"Not in Our State: What Community-Based Organizations Can Do to Combat SB 1070 CopyCat Legislation" Tool Kit for Advocates, 2010 July 1

4™.
NCLR i The Leadership

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA Conference

NOT IN OUR STATE: WHAT COMMUNITY-
BASED ORGANIZATIONS CAN DO TO COMBAT
SB 1070 COPY CAT LEGISLATION

Tool Kit for Advocates

National Council of La Raza

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Overview
Messaging around SB 1070 and Copycats.
SB 1070 Copycat Talking Points...
Tips for Working with the Media...
Build Diverse Coalitions and Organize...
Meeting with Y our State Legislators...
Additional Resources.
Appendix A: Section-by-Section Summary of SB 1070.
Appendix B: National Copycat Landscape................
Appendix C: Alternative Proactive Legislative Measures ....
Appendix D: Quotes from Stakeholders Who Oppose SB 1070...
Appendix E: Sample Grassroots Campaign Plan.
Appendix F: The Utah Compact.................
Appendix G: Nebraska A ppleseed Fact Sheet.
Appendix H: Iowa Immigration Education Coalition Fact Sheet.....................
Appendix I: List of States and Localities with Resolutions Opposing SB 1070.
Appendix J: Sample Media Plan

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

WHAT IS SB 1070?

In late April, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), the
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. There was an unprecedented
national response to this legislation, which essentially sanctions racial profiling, and Arizona has
experienced considerable backlash. Even so, copycat legislation is spreading to other states,
where state legislators are introducing similar measures that threaten to divide our communities
and infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens. With the passage of SB 1070, immigration has
been thrust back into the state and local limelight:

e April 23, 2010—SB 1070 was signed into law. The law’s most controversial provision
authorizes law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone stopped if the
officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is an undocumented immigrant
(see Appendix A for a detailed summary of the law). Law enforcement agencies in
Arizona and throughout the country are already challenged by substantial evidence of
wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and discrimination"; SB 1070, and other laws like it,
would dramatically exacerbate the problem.

e July 6, 2010—With several other lawsuits already filed against the state by civil rights
organizations and police officers, the U.S. Department of Justice also filed a lawsuit,
challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070 on the grounds that the law interferes with
the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy.

e July 28, 2010—U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction,
preventing the most egregious portions of SB 1070 from being implemented.

e November 1, 2010—Govemor Brewer immediately appealed this ruling to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, where arguments were heard on November 1. A decision is
pending, and Brewer has vowed to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

e December 2010-January 2011—Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, was elected as
Arizona Senate President and is preparing to bring even more outrageous proposals, such
as eliminating birthright citizenship, to the Arizona legislature for debate. In addition,
states throughout the country are beginning to file SB 1070 copycat legislation. Although
the rapidly changing climate makes it difficult to predict the states in which copycat
legislation will be considered in 2011, a look at the national copycat landscape in
Appendix B shows that it is likely to be addressed in a number of state legislatures.

WHO IS BEHIND SB 1070 AND SIMILAR LAWS?

While SB 1070 is certainly the most extreme state-level racial profiling and anti-immigrant law
that has been passed to date, it did not happen in a vacuum. There are several individuals,
organizations, and corporations that have been shown to be part of a coordinated effort to pass
similar legislation:

: Casey Newton and JJ Hensley, “Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for FBI investigation of Arpaio,” The Arizona
Republic, April 13, 2008, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/2008041 3gordonarpaio0413.html
(accessed January 6, 2011).
e According to the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR), the nation’s leading anti-immigrant organization, was
founded by White nationalist John Tanton and has accepted more than $1 million from
the Pioneer Fund, a White supremacist foundation devoted to proving a connection
between race and intelligence. In its legislative pursuits, FAIR has been aided by its legal
arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), which writes much of the anti-
immigrant legislative language for state and local ordinances and bills.

e While Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce is credited with introducing SB 1070, the
main author of the bill was IRLI counsel Kris Kobach, a law professor from Kansas who
was recently elected as the Kansas Secretary of State. Kobach has also been lead counsel
in defending a number of other constitutionally dubious anti-immigrant laws, such as
those in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Valley Park, Missouri, and Farmers Branch, Texas.

e National Public Radio (NPR) recently released a report outlining the connections
between the private prison industry, anti-immigrant lobbyists, and SB 1070, showing how
economic interests increase the pressure for the criminalization and incarceration of
undocumented immigrants.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO COMBAT COPYCAT LEGISLATION IN YOUR STATE?
This tool kit is meant to help you develop a strategy for fighting A rizona-like racial profiling
legislation in your city or state. If you are not facing such a bill, you can refer to Appendix C for
a list of proactive legislative alternatives for your allies in the state legislature or city government
to champion.

