Thread: Okla., S.C., Utah could pass AZ.-style anti-immigration laws

Okla., S.C., Utah could pass Ariz.-style anti-immigration laws

Video
Lawsuit filed to block Arizona immigration law

By Michael W. Savage
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2010; 1:13 PM

Which state is the next Arizona?

Attention is focused on the federal government's decision to challenge Arizona's strict anti-immigration law, but three other states could pass similar legislation next year. Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year.

The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those without proof of lawful status.

Lawmakers in at least 17 states drew up bills this year similar to Arizona's law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted by state legislatures or signed by governors.

In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011.

In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.

The lawmaker responsible for the measure, state Rep. Randy Terrill (R), has expressed a desire to go even further than the Arizona law when he introduces another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.

Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he said similar laws could be adopted in 2011.

"After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws" before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, Utah and South Carolina to make the "most vigorous effort" to enact similar legislation early next year.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.

"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," state Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview.

"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R), who has said he is interested in drawing up an Arizona-style law, was among a group of Utah's Republican state representatives to visit Arizona last week on a fact-finding expedition. Utah's Republican governor, Gary Herbert, has said he does expect to sign some form of immigration legislation next year. He is already meeting with those on all sides of the debate to find a way forward.

Utah also has a track record in delivering tough regulations designed to tackle illegal immigration. A state law that went into effect last year makes it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented aliens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Utah also has a track record in delivering tough regulations designed to tackle illegal immigration. A state law that went into effect last year makes it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented aliens

I bet that Sheriff and Mayor of Salt Lake City in Utah will not like that. They were in another article on here complaining people sending them nasty e-mails.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-205028-.html

the sooner the better.
especially after those two idiots in UTAH seem to love illegal aliens

State Sen. Mullins of GA just announced he is going to draw up the same legislation.

There are 753 comments at the source link.
The above article has been updated to the following:

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona's lead on immigration law

By Michael W. Savage
Thursday, July 8, 2010; A04



Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government's challenge to the state's strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.

The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona's lead in 2011.

In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and in-state tuition.

State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.

Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he also said that similar legislation may be adopted in 2011.

"After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws" before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah to make the "most vigorous effort" to enact similar legislation early next year.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he thinks the Obama administration designed the lawsuit against Arizona as a "shot across the bows" of all states considering similar moves. He said he doubts, though, that Terrill will be deterred.

"Randy Terrill has made this his issue in Oklahoma and has earned bipartisan support in the past," he said. "He is a determined guy and he is not going to back down too easily."

In Utah, state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) has been making regular fact-finding trips to Arizona as he finalizes a draft bill. But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.

A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers. Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has said he expects to sign new immigration legislation next year and is meeting with all sides to find a way forward.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of measures against illegal immigration as the nation's strictest when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure was signed.

State Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview that an Arizona-type measure was introduced too late this year. "But I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," he said. "As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

www.washingtonpost.com

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5439--0-0.html

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

[size=7]Which state is the next Arizona?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

=========================================

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-205129.html

Missouri and Virginia have their own Arizona SB 1070 immigration laws


http://www.examiner.com/x-45621-Phoenix ... s-Virginia

There is something very confusing here about all the fuss of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law.

First one of our contributors M.K. brought to our attention that Missouri has had the same law for five years now but M.K. also tells us that Virginia has also had the same immigration law for three years. In Virginia if a police officer stops someone for any crime it is mandatory that the officer check immigration status automatically.

As you can see in the below video there have been very little problems with the effects of the law.

Since the law has been implemented in Virginia here are some of the positive results: a 38% reduction in violent crimes, fewer uninsured illegals giving birth, a drop in English as second language enrollment, and 80%of citizens favor law.

We keep asking why Arizona is not allowed to have its immigration laws, when we now know that Missouri and Virginia have had their identical immigration laws for 3 to 5 years now ? Why is Arizona going to get sued in hopes of preventing the state from implementing its immigration law when Missouri and Virginia have had identical laws for years. How very odd indeed![/quote]

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

[size=7]Which state is the next Arizona?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

=========================================

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-205129.html

Missouri and Virginia have their own Arizona SB 1070 immigration laws


http://www.examiner.com/x-45621-Phoenix ... s-Virginia

There is something very confusing here about all the fuss of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law.

First one of our contributors M.K. brought to our attention that Missouri has had the same law for five years now but M.K. also tells us that Virginia has also had the same immigration law for three years. In Virginia if a police officer stops someone for any crime it is mandatory that the officer check immigration status automatically.

As you can see in the below video there have been very little problems with the effects of the law.

Since the law has been implemented in Virginia here are some of the positive results: a 38% reduction in violent crimes, fewer uninsured illegals giving birth, a drop in English as second language enrollment, and 80%of citizens favor law.

We keep asking why Arizona is not allowed to have its immigration laws, when we now know that Missouri and Virginia have had their identical immigration laws for 3 to 5 years now ? Why is Arizona going to get sued in hopes of preventing the state from implementing its immigration law when Missouri and Virginia have had identical laws for years. How very odd indeed!

[/quote]

It's because the mexicans are not invading from Virginia or South Carolina. This administration knows if their future dollars signs and democratic voters are actually stopped before they can get here and start breeding it's all over for them. They know now that the only way these fools are getting reelected is by cheating.