Thread: Indiana legislators tackle illegal immigration again

Indiana legislators tackle illegal immigration again
But some experts argue the authority lies with the federal government
By Dan McFeely

Posted: September 10, 2008Read Comments(9)

The number of Hispanics living illegally in Indiana has reached at least 100,000, but efforts by the state to stem the flow of illegal immigrants could run into trouble if they're seen as usurping federal law, legislators were told Tuesday.

The Washington, D.C.-based Pew Hispanic Center earlier this decade had estimated that 50,000 to 85,000 illegal immigrants were living in Indiana. But the state's hunger to fill low-wage construction and service industry jobs has boosted that number.


"Indiana is an emerging Hispanic state," said Rakesh Kochhar, associate director of research for Pew, noting that Indiana has seen a 667 percent surge in Hispanic residents -- legal and illegal -- since 1990.

Illegal immigration is expected to return as a hot topic at the Statehouse next year. State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, has vowed to reintroduce legislation that would crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

The Democrat-controlled House and Republican-ruled Senate passed different versions of Delph's bill last session but could not reach a compromise.

The Interim Study Committee on Immigration Issues, comprising House and Senate members from both parties, is taking a deeper look at the issue to see whether it can reach consensus before the start of the 2009 session in January.

That panel, convening for the first of several meetings, heard more than five hours of testimony Tuesday on the legal ramifications of a state law and on the latest population statistics.

Kochhar's estimates, based in part on census and other government figures, were called into question by G. Herb Hernandez, a member of the state Commission on Hispanic/Latino affairs, who questioned how Indiana could see such rapid growth.

"Counting illegal residents is very difficult," he said. "I am really concerned about those numbers."

The Census Bureau estimates Indiana, with a total population of about 6.3 million, had 315,000 legal and illegal Hispanics as of 2007. The largest percentages statewide live in Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend and the Northwest Indiana region. Pew also reported that, for the first time, four Indiana counties are made up of 10 percent or more Hispanic residents: Cass, Clinton, Elkhart and Lake counties.

How to deal with those here illegally has been hotly debated between forces who see the illegal population as a drain on taxpayer dollars -- for education, social welfare and law enforcement expenses -- and those such as Indiana's manufacturers and businesses, which see them as a much-needed source of labor.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, at an Indianapolis Star editorial board meeting Tuesday, said the state should move forward "cautiously."

"First of all, I think we do need more facts than we have. I'll just say that, as I often have, that as a country, but certainly as a state, we need more people, we need more folks who want to work hard, and I hope we never become the kind of country to which people no longer want to come with their dreams."

The campaign of his Democratic rival, Jill Long Thompson, said she viewed Delph's legislation as "extremely burdensome, especially to small businesses."

"A business should not be punished for hiring a worker that from all the information and documentation they received appear to be legal. Small businesses have their hands full with running their business; we shouldn't ask them to be law enforcement officials as well."

Tuesday's Statehouse hearing drew business lobbyists, those who advocate on behalf of Hispanics and at least one Catholic priest who makes the drive from South Bend frequently to testify against immigration laws.

A handful of law professors and legal experts warned the lawmakers that a crackdown would likely be costly -- amounting to perhaps millions of dollars -- and there was no guarantee a law would stand up in federal court.

Bernard Trujillo, a law professor from Valparaiso University, said lower-court battles in Arizona, Missouri and Pennsylvania over the issue are likely to quickly rise to the U.S. Supreme Court and should help answer questions over states' attempts to enforce their immigration laws.

Trujillo said the state should be cautious.

"What would be the downside of waiting?" he said. "Of finding out where this bandwagon is headed before you jump on?"

Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, expressed some frustration on the issue. "The same pool of people are paying for this testimony today, and they are paying for the absurd lack of any type of law enforcement," Walorski said. "I am almost thinking, man, I don't see where the taxpayer will ever win on this issue."

But Delph, despite the defeat that his proposal suffered this spring, showed no sign of giving in. "Why are we here? It is because our constituents are fed up with the cost of health care, the cost of public education and the true social costs and the human rights abuses. That is why we are here today."

The committee tried to answer a simple question: Does Indiana have the legal right to address an issue that has historically been handled at the federal level?

The overriding opinion from the assembled experts: Immigration enforcement is, in fact, a federal issue.

Law Professor John Scanlan, a 25-year veteran of Indiana University, laid out the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions that have established that states must tread carefully when they want to pass laws that go beyond what federal laws allow.

"You can possibly push the limits of your authority and hope for the best," Scanlan said. "Another alternative would be to work toward comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level."

The committee heard a differing opinion from John Hill, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis.

Hill said state laws that do not directly try to undo or supplant a federal law are likely to be upheld.

"The federal power is to regulate who comes into the country and under what conditions, and who stays and under what conditions," he said. "It does not prevent states in regulating certain areas. The state is not trying to regulate who is coming in."

That drew a question from Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster -- the General Assembly's only Hispanic lawmaker and an opponent of Delph's proposal last year -- who asked whether Indiana would be regulating who comes here by granting state and local police powers to enforce federal laws.

"They might," Hill said, "but the federal power is more interested in who enters the country."

Hill likened Indiana's ability to enact an immigration law to California's decision to place a moratorium on building new nuclear reactors at the time the federal Atomic Energy Act encouraged such developments. The Supreme Court held in that case that because the state's law was in part based on economics, there was no conflict with the federal law.

The committee plans at least three more fact-finding meetings.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... /809100381

[quote="zeezil"]Indiana legislators tackle illegal immigration again
But some experts argue the authority lies with the federal government
By Dan McFeely

Posted: September 10, 2008Read Comments(9)


Hill said state laws that do not directly try to undo or supplant a federal law are likely to be upheld.

"The federal power is to regulate who comes into the country and under what conditions, and who stays and under what conditions," he said. "It does not prevent states in regulating certain areas. The state is not trying to regulate who is coming in."

That drew a question from Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster -- the General Assembly's only Hispanic lawmaker and an opponent of Delph's proposal last year -- who asked whether Indiana would be regulating who comes here by granting state and local police powers to enforce federal laws.

"They might," Hill said, "but the federal power is more interested in who enters the country."

The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.