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.

Yesterday, Phoenix district court Judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities. The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals.

Judge Bolton struck down the following provisions of SB 1070:

• Section 2(B): Required officers to check the immigration status of any person arrested, as well as check the immigration status if there was reasonable suspicion after a lawful stop or detention that the person was undocumented.

• Section 3: Made it a state misdemeanor for failure to carry an alien registration document, and made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States.

• Part of Section 5: Made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for, solicit for, or perform work.

• Section 6 Amendment: Allowed officers to make warrantless arrests provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

The ruling left SB 1070, which goes into effect today, with the following provisions, among others, still intact:

• Section 2(G): An Arizona citizen may bring an action against any official or agency of Arizona that does not enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent, and pay a penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day that the policy was in effect.

• Section 4: Makes it a felony to intentionally smuggle human beings for profit.

• Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor to stop on a street and attempt to hire or pick up passengers for work at a different location if the vehicle blocks traffic. Also makes it a misdemeanor to be the person picked up in such a motor vehicle.

• Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person already in violation of a criminal offense to transport undocumented immigrants, conceal undocumented immigrants, or encourage undocumented immigrants to reside in the United States.

The provisions struck down by the judge do not prevent law enforcement from addressing the real threats to public safety in Arizona, like drug smuggling and violence. It’s about time the Governor returned focus and resources back to real remedies that will improve the lives of Arizonans instead of playing campaign politics with such an important issue.

Sadly, SB 1070 has always been more about politics than good policy. This was most evident immediately following Judge Bolton’s ruling when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her plans to appeal the decision and simultaneously used the opportunity to solicit donations for her re-election campaign. Similarly, Senator John McCain seized on the political opportunity by issuing a joint statement with Senator John Kyl decrying the decision:

We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law. “Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility.” “After this decision, it’s even more important to implement our Ten Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.”

The reality is that we are spending more money on border security than ever before, and violent crimes rates in Arizona have been falling for years. Arizonans, like most Americans, are understandably frustrated by our broken immigration system, but usurping federal immigration authority and pushing “attrition through enforcement” legislation isn’t going to solve anything. In fact, it only stands to interfere with community policing and identifying the true threats. Until we have bipartisan support on a real solution like comprehensive immigration reform, we’re going to continue to enforce ourselves in circles.

Photo by Jeffrey Kaye.

Tired of restrictionists introducing “get tough” anti-immigration legislation in their states, state legislators are pushing back with progressive immigration policies of their own. On a telebriefing yesterday sponsored by the Progressive States Network and the National Immigration Law Center, state legislators from Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Utah discussed what they are actively doing to push back on the recent uptick in statewide anti-immigrant legislation. From public education campaigns to health, wage protection and enforcement legislation, these state leaders are fed up with the status quo.

With less than a month until SB1070’s enactment date (July 29), Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is on a campaign to educate local police about the economic and legal realities of enforcing SB1070. While some claim that the Arizona law will help crack down on border violence, Rep. Sinema wants others to realize that SB1070 does nothing to address violent crimes but instead impedes local law enforcement’s ability to keep communities safe.

SB1070 is a very difficult issue to address in Arizona because the perception of many people in the state is that SB1070 addresses border violence. Some individuals have expressed initial support for it, but once folks understand that border violence is not actually addressed whatsoever by this legislation, we see support begin to drop.

What we’re working towards in Arizona—in anticipation of the law’s implementation—is to help law enforcement understand the jeopardy they are placed in—being faced with law suits if they enforce the law and lawsuits if they don’t enforce the law. We’re really seeking to try to find opportunities to help others in the country avoid SB1070-like measures and try to stop copycat legislation across the country. Instead, we want to focus on the kinds of measures that actually help interdict the criminal activity we see happening in border regions.

State Sen. Joe Bolkcom of Iowa is trying to leverage state wage enforcement legislation to address the rampant exploitation of all Iowa workers by unscrupulous employers. According to Sen. Bolkcom, the current wage protection laws in Iowa are weak.

