Border Enforcement
Beyond A Border Solution
- Asylum
- May 3, 2023
America needs durable solutions. These concrete measures can bring orderliness to our border and modernize our overwhelmed asylum system. Read…
Read More
Win, Lose or….Draw? The Supreme Court Tackles Arizona’s Employer Sanctions Law
Those following the Obama Administration’s legal challenge to Arizona’s SB 1070 have likely heard about “preemption”—the legal concept governing when state laws conflict with, and are therefore superseded by, acts of Congress. The heart of the dispute over SB 1070 is whether states have a right to provide assistance that the federal government does not want. No one knows if or how the Supreme Court will ultimately answer that question. But a number of hints may emerge when the Justices issue a ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, a case testing the legality of a different law known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act. Passed in 2007, the act imposed new requirements to prevent employers from hiring unauthorized workers, as well as harsh consequences for doing so. While the Justices’ questions during Wednesday’s oral argument offered reason for hope among immigrants’ rights advocates on one part of the law, they left the fate of the other unresolved. Read More
Where’s the Valor? DHS Uses Discretion to Deport, Rather than Assist, Foreign-Born
Ever since DHS announced that it had removed more people from the United States than ever before—a record-breaking 392,862—in October, it has relied on that number as a defense from attacks that the Administration isn’t tough on immigration enforcement. Today, however, the Washington Post suggests that ICE may have gone to extraordinary means to reach that goal by relying on increased offers of “voluntary return”—that is, voluntary departure from the U.S. without an immigration order. The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Andrew Becker reported that ICE loosened the restrictions for who could be offered voluntary return rather than appearing before an immigration judge: Read More
Will Local Lawmakers Take the Immigration Enforcement Bait?
As local lawmakers begin to lay the groundwork for next year’s legislative agenda, some are attempting to prioritize immigration enforcement ahead of efforts to jump-start flagging economies. In Oklahoma, for example, an internal storm is brewing between a House Republican and the Speaker-elect about where the party’s “social agenda” (read: immigration enforcement) fits on the legislative priority list. Similar battles over whether to pursue Arizona-esque immigration enforcement legislation are abound in Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and California. While the actual enforcement legislation may differ from state to state, legislators are weighing the same questions—cost of implementation, lengthy court battles, divisiveness, public safety concerns and economic priorities. The question remains, however, given the federal challenge to Arizona’s SB1070 and economic loss due to boycotts, whether other state legislators will take the immigration enforcement bait? Read More
New Report Estimates Economic Loss Due to Arizona Boycott
Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, is proving to be a costly mistake. That is the message of a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) which estimates some of “the economic and fiscal consequences of the tourism boycott that occurred in response to the passage of S.B. 1070” in April of this year. More precisely, the report quantifies “the effects of lost tourism from meetings and conventions” that were cancelled as a result of the boycott. The report, entitled Stop the Conference, concludes that the cancellation of conventions alone “has produced or will produce hundreds of millions of dollars in lost direct spending in the state and diminished economic output. That, in turn, will lead to thousands of lost jobs and more than $100 million in lost salaries.” Read More
Mormon Church, Business Leaders Endorse Utah Compact for Immigration Reform
Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s argument that there is “popular support for Arizona’s controversial legislation [SB 1070]” just got a little thinner. A number of state and local governments, corporations, businesses, community and faith groups recently signed the Utah Compact—a declaration of five principles created “to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.” The guidelines are a far cry from Rep. Sandstrom Arizona-like bill (the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act), a bill which would require Utah police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is undocumented. The broad support for the compact, which includes groups as large as the Mormon Church, already has some people writing the obituary for Sandstrom’s bill. While Sandstrom isn’t ready to back down yet, the bigger question is whether Utah lawmakers will listen to such a wide and growing demand for a federal immigration overhaul. Read More
Enforcing Your Way into the Red: Hazleton Could Learn an Expensive Immigration Lesson
Yet another locality learned the financial perils of passing an anti-immigrant law. Last Friday, a panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision to require the City of Hazelton, PA, to pay $2.4 million in legal fees to the Plaintiffs instead of their insurance carrier. The Plaintiffs (Pedro Lozano, Casa Dominicana of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition) accumulated legal fees when they challenged the constitutionality of the Hazleton law—a law which would have fined landlords renting to undocumented immigrants, denied businesses permits if they employed undocumented immigrants, and had the town investigate the legal status of an employee or tenant upon request of any citizen, business, or organization. Read More
Sanctuary Cities and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program: Two Things that Do Not Go Together
The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a report entitled Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which claims the federal government is giving State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant money to “sanctuary” cities. The problem with this argument is that the very fact these cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Arlington, VA) are receiving SCAAP money means that they are not providing sanctuary to immigrants. SCAAP money goes to localities to reimburse them for the costs of jailing immigrants. Read More
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce Continues Immigration Crusade Despite Budget Crisis
A cog in the wheel of local enforcement legislation, Arizona state Senator and now Senate President-elect, Russell Pearce, predictably said he will continue his immigration crusade to repeal part of the 14th Amendment despite the looming state budget crisis. A recent article points out that Pearce, in the throes of last minute campaigning, pledged that he would make boosting Arizona’s flailing economy his number one priority instead of pushing yet another immigration bill. Not surprisingly, however, Pearce told reporters today that “he never promised the 14th Amendment bills wouldn’t be heard, only that he wouldn’t sponsor it.” Sound fishy? That’s because it is. Sponsor of Arizona’s controversial enforcement law SB1070, Pearce has a history of not only prioritizing immigration enforcement legislation, but accepting campaign contributions from the prison lobby who helped write it. Read More
Will the Fate of Arizona’s SB 1070 Hinge on the Law that Created the 287(g) Program?
It’s not every day that federal officials cite Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as a limit on—rather than an expansion of—the authority of local police to assist in immigration enforcement. But a veteran Justice Department attorney made just that point during arguments in a federal appeals court yesterday while defending an injunction against Arizona’s SB 1070. Read More
Finally, an Immigration Bill that Embraces Racial Profiling!
Florida State Representative William Snyder, a former police officer from Miami, drafted his own version of Arizona’s SB 1070 for the state—a bill has the potential to be even more offensive. The bill mimics SB 1070—allowing officers to stop persons based on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are undocumented in order to check their immigration status. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Rep. Synder’s bill actually goes a step further by providing a caveat that the person stopped will be presumed legal if they have a Canadian passport or a passport from a country which participates in our visa waiver program—the majority of which are Western European countries. Naturally, this caveat has groups enraged over the potential for racial profiling. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
