More states, cities dealing with immigration


More states, cities dealing with immigration

Across America, illegal immigrants will find cities that offer them sanctuary and cities that seek to bar them from working, renting a residence or obtaining welfare benefits.

The huge gaps illustrate the range of views that Americans hold about immigration, but also the variety of local and state laws dealing with immigration, which traditionally has been the exclusive province of federal law.

State and local governments gained a toehold on immigration matters on May 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court said Arizona can make a law penalizing businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

"I've said all along the way the country needs to deal with immigration is have the states and local (governments) work in harmony with the federal government. Now we have the highest court in the nation that is agreeing," U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, R-11, Hazleton, said.

After ruling on the Arizona case, the Supreme Court asked a lower court in Philadelphia to reconsider a Hazleton immigration law, which Mr. Barletta championed in 2006 when he was mayor.

Hazleton's law

Hazleton's law seizes upon an exception to the rule that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate immigration.

Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law refers to the exception as those eight parenthetical words: "except with respect to licensing and similar laws."

Attorney Kris Kobach, the secretary of state in Kansas, noted those words when drafting Hazleton's law.

Hazleton's law, like Arizona's, says businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants can lose their licenses. The penalty is stricter than other types of laws imposed on businesses.

"This is as close to a death sentence as employers can get," Mr. Chishti said. He said companies that released nuclear waste or other pollutants typically wouldn't lose their licenses. They would pay fines, which Hazleton's law imposes for employers that commit two or more offenses.

Severe penalties in Hazleton-style laws, Mr. Chishti said, could lead Congress to revisit immigration laws.

"Look, we didn't mean this - that's one possibility," he said of how Congress might react to the Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona case.

Mr. Barletta ran for Congress because he said he could do more to help Hazleton from Washington, D.C., than he could in the mayor's office, where he was frustrated by the costs that the city incurred because of illegal immigration.

Requiring employers to screen their workers is one way to slow illegal immigration, Mr. Barletta said. He supports a bill that would mandate employers nationwide to submit the names of newly hired workers to a federal system called E-Verify. E-Verify is designed to report within minutes whether the employee is authorized to work or to issue a notice that the employee is tentatively not confirmed as a legal worker. Employees who receive tentative notices are given a number of days to correct errors, according to rules employers are instructed to follow.

Mr. Barletta said using E-Verify without revising the nation's overall immigration policy, however, is like "replacing the carpet while you still have a hole in the roof."

As part of the reforms, Mr. Barletta wants to secure borders.

Two Access cards

He also raised complaints with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for failing to detain an illegal immigrant stopped by police in Beaver Meadows. The man possessed two Access cards qualifying him for welfare benefits.

Mr. Barletta, who formed an immigration reform caucus for freshmen legislators, introduced a bill denying federal aid to cities that instruct police and other employees not to report illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

Mr. Chishti, meanwhile, sugĀ*gests linking E-Verify with a policy to let unauthorized workers gain legal status.

Congress considered but declined to do that four years ago, and Mr. Chishti doesn't think the lawmakers will try again until after the next election.

The American economy, Mr. Chishti said, is better off with immigrants.

"That doesn't mean illegal immigrants. It is much better to have legal immigration," Mr. Chishti said.

Rather than relying on a preference system based on a law more than a half-century old, he suggests setting immigration quotas at levels that economists estimate the labor market needs.

"If we had done that in the last 15 years, we would have increased our legal streams,' Mr. Chishti said.

The downturn in the economy led to a slight decrease in illegal immigration to about 11.1 million people from 12 million people in 2007, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates.

Mr. Barletta, who opposes granting amnesty for illegal workers already present, said the nation needs "to make sure we have our share of immigrants coming here for jobs that we need help in."

Agriculture is among the occupations that he said need immigrant workers.

Contact the writer: kjackson@ standardspeaker.com

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/more-s ... z1P9iu8GV3