We have focused on expanding and improving wage/hour enforcement law. This legislation really targets those employers who would take advantage of any Iowa worker—including newcomers. Essentially, it’s a zero tolerance law for unscrupulous employers that protects every worker and ensures that we don’t become a state where people are taken advantage of—whether they’re new to the state or have been long-term Iowa workers. Essentially our approach to fighting off really bad anti-immigrant legislation is to say that all Iowa workers deserve protections from wage theft, from law-breaking employers. It’s the best way to strengthen workers, their families and Iowa’s communities.

State Sen. Luz Robles of Utah has prioritized quality, accessible and affordable health care for all children in Utah. After President Obama signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP) back in 2009, Sen. Robles continues those efforts by introducing health amendments to benefit legal immigrant children.

It’s always more cost effective to provide adequate coverage to these children than it is to be dealing with children who are uninsured for that five year period. That’s our message throughout the session. It’s important for us to have all the children in Utah covered.

State Sen. Daylin Leach of Pennsylvania has introduced an advanced community policing bill which essentially bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Local police are supposed to stop street crime, which becomes more difficult to do if people in the neighborhood you’re policing or patrolling don’t trust you because they fear you’re going investigating their immigration status. They’re less likely to cooperate with you or give you the tips you need. In fact, a number of police chiefs have made that point that the obligation contained in the Arizona law would undermine their ability to do what they have historically been charged to do.

These are just a few examples of how frustrated state legislators are pushing back on anti-immigration legislation and restrictionists in their states. Although immigration advocates anxiously await the Department of Justice’s soon-to-be-filed federal lawsuit against SB1070, anti-immigration measures in other states unfortunately show no sign of slowing. One can only hope that as the economic, political and legal consequences of anti-immigration laws begin to unfold, that communities—and the legislators who represent them—begin to understand the costly damages these measures will have down the road.

Photo by altnav.

Word has started to trickle down that the only immigration reform taking place this year will be of a piecemeal variety. According to The Hill, Senate Democrats are looking to focus on energy legislation over the next two months, leaving no room for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). However, advocates are not giving up hope, stating that there is still time in 2010 for a CIR bill to be passed.

The article mentions two popular pieces of piecemeal legislation, the DREAM Act, and AgJobs. The DREAM Act addresses the issue of immigrant children who grew up in the United States but are prevented from pursuing their dreams by current immigration law. As of June 2, 2010, the DREAM Act had 38 cosponsors in the Senate and 120 in the House, with bipartisan support in both.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) explained the DREAM Act in The Hill:

Our bill would give immigrant students the chance to become legal residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military for at least two years. The DREAM Act would allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambitions to contribute more fully to our society. Our country would also benefit from thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people who are eager to serve in the Armed Forces during a time of war.

Despite his support for the DREAM Act, Durbin wants the DREAM Act as part of CIR:

We’ve come close to making the DREAM Act law before. Last Congress, our bill received 52 votes in the Senate, a majority vote – including 11 Republicans – but we needed 60 under Senate rules. Since then, support for the DREAM Act has grown and the bill now has 38 cosponsors. If Democrats and Republicans come together, we can pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation, including the DREAM Act, in 2010.

In the meantime, Senators Durbin and Lugar (R-IN) have urged DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stop the deportations of those students eligible for the DREAM Act. Immigrant students have also been piling on the pressure, most recently by holding a hunger strike outside Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) Manhattan office. Hopefully, all of the pressure being exerted on both Congress and the Administration will persuade them to act before the end of the year.

Photo by daisymaxwell

Three Republican amendments to the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4899) failed this morning. The amendments, which included proposals to ramp up border security spending from Senators McCain (AZ), Kyl (AZ), and Cornyn (TX), failed to garner the necessary sixty votes needed for passage. The Supplemental Appropriations Act is a broader bill that funds the troop surge in Afghanistan as well as other national security measures.

