Immigration

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
10+ Year Member
Utah Eyed As Model For Immigration Reform
Utah Eyed As Model For Immigration Reform

JOSH LOFTIN

SALT LAKE CITY — Liberal immigration activists are looking to Utah as a compassionate and logical model for shaping the nation's future policies toward illegal immigrants.

Utah leaders – including government, education, business and religious groups – came together last fall to draft a set of principles to guide the immigration debate in the state. Those guidelines, known as the Utah Compact, state in part that illegal immigrants are essential to the economy and deserving of respect.

The recommendations are credited with helping pass immigration changes last month in the Utah Legislature that included enforcement revisions and a guest worker program.

"The leadership in Utah, through the Compact, changed the debate around the country," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Immigration Forum. "It's clear the Compact has struck a chord with the silent majority that wants reform."

Noorani is working with Utah officials to create a national version of the plan, which could be announced as early as this summer.

Opponents say the approach will lead to amnesty programs that only benefit big business and caution it will lead to more illegal immigration.

"They are trying to create the illusion of popular support for amnesty," said William Gheen, the executive director of the North Carolina-based Americans for Legal Immigration. "But the reverse is true. Most people only want enforcement."

Groups spearheaded by religious and business leaders in several other states are now adopting their own versions of the Utah Compact. Most are adopting Utah language that encourages keeping families together and urges compassion in law enforcement.

"It's important to represent the human side," said Kathryn Williams, co-chair of the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana. "It's also important to set the tenor of the debate so it's about what happens to that human."

The alliance mirrored Utah's message when it created the Indiana Compact, which was unveiled earlier this year. It has support from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Catholic Conference.

The initial goal for the Indiana plan – as well as similar drafts in Maine, Florida, Georgia and Kansas – is to avoid contentious legislation similar to what Arizona approved last year. That state's law sparked widespread controversy over provisions requiring police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion they're here illegally. That aspect of the law was put on hold by a federal judge.

Also prominent in the national debate are those who maintain that immigration is a federal issue and should not be handled on a state level. Such groups say that compact plans represent an unconstitutional flouting of federal powers.

Wendy Sefsaf, of the Washington, D.C.-based American Immigration Council, also points out another reason for skepticism. Even if the principles are laudable, she said, the results in Utah "did not live up to it" because it will create second-class workers who are not citizens.

Still, Utah does provide a starting point.

"We all have aspirational goals, and the compact has great aspirations," Sefsaf said. "But most states are just reacting. Utah at least tried something that wasn't just about deporting people."
 
PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court is refusing to lift a stay blocking major parts of a tough Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants from taking effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. The governor asked them to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.


USA v. State of Arizona, No. 10-16645
(04/11/11) USA v. State of Arizona, No. 10-16645


OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In April 2010, in response to a serious problem of unauthorized immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border, the State of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy. Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, as amended by H.B. 2162 (“S.B. 1070”), “make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” S.B. 1070 § 1. The provisions of S.B. 1070 are distinct from federal immigration laws. To achieve this policy of attrition, S.B. 1070 establishes a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defines the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers.

Before Arizona’s new immigration law went into effect, the United States sued the State of Arizona in federal district court alleging that S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and that it violated the Commerce Clause. Along with its complaint, the United States filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin implementation of S.B. 1070 in its entirety until a final decision is made about its constitutionality. Although the United States requested that the law be enjoined in its entirety, it specifically argued facial challenges to only six select provisions of the law. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992 (D. Ariz. 2010).

The district court granted the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining enforcement of S.B. 1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6, on the basis that federal law likely preempts these provisions. Id. at 1008. Arizona appealed the grant of injunctive relief, arguing that these four sections are not likely preempted; the United States did not cross-appeal the partial denial of injunctive relief. Thus, the United States’ likelihood of success on its federal preemption argument against these four sections is the central issue this appeal presents.1

We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining S.B. 1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction order enjoining these certain provisions of S.B. 1070.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/04/11/10-16645_opinion.pdf
 
Arizona to appeal on alien controls
Arizona will seek Supreme Court review of its controversial law imposing tight restrictions on aliens in the state without immigration papers. No further efforts will be made in lower courts, governor says.
Arizona to appeal on alien controls : SCOTUSblog

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Monday that the state will go on to the Supreme Court, in coming weeks, to test its constitutional authority to put tight restrictions on undocumented immigrants living in the state. Saying that “time is of the essence,” the governor reported that Arizona will forgo any new maneuvers in lower courts in order to get legal questions “resolved quickly” on its controversial law, known as S.B. 1070. The Ninth Circuit Court temporarily blocked key parts of the law in April; that ruling is discussed in this post.
 
The White House has released the Blueprint for Building a 21st Century Immigration System. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/immigration_blueprint.pdf

• Responsibility by the federal government to secure our borders: Today, our borders are more secure than at any time in the past several decades and the Administration continues to refine and strengthen its strategy. Enforcement resources should be focused on preventing those who would do our nation harm from entering our country.

• Accountability for businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers: Employers who deliberately hire and exploit undocumented workers must be held accountable. At the same time, we must give employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.

• Strengthening our economic competitiveness by creating a legal immigration system that reflects our values and diverse needs: Our immigration laws should continue to reunify families and encourage individuals we train in our world-class institutions to stay and develop new technologies and industries in the United States rather than abroad. The law should stop punishing innocent young people whose parents brought them here illegally and give those young men and women a chance to stay in this country if they serve in the military or pursue higher education. A smart 21st century system should also provide farmers a legal way to hire the workers they rely on year after year, and it should improve procedures for employers who seek to hire foreign workers for jobs if U.S. workers are not available.

• Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Those people living here illegally must also be held accountable for their actions and get on the right side of the law by registering and undergoing national security and criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, and learning English before they can get in line to become eligible for citizenship. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair and reflects our values.
 
Federal judge blocks Utah immigration law
Federal judge blocks Utah immigration law - Nation - NewsObserver.com

SALT LAKE CITY -- A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a Utah immigration law that would have allowed police to check the citizenship status of anyone they arrest, citing its similarities to the most controversial parts of an Arizona law that seems bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued his ruling in Salt Lake City just 14 hours after the law went into effect, saying that there is sufficient evidence that at least some portions of the Utah legislation will be found unconstitutional.
 
Courts strikes down much of Arizona immigration law
Courts strikes down much of Arizona immigration law : SCOTUSblog

This morning, the Court handed down its decision in Arizona v. United States, the case involving Arizona’s attempt to supplement federal immigration enforcement through several state law measures. The Court reviewed four provisions of the statute, holding that three are preempted by federal law. Section 2(B) – which requires the police to check the immigration status of detained individuals before releasing them – is the only provision that potentially survived.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
 
Back
Top