States preempt US on immigration

Though the US is a nation of immigrants, and the percentage of new immigrants today may actually be lower than in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the patterns have changed.

"Immigrants are going to places like Hazelton, Pa., or towns in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi where the economies are doing better," says Joe Vail, director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Houston.

While these communities have plenty of jobs, they don't have the classrooms and other services to support these immigrants and their families. The costs of education, medical care, and other social services are creating financial burdens on them that aren't reimbursed by the federal government, says Professor Vail.

The NCSL's Ms. Steisel says immigration issues now affect all 50 states. As recently as 10 years ago, she says, only five states – New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and California – were dealing with serious immigration problems. She cites North Carolina as an example. The 2000 census showed that the state had recorded a 400 percent increase in foreign-born residents.

"That is an extraordinary number," Steisel says. "What you see now is states that never before had to deal with immigrants now have to figure out how to handle questions as complex as human trafficking, what documents are necessary for employment – a wide set of issues."

Pitfalls of state and local laws

But when states and municipalities tackle these issues, problems can arise. For example, the federal government already requires employers to verify workers' documents, through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). When local governments take that responsibility on themselves, it only clogs up the system, experts say.

Moreover, putting the onus on landlords to verify a potential tenant's immigration status could cause major problems with monitoring and enforcement, and may lead to discrimination if landlords prove to be unwilling to bear the costs of defending their judgments.

"If a municipality or state has such landlord sanctions in place, we could see discriminatory standards in housing," says Rodolfo Espino, a political scientist at Arizona State University (ASU).

That's what happened in the workplace, he says. "After IRCA, Asians and Hispanics were discriminated against because employers didn't want to take the risk that the paperwork they accepted may be challenged."

Employers chose instead to hire whites, leading to a number of discrimination cases Dr. Espino says. "The spillover effects could be very disastrous."

Pleas for federal action

The pitfalls of immigration law are leading some state and local politicians to plead with the federal government to act.

"I implore lawmakers to go back to the table, iron out their differences, and give us an immigration system that is enforceable, and the resources to enforce it," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano wrote in an op-ed that appeared Monday in The Washington Post.

"If there is a solution [to illegal immigration], it would have to come at the federal level," says David Berman, professor emeritus of political science at ASU. "The problem is national and international in nature, something that would be difficult to handle on a state-by-state basis."

Page: 1 | 2