A common refrain among anti-immigrant activists is that today’s immigrants just aren’t “assimilating” into U.S. society like the immigrants of earlier eras. However, as a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) points out, the “illusion of non-assimilation is created by looking only at newcomers who have not had time yet to assimilate as fully as earlier arrivers.” When socioeconomic advancement is tracked over time, it becomes clear that “the longer immigrants are here, the more they advance and the better they are integrated into our society.” The report, entitled Assimilation Today, was co-authored by renowned demographer Dowell Myers (a professor in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California) and by John Pitkin (president of Analysis and Forecasting, Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts).

The CAP report uses Census data to demonstrate the integration and upward mobility, over 18 years, of those immigrants who were “recently arrived” in the United States as of 1990 (this is, who came to the country between 1985 and 1989). For instance, since these long-term immigrants first came here, more and more of them have bought homes, become U.S. citizens, and earned higher incomes:

• Homeownership: Only 16 percent of immigrants who were “recently arrived” in the United States as of 1990 were homeowners. By 2008, 62 percent of these immigrants owned homes.

• U.S. Citizenship: Only 7 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 were U.S. citizens. By 2008, 56 percent of these immigrants were U.S. citizens.

• Income: Only 35 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 earned incomes above the “low-income” level. By 2008, 66 percent of these immigrants were earning incomes above the “low-income” level.

In other words, integration into U.S. society takes time, and always has. From the Italian, Polish, and Eastern European immigrants who came here at the end of the 19th century, to the Latin American and Asian immigrants who have come here more recently, the pace of integration in its many forms is best measured in terms of decades, not simply a few years. No group of newcomers climbs the socioeconomic ladder of an unfamiliar country overnight. As the CAP report concludes:

Claims that immigrants are stuck at the bottom of the ladder are due simply to the newness of immigrants and the lack of time for assimilation to occur. Given time, the evidence plainly shows that our immigrants today are growing ever more successful and becoming part and parcel of the fabric of our nation.

Photo by CityofElkCity.

BY MELISSA KEANEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

The misnamed Secure Communities program appears to be a nothing but smoke and mirrors—a federal program operating without adequate supervision or safeguards. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) signature immigration enforcement program. The government documents NILC obtained show that ICE’s public statements about the Secure Communities program do not reflect what goes on behind closed doors.

ICE has always represented to the public that participation in Secure Communities is predicated on a formal agreement between ICE and each state. But in a December 2008 Secure Communities weekly report, ICE admits to negotiating with Pennsylvania to proceed with implementation without requiring the state to sign an agreement and without having notice of a database “hit” go to local agencies. Effectively this means that the program was secretly imposed in Pennsylvania and operated for months before local communities even became aware of it. ICE further notes in the weekly report that it will be pursuing this same approach in other states. And the stealth character of the operation is no insignificant detail. Though the program is going on its third year, ICE has never issued regulations or guidelines for its operation. Indeed, written agreements with the state serve as the only formalization of a program that entangles local police in immigration enforcement and endangers community safety.

According to ICE, the Secure Communities program was designed to catch undocumented immigrants who had committed serious crimes by fingerprinting all those who enter into jails equipped to cross-check prints with ICE databases. Yet, advocates’ fears that Secure Communities is little more than an immigrant-hunting program with a slick name have been proven all-too-justified. Three organizations recently obtained government documents revealing that over a quarter of immigrants caught up in the Secure Communities web have not been convicted of any crime at all.

Despite the documented problems with this program, ICE has stonewalled communities that want to safeguard their own best interests by not participating in Secure Communities. San Francisco, for example, has been compelled to take part despite Sheriff Hennessey’s concern that such a program will damage community safety. ICE’s claim that the program is voluntary is an empty promise.

Indeed, ICE continues to deploy Secure Communities at record pace, all the while remaining secretive about how the program operates. News that Secure Communities had been implemented in every county along the U.S./Mexico border was news even to jail operators in some of those counties.

