States preempt US on immigration

Frustrated by federal inaction, state and local governments are passing laws at a record pace.

from the June 15, 2007 edition

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 | Page 2 | 3

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."

1 | 2 | Page 3