Y our unique perspective as part of a community-based institution represents an essential voice
that may otherwise go unheard in the public sphere. In many places, state-level immigration
enforcement legislation has passed as a result of the public only hearing one side of the debate,
but you can fill that information gap by providing facts and figures on the real impact that an
Arizona copycat bill would have on U.S. citizens. Nationwide, there are many voices that have
come out in opposition to SB 1070 and copycats, from celebrities to law enforcement to elected
officials (see A ppendix D).

1. Work with the media. Working with the media is a very important way to respond to
racial profiling copycat legislation and combat anti-immigrant sentiment. This packet
includes a variety of tools, including talking points, statistics on the impact of SB 1070
and copycat legislation, tips for working with the media, and a sample media plan, that
can help you present information to the broader public and lawmakers about why SB
1070 isn’t the right approach for your state.

2. Build diverse coalitions and organize. A rizona-style legislation compromises the rights
of all Americans, and as such, it is an issue that touches many different communities.
Building a coalition with other minority community groups, concerned business leaders,
and religious leaders offers the best approach for combating SB 1070 copycats (see a
sample grassroots plan in Appendix E). One recent example of a powerful coalition of
business, religious, community, and elected leaders coming together to support fair and
just immigration reform is The Utah Compact, which can be found in A ppendix F.
3. Lobby your state legislators. It is essential that community-based organizations reach
out to legislators to inform them of the concerns about copycat legislation, debunk myths,
clarify the facts, and elevate the contributions of immigrants to the community. The two
organizations that developed this packet, The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights (The Leadership Conference) and the National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), have also created a separate packet that you can w to state legislators, Not in
Our State: We Are Not Arizona. In addition, short fact sheets are often useful materials
to leave behind with legislators; see appendices G and H for examples from Nebraska
Appleseed and the lowa Immigrant Education Coalition.

4. Contact national partner organizations for additional assistance. Below are several
national organizations that are working to push back against SB 1070 and prevent the
spread of copycat legislation. For more information on the items presented in this packet,
you can contact:

e The Leadership Conference: Catherine Montoya, Senior Field Program Manager,
montoya@ civilrights.org

e NCLR: Elena Lacayo, Immigration Field Coordinator, elacayo@nclr.org

e Progressive States Network: Suman Raghunathan, Immigration Policy Specialist,
sraghunathan@ progressivestates.org

e National Immigration Forum: Dawn Mabery, Manager, State and Local Elected
Official Outreach, dmabery@ immigrationforum.org

e National Immigration Law Center: Go to www.nilc.org to find the appropriate
staff person in your area or contact Jon Blazer, Policy Attomey, blazer@nilc.org

e American Civil Liberties Union: Go to http://www.aclu.org/affiliates to find your
state’s ACLU affiliate office.

MESSAGING AROUND SB 1070 AND COPYCATS

Any messaging document should be viewed as a menu of options to draw from when you are
speaking to various audiences. Y ou will not have time to use all the talking points in every
conversation (e.g. speaking to a reporter, testifying at the state house, or visiting legislators), so
use the points that are most relevant. These talking points are a resource to revisit as you
prepare to address your audience.

WHAT MESSAGES WORK AND WHY?
The talking points found on pages 6-13 were developed by taking into account various public
opinion research polls and our collective experience on what messages work and why:

e Anoverwhelming majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform
that secures the border, punishes unscrupulous employers, and provides those in the
country without documentation with a way to earn their citizenship if they meet certain
requirements.”

e There is an overwhelming amount of ambivalence toward immigrants. On the one hand,
the public believes that we are a nation of immigrants. They feel that immigrants are
hard workers who came to this country in search of a better life and to work to achieve
the American Dream. On the other hand, the public views undocumented immigrants as
lawbreakers who don’t pay taxes, receive government benefits, don’t speak English, and
are a net cost to our country. To top it off, the public tends to see all Latinos as
immigrants, and immigrants as undocumented.

e Many leaders in the civil rights community, law enforcement, and the law recognize that
SB 1070 and copycat legislation promote racial profiling. While most people see racial
profiling as wrong and even as a human rights violation, some still believe that it can be a
necessary or effective policing tool. Talking about why racial profiling is a violation of
values and why it hurts us all is crucial to raising doubts about this legislation.

e In messaging about policies, it’s never enough to be simply against something. For many
legislators and the broader public, copycat bills receive support because they are equated
with action.? The public is frustrated with the immigration system; thus, we need to
outline why harsh enforcement policies like this law are not the answer.

e One of the most effective ways to build opposition is to present copycat legislation for
what it really is—an issue that affects not just the immigrant community but, more
importantly, the broader community.

*“ Memorandum, “V oter Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” November 9, 2010, Lake Research
Partners, Washington, DC,
http://americasvoiceonline.org/index.php/polling/entry/voter_support_for_comprehensive_

immigration_reform (accessed September 1, 2010).

* America’s Voice, “Public Opinion and the Arizona Immigration Law: What Do Voters Support and Why?”
(presentation, July 7, 2010),
http://americasvoiceonline.org/index.php/polling/entry/public_opinion_and_the_arizona_immigration_law (accessed
September 1, 2010).

‘Ibid.
SB 1070 COPY CAT TALKING POINTS

The following talking points are based on the overarching theme: Why our state isn’t
Arizona—and doesn’t want to be. Please note the following:

e These talking points fall into four general categories: 1) Cost, 2) Ineffectiveness, 3)
Values, and 4) Solutions. Where you see the “[ ]” symbol, insert your state and examples
from your state.

e These talking points are most effective when they are leveraged by many different
messengers in order to create an echo chamber where voices opposing the legislation
outweigh the proponents. If possible, you should encourage allies and coalition partners
to collectively use the same talking points.

e When possible, use statistics and quotes from credible sources on these issues.
Additional information can be found in the footnotes. Y ou should look to add quotes
from local business leaders, law enforcement officials, and other credible community or
state spokespeople.

e If you have time, we advise that you create a short fact sheet that you can distribute to
legislators—one that give legislators the quick facts and figures regarding how copycat
legislation will affect your state (see A ppendices G and H for examples). For state-by-
state numbers on the economic effects of removing unauthorized immigrants, visit The
Perryman Group’s report online.

1) The costs of this law are astronomical at a time when our state can’t afford it.

This law would invite costly legal challenges, reduce state income, and tarnish our state
image and brand.
e Our state is facing a budget gap of [$1.4 billion] over the next [two] years, and we can’t
afford another unfunded mandate. The state has already cut [insert state programs here:

e.g., state foster care, funding for small business development, and mental health

services, and the state is looking at future cuts in education funding, particularly in rural

areas. ]
e Wecannot alienate visitors and tourists who come to our state and provide much-needed
revenue.

o Just four months after SB 1070 was signed into law, the Arizona Hotel and Lodging
Association reported a loss of $15 million in lodging revenue due to conference and
meeting cancellations.

o According to research by an Arizona-based firm, Elliott D. Pollack and Company,
this figure is even greater, with Arizona likely to lose $253 million from conference
cancellations and booking declines. And added to this is the estimated $17 million of
lost tax revenue that accompanies the losses in tourism spending and employment.”

* Marshall Fitz and Angela Kelley, Stop the Conference: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Conference
Cancellations Due to Arizona's S.B. 1070 (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010),
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/pdf/az_tourism.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
o Arizona is also facing a boycott by performing artists, of which more than 400 are
refusing to play concerts in the state.” In addition, sports institutions, such as the
World Boxing Council, will not schedule bouts in Arizona, and two Mexican
universities cancelled their academic exchange programs with Arizona colleges.’

e Wecannot threaten the livelihood of our businesses by passing a law that would badly
tarnish their ability to attract contracts with other states.

o After SB 1070 passed, many cities throughout the country passed divestment
resolutions reducing the number of contracts they have with Arizona businesses and
travel bans prohibiting city employees from traveling to Arizona (see A ppendix G).

o Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had to transfer $250,000 to the Arizona Office of
Tourism for a marketing campaign to improve the state’s negative image as a result of
SB 1070.

e Critics note that undocumented workers use education, health care, and law enforcement
services that are paid for by state and local governments. At the same time, immigrants
in our state are already contributing members to our economy by paying sales, property,
and income taxes.

o Infact, The Perryman Group found that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed
from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in
gross state product, and 140,324 jobs—all while the state’s 2011—2012 budget has a
projected deficit of $1.4 billion*

e State and local jurisdictions that have attempted to take over immigration enforcement
from the federal government have typically paid large legal bills in a losing effort to
defend their laws. The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Arizona, resulting in a court
ruling that blocked major parts of the law and a cost of $1 million in legal fees to defend
the law—and that’s only through July 2010. [Nebraska] can scarcely afford to invite
costly litigation over a law that is of questionable constitutionality and could take years to
settle.

e Other similar state laws and local ordinances have repeatedly lost expensive legal battles
in federal courts. While Arizona has been able to pay for a portion of its legal fees
through donations, most states and municipalities have paid the bills with taxpayer
dollars.

o Taxpayers have been left holding the bag in several cities: $2.4 million in Hazleton,
Pennsylvania; $4 million in Farmer’s Branch, Texas; and $270,000 in Valley Park,
Missouri. Fremont, Nebraska recently had to raise property taxes 18% to cover the
first year of defending its local anti-immigration ordinance.

* Zach de la Rocha, “Artists Call to Boycott Arizona,”

http://www. thesoundstrike.net/sites/default/files/Sound% 20Strike% 20A rtist% 20Letter% 20from% 20Zack%20De%2
Ola%20Rocha.pdf (accessed January 5, 2011).

‘ Boycott Intolerance, “Arizona Losing Business,” http://www.boycottintolerance.org/updates/p/business (accessed
January 5, 2011).

* The Perryman Group, An Essential Resource: An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Works on
Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry, (Waco, Texas: The Perryman Group,
2008), http://www.americansforimmigrationreform.com/files/Impact_of_the_Undocumented_Workforce.pdf
(accessed January 4, 2011).

5 Melinda Warner, “Meet Kris Kobach: Lawyer For The Anti-Immigrant Movement,” Political Correction, July 15,
2010, http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007150011 (accessed January 4, 2011).
e Inaddition to the costs of defending the law’s constitutionality, we would be
institutionalizing racial profiling, opening up the state to additional costly litigation for
violating U.S. citizens’ civil rights.

This law wastes limited law enforcement resources and diverts police attention away from
addressing serious crimes.

e Adding a new, expensive mandate to arrest and detain immigrants—which would require
extra training of law enforcement officers and supervision—will only make the situation
worse for everyone.

o According to Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, there is a trade-off to the local enforcement of immigration
law: “If the local police are doing federal law enforcement, other law enforcement
responsibilities get a lower priority by default.”

e In addition, there is no plan for where immigrants would be detained. Federal laws
require jails to meet certain standards before they are approved as holding facilities for
immigrants, which many municipalities don’t meet and would have to pay to modify.

e Laws like this essentially shield police from charges of racial profiling while at the same
time exposing them to private right of action for failing to enforce the law with sufficient
vigor.

2a) This law is unworkable and doesn’t address our real needs.

This proposal offers false promises when what we need are real solutions to fix our nation’s
broken immigration system.

e [Nebraskans] have every right to be frustrated with the federal government’s failure to fix
our immigration system, but the passage of an Arizona copycat law would do far more
harm than good at a time when the state can least afford it.

e Such a law will not address any of the serious challenges that our state faces right now. It
won’t balance our budget, create more jobs, provide quality health care, retain or recruit
professionals and workers to our state, educate our children, or protect our environment.
It will make our problems worse by diverting resources and sowing fear and division into
communities that need to work together.

e Laws like this require that all state officials ask everyone who is “reasonably suspected”
of being undocumented for proof of legal residency, yet fails to provide objective criteria
for determining what might constitute “reasonable suspicion.”

e Instead of passing laws that divide us, we need sensible immigration policies that reflect
our values as Americans while recognizing the reality that immigrants are already
contributing members of our communities and a crucial part of our economic engine and
social fabric. Together, we are all part of the future of our state and our country.

This bill is founded on inaccurate information claiming that immigrants bring crime to the

country.

* Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin, “REASONABLE DOUBT: At What Cost?,” East Valley Tribune, July 9, 2008,
http://www. pulitzer.org/archives/8370 (accessed July 22, 2010).
e Numerous studies by independent researchers and government entities consistently show
that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than the native-bom
population. In fact, although the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
doubled to about 12 million between 1994 and 2005, the U.S. violent crime rate declined
by 34.2% and the property crime rate fell by 26.4%.

o Forexample, in Arizona, proponents of SB 1070 made factually inaccurate claims
about crime in Arizona,’ falsely citing an increase in crime when, in fact, crime in
Arizona has declined over the past ten years.’

2b) This legislation will not make our communities safer because it undermines law
enforcement.

This law makes it harder for police officers to do their jobs by driving a wedge between
them and the communities they seek to protect.

e Rather than focusing on the criminal element responsible for murder, rape, and theft,
police officers will be forced to focus on the immigration status of cooks and
farmworkers.

e This unconstitutional legislation will jeopardize the public safety of everyone in our
community. It will make local police responsible for enforcing immigration laws, which
diverts them from the important job of protecting our neighborhoods.

o Inasurvey of 54 police chiefs, deputies, and sheriffs conducted by the Police
Foundation, only nine officers said that the 287(g) program, an immigration
enforcement program similar to SB 1070, helped fight crime, while the majority of
law enforcement officials agreed that 287(g) agreements detract from more pressing
and urgent police work, such as pursuing hardened criminals with arrest warrants.°

o A report by Arizona’s East Valley Tribune found that deputies from the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office, an agency that has been actively participating in immigration
enforcement, were failing to meet the county’s standard for life-threatening
emergency response time. In fact, over a period of two years, two-thirds of patrol
cars arrived late to the most serious calls for police assistance.”

e It puts law enforcement between a rock and a hard place: If they enforce the law, they
risk lawsuits for violation of civil rights; if they don’t, they risk lawsuits from everyday
citizens who feel they are failing to enforce the law with sufficient vigor.

: Immigration Policy Center, “Immigrants and Crime: Are They Connected?,”

http://www.immigrationpolicy .org/just-facts/immigrants-and-crime-are-they-connected-century-research-finds-
crime-rates-immigrants-are (accessed December 9, 2010).

* Dana Milbank, “Headless Bodies and Other Immigration Tall Tales In Arizona,” Washington Post, July 11, 2010,
http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/A R2010070902342.html (accessed December
9, 2010).

* Randal Archibold, “On Border Violence,” New York Times, June 19, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html?_r=1 & partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all (accessed.
December 14, 2010).

° Anita Khashu, The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties
(Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 2009), http://www.
policefoundation.org/pdf/strikingabalance/Role% 200f%20 Local%20Police.pdf (accessed July 10, 2010).

" Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin, “REASONABLE DOUBT
This law will erode public trust in law enforcement and make the job of law enforcement
officers harder.

This law will send a chilling effect through the community, serving as a deterrent for both
victims and witnesses to report crimes to the police. Evidence shows that laws that
entangle police in immigration enforcement are likely to make communities less safe by
decreasing the ability of local police to rely on the community to report dangerous
criminal activity.

o A 2008 survey of law enforcement executives indicated that aggressive enforcement
of immigration law by local law enforcement would have a negative impact on
community relationships by decreasing reporting of both crime victimization (85%)
and criminal activity (83%).”

o Inits recommendations to local law enforcement agencies for enforcement of
immigration law, made in June 2006, the Major Cities Chiefs Association states:
“Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and
undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant
communities...Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would
result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a
class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in
solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”"

o Sergeant Brian Soller, President of the Mesa Fraternal Order of Police, said that one
of the consequences of SB 1070 is that immigrants are “going to shy away from us
instead of coming forward with information” about serious crimes such as homicide
or rape.*

o According to Kendra Leiby of the Arizona Coalition A gainst Domestic Violence,
“The enactment of SB 1070 is absolutely going to prevent immigrant women from
seeking domestic-violence services.”

3a) This law violates our values.

[Nebraskans] value fairness, equality, and basic human rights.

This law is a challenge to who we are as a state, who we are as human beings, and
whether we are going to stand up for American ideals.

[Nebraskans] expect their policymakers to pass laws that uphold basic American values
of fairness and equality and expand opportunity for every [Nebraskan].

[Nebraskans] understand that it’s better for everyone to live in a state that provides equal
opportunities for every [Nebraskan], supports healthy, strong communities, and upholds
the rights and values that have made A merica great.

* Anita Khashu, The Role of Local Police

* Major Cities Chiefs Association, MCC Immigration Committee Recommendations: For Enforcement of
Immigration Laws by Local Police Agencies (Sun Valley, ID: Major Cities Chiefs Association, 2006),
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf (accessed January 6, 2011).

+ KPNX-TV, “Unfunded mandate?,” video, 4:20, televised April 18, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/video/#Unfunded+mandate% 3F/78968786001 (accessed December 14, 2010).
5B. J. Montini, “Will SB 1070 Hinder Help for Abuse Victims?” The Arizona Republic, June 27, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/06/27/20100627montini-arizona-immigration-
Jaw. html #ixzz174MU64Y m (accessed December 14, 2010).

10
Our state’s future depends on maximizing all of our assets, including the labor,
knowledge, and energy of every [Nebraskan] who contributes to our common goals of
building strong families, strong communities, and a strong economy.

This law hurts us all.

This legislation is terribly flawed. It violates the civil rights of all [Nebraskans] and
anyone visiting our state. It allows local law enforcement officials, who are not trained in
federal immigration law, to make intrusive and unnecessary inquiries into the
immigration status of residents and travelers. It presumes everyone is guilty,
contradicting the fundamental A merican belief of innocence until proven otherwise.

This legislation subjects anyone who looks different or is perceived as “foreign” to
discrimination and racial profiling, which is a violation of our values. We need to ask
ourselves what kind of state we want to live in—one that respects human rights, or one
that ignores them.

Our state values its Latino community, which is directly threatened by this law.

This bill will put a target on the back of all Latinos in our state, regardless of their

immigration status.

The vitriol and misinformation in the immigration debate is producing alarming

consequences.

o Half of all Latinos say the situation for Latinos in this country is worse now than it
was one year ago."

° According to the FBI, hate crimes against Latinos have spiked over the past five
years.

o According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups targeting
Latinos has jumped over the past five years.

3b) This law is an affront to our nation’s commitment to equal treatment under the law.

Racial profiling of communities of color is already widespread and puts people at risk.

In an April—May 2010 New York Times/ABC poll, 82% of Americans said that they

thought the new Arizona law would lead to police officers detaining people of certain

racial or ethnic groups more frequently than other racial or ethnic groups.*

Even before SB 1070 passed, immigration enforcement had led to the widespread racial

profiling of U.S.-citizen and Hispanic legal residents, a deplorable situation that needs to

be eradicated, not propagated.

o According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in the last year, 10% of Latinos—nearly five
million people—are stopped and asked for immigration papers every year. Thus, of

“ Mark Hugo Lopez and Gretchen Livingston, Hispanics and the New Administration: Immigration Slips as a
Priority (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, 2009), http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/101.pdf (accessed
September 1, 2010).

‘U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes Statistics 2009, “Table 1: Incidents,
Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders,” http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html (accessed
September 1, 2010).

* Randal C. Archibold and Megan Thee-Brenan, “Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Laws,”
New York Times, May 3, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04poll.html (accessed January 4, 2011).

11
the nearly 50 million U.S. Hispanics, 80% of whom are U.S. citizens or legal
immigrants, five million are ensnared in immigration enforcement annually.”
e A 2002 U.S. Department of Justice national survey found that African Americans and
Hispanics were two to three times more likely to be stopped and searched than Whites
but were less likely to be found in possession of contraband.*

This law will only exacerbate the problem of racial profiling and discrimination by:

e Codifying racial profiling as standard practice for law enforcement statewide.

e Increasing the ranks of those enforcing immigration laws to every single law enforcement
officer in the entire state, regardless of access to proper training.

e Requiring that all state officials ask everyone who is “reasonably suspected” of being
undocumented for proof of legal residency, yet failing to provide objective criteria for
determining what might constitute “reasonable suspicion.”

e Providing powerful incentives for wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and other abuse by
creating a private right of action against any agency that fails to uphold the law’s
provisions, while at the same time indemnifying police officers from litigation brought by
those who are wrongfully detained or racially profiled.

Racial profiling does not work.
e In 1998, the U.S. Customs Service eliminated the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in
deciding which individuals to search and began focusing solely on suspect behavior. As
a result of this policy shift, there was a 300% increase in searches that resulted in the
discovery of illegal contraband or activity.’

Racial profiling is bad policing.

e Singling people out based only on their race, ethnicity, or religion isn’t just wrong, it’s
also bad policing. It distracts law enforcement time and resources away from the
efficient, targeted pursuit of individuals who actually pose a threat to public safety.

e When law enforcement relies on racial profiling, it takes them away from proven,
effective policing techniques such as probable cause or reasonable suspicion based on
credible evidence.

Racial profiling has damaging effects on the community and makes us all less safe.

e By focusing on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, law enforcement agents send a
message to certain communities that they are under increased suspicion.

e Communities that have been targeted by racial profiling lose trust in law enforcement
agencies. Asa result, members of these communities become less likely to assist in
criminal investigations and prosecutions, seek protection from police when they are
victimized, or report witnessing crimes. This makes everyone less safe.

* Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanics and Arizona's New Immigration Law (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center,
2010), http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/68.pdf (accessed January 6, 2011).

* Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt, Patrick A. Langan, Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from
the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC 2005,
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf (accessed September 1, 2010).

* Lamberth Consulting, “Racial Profiling Doesn’t Work,” http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/about-racial-
profiling/racial-profiling-doesnt-work.asp (accessed January 4, 2011).

12
o A 2006 Vera Institute of Justice study found that Arab Americans were significantly
fearful and suspicious of federal law enforcement due to post-9/11 government
policies that targeted their communities,” and a May 2003 Gallup poll found that 69%
of African Americans felt that they are treated less fairly by law enforcement than
Whites.

Racial profiling violates constitutional protections and human rights, which are
fundamental A merican principles.
¢ The Constitution guarantees that every person in the United States has the fundamental
right to due process, equal protection under the law, and the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.

4) Instead of creating more problems for our state, we should focus on solutions.

Creating a patchwork of 50 different immigration laws is unworkable and dangerous. The
solution to our broken immigration system lies in Washington, not in the state capitol.

e Only the federal government has the tools to secure our borders and create a national
approach to immigration. We need to hold our federal officials [insert U.S. Senators and
Representatives names here] accountable for solving this problem instead of passing the
buck onto our state.

e We hope people will join us in demanding that Congress acts now. It’s time that our
representatives step up and become part of the solution that our state and the nation need.

e The solution is to pass comprehensive immigration reform by:

o Creating a legal and orderly system that serves the needs of American families and
the American economy

o Requiring those who are here illegally to get right with the law, go through criminal
background checks, learn English, pay taxes and fines, and earn their citizenship

o Securing our borders by quashing arms, cash, and human smuggling networks

o Cracking down on employers who manipulate the system, game honest employers,
and cheat American workers

e The Arizona law and its copycats do none of these things. Rather, this law is impractical,
violates our values, and divides our communities. We need real solutions that embrace
fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Our immigration system is broken, but
disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing it. Congress needs to act now.

“Nicole J. Henderson et al., Law Enforcement and Arab-American Community Relations After September 11, 2001:
Engagement in a Time of Uncertainty (Washington, DC: Vera Institute of Justice, 2006),
http://www.vera.org/download?file=147/A rab% 2B A merican% 2B community% 2B relations. pdf (accessed December
1, 2010).

' Jack Ludwig, “Blacks and Whites Still Perceive Local Treatment of Blacks Differently,” Gallup, May 27, 2003,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8476/Blacks-W hites- Still- Perceive-Local-Treatment-Blacks-Differently.aspx (accessed
December 3, 2010).

13
TIPS FOR WORKING WITH THE MEDIA

Many people view talking to the media as a chore, like the pile of papers on your desk. Instead,
try to think of it as an opportunity to set expectations for actions that you see coming, provide
greater context to an issue that is already being covered, and deliver your point of view and
message. If you have not participated in a spokesperson training before and are looking for
resources, visit www.nclr.org/MessageM odule for a presentation that may help as you prepare.
For a sample media plan, see A ppendix H.

PREPARING YOURSELF
Prepare yourself for interviews with the media with the following in mind:

1,

2.

Confidence—Be confident in what you are saying. Y our message will be much more
effective if it is delivered with authority.

Clarity—Speak clearly and with simple language that is easily understood by your
audience.

Commitment—Project a commitment to finding solutions.

Goal—Go into an interview knowing what your goal is. Decide what you are trying to
achieve and what you want your audience to do or know. For example, are you raising
awareness about a certain issue or are you asking people to take action, such as by calling
a state legislator or participating in an event?

PREPARING YOUR MESSAGE (THE FIVE A’S)

1.

Audience—W ho will you be speaking to? Many people make the mistake of thinking
that their audience is solely the reporter or news outlet. In fact, your audience is the
people who are reading the articles, watching the television, or listening to the radio.
Knowing your audience is critical for tailoring your message.

Assemble—Gather relevant data points, facts, and other information to support your
message.

Align—Ensure that your facts and data support your message.

Apply—use your facts and message to tell a compelling story that your audience can
relate to.

Add Value—Provide information, a message, and perspective that no one else can
provide. Draw from your organization’s work to illustrate your personal connection to
the issue.

WHILE SPEAKING TO THE PRESS

Yh

oe

Use quotable, universal, strong, and lively language.

Be positive and honest.

Consider scripting—W rite down what you plan to say in order to organize and deliver
an effective message.

Keep it simple—Don’t use too many statistics or numbers.

Keep it short—Deliver your message and then stop. It’s okay if you finish early.

14
BUILD DIVERSE COALITIONS AND ORGANIZE

“If you want a friend, you have to be a friend.”

—Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
and The Leadership Conference Education Fund

WHY DO YOU NEED A DIVERSE COALITION OF ALLIES?

Building a diverse coalition to combat Arizona copycat laws is imperative. In general, a broad
and diverse coalition of credible messengers—including law enforcement, civil rights
organizations, A frican A merican and Native A merican leaders, the business community, and
religious leaders—can effectively present the issue for what it really is, a violation of civil rights
and an overly costly and ineffective public safety policy.

e Inthe early stages of your efforts to organize opposition to this type of law, conduct a
thorough assessment of the political landscape to determine what the pressure points are
in your community or state. For example, in Utah, conservative legislators and business
leaders are considered highly credible voices in the state, which is why The Utah
Compact (see Appendix F), announced in early November 2010, had a huge impact on
the state’s immigration enforcement debate. In addition, another one of Utah’s most
influential institutions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, released a
statement of support the same day that The Utah Compact was announced.

HOW TO BUILD A DIVERSE COALITION

Groups and individuals will come to the table for a variety of reasons—your allies might be
aligned with you on all issues, they may be unsure about immigration overall but see this issue as
going too far, or they may come from a sector that you wouldn’t normally collaborate with, such
as business. It is necessary to have a basic understanding of why folks are working together and
an agreement that, although everyone may not see eye to eye on all issues, you are in agreement
about opposing copycat legislation.

e For other coalition members that you view as long-term partners, prepare to be there for
issues that matter to them. For example, copycat legislation may be the most important
issue for one partner, while postsecondary education funding may be at the top of
another’s list. It is important to build an ongoing partnership among the coalition
members that encompasses a range of civil and human rights, one that is inclusive of the
immigrant community’s issues as well as issues that are important to all communities.

e Keep the goal in mind as you move forward. Y ou may not agree with some strategies,
see some tactics as not valuable to your community, or feel your voice might not be the
best for the newspapers, but as long as the coalition keeps the overall goal of defeating
the legislation at the forefront, the chance for success increases.

GETTING STARTED WITH YOUR ORGANIZING PLAN
Once you have a strong group of allies that is committed to working together, you can develop
your campaign plan. The plan should outline both public and inside strategies, a calendar of

15
activities, and a media and communications plan. Again, the activities and spokespeople you
select should represent the values and interests of your audience. See the Additional Resources
on page 19 for ideas on how to incorporate the talking points and messages into potential op-eds
or blog posts.

e An “inside strategy” refers to the behind-the-scenes work that will complement your
public events, rallies, testimony, etc. One example is organizing state leaders to write
and announce a statement of principles on comprehensive immigration reform, similar to
The Utah Compact. Many community organizations were part of the negotiations that
led to the The Utah Compact, but the individuals who are listed on the compact, spoke at
the press conference announcement, and are prominently listed on the website
(www.utahcompact.com) are the most influential and well-recognized stakeholders in the
state.

¢ Most state legislatures are set to begin between January and March 2011 (the National
Conference of State Legislatures has a full calendar of each state’s legislative session).
This means that your activities can and should start immediately, using key dates already
on the calendar as potential hooks. One example is the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday,
which the South Carolina Immigrant Rights Coalition has selected as the date for its first
event following the introduction of its state’s bill (see Appendix E for a full description
of the South Carolina organizing plan).

16
MEETING WITH YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS

All of the points outlined above will help you as you plan to meet with your state legislators and
discuss the harmful effects of copycat legislation. Meeting with your state legislator is a very
important step in showing your support for or opposition to a particular issue. It provides an
opportunity for legislators to hear from their constituents and for community members to ask
questions, make a case, and ask for commitments. The following are suggestions that may help
as you prepare for your state legislative visits.

1, BEFORE THE MEETING

Find out who your state representative is by going to www.votesmart.org and entering your ZIP
code. Scroll down to “State Legislative” and click on your state legislator to find contact
information.

e Learn about a legislator’s background. Refer to online biographical sketches and read
campaign statements, news articles, or additional sources of information to learn the
legislator’s occupation, religion, political and social memberships, areas of interest, and
positions on the issues. This research can inform your approach to the meeting.

e Schedule a meeting. Call and ask to speak to the legislator’s scheduler, saying:
o Youarea constituent from X (city or town in their district/state).
o You would like to set up an appointment to meet with your state legislator and are
interested in discussing immigration.
o Youwill be attending the meeting with X number of leaders from the district.

¢ Determine who should be in the meeting. Who best represents your organization and
will be responsible for building an ongoing relationship with the particular legislator?
Are there close allies who should be invited because they can build trust or respect with
this person? Be sure to assign roles to participants, including the lead facilitator, the
storyteller, the “pinner” who makes the ask, and the note taker. Practice by role playing
before the day of your meeting so that everyone feels comfortable with their role and
knows what to do.

e Review your talking points. A full set of talking points can be found on pages 6-13.
However, it will be up to you to determine which arguments are going to be most
persuasive given what you learned about the legislator’s background and your local or
state landscape.

e Prepare your materials. Take a copy of The Leadership Conference and NCLR’s
packet for legislators, Not in Our State: We Are Not Arizona. Y ou may also want to
include other materials, such as news clippings of relevant local events.

17
. DURING THE MEETING

Introduce yourselves and exchange credentials. In five minutes or less, explain what
groups are represented, their membership, and any other information that the legislator or
staffer should know about those who are attending the meeting.

Provide the legislator or staff member with the materials you prepared. This should
include Not in Our State: We Are Not Arizona and other relevant local information.

Share your stories. In five minutes or less, share one or two stories that capture the
problem you have come to address. What connects you to this issue? Why is it
important for your family or community?

Make your ask. Directly ask the member to address your issue. Be specific (e.g., “Will
you oppose A rizona-like legislation?” “Will you co-sponsor or vote for whatever
proactive legislation is on the table?”)

o If they oppose the copycat legislation, ask them to be a champion by making floor
statements against the bill and by introducing alternative, solutions-driven
legislation (see Appendix C). Y ou may also consider asking them to help
champion solutions-driven legislation by appearing at a press event you organize,
having them write an op-ed for your local paper, or convening a meeting of
stakeholders such as students, educators, and religious leaders to discuss the issue.

o If they support Arizona-like legislation, remind them of the risks such legislation
brings to the community, including racial profiling, high costs, and compromised
public safety. Express that you, as representatives of a larger group within the
community, feel strongly that this legislation isn’t right for your state.

Listen well. Much of lobbying involves listening, looking for indications of the
legislator’s views, and finding opportunities to provide prudent information. Give your
legislator opportunities to ask questions or state his/her opinion. Members and staff will
appreciate the chance to be heard instead of only being talked at. Remember to ask
questions.

Take notes. Answer questions honestly. If you don’t know the answer, say that you
don’t know but you will find out. Assign one person in