State and Local
Will State Legislators Continue to Pull the Plug on Restrictive Immigration Measures?
While some state lawmakers continue to tango with restrictive immigration bills this week, others pulled the plug on measures they worried were too costly or politically risky. Lawmakers in Arkansas, New Mexico and Nebraska voted down (or anticipated the failure of) measures that would restrict access to preventative medical care, tuition equity and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Others, however, in Michigan, Georgia, Indiana and Arizona continued attempts to move costly enforcement laws. But a trend emerged from the states this week, a trend that has been brewing over the last few months—lawmakers are tired of the restrictionist status quo. They—like the folks in Texas, Michigan and Utah this week—want real solutions to our immigration problems that won’t financially or morally bankrupt their state. Read More
State Compacts Reframe Approach to Immigration, But Will Legislators Listen?
Rather than allow immigration restrictionists to define how their state deals with immigration, business leaders, elected officials, community activists and faith groups in Utah and Indiana have taken an important step in reframing their state's approach by signing “state compacts”—declarations of principles to guide the state’s immigration discussion. And they’re not the only folks standing up to costly state enforcement legislation. Some progressive legislators are proposing their own immigration measures which add much needed revenue to the state’s economy. Sadly, legislators like Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom are ignoring these efforts and are instead moving forward with harsh, anti-immigrant legislation in an attempt to look tough and grab headlines. Read More
Businesses Fear Restrictive Immigration Measures Will Drive Jobs to Other States
As Arizona-style enforcement legislation continues to work its way through state legislatures, local business and industry groups are beginning to realize just how much these laws will affect the way they do business. They fear the racial profiling often associated with laws targeting undocumented immigrants will create an unwelcoming environment in their state, limiting their ability to attract new business and potential workers. With many states facing severe budget deficits this year, business leaders across the U.S. are asking their legislators if their state can really afford to drive new business and jobs to neighboring, friendlier states. Read More
Some States “Just Say No” to Harmful Immigration Enforcement Laws
If Arizona had its own television show, the warning “don’t try this at home” would appear after every commercial break. (Cut to tumbleweeds and Arizona businesses pulling their pockets inside out) This week, some states—like Virginia, South Dakota and New Hampshire—actually heeded that warning and rejected a host of enforcement measures targeting undocumented immigrants. States like Oregon, Colorado and Maryland are even introducing progressive, common sense immigration proposals that benefit their state. That is, of course, not to say that other states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas and Arizona aren’t still pursing harmful enforcement legislation, but they do so in full light of the social and economic consequences—consequences for which Arizona and other states are still paying. Read More
Progressive Immigration Measures Pick Up Steam at the State Level
By SUMAN RAGHUNATHAN, PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK As the list of state business leaders, law enforcement, and conservative lawmakers who realize that anti-immigrant efforts are costly, misguided, and destructive to state economies continues to grow, a number of state elected officials are putting their weight behind progressive, solutions-based approaches to immigration policy. A group of progressive state elected officials affiliated with Progressive States Network—State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, with members in 34 states and counting—have been at the forefront of advancing pragmatic and progressive state approaches to immigration which expand opportunities for all residents, both immigrant and native-born, while strengthening communities and state economies. Read More
What’s in Your Wallet? Fiscal Notes Give States Pause Over Enforcement Laws
As states continue to crowd the immigration enforcement debate with rhetoric and white noise, other states are getting down to brass tacks. On Monday, Utah’s Legislative Fiscal Analysts office hung an $11 million price tag around HB 70, Utah’s immigration law requiring local law enforcement to check the citizenship status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. That’s a steep price to pay for a law Arizona has already proven will cost your state jobs, legal fees and tourism revenue. Kentucky also recently crunched the numbers and found their SB1070-style law (SB 6) would cost the Bluegrass state a whopping $40 million per year. As many states face budget deficits in 2011, lawmakers might be asking their constituents the same question as those Capitol One commercials, “What’s in your wallet?” Read More
Some States Applying Brakes to Legislation Denying Citizenship to U.S.-Born Children
Yesterday, a panel in South Dakota’s legislature voted to halt legislation aimed at denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. South Dakota’s bill—and others like it—propose measures which challenge the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that, with very few exceptions, all persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. While conservative lawmakers continue to introduce bills challenging the birthright citizenship clause, other states—like Arizona and Montana—are joining South Dakota's lead in deciding whether to move these bills forward. Read More
The Rally Against State Immigration Legislation Continues
A Washington Post article this week highlighted what many state business groups, law enforcement officers and concerned legislatures have been cautioning for months—at a time of economic uncertainty, states simply cannot afford the costly legal battles and political backlash caused by Arizona-style immigration legislation. Over the past month, SB1070 copycat bills in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, have been met with considerable hesitation and criticism from constituents worried about the social and economic impact on their state. Some states, like Mississippi and Wyoming, have even rejected initial versions of copycat bills due to high costs. But as other states consider enforcement legislation (California joined the fray this week, as did Georgia’s state Senate), those worried about how enforcement legislation will cost their state feel they can no longer afford to be quiet. Read More
States Contemplating Enforcement Legislation Continue to Walk the Line
From Arizona to Florida, SB1070-style immigration legislation continues to rear its ugly head—as do a string of other restrictive immigration bills. Also on the rise, however, are the voices of opposition who continue to decry this legislation as bad for local businesses, a threat to community safety and a burden on state economies. This week, legislatures in Georgia, South Dakota and Tennessee introduced or contemplated Arizona-style legislation, while states like Virginia and Mississippi considered a wide range of restrictive immigration bills—not, however, without grave objections from members of the community whose lives and livelihoods stand to be harmed by these restrictive immigration laws. Read More
A One-Man Wrecking Crew: New Report Details the Costly Career of Kris Kobach
It is hardly surprising that the newly elected Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, ran an election campaign which featured the baseless claim that “the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive” in the state. As a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes in detail, Kobach has built a long and varied career out of attacking immigrants; first in the Bush Administration, targeting legal immigrants from Muslim and Arab countries, and later as the architect of city ordinances and state laws targeting unauthorized, mostly Latino immigrants. Yet, while Kobach’s anti-immigrant initiatives have served to advance him politically and financially, virtually all of them have ended up being costly failures for which taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
