More states are turning down Arizona-style laws than passing them. But about ‘Secure Communities’…
Who has the right to enforce federal immigration laws, the states or the federal government? That’s what’s being decided as state laws like Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 get thrown before the courts.
And that’s not all. The courts will also decide whether states have the right to criminalize acts such as being in the country without papers, which until now have been civil violations under federal law. The difference is state-ordered jail time or simple deportation by the feds.
It’s round two in the fight over immigrants rights.
A number of states have now passed tough, Arizona-like immigration laws. But the anti-immigrant movement is really not gathering force. Most state anti-immigrant bills are failing in the legislatures, and where they seem to be getting traction they have met with rising resistance.
Pro-immigrant forces have gathered momentum because of the glaring similarities between these Arizona-style laws and the anti-immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives in 2005 — the Sensenbrenner bill that caused the first big demonstrations.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) proposed changing a civil offense (being in the U.S. without proper documentation) into a federal crime. That would have turned anybody helping undocumented immigrants into accomplices who could also face criminal charges.
Because of that, the fight over the bill pulled in large numbers of legal residents and citizens who had previously had no opinion one way or another about immigration.
The Arizona law would have the same effect, though the undocumented immigrants — and anybody who helped them, housed them or gave them a ride — would be charged with a misdemeanor, which could still result in jail time.
As states pursue their own immigration laws, rights advocates are challenging them in court and winning injunctions which keep them from being implemented until the courts decide their constitutionality.
Meanwhile, some 27 states have rejected Arizona copycat legislation, 20 of them this year. Still, the firestorm ignited with the Arizona law in 2010 spread to Georgia in 2011 and now is hovering over Alabama.
After Georgia passed its own copycat law, the roar of the pro-immigrant forces could be heard loud and clear in Atlanta’s streets. It culminated July 2, when immigrants and their supporters — 25,000 strong — held the largest march Atlanta has seen in a generation.
Today the eye of the storm hovers over Alabama, where elements of the religious community are among the pro-immigration forces. In late June, for instance, 160 people gathered at Highlands United Methodist Church for the first of a series of “Faithful Conversations” about the state’s new immigration law.
“This isn’t a political issue for us,” said Rev. Matt Lacey. “It’s not an economic issue. It’s a religious issue.
“After the bill was signed into law, a lot of ministers got together and said there are certain elements of this law which we felt were going against the gospel,” he explained.
Meanwhile, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts moved to opt out of the federal Secure Communities program. Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of everyone booked by state or local police are checked by Department of Homeland Security computers for immigration violations.
States and cities opting out of Secure Communities often do so because it catches the wrong people and instills fear in the community, stifling cooperation with the police (which brings the police chiefs into the fight). It also costs state and local governments too much money when they are facing painful cutbacks.
But many of the politicians who support opting out of Secure Communities also do so because on-the-street opposition to the anti-immigrant attack has become so strong.
Homeland Security has now cancelied all its Secure Communities agreements, saying that states and local governments have no choice but to use the program. The stage is set for more confrontation between the federal government and the growing number of people — immigrant and native-born — who support immigrant rights.
More states are turning down Arizona-style laws than passing them. But about ‘Secure Communities’…
Who has the right to enforce federal immigration laws, the states or the federal government? That’s what’s being decided as state laws like Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 get thrown before the courts.
And that’s not all. The courts will also decide whether states have the right to criminalize acts such as being in the country without papers, which until now have been civil violations under federal law. The difference is state-ordered jail time or simple deportation by the feds.
It’s round two in the fight over immigrants rights.
A number of states have now passed tough, Arizona-like immigration laws. But the anti-immigrant movement is really not gathering force. Most state anti-immigrant bills are failing in the legislatures, and where they seem to be getting traction they have met with rising resistance.
Pro-immigrant forces have gathered momentum because of the glaring similarities between these Arizona-style laws and the anti-immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives in 2005 — the Sensenbrenner bill that caused the first big demonstrations.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) proposed changing a civil offense (being in the U.S. without proper documentation) into a federal crime. That would have turned anybody helping undocumented immigrants into accomplices who could also face criminal charges.
Because of that, the fight over the bill pulled in large numbers of legal residents and citizens who had previously had no opinion one way or another about immigration.
The Arizona law would have the same effect, though the undocumented immigrants — and anybody who helped them, housed them or gave them a ride — would be charged with a misdemeanor, which could still result in jail time.
As states pursue their own immigration laws, rights advocates are challenging them in court and winning injunctions which keep them from being implemented until the courts decide their constitutionality.
Meanwhile, some 27 states have rejected Arizona copycat legislation, 20 of them this year. Still, the firestorm ignited with the Arizona law in 2010 spread to Georgia in 2011 and now is hovering over Alabama.
After Georgia passed its own copycat law, the roar of the pro-immigrant forces could be heard loud and clear in Atlanta’s streets. It culminated July 2, when immigrants and their supporters — 25,000 strong — held the largest march Atlanta has seen in a generation.
Today the eye of the storm hovers over Alabama, where elements of the religious community are among the pro-immigration forces. In late June, for instance, 160 people gathered at Highlands United Methodist Church for the first of a series of “Faithful Conversations” about the state’s new immigration law.
“This isn’t a political issue for us,” said Rev. Matt Lacey. “It’s not an economic issue. It’s a religious issue.
“After the bill was signed into law, a lot of ministers got together and said there are certain elements of this law which we felt were going against the gospel,” he explained.
Meanwhile, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts moved to opt out of the federal Secure Communities program. Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of everyone booked by state or local police are checked by Department of Homeland Security computers for immigration violations.
States and cities opting out of Secure Communities often do so because it catches the wrong people and instills fear in the community, stifling cooperation with the police (which brings the police chiefs into the fight). It also costs state and local governments too much money when they are facing painful cutbacks.
But many of the politicians who support opting out of Secure Communities also do so because on-the-street opposition to the anti-immigrant attack has become so strong.
Homeland Security has now cancelied all its Secure Communities agreements, saying that states and local governments have no choice but to use the program. The stage is set for more confrontation between the federal government and the growing number of people — immigrant and native-born — who support immigrant rights.