ICE’s refusal to be transparent about Secure Communities chills meaningful public debate and raises serious concerns about the trajectory of immigration enforcement.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration should scrap the secretive and fatally flawed Secure Communities. We do not need another flawed program designed to work within a broken immigration system, especially not one that operates behind closed doors and without limitations. The public deserves a real solution, not more smoke and mirrors.

Photo by moominmolly.

In a new and fatally flawed report, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) attempts to blame immigrants for virtually any unemployment among less-educated native-born workers anywhere in the United States, in both good economic times and bad. The report, entitled From Bad to Worse, deluges the reader with data from 2007 and 2010 on employment and unemployment among native-born and foreign-born workers, and then insinuates from this—without providing any evidence—that immigrant workers simply must be taking jobs away from the native-born. Specifically, the report juxtaposes the “estimated seven to eight million illegal immigrants holding jobs” in the United States with the millions of less-educated native-born Americans who are now out of work, or who were out of work before the recession, and concludes that “if the United States were to enforce immigration laws and encourage illegal immigrants to return home, we would seem to have an adequate supply of less-educated natives to replace” them.

This is typical of the CIS approach to virtually every topic: start with a data dump illustrating the seemingly dire plight of the native-born, and then rely upon empirically unsupported rhetoric to blame immigrants for the problem. It is the approach CIS used earlier this year to incorrectly explain teen unemployment, for instance, as well as the approach adopted in its last report scapegoating immigrants for the unemployment experienced by less-educated workers in the midst of a recession. As with its predecessors, this latest CIS report on immigration and unemployment overlooks a few salient points:

• Foreign-born workers tend to complement, rather than compete with, native-born workers. As a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out, “immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity,” and “there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.” Among “less-educated workers, those born in the United States tend to have jobs in manufacturing or mining, while immigrants tend to have jobs in personal services and agriculture.” Moreover, even “within industries and specific businesses, immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to specialize in different job tasks,” with native-born workers taking higher-paid jobs that require better English-language skills than many immigrant workers possess.

• Native-born and foreign-born workers tend to live in different places. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, 62.5% of foreign-born workers lived in six states as of 2009: California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. In contrast, 66.2 percent of native-born workers lived in the other 44 states. Many unemployed natives would have to travel half way across the country to reach the low-wage jobs currently held by unauthorized immigrants.

• Workers are also consumers who create jobs. Removing millions of unauthorized workers from the country also means removing millions of unauthorized consumers and the jobs they support through their purchasing power. If all the unauthorized consumers in the United States disappeared, many businesses that depend heavily upon their purchases would go under and the U.S. economy would lose jobs overall.

• Enforcement-only “solutions” to unauthorized immigration have been tried—and failed. The federal government has been attempting for at least a decade and a half, in the words of the CIS report, “to enforce immigration laws and encourage illegal immigrants to return home,” but without success. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the country, the error-prone “E-Verify” electronic employment-verification system has been dramatically expanded, and state and local police have been enlisted as immigration-enforcement agents. Yet none of these measures has had a significant impact on the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. In fact, the only thing that has slowed unauthorized immigration in recent years is the shrinking of the U.S. job market as a result of the current recession.

While the CIS report contains an impressive number of tables and statistics, it comes up a tad short in terms of analysis. Most strikingly, the report perpetuates the economically flawed argument that every job held by an immigrant is a job lost by a native-born worker. In addition, CIS calls for more immigration enforcement as a means of curbing unauthorized immigration, but without mentioning that the federal government has been unsuccessfully trying to do just that for well over 15 years. In the final analysis, this latest offering from CIS provides no useful guide for reforming the broken U.S. immigration system or rejuvenating the beleaguered U.S. economy.

Photo by Jez Page.

