Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from BARRIOZONA,
Call 480-983-1445 or e-mail admin@barriozona.com with your request
Local Government Immigration Measures
May Be More Harmful Than Beneficial
By Eduardo Barraza
BARRIOZONA
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.
Copyright © 2008 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
Grassroots Journalism
www.barriozona.com
|
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.