by Salome Eguizabal
States have passed more than twice as many immigration-related bills already this year than in the first six months of 2006, according to a report released AU9.6.
The report, by The National Conference of 5State Legislatures, shows that 170 immigration bills in 41 states were enacted as of July 21 2007. This contrasts with 64 through June 2006.
In addition, the number of immigration-related bills introduced at the state level has also more than doubledwithin the same time frame. Between Jan. 1 and July 2, 1404 bills were introduced across all 50 states compared to 570 in the same period.
Experts attribute the increase in state bills to the failure of the federal government to pass an immigration bill.
Pro-immigrant activists also claim that most of these bills, prevalent not just at the state level but locally, cause harm to immigrants and to the Hispanic community.
“The failure of the federal government to enact immigration reform has given a green light to those who are hateful and in the position to maneuver government to enact anti-immigrant legislature,” said Walter Tejada, Arlington County Board vice chair in Virginia, during an Aug. 6 immigration discussion at the Center for American Progress.
An analysis by the National Immigration Forum states, “As more and more states and communities consider punitive immigration proposals, the line between anti-illegal-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiments is sometimes blurred.”
Many of the new laws listed in the report intend to curb the presence of undocumented immigrants.
The most common examples included verifying employment eligibility, limiting public benefits to lawful residents, denying driver’s licenses to undocumented people and state and local enforcement of immigration laws.
In terms of policy area addressed, the most common bills enacted covered identification and driver’s licenses (35 in 26 states), employment (26 in 19 states), public benefits (15 in 39 states) and human trafficking (15 in 29 states). There were also 38 resolutions passed in 14 states.
Not all measures enacted were punitive. For example, some education-related measures aim to help immigrants integrate, such as facilitating the requirements to qualify for in-state status or expanding English-language instruction for immigrants.
At the local level, the city of New Haven, Conn., started issuing identification cards last month to all residents regardless of their immigration status.
However, Vic Wilczak, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania, stressed that most local ordinances promote xenophobia and racial profiling.
“Not only are these ordinances unconstitutional, but they also create racism and are toxic for our communities,” said Wilczak, adding that the local ordinances “create a patchwork of faulty laws.”
Jack Martin, director of special projects at the Federation for American Immigration
Reform, told Weekly Report these ordinances aim to discourage undocumented residents from forming roots in neighborhoods and encourage them to return voluntarily to their countries of origin. FAIR is an organization which opposes measures benefiting the undocumented population.
Martin stated the enactment of various local ordinances creates discrepancies in the legal system and may lead to problems.
“We are in a period of flux because of the failure of the federal government to adequately enforce immigration laws,” said Martin. “Some mistakes will arise at the local levels in efforts to pass laws, but these will serve as examples and we will learn over time what works best.”
Dan Restrepo, director of the Center for American Progress, said, “The 50 states are laboratories for the federal government…Some of these laboratories are being run by mad scientists.”
Marvin Ramirez