Sen. John McCain introduced S. Amdt. 4214, which proposed to send 6,000 National Guard Troops to the border, five times what President Obama decided to send earlier this week after bowing under pressure. However, the amendment failed by a vote of 51-46, with only Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) crossing party lines to vote against the amendment. Before the vote, Sen. Schumer (D-NY) stated that sending 6,000 National Guard Troops to the border was “sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem” without being “targeted and as effective as Obama’s plan.” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was even harsher:

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chamber’s lone Latino senator, criticized the McCain plan as “militarizing the border” and the “definition of insanity,” because it continued the previous efforts at building up a troop presence even as the flow of illegal immigrants continued to flow in from Mexico. “It’s a recipe for failure,” Menendez said, arguing instead for a comprehensive immigration reform plan backed by Obama.

Sen. Jon Kyl introduced the second Republican border security amendment, S. Amdt. 4228, which would provide $200 million to fully fund Operation Streamline throughout the southwest border. Sen. Schumer stood to oppose the amendment, arguing that the $200 million coming from the job stimulus would be used to incarcerate illegal immigrants as opposed to putting the money into job creation for the other 48 states. Schumer also reiterated his support for a comprehensive immigration proposal, stating that such a proposal would be more effective than an enforcement-only approach. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-44, with no Republican senators crossing party lines to vote against the amendment.

Finally, Sen. John Cornyn proposed S. Amdt. 4202, which would provide more than $2.2 billion in funding for various programs along the border. The amendment requested funding equivalent to more than a third of ICE’s total budget for FY 2010. Included in the amendment was $151 million for 3,300 more detention beds, $334 million for more border patrol officers, $170 million for unmanned aircraft, and almost $800 million for more ICE personnel. Sen. Schumer called the Sen. Cornyn’s amendment the “least responsible” of the three amendments proposed. Other Senators agreed—the amendment failed by a vote of 54-43.

These amendments failed because of their attempts to throw good money after bad without addressing the needs of our broken immigration system. The U.S. government has tried for more than two decades to stamp out unauthorized immigration at the border without addressing and reforming the system which spurs the unauthorized immigration in the first place.

Photo by bombsite.

Despite the mounting pressure (boycotts, legal challenges, protests) to repeal Arizona’s enforcement law (SB 1070), polls indicate that the majority of Americans support the law by almost two to one—and, at last count, as many as 17 other states are considering similar legislation. However, while it may seem advantageous for some in the GOP to use this anti-immigrant wave as political momentum for re-election, the long-term political impact may be larger and more harmful than they realize. Can the Republican Party (once the ‘Party of No,” then the “Party of Hell No” and now the “Party of Papers Please?”) really afford to further alienate the fastest-growing U.S. voting bloc—Latinos?

In a recent New York Times letter, the author draws a comparison between the Arizona’s enforcement law (SB 1070) and California’s 1994 anti-immigrant Proposition 187 (which was later found to be unconstitutional). Then Governor Pete Wilson supported Prop 187, which denied children of undocumented immigrants state-funded education and health programs. The author points out that California has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, and that Republicans won California in six of the previous seven presidential contests prior to 1992, and five of the seven most recent gubernatorial races. Coincidence?

“There are a lot of similarities between what’s happening in Arizona and what happened in California in 1994,” said Sergio Bendixen, a political pollster and consultant specializing in the Hispanic vote. “That made California a deep blue state,” or Democratic, “and Republicans are making the same mistake now trying to benefit on anti-immigration.”

It doesn’t take a political scientist or a pollster to understand what happens when you alienate such a large and growing swathe of the American electorate. Latinos—who not surprisingly oppose Arizona’s law (70% opposing, 27% supporting)—made up 7.4% of the electorate in 2008, which has roughly double in the last 20 years, and is expected to continue to grow.

The letter continues:

There is widespread resentment among Latinos that they will be singled out as a result of this law, despite the insistence of Arizona officials that racial profiling is impermissible … Previous and earlier surveys by Mr. Bendixen, the pollster, show that almost two in three Latino voters have either a family member or friend who is an undocumented worker …He says Hispanics resent the suggestion that immigrants are more prone to criminality, an allegation that is contradicted by the vast majority of academic studies and statistics.