Although anti-immigrant campaign platforms might help win a primary in a state like Arizona, supporters of harsh immigrant enforcement measures must still address the resulting economic fall out. Last week, the Arizona Governor’s Task Force on Tourism and Economic Vitality hired HMA Public Relations, a Phoenix-based marketing communications and public relations firm, to the tune of $100,000 to “develop a series of needs and goals for Arizona tourism in light of the controversy created by SB 1070”—and, boy, do they have their work cut out for them. Similarly, cities like Fremont, Nebraska—where an anti-immigrant ordinance passed in June—are also being forced to run damage control. Fremont’s City Council is currently considering a property tax increase proposal to help shoulder the projected legal fees resulting from the city’s restrictive immigration ordinance.

Perhaps HMA’s first order of business should be spinning a recent State Department report to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which lists the federal government’s successful legal challenge to Arizona’s enforcement law as an effort to protect human rights. (Attempting to violate human rights, generally speaking, is probably not good for tourism.) Or maybe the firm should have a serious sit down with Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, who referred to the majority of undocumented immigrants as “drug mules” in an interview a few months back—rhetoric which doesn’t exactly scream “welcome to my state” either.

Even though a federal district judge enjoined the most controversial parts of SB 1070, Arizona’s reputation as an anti-immigrant state lingers as Arizona politicians continue to bash immigrants for political gain. With a growing list of economic boycotts, a declining housing market and a budget deficit of roughly $4.5 million, Arizona will continue to face the fiscal consequences of its “get tough on immigration” rhetoric. And that’s not even considering the estimated cost of implementing the law or the legal fees resulting from lawsuits, which could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sadly, Arizona’s not the only state running damage control on anti-immigrant measures.

The city of Fremont, Nebraska, recently sent a proposal for a property tax hike (an additional 18% for resident property owners) to the City Council in anticipation of defending the city’s immigration enforcement ordinance—an ordinance that will require businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license. City officials estimate the annual cost of defending the ordinance to be about $750,000. Similarly, Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, Pennsylvania are facing costly litigation to defend their immigration laws, both in the millions of dollars.

Currently, 22 other states are considering enforcement measures similar to Arizona’s and many will, in all likelihood, face similar legal challenges and incur mounting legal fees. As politicians continue to take a “get tough on immigration” stance in the run up to midterm elections, voters may decide that their pocketbooks trump their politics when it comes to immigration.

Photo by star5112.

Last week, two separate branches of DHS released important evidence supporting the argument that our immigration laws are fundamentally broken. The Office of Immigration Statistics released its annual report on removal and return statistics, noting that removals in 2009 totaled 393,289—marking the seventh straight year of increase. Meanwhile, ICE released a memo directing legal counsel to review and terminate certain immigration court cases where the immigrant also had an application pending in front of USCIS. ICE estimates that approximately 17,000 people may benefit from this new policy. When you juxtapose the numbers, however—393,289 v. 17,000—it reminds you just how out of balance our immigration system has become.

First, the ICE memo. Assistant Secretary John Morton ordered his staff to commence a countrywide systematic review of whether certain cases in immigration court need to be there. By identifying cases in which an immigrant’s application for some form of status is pending in front of USCIS, ICE and USCIS can avoid duplicating resources by moving some people through the system faster and more efficiently. Morton’s memo appears to require that the individual immigrant be otherwise eligible for some sort of lasting legal status—including having an available visa number. If all goes according to plan, roughly 17,000 people may have their deportation cases terminated (closed, charges dismissed) before the immigration judge while their application is processed at USCIS.

From a lawyer’s perspective, this is a smart and common sense approach to maximizing government resources and reducing the strain on the immigration courts. It’s hardly an amnesty program—as the tiresome immigration restrictionists claim—given that these people are currently in line for some form of status, have an application pending, and a decent chance of getting it approved. Why would we want to clog an overburdened immigration court system with folks who don’t need to be there?

