February 16, 2009 12:04 PM EST (Updated: February 16, 2009 12:07 PM EST)
views: 46 | rating: 1/10 (1 vote) | comments: 1


Guide to State and Local Action to Deterring Illegal Immigration


Increasingly across the country, state and local governments are being asked by their constituents to address the fast growing presence of illegal immigrants in their communities. The issues that have persuaded local policymakers of the need to grapple with this complex and often emotional issue include the fiscal burden on taxpayers, quality of education, crime, national security, protection of American jobs for Americans, traffic safety and zoning issues, to name just a few.


Background


For years amnesty proponents and organizations that defend illegal immigrants argued that states and local governments are preempted by the federal government from taking action on the issue of immigration. Nevertheless, several years ago these same organizations began to lobby to get state and local governments to accommodate illegal immigrants by adoption of sanctuary policies and measures such as issuing them driver's licenses, recognizing the Mexican identity card (matricula consular), and providing them in-state university tuition.

Now, with illegal immigration skyrocketing and Congress locked in a virtual stalemate on immigration reform legislation, and with state and local lawmakers increasingly exercising their responsibility to protect their constituents from the harmful effects of immigration lawbreakers (see survey of adopted immigration-related measures in Appendix A), these organizations are unconvincingly trying to revert to their long-held position that the federal government has sole jurisdiction. In addition, support groups for illegal immigrants are routinely challenging in court the state and local measures adopted to curtail illegal immigrant settlement. Recent key federal court rulings have rejected the argument that these measures are preempted by federal law (see summary of key federal court decisions in Appendix B). State and local action to discourage illegal immigrant settlement, if properly drawn, is not only constitutional; it is an appropriate response to the harmful effects of illegal immigrants spreading across the country.

The argument of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association (AILA) that federal responsibility pre-empts local action is clearly unsustainable. Federal law requires state and local government agencies that distribute federal benefits to screen applicants for legal presence by using a federal database system known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE). Federal law also established a system to enable employers to verify the identity and legal work status of their employees, now called E-Verify. In addition, federal law enforcement agencies are working cooperatively with local law enforcement agencies to identify illegal immigrants in state and local detention facilities for purposes of reimbursement for some of the expense of incarceration. This collaborative action assures the transfer of the deportable aliens to federal agents for removal from the country. Other cooperative programs also exist such as ones involving joint efforts to prevent further attacks by international terrorists.

State and local legislation aimed at discouraging illegal immigrant settlement is conflicted because there are many vested interests that support the status quo. These interests include businesses that are employing illegal workers, ethnic advocacy groups, friends and family of illegal residents, AILA and legal defense organizations, church-based groups, and citizens who empathize with the under-dog and fail to make a distinction between Americans who need a job and an illegal worker who is seeking a job. The opponents of state and local law enforcement efforts attempt to confuse the issue by ignoring the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. In addition to the difference in legal status and entitlements of legal residents compared to illegal residents, the two categories of foreign residents differ greatly in their impact on a community. It is a disservice to legal immigrants to lump them together with immigration lawbreakers.

The topics below address the following issues:

Reducing the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants
Reducing the job magnet that attracts illegal workers
Protecting job opportunities for our most vulnerable workers
Protecting neighborhoods
Protecting citizens against crime
Protecting legal residents from illegal drivers
We are convinced that state and local action is both essential and appropriate in the absence of adequate immigration law enforcement at the federal level, and we believe that the lessons learned at the state and local levels from countering illegal immigration will guide and encourage federal lawmakers to overcome the current stalemate and enact needed new laws. To this end, FAIR's legal arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), has proven expertise and success in assisting state and local lawmakers in drafting legislation that will be both effective and will stand up to legal challenge. IRLI and FAIR's field staff stand ready to assist state and local lawmakers and policymakers in shaping measures to local conditions and to help educate the public.

Download the full report now in pdf format. From fairus.org.

Especially interesting are Appendixes A & B.

May 2008

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?a ... 4977596500