Recent evidence of the Latino vote can be seen in places like Colorado, where Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet pulled ahead of GOP hopeful Jane Norton. According to Public Policy Polling, the shift is due to Hispanic voters:

Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.

While Latinos’ cultural conservatism may overlap with Republicans’, it’s not likely that Latinos will forget 1) the Tea Party/Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding SB 1070; and 2) SB 1070 itself as well as ensuing copycat legislation. So, even though Republicans candidates who endorse SB 1070 (and similar legislation) might garner electoral support in the short-term, riding the anti-immigrant wave will more than likely drown them, and some in the Republican Party, out in the long-term.

Photo by Phil Gibbs.

Despite the commotion around Arizona’s SB 1070, a recent report shows that more laws expanding immigrants’ rights are being enacted than those contracting them. The Wilson Center’s study, Context Matters: Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement in Nine U.S. Cities, found that in 2007, 19 percent of 313 bills expanding immigrant rights were enacted and only 11 percent of 263 bills contracting rights were enacted by state legislatures. Washington, for example, passed SB 6403, which seeks to improve high school graduation rates by serving vulnerable youth, including recent immigrants. Andrew Selee of the Woodrow Wilson Center concluded that “most cities and counties are trying to figure out how they can best incorporate these immigrants,” many of whom are a “productive part of society,” rather than target them for deportation.

Earlier this month, New York Governor David A. Paterson announced that he would accelerate the consideration and granting of pardons to lawful immigrants faced with deportations because of minor criminal convictions. The governor’s pardon is the only thing that can prevent deportation in these cases, even if the authorized immigrant is married to a U.S. citizen and/or is the parent of U.S. citizen children.

To facilitate this initiative, Gov. Paterson is establishing a five member panel to review applications for pardons. Paterson stated that he felt “some of these charges are very minor in nature and some of these conversations go back beyond a decade for people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve lived productive lives in the interim…we’re separating these cases from ones where there are egregious crimes.”

Most recently, the city council in Denver, CO, passed a resolution yesterday to urge President Obama and Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 9-1. Councilwoman Marsha Johnson explained that the bill was passed in opposition to Arizona’s law, and that immigration reform “cannot [be done] state by state.”

Earlier this year, New Mexico passed a similar resolution urging Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes sufficient border security, family reunification, and a pathway to citizenship for our current unauthorized population.

Unlike Arizona, not all states take federal enforcement law into their own hands. Many states—often with higher immigrant populations like New York, Chicago and California—seek to integrate immigrants as productive members of their communities rather than target anyone who might look brown. Each year, immigrants—authorized and unauthorized—contribute billions of tax dollars to state and local coffers, not to mention the businesses they run and the money they spend in their local economies. Furthermore, as the Denver City Council points out, immigration reform cannot be done on a state by state basis, nor should enforcing federal immigration law be left up to the states.

Photo by Wietse?

In an interview on Univision over the weekend, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke about the path forward for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR)—in particular, the need for Republican support and its notable absence. Senator Reid called attention to the fact that Arizona’s recent immigration law is a reaction to the lack of federal oversight on the issue—yet when push comes to shove, Arizona’s senators refuse to work with Democrats on a reform bill. Like many Republicans, Arizona Senators McCain and Kyl are hiding behind the “secure our borders first” line—a tired strategy that has only exacerbated the myriad of other problems within our broken immigration system. Although the enforcement-first sound bite may play well with Arizona voters today, the failure to find bipartisan solutions on immigration will continue to have negative long-term consequences. Will voters—especially Latino voters—support the Republican Party if its leaders are perceived as uniformly obstructionist on immigration reform? Will the “Party of No” become the “Party of No One” come election day?

Speaking to Univision host, Jorge Ramos, Senator Reid pointed out the obvious—if states like Arizona want federal action on immigration reform, why won’t their elected leaders work with Democrats on a reform bill?

I’m frustrated; I’m upset just like the people you referred to. We are committed to do comprehensive immigration reform, the President supports us on that, but I tell everyone we can’t do a bill unless we get some Republicans. How about one, how about two, how about three?

This is an issue that demands our attention and doesn’t demand the negativity, so irrational what is going on. We have Republican legislators all over the country focused on Arizona particularly, saying we are concerned about this because the federal government is not doing anything. The two senators from Arizona won’t work with us, it’s illogical to hear the state of Arizona complaining about the federal government not doing anything and the two Republican senators from Arizona won’t join with us to do anything.

And Harry Reid isn’t the only one who’s frustrated. Two recent public opinion polls confirmed that the majority of Americans think our immigration system is broken and that a get-tough, enforcement-only, deport-them-all strategy is NOT the best way to move forward. In fact, hundreds of thousands of supporters took to the streets earlier this month to demand congressional action on reform and to protest Arizona’s harsh immigration law. As other states contemplate similar anti-immigrant legislation, the drumbeat for reform is only going to get louder.

But just as Hispanic voters will likely hold the President’s feet to the fire for not moving quickly enough on reform this year, Republicans, too, will likely take a hit not only for obstructing progress, but for passing such a strict anti-immigrant bill in Arizona. As TIME reports:

But if the immediate danger is to Democrats seeking Hispanic votes this November, the longer-term danger is to Republicans if they’re perceived as blocking the legislation. The Arizona law, authored and passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican governor — means that the GOP starts this cycle with a black eye with the Hispanic community.

“There’s a great deal of pressure in the Republican Party to address it once and for all and move it off the table so they can start repairing their relationship with the Latino community,” says Clarissa Martinez de Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns at the National Council of La Raza, one of the country’s largest Hispanic advocacy groups. “Not doing so sets them on a suicidal course going into a presidential election.”

As Congress juggles energy, a Supreme Court nominee and immigration reform in the months ahead, voters should and will pay attention to how Democratic and Republican leaders move—and don’t move—on important issues like immigration. The question is, how big of a political price will leaders pay at the voting booth for obstructing movement on reform?

Photo by s myers.

Before Arizona Governor Jan Brewer ever put pen to paper to sign SB 1070, immigration rights advocates were preparing challenges to the law. Various members of the administration have hinted that the Arizona law may face a federal challenge—Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Department of Justice is reviewing the law for a possible suit, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano echoed this in a hearing last week, stating that she had “deep concerns” with the law. Even President Obama has admitted that the law threatens to “undermine the basic notions of fairness.”

Immigrants Rights Groups have already followed suit. MALDEF, the ACLU, and NILC announced their legal challenge to SB 1070 last week. MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz stated that “the Arizona community can be assured that a vigorous and sophisticated legal challenge will be mounted, in advance of SB 1070’s implementation, seeking to prevent this unconstitutional and discriminatory law from ever taking effect.” A preliminary analysis by the ACLU also found it unlikely that the law would be upheld.

The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center is keeping track of the legal challenges to SB 1070 that have been filed. One suit was filed by Officer Martin Escobar, a member of the City of Tucson Police Department. Escobar asserts that in his law enforcement experience there are no race neutral criteria to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the U.S., including proximity to the border, racial, linguistic, and physical characteristics, clothing, Spanish-language radio or television preference, type of vehicle, and use of public transportation. Because there are no race neutral criteria to identify whether an individual is lawfully present in the U.S., Escobar asserts that SB 1070 violates the due process clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Escobar also points out that having Arizona law enforcement officers routinely question Hispanics about their immigration status would seriously impede more serious law enforcement investigations.

A second suit was filed as a class action by a group of Plaintiffs in Arizona—including non-profit Conclamic Arizona, an organization of 30,000 affiliated churches and a membership of 300 pastors. They were joined in the class action by U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other plaintiffs. The suit alleges similar violations to the one filed by Officer Escobar—violations of due process, the Supremacy Clause, and the First Amendment. In addition, a group of law professors came together to sign onto a letter stating their belief that the law is unconstitutional.

Beyond being fiscally unwise and just plain bad policy, the Arizona law is likely to face a litany of legal challenges before it’s even enforced. While the unconstitutionality of the law is yet to be proven, this litany of lawsuits that are sure to continue should at least give pause to the Arizona legislature and Governor Jan Brewer, as well as other states considering similar legislation.

Photo by Unhindered by Talent

Just when you think you’ve heard it all—someone, somewhere, sets the bar even lower. It’s not an overstatement to say that the immigration debate is ripe with contention. It inspires commentary from a wide range of political spectra—from the libertarian no-border folks to the “don’t retreat, reload” tea partiers. But regardless of political leaning, nearly all groups agree that immigration is a problem that needs to be fixed, albeit with an even wider range of solutions. However, right and left aside, there are people who want to take the immigration debate in yet another direction—downward. Against the backdrop of Arizona’s harsh enforcement law, there have been a slew of anti-immigrant aftershocks posing as solutions to our immigration problems—aftershocks that are as ludicrous as they are alarming. And for the record, this is the part of ILLEGAL that people don’t understand.

Hasta Luego, Ethnic Studies Programs
If Arizona’s “watch out, suntanned Americans” law wasn’t enough already, Arizona Legislature passed a bill last week that would ban ethnic studies programs across the state. Why? Because ethnic studies—a field born out of the 1960’s civil rights movement to offset Euro-centric bias—apparently encourages “ethnic chauvinism, promotes Latinos to rise up and create a new territory out of the southwestern region of the United States and tries to intimidate conservative teachers in the school system.” Right. The bill, however, does allow courses to be taught for Native American students and for teachings on the Holocaust and other cases of genocide. (How generous!) Tom Horne, Arizona’s Superintendent for Public Instruction, explains:

“Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds,” Horne said. “This is consistent with the fundamental American value that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever ethnic groups we were born into. Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism.”

Governor Jan Brewer has yet to sign the bill. Ridiculous? Yes. Creative? No. Here’s looking at you, Texas Board of Education.

Speak American! Heavily Accented Teachers Under Fire
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported last week that the Arizona Department of Education is pushing school districts to remove teachers whose spoken English is “heavily accented” or “ungrammatical.” Arizona is leaning on the No Child Left Behind Act, which stipulates that students learning English must be taught by teachers fluent in English if the school is to receive federal funds. However, defining fluency is left up to the state—a state which will apparently identify undocumented immigrants by their shoes. According to the WSJ:

State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as “biolet,” think as “tink” and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.

Well played, Arizona. What’s next? Ticketing people for thinking like a Latino? Believe it or not, it gets worse.

Tag, You’re Undocumented: Implanting Microchips in Immigrants
GOP candidate for Iowa’s 3rd district, physician Pat Bertroche, spoke at a forum last week about alternatives to border fencing—microchips. No joke, Bertroche suggested implanting microchips in undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal? That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under.

Unfortunately, Dr. Bertroche, immigrants are not dolphins—but way to raise the rhetoric bar in a rational and humane light.

One-Way Tickets for U.S. Tots: Deporting U.S. Citizen Children
Lastly, what would a discussion on immigration enforcement be if the Birthers didn’t have something intelligent to say? California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) recently suggested that the federal government should deport the U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants. You heard me, “deport U.S.-born children.”

“Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens,” Hunter was asked. “I would have to, yes,” Hunter said. “… We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now,” he said. “… It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls. …”

Hunter, apparently, looked deep into his soul to discover that it is, in fact, American.

While I realize that these are extreme examples, they are indicative of the overall tone of the debate—a debate which is, more often than not, fraught with anti-immigrant rhetoric. Whether they’re here legally or not, and it’s sad that this needs to be pointed out, immigrants are still human beings—not animals to be tagged or soulless border-crossers. We all acknowledge that our immigration system needs to be fixed, but shouldn’t the dialogue regarding solutions be based in, and I’m just throwing this out there, reality? Is the immigration debate really going to get worse before it gets better? Do we really have to hit rock bottom before we, as a country, legislate practical, humane and common sense solutions to our immigration problems?

Photos by demotivational.blogspot.