So these 17,000 aren’t even likely candidates for deportation. A good move, but hardly pushing the envelope. Yet, terminating cases such as these has been an ongoing battle between ICE and USCIS since DHS was formed back in 2003. If anything, the memo represents a victory for common sense, even if it does little to change the actual removal numbers. Far more people will likely end up in next year’s removal statistics, regardless of this new policy, because there simply isn’t relief available for most folks. And as long as apprehensions continue unabated, the number of removals is likely to increase.

And that’s where the 2009 removal statistics come in. While 393,289 people is a pretty big number, it represents a host of different removal practices and procedures. Over half (58%) of all removals last year were attributable to procedures that are essentially on autopilot—expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, which have been chugging along since 1997. Both are based on laws that give little discretion to the officer, so that once you encounter someone who fits into these categories, there is arguably little you can do to stop the train. While there are plenty of good arguments for reforming or refining these administrative removal procedures, they are part of a broader legislative debate that just isn’t happening.

The same goes for the other 42% (165,000 or so people) who were removed based on an immigration court order. We can only speculate about their circumstances—when and why they were apprehended, how long they were in the system—making it hard to know how many cases, if any, are attributable to current enforcement practices or priorities. Frankly, some people will be deported no matter what the policy. And even when comprehensive immigration reform is enacted, there will continue to be removals. So, the issue is not the fact that people are being removed, but that the system is so fundamentally stacked against most individuals that they have no chance to make themselves right with the immigration laws.

If you juxtapose the numbers represented by these two DHS documents—393,289 v. 17,000—you start to get a sense of how out of balance things are. Removals are high, opportunities for immediate relief are low. It is an imbalance that plays out across the system when Congress allocates another $600 million for border security but does nothing to eliminate legal immigration backlogs. Every time more money and attention is paid to one side of the scale, the deportation and removal side, the balance grows more off-kilter.

Photo by jstrak.

The Republican Party primaries in Arizona may be over, but the anti-immigrant demagoguery upon which the winning candidates built their campaigns is unlikely to fade away anytime soon. Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain both managed to reverse their declining political fortunes in large part by raising the phantom specter of immigrant violence—a cynical tactic they are likely to repeat in the midterm elections. For instance, both trumpeted the discredited claim that Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital of the world after Mexico City, and portrayed their various and sundry proposals to “get tough” on unauthorized immigrants as sincere efforts to save Arizonans from kidnappers and other violent criminals.

What Brewer and McCain neglected to mention in their campaign rhetoric, however, is that unauthorized immigrants are the primary victims of the kidnappings that do occur. As Terry Greene Sterling describes in her book Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona’s Immigration War Zone, most of the kidnapping victims in Phoenix are unauthorized immigrants held for ransom by the smugglers (coyotes) they hire to bring them to the United States. These are “drop house” kidnappings in which “incoming migrants at the border are baited with low smuggling fares. Those low fares are ramped up by thousands of dollars once the migrants are held at gunpoint in a drop house.” Such “drop house” kidnappings are distinct from “home invasion” kidnappings, “in which kidnappers abduct rich individuals, like drug dealers or human smugglers, or their family members.”

Brewer and McCain are also apparently unaware of the fact that rates for both property crime and violent crime (including murder, assault, and rape) have fallen in Arizona in recent years, including in the state’s three largest cities: Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa. Moreover, crime rates in Arizona border towns have remained flat for the past decade despite the surge in unauthorized immigration. And a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation found that crime rates in general are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, including Arizona.

The truth which Brewer and McCain seem so determined to ignore is that unauthorized immigrants have been driven into the waiting arms of both smugglers and kidnappers by more than a decade and a half of failed border-enforcement initiatives which have been implemented in the absence of immigration reform. Were Congress and the White House to actually reform our immigration system to match reality, unauthorized immigration would slow to a trickle, the market for people smugglers would dry up, and kidnappers would no longer have a large pool of vulnerable immigrants to hold for ransom.

