Interior Enforcement
E-Verify: Burdens Businesses and Displaces U.S. Workers
Washington D.C. – Today, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its second hearing of the new session. Ironically, the hearing was titled “E-Verify – Preserving Jobs for American Workers.” Some members of Congress persist in their belief that expanding E-Verify and making it mandatory is a magic-bullet solution to our immigration… Read More
Study Shows 287(g) Program Fails to Prioritize Serious Criminals
This week the Migration Policy Institute released a new study on ICE’s 287(g) program, Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement. The study, which assesses the implementation, enforcement outcomes, costs, community impacts of the program generally, and provides an in-depth study in seven jurisdictions: Cobb County, GA; Frederick County, MD; Gwinnett County, GA; Los Angeles County, CA; Prince William County, VA; Las Vegas, NV; and the state of Colorado, found that 287(g) program is not living up to its promise. In fact, the study finds that ICE’s allows jurisdictions to “operate the 287(g) program in fundamentally different ways across the country.” Read More
How Expanding E-Verify Hurts the Economy and American Workers
By Tyler Moran, National Immigration law Center. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report, Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain. GAO’s verdict on E-Verify (a program to verify the employment eligibility of new hires) is in: this program is not yet ready for prime time. According to GAO, risks posed by mandatory E-Verify range from encouraging employers to skirt the rules to job losses for native born and immigrant work-authorized people alike. Policymakers who want to roll out this flawed program as quickly as possible should heed the report’s warning that “significant challenges remain” with E-Verify. 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1070 have likely heard about “preemption”—the legal concept governing when state laws conflict with, and are therefore superseded by, acts of Congress.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
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
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
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Finds 287(g) Program Still Riddled with Flaws
DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently released an updated report on the Performance of 287(g) Agreements which provides the same dreary account of the program as the first one. The April 2010 OIG report found that ICE and its local law enforcement partners have not complied with the terms of their 287(g) Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), that the standards by which deputized officers are evaluated are not in line with the stated objectives of the 287(g) program, that the program is poorly supervised by ICE, and that additional oversight is necessary. It included 33 recommendations to improve the program, 28 of which, the new report finds, still remain open. Read More
Another Lawsuit Against Arizona’s SB1070 Moves Forward
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied motions by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu last week to dismiss a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against Arizona law SB 1070. Counsel for the plaintiffs, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center, alleges that SB 1070 unlawfully attempts to regulate immigration and would result in widespread racial profiling. The lawsuit is one of seven originally filed against SB 1070. Read More
Utah Leaders Balk at Arizona-esque Immigration Enforcement Bill
With midterm election campaigning well underway, some local candidates are lifting up state and local immigration enforcement legislation as a means to garner public support. Unfortunately, as is often the case when politics meets reality, not everyone is on board with local enforcement laws like Arizona’s SB1070—key provisions of which were enjoined by a federal district judge in late July. Over the last few months, state leaders in Ohio, Idaho, Nebraska and Houston have either heavily edited or voted not to pursue state immigration measures, citing costly lawsuits, court battles and the dubious constitutionality of such laws. This month, state leaders in Utah are also balking at an immigration measure modeled on the controversial Arizona law. Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar up to $75,000
No one should face the immigration system alone
