Local Government Immigration Measures May Be More
Harmful Than Beneficial
Harmful Than Beneficial
A Washington-based think tank’s analysis on the legality of state and local immigration measures believe
the effects of this type of legislation may eventually lead governments to reconsider how they deal with
unlawful immigration.
the effects of this type of legislation may eventually lead governments to reconsider how they deal with
unlawful immigration.
By Eduardo Barraza
Phoenix, Arizona. January 8, 2008 - Testing the limits, a framework for assessing the legality of state and
local immigration measures, is the title of a report the Washington-based National Center on Immigrant
Integration Policy released last December.
The research paper —published just before the January 1, 2008 implementation of the Arizona employer
sanction law— states in its Executive Summary that it provides a framework that can be utilized as an
assessment tool to evaluate the legal validity of what the authors consider five typical “high-profile”
procedures concerning unauthorized immigration.
Laws considered in this report are related to measures state and local governments have adopted or
may adopt to deal with the issue of unauthorized immigration. These laws are comprised in five
categories: employment, housing, police conducting immigration enforcement, day labor, and public
benefits.
Traditional power to regulate immigration —explains the report— has been constitutionally circumscribed
to the federal, not local or state, government. Since the United States Congress has been the regulatory
body when it comes to immigration issues, many of the measures —write the authors— get in the way of
federal jurisdictions. They note that the measures involve fundamental constitutional principles such as
the guarantees of equal protection, due process, and freedom of speech.
Within the analytical frame of their work, the authors of the report observe that many elements of local
or state employment-related laws probably conflict with employer sanctions at the federal level. In terms
of regulations pertaining to landlords, they feel the measures deprive renters of property without due
process of law. In the case of state and local police departments, the authors state the federal
government must oversee immigration enforcement done by authorities other than federal. Laws that
deal with solicitation of day laborers violate protected speech, in some cases by means of content-based
regulation. Finally, state or local laws that prevent undocumented individuals from receiving public
benefits closely adhere to requirements of federal welfare law.
The report elucidates that when states and local governments create policies on immigration, the
consequences may be racial profiling, alienation of immigrants, thus compromising the effectiveness of
law enforcement work. In the context of housing and employment, the report’s authors believe it can
result in a disruption in the lives and livelihoods of lawful and unauthorized members of a community.
The authors cite evidence supported on casual observations —not scientific analysis— that suggests
some of the local and state legislation aimed to fight immigration issues is causing that immigrants —
with or without legal status— leave their communities. When this demographic phenomenon occurs,
states, cities, towns, and counties are most likely to be economically affected.
The inherent risks as well as potential law suits, conclude the authors in their Executive Report, may
eventually make state and local government rethink their measures to crackdown on their unlawful
immigrants inhabitants.
local immigration measures, is the title of a report the Washington-based National Center on Immigrant
Integration Policy released last December.
The research paper —published just before the January 1, 2008 implementation of the Arizona employer
sanction law— states in its Executive Summary that it provides a framework that can be utilized as an
assessment tool to evaluate the legal validity of what the authors consider five typical “high-profile”
procedures concerning unauthorized immigration.
Laws considered in this report are related to measures state and local governments have adopted or
may adopt to deal with the issue of unauthorized immigration. These laws are comprised in five
categories: employment, housing, police conducting immigration enforcement, day labor, and public
benefits.
Traditional power to regulate immigration —explains the report— has been constitutionally circumscribed
to the federal, not local or state, government. Since the United States Congress has been the regulatory
body when it comes to immigration issues, many of the measures —write the authors— get in the way of
federal jurisdictions. They note that the measures involve fundamental constitutional principles such as
the guarantees of equal protection, due process, and freedom of speech.
Within the analytical frame of their work, the authors of the report observe that many elements of local
or state employment-related laws probably conflict with employer sanctions at the federal level. In terms
of regulations pertaining to landlords, they feel the measures deprive renters of property without due
process of law. In the case of state and local police departments, the authors state the federal
government must oversee immigration enforcement done by authorities other than federal. Laws that
deal with solicitation of day laborers violate protected speech, in some cases by means of content-based
regulation. Finally, state or local laws that prevent undocumented individuals from receiving public
benefits closely adhere to requirements of federal welfare law.
The report elucidates that when states and local governments create policies on immigration, the
consequences may be racial profiling, alienation of immigrants, thus compromising the effectiveness of
law enforcement work. In the context of housing and employment, the report’s authors believe it can
result in a disruption in the lives and livelihoods of lawful and unauthorized members of a community.
The authors cite evidence supported on casual observations —not scientific analysis— that suggests
some of the local and state legislation aimed to fight immigration issues is causing that immigrants —
with or without legal status— leave their communities. When this demographic phenomenon occurs,
states, cities, towns, and counties are most likely to be economically affected.
The inherent risks as well as potential law suits, conclude the authors in their Executive Report, may
eventually make state and local government rethink their measures to crackdown on their unlawful
immigrants inhabitants.
| Hispanic Institute of Social Issues © 2006-2011 All rights reserved. webmaster@hisi.org |
Eduardo Barraza is a journalist and writer,
Barriozona Magazine's editor, and director of
the Hispanic Insitute of Social Issues.
E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
Barriozona Magazine's editor, and director of
the Hispanic Insitute of Social Issues.
E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues in Phoenix, Arizona
|
| HISTORY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE Grassroots Journalism |
SIDE EFFECTS In the context of
housing and employment, the
authors of the report believe it can
result in a disruption in the lives and
livelihoods of lawful and
unauthorized members of a
community.
Photo by Eduardo Barraza | Barriozona
housing and employment, the
authors of the report believe it can
result in a disruption in the lives and
livelihoods of lawful and
unauthorized members of a
community.
Photo by Eduardo Barraza | Barriozona
