part I
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
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.
To be continued.
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.
To be continued.
| Hispanic Institute of Social Issues © 2006-2008 All rights reserved. webmaster@hisi.org |
| BARRIOZONA |
| Bilingual Community Expression Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues |
| Local Government Immigration Measures May Be More 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. |
| Text and photograph by Eduardo Barraza |
Read the series Introduction