Of course, were that to happen, politicians such as Brewer and McCain could no longer score political points by crowing about kidnapping without mentioning who is actually being kidnapped—or why. Given their successful use of such fear-mongering in the primaries, however, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Photo by plymouthlibrary.

It’s hard to pinpoint how exactly the issue of immigration impacted a range of primary races on Tuesday. In some cases, exploiting our broken immigration system may have helped candidates win elections—as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer. In other cases, talking tough about immigration may have cost politicians their race—like Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum, who turned off Latino Republican voters with his pledge to bring SB1070 style legislation to the Sunshine State. Senator John McCain and Meg Whitman beat out their more extreme anti-immigrant opponents in tight primary races, but they definitely weren’t singing the praises of immigration either. However, it’s hard to predict what will happen in November’s general election based on the primary results. Many Republicans like Sen. John McCain turned hard-right in order to get their party’s nomination, yet that will likely subside in the next several months as candidates gear up for the general election.

The consensus from previous general elections is that anti-immigrant messages don’t resonate with general election voters. For example, in 2008, 19 pro-reform candidates beat anti-immigrant hardliners in 21 House and Senate races.

In 2008, America’s Voice found:

…that Americans in the so-called “battleground” districts and states are tired of slogans and polarization that do nothing to solve our nation’s problems, and are rejecting candidates who espouse them. Voters in overwhelming numbers support candidates that call for a smart, fair, and practical approach to immigration reform, one that will bring the system under control by registering undocumented workers so they can get on the tax rolls and a path to citizenship; ensuring stronger enforcement against employers who exploit workers; and allowing a limited number of immigrants whose work is needed long-term to come to the U.S. legally rather than illegally.

On the leadership level, RNC Chairman Michael Steele argues that Republican attitudes on immigration are a mixed bag and calls for cooler heads to prevail. CBS reports a discussion Steele recently had on Spanish language network Univision where he said that Arizona’s SB1070 didn’t “reflect the beliefs of all Republicans.”

After coming out of this primary, Republican strategists and politicians may still not know whether the strategy of exploiting our broken immigration system is good politics, even if it wins elections. Clearly, many in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with how far their politicians have strayed to the right. And the elections of 2008 can provide a cautionary tale regarding the mindset of the electorate in a general election. Instead of using immigration as a political football, politicians on both sides should turn to good policy rather than politics to address our toughest problems, including immigration.

Photo by Big Dubya.

Today, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) faces former Rep. J.D. Hayworth in what has been a hard-fought primary battle for the Republican nomination for Senate. Perhaps the central issue in the campaign has been immigration, with both candidates staggering as far to the right as possible. So far to the right, in fact, that David Catanese of Politico called the campaign “likely to leave a lasting and unsightly stain” on McCain’s legacy.

As Catanese narrates:

Once the sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy — a stance that hurt him with conservatives — McCain moved in a different direction this year. He switched his emphasis this summer to border security, embraced Arizona’s controversial hard-line immigration law and, in an ad, called on the federal government to “complete the danged fence” — three years after dismissing the notion of a border fence in a Vanity Fair article titled “Prisoner of Conscience.”

McCain had a lot of work to do to match Hayworth’s particular brand of right-wing hysteria—an ideology so extreme that Hayworth supported the notion that President Obama prove his citizenship, again. Hayworth voted against a failed immigration bill in 2005 that would have made undocumented immigrants and anyone who helps them felons because it did not do enough to stop the flow of immigration. Hayworth’s 194 page book, Whatever it Takes, is probably even worse:

[The book] assails multiculturalism and voices support for the Minutemen, a vigilante group that has charged itself with monitoring American borders. In his chapter on the merits of assimilating immigrants into American society, Hayworth quotes from a 1914 New York Times article in which [Henry] Ford said: “These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live.” In his book, Hayworth wrote, “Talk like that today and our liberal elites will brand you a cultural imperialist, or worse. But if you ask me, Ford had a better idea.”

