remove the undesirables. Read More
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration. Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
