States inspired by
Arizona illegal-immigration law face tough fiscal realities
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
January 29, 2011; 12:00 AM - Washington Post
As state legislatures convene this month, lawmakers across the country who
had vowed to copy Arizona's strict measure cracking down on illegal immigrants are
facing a new reality.
State budget deficits, coupled with the political backlash triggered by
Arizona's law and potentially expensive legal challenges from the federal government, have made passage of such statutes uncertain.
In the nine months since the Arizona measure was signed into law, a number of similar bills have stalled or died or
are being reworked. Some have faced resistance from law enforcement officials
who question how states or communities could afford the added cost of enforcing
the laws.
And some state legislators have backed away from the most controversial parts
of the Arizona law, which have been challenged in court by the federal
government and others. A federal judge has put on hold some of its provisions,
including those that would allow police to check immigration status if they stop
someone while enforcing other laws, allow for warrantless arrests of suspected
illegal immigrants and criminalize the failure of immigrants to carry
registration papers. The case is awaiting a ruling before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
"Obviously most places were not going to pass Arizona bills," said Mark
Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which
advocates tighter immigration laws. "There's always an initial flush of
enthusiasm and then the reality of politics sets in. . . . These states are
bankrupt - they need to decide what battles they want to fight."
But Krikorian also said that the Arizona bill has "done what it was supposed
to do" by creating a national discussion on immigration reform in the absence of
federal legislation.
"I won't be surprised to see more state task forces looking more fully at
this issue," said Ann Morse, program director with the Immigrant Policy Project
at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The interest level is still
there, but states are looking at the implications."
Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, Nebraska, Kentucky, Utah,
Pennsylvania, Texas and South Carolina are among the states where Arizona
copycat bills have been drafted.
In Florida, an Arizona-style bill that appeared headed for passage a few
months ago appears to be on life support. Even its primary Senate sponsor has
expressed concern that the provision allowing police to check a person's
immigration status during a traffic stop could amount to racial profiling.
In Utah, a state dominated by conservative Republicans, a couple of bills
similar to Arizona's statute are in the legislative pipeline. But in November,
state leaders from business, law enforcement, education and the Mormon Church
urged moderation - and with some success. They drew up the "Utah Compact," which
declares immigration a federal issue and urges legislators to focus resources on
local crime.
Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinkley Institute of Politics at the University
of Utah, said the compact already "has had a big impact on a number of
legislators. . . . Some aren't backing down, but there are other bills floating
around that are far more moderate."
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which
supports tougher immigration restrictions, said states will probably bite off
the small pieces of the Arizona bill that fit their constituencies.
"There is tremendous interest . . . in emulating portions of the Arizona
model," he said. "But no one size fits all."
One area in which many states are finding consensus is with "E-Verify"
legislation, which requires businesses to use an Internet-based system to check
the legal status of prospective employees.
But when it comes to more restrictive laws, there is less agreement.
In Texas, business leaders have publicly expressed concern that the more than
three dozen strict immigration bills before the legislature will discourage
business development. Among them is a measure that would allow public elementary
schools to demand proof of citizenship from children.
In Mississippi, the Republican-controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled
House are headed for a showdown over provisions in their two bills. The Senate
passed an Arizona-style bill this month, but the House version deletes a
provision that would allow citizens to sue law enforcement officials who fail to
enforce restrictions.
Law enforcement officials there have questioned how practically they would be
able to uphold all the provisions of the measure, which would require local
police to become much more involved with the federal government in enforcing
immigration laws.
"Many states are facing dire fiscal situations, trying to solve state budgets
and create jobs," said Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the
American Civil Liberties Union, which sees the Arizona law and others like it as
unfair and unconstitutional. "Enforcing a restrictive immigration measure is
expensive."
South Carolina might be on the fastest track, buoyed by new Republican Gov.
Nikki Haley, who has said she is committed to cracking down on illegal
immigrants. Among the four bills being circulated is one that, as in Arizona's
measure, would require immigrants to carry immigration documents with them at
all times. Police could demand the documents during traffic stops.
Legislative leaders in South Carolina are being pressed to explain how the
state will come up with the resources to pay for enforcement, but advocates say
they are determined to push for new laws.
"Illegals are ruining our state. They take away our resources," said local
activist Roan Garcia-Quintana, a Cuban American and executive director of the
Americans Have Had Enough Coalition. "We don't care what other states do."
Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, considered
the nation's toughest anti-illegal-immigration measure, was signed into law in
April. It sparked street protests, ignited a national debate over immigration
issues and triggered a legal challenge from the Obama administration's Justice Department, which is arguing that federal law should
preempt state immigration laws.
The controversy has also cost Arizona, which has seen conventions
canceled and overall tourism decline. One study, by the liberal-leaning Center
for American Progress, reported that boycotts could end up costing Arizona
upwards of $250 million in tax revenue, wages and visitor expenditures, a figure
some state and business leaders have disputed as high.
Virtually every state is considering some form of legislation affecting
immigration, and last year state legislatures enacted an unprecedented number of
immigration laws and resolutions, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures. In some cases, lawmakers are advocating legislation that includes
a path to citizenship and amnesty provisions for those already here, while
conservatives favor more restrictive policies, including deportation.
There could be a political downside to enacting tougher laws headed into the
2012 presidential election.
At a recent conference organized by the new Hispanic Leadership Network,
former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), who has criticized the Arizona law, noted
the importance of Latino voters.
"Hispanics will be the swing voters as they are today in the swing states." Bush said.
"If you want to elect a center-right president of the United States, it seems to
me you should be concerned about places like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada,
Florida, Texas, places where but for the Hispanic vote, elections are won and
lost."