Legislation
Utah Governor Signs Series of Controversial Immigration Bills
Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a package of controversial immigration bills today in the Utah's state capitol. The measures include a series of immigration bills passed by Utah’s legislature last week, including HB 497 (a revised SB1070-inspired immigration-enforcement bill), HB 116 (which creates a guest worker program through federal waivers) and HB 466 (which sets up a temporary worker pilot program with Mexico). While many have applauded Utah’s efforts to look beyond the narrow scope of enforcement-only measures to a more sensible immigration debate, the same people question the constitutionality of these measures—including the state’s own Attorney General. Read More
States Legislators Attempt to Reframe Enforcement-Only Approach to Immigration
Heading into legislative sessions this year, many state lawmakers seemed to be on a collision course with enforcement-only immigration proposals. This week, however, legislators in Utah at least attempted to look beyond the narrow scope of enforcement to proposals that aimed at a more balanced immigration debate. States like Nebraska and Kentucky also attempted to reframe the debate this week by stalling or rejecting enforcement-only measures while groups in other states—Kansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida—continued to blow the whistle on restrictive measures that neither solve our immigration problems nor help the state economy. Read More
House Subcommittee Tries to Propagate Myth that Immigrants Steal Jobs
Today’s House Subcommittee hearing on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, clumsily entitled “New Jobs in Recession and Recovery: Who Are Getting Them and Who Are Not,” was clearly intended to sow fear. In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly (R-24th/CA) wasted no time in sounding the alarm that unemployed native-born workers are being left to twist in the wind as immigrants gobble up the few new jobs which have become available since the end of the Great Recession. Yet the preponderance of the evidence presented during the hearing failed to support that conclusion. Read More
Police Forum Recommends Limitations on Investigating Immigration Status
The role of local police in immigration enforcement continues to be a complex policy and legislative issue at both the state and federal level. State legislatures, for example, are contemplating bills designed to increase the role of local police in immigration enforcement while federal legislation targets cities with so-called “sanctuary policies.” And as programs like 287(g), Secure Communities and other federal/local partnerships continue to expand, local police are now more involved in identifying undocumented immigrants than ever before. Many law enforcement officers, however, find that enforcing federal immigration law may interfere with their ability to prevent crime and keep neighborhoods safe, so they have designed tailored local policies to ensure that they maintain the best possible relationship with their communities. In a new report by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), local police speak out on the difficulties of enforcing immigration laws and talk about best practices for navigating immigration issues in the future. Read More
Is Utah’s “Immigration Solution” All It’s Cracked Up To Be?
Late Friday night, the Utah Legislature passed three immigration-related bills that now go to the Governor for his signature or veto in the coming week. While some may be quick to celebrate Utah’s unique approach to immigration, others are left wondering whether these bills are all they’re cracked up to be. The first measure (HB 497) is an SB1070-inspired immigration enforcement bill that would go into effect in early May if signed by the Governor. It presents many of the same concerns people had about Arizona’s SB1070—that it would allow local police to enforce federal immigration laws to the detriment of public safety, rack up high implementation costs, threaten racial profiling, and damage the state’s reputation. Read More
States Playing with Enforcement-Only Fire Likely to Get Burned
The steady drumbeat of protest continued this week in states considering restrictive immigration measures. Indiana, for example, got a taste of forthcoming economic backlash when two organizations threatened to pull conventions from the state if enforcement legislation passed—a costly lesson Arizona knows well. Legislators in other states considering similar measures—Nebraska, Michigan, Arizona and Alabama—also heard from concerned members of the community this week who fear the economic and social damage these measures will cause in their state. Although playing with enforcement-only immigration measures might have helped some of these state lawmakers light up their political careers, taxpayers are starting to realize that they're ultimately going to get burned. Read More
Why Cutting Immigrant Integration Programs Hurts All of Us
Among the many spending cuts recently passed by the House was funding for the Office of Citizenship’s immigrant integration programs. The importance of these programs, however, cannot be overstated. Immigrants who integrate into U.S. society go on to become innovators, entrepreneurs and future job-creators. Although a new study released today by the British Council, Migration Policy Group and Immigration Policy Center ranks the U.S. nine among 31 countries in promoting full integration of legal residents (a relatively good score), cutting these programs can only hurt us in the long run. As the Senate prepares to take up the Continuing Resolution, restoring $11 million to the budget of the Office of Citizenship should be a no brainer given that this relatively small investment in the potential of aspiring Americans can pay huge dividends for the United States. Read More
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
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
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