Speculation is rife that McCain, after a likely win in today’s primary, will shift again politically and support or even co-sponsor some form of comprehensive immigration reform in 2011:

“This is one of the signature races that everybody’s watching because immigration is such a big issue in Arizona, and because Hayworth and McCain for a long time were on such diametrically opposed positions on the issue,” said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice…With recent polls showing McCain maintaining a comfortable lead, speculation has grown that the contest’s conclusion could increase the likelihood that Congress will take up immigration legislation, perhaps with McCain as a major advocate again.

However, McCain has continued to push hard for border security spending, unveiling a ten-point plan with fellow Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl earlier this year, as well as his own border security bill. McCain also supported a $600 million border bill passed earlier this month sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

With all of the focus on border security, attention is lost on other issues, such as the record number of deaths occurring on the Arizona border this year, likely due to increased enforcement. Border deaths are another issue Senator McCain used to be sympathetic toward, going so far as to co-sponsor a bill in order to stop them in 2006.

The reality is that if McCain wins today, no one really knows how he will define what is likely, at 73, to be the end of his legislative legacy. Will he continue to push for border enforcement? Or will he be more like the McCain of 2006 who was instrumental in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform?

Perhaps it depends on the stakes. Back in a 2007 Vanity Fair interview, McCain, explaining that he did not think that building a border fence was an effective way to reform immigration, stated that “I’m willing to negotiate anything.”

Photo by Wigwam Jones

Today, both Democratic and Republican Florida state legislators joined leaders from the faith and civil rights communities in speaking out against proposed anti-immigrant legislation in Florida, calling the measure “sad,” “not right for Florida,” and “a violation of civil rights.” The bill, introduced this month by Florida Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Bill McCollum, goes beyond existing state law and would require law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspected illegal immigrant when stopped during a violation. The bill, drafted with state Rep. Will Snyder, also allows judges to consider immigration status during bond setting and sentencing and requires Florida businesses to check their workers’ immigration status. McCollum’s immigration bill also requires immigrants to carry identification or face up to 20 days in jail. According to McCollum, Florida’s bill “offers more teeth” and goes “one step beyond” Arizona’s law, after which Florida’s bill was modeled.

Even after the a federal judge enjoined the most controversial provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, McCollum claims the proposed immigration bill clarifies “reasonable suspicion” and is strengthened against “potential constitution challenges.” “I think Arizona is going to want this law,” McCollum said.

But today on a telephonic press conference organized by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, both Democratic and Republican Florida legislators—as well as faith and civil rights leaders—united in speaking out against the bill. State Rep. Jan Carlos Zapata, a Republican and member of the Florida Legislature Hispanic Caucus, said that immigration law should be handled by the federal government, not the state, and that there is a big difference between border security issues and immigration at large:

This bill is not right for Florida. This is a federal action and we should leave it as such. But we also need to keep pressure on the federal government to do just that. It’s also important to differentiate between border security issues and immigration. Unfortunately, harmful rhetoric has tied them into one. Arizona has faced drug gangs and violence along the border and their legislators have reacted to that. In Florida, we don’t have that problem. That issue shouldn’t be applied to Florida. It’s unfortunate that people are trying to take advantage of the emotional aspects of this issue.

State Rep. Gary Siplin, a Democrat, raised concerns over an anti-immigration bill’s negative impact on tourism, one of the largest economic drivers of Florida’s economy.

Our initial concern is the economic impact this legislation would have on our tourism. Haitians, Jamaicans and Puerto Ricans are concerned about their presence in America. And as always, we’re concerned about the civil rights of every American, even immigrants. We need to protect the civil rights of our citizens and our economy.

Mike Pheneger, a retired US Army Colonel and Board Chair of ACLU of Florida, called the law unconstitutional and promised a legal challenge to the proposed law if passed.

This bill is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It panders to our fears and worse instincts as a people. This bill violates the rights of people in Florida without documentation. The Constitution protects all people, not just citizens.

