State and Local
What the Show Me State Shows Us About Immigration
According to data released by the Immigration Policy Center, there are approximately 6,500 young people in Missouri who may benefit from President Obama’s plan to grant deferred action to DREAM eligible youth. This isn’t a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, as Missouri ranks 31st in the country with respect to the number of youth eligible for this new program. And because these numbers roughly parallel distribution of undocumented people around the country, if you are going solely by the numbers, Missouri shouldn’t be a big player in the debate over immigration, especially unauthorized immigration. But the numbers don’t tell the full story when it comes to the importance of the issue to the people of a state, and the importance of a state to the way the immigration debate plays out nationally. Looking at it from other perspectives, Missouri matters a lot. Read More
Lieutenant Governor Makes Plea for Maryland DREAM Act
At the end of its 2011 legislative session, Maryland lawmakers passed a bill that would allow certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates at Maryland community colleges, joining 12 other states with similar laws. Now, however, opponents of the law have gathered enough signatures to suspend the law and force a referendum come November. Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, an advocate for affordable higher education, responded with a plea to voters to consider the contributions of these students and the value of education for all Maryland residents. Meanwhile, lawmakers in other states like Ohio and New Jersey are considering legislation that makes higher education more affordable to all its residents. Read More
New Injunction Sought in Challenge to Arizona SB 1070
Late Tuesday night, opponents of Arizona SB 1070 filed new papers in court seeking to block Section 2(B) from taking effect, arguing that state legislators were driven by anti-Latino bias and that the provision will inevitably result in constitutional violations. The motion, filed by civil rights groups, cited numerous previously undisclosed emails from former State Sen. Russell Pearce, the main sponsor of SB 1070, containing inflammatory comments about Mexico and unauthorized immigrants. The filing, submitted in federal district court in Phoenix, also sought an injunction against a separate provision of SB 1070 that attorneys argue is invalid under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States. Read More
Voter ID Laws Tackle Non-Existent Problem of Immigrant Vote Fraud
It is election season and voter-fraud hysteria is in the air. A raft of restrictive voter ID legislation from coast to coast is aimed primarily at one imaginary problem: fraudulent voting by immigrants who are not U.S. citizens. Supporters of these laws like to pretend that hordes of non-citizens are stampeding into voting booths and illegally changing the outcome of critical elections. But the reality is that voter ID laws have little to do with the exceedingly rare occurrence of illegal voting by immigrants, or any other kind of voter fraud. These are laws designed to disenfranchise racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and other social groups that might be inclined to vote for the “wrong” candidates. In other words, voter ID laws are meant to limit democracy, not protect it. Read More
Some States Attempt to Move Forward on Immigration Laws Following Supreme Court Decision
Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Arizona SB 1070, other states that passed immigration laws were also embroiled in complicated legal battles. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah all passed restrictive immigration laws, parts of which were challenged in court and subsequently enjoined pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, however, each state is now attempting to interpret that ruling in an effort to implement its immigration law. Read More
Civil Rights Groups Resume Legal Challenges to Alabama’s Immigration Law
Less than three weeks after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Arizona v. United States—which struck down three provisions of SB 1070 and invited future challenges to a fourth—civil rights groups are back in court resuming their challenges to copycat laws in other states. Going forward, the lawsuits will focus more on how to interpret the Justices’ decision and less on theoretical legal questions about states’ rights. While the cases in Alabama and other states may take years to resolve, it is already clear that parts of the laws will be immediately struck down. Read More
In California, TRUST Act One Step Closer to Becoming Law
The California state Senate overwhelmingly approved the TRUST Act on Thursday, marking a significant step for a piece of legislation aimed at limiting the humanitarian impact of the Secure Communities program. The bill must still pass the state Assembly and be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown to become law, but its success thus far represents an important victory for the immigrants rights movement and has positioned California as the “anti-Arizona” among states frustrated with Washington’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Read More
According to Scott Beason, Alabamans Will Return to “Menial Jobs” Over Time
Alabama State Senator Scott Beason continues to link the state’s recent dip in unemployment to its extreme immigration law (HB 56), even though there is no evidence to support that this theory. In fact, many Alabama business have reported difficulties in replacing immigrant workers, many of whom have left the state or gone further underground. But in a recent effort to address this reported labor shortage, Sen. Beason—a sponsor of HB 56—managed to insult both immigrants and native Alabamans alike. Read More
In Arizona Case, Supreme Court Affirms Legality of Prosecutorial Discretion
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the restrictionist movement on Monday by striking down three provisions of Arizona SB 1070 and leaving a fourth vulnerable to future challenge. But in a lesser noticed development, the Court also undercut the arguments of critics who contend the President violated the Constitution by recently directing his administration not to deport otherwise removable immigrants who were brought to the country as children. As the majority opinion confirmed—and not even Justice Scalia denied—the President’s authority to set enforcement priorities is a valid and important aspect of the immigration system. Read More
DHS Rescinds Part of Controversial 287(g) Program in Arizona
The Obama administration suspended part of its controversial 287(g) program in Arizona this week following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States. DHS announced that it was ending its “287(g) task force agreements” in Arizona —agreements which deputize certain local police to enforce immigration laws. Other state immigration programs, however, like Secure Communities and the 287(g) jail agreements (which allow deputized arresting officers to enforce immigration laws in jails), will remain in effect. Read More
America's story is an immigrant story.