And in a recession, this bill will burden our state budget with legal fees. This bill violates equal protects and free speech of all people in US and Florida. The ACLU is prepared to take immediate legal action to enjoin enforcement until the courts have had a chance to rule.

Rev. Russell Meyer, Executive Director of the Florida Council of Churches, also pointed out that Florida’s proposed immigration law would make it “criminal behavior to help someone in need.”

The bipartisan opposition to Florida’s proposed anti-immigrant legislation is a rare example of those who actually prioritize policy over politics, that is, want real solutions to our immigration problems—federal solutions, as Republican state Rep. Jan Carlos Zapata pointed out—instead of more fodder for political platforms. Aside from draining an already dragging state economy, McCollum’s draconian immigration legislation clearly indicates that he cares more about immigration as a wedge issue than fixing a system so desperately in need of repair.

Photo by tantrum_dan.

Even though a judge ruled that it could not be implemented, Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070, has sparked a great deal of activity across the U.S. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of activity that’s going to result in meaningful solutions.

In Arizona, state legislators have decided not to “tweak” SB1070 in response to the July 28th preliminary injunction which enjoined key parts of the law. SB1070 sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce has vowed to continue his attacks on mothers and children, proposing to charge the children of undocumented immigrants for public education and working with Members of Congress to deny birthright citizenship to them. Rallies and protests supporting and opposing Arizona’s law continue to take place, and over 50 states and localities have passed resolutions opposing SB1070.

But activity continues well beyond Arizona. According to research compiled by the Reform Immigration for America Campaign, since the passage of Arizona’s law, legislators in 22 states have publicly stated that they intend to introduce similar legislation: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Legislation has already been introduced in five of those states - Michigan, South Carolina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. However, none have made it very far. The Rhode Island and South Carolina legislatures adjourned before the bills could be considered. A petition drive to bring Arizona-style legislation to the Nevada legislature was halted when several lawsuits were brought against the measure. In Kansas, an immigration bill was raised as an amendment to the budget bill, but was ultimately ruled out of order.

In Utah, State Rep. Stephen Sandstrom says his Arizona-style bill can withstand any legal challenge. But other legislators are considering a very different proposal – measures to help integrate undocumented immigrants into the community if they pay a fine and learn English. Another element of the integration plan being discussed is a guestworker program that would allow undocumented immigrants to work legally in Utah – and employers to legally employ them.

In Florida, Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum (R) proposed his own Arizona-style legislation. The proposed law would require immigrants to carry valid immigration documents and would allow judges to penalize unauthorized immigrants more harshly than legal immigrants and citizens who commit the same crimes. McCollum’s legislation would also mandate that Florida businesses use the E-Verify program.

In the meantime, state legislators are visiting Arizona to get advice on drafting their own laws. Delegations from Utah, Tennessee, and Colorado have traveled to Phoenix in recent days.

Unfortunately, all of this activity at the state level is not going to bring about meaningful reform and is not what Americans want. A recent Politico poll found that Americans are still hungry for comprehensive immigration reform:

The scarcity of jobs, the growth of the Latino vote and the legislation in Arizona have all contributed to creating an atmosphere in which the public says that progress on this issue is overdue. Fifty-nine percent of the general population wants to see action on meaningful reform, and so do 76 percent of D.C. elites. More notable in today’s partisan climate is that reform gets the nod from Democrats and independents in equal measure (61 percent of both think Congress should “pass comprehensive immigration law guidelines now”) and that 59 percent of Republicans agree as well.

We’ve said it many times, and we’ll say it again. It’s time for President Obama and Congress to get a clue. All of this activity should be interpreted as a cry for help to our policymakers in Washington. Just like $600 million more for the border isn’t a real solution, a patchwork of state laws is not going to resolve our immigration problems. Fair, practical, and comprehensive immigration reform is needed now.

Photo by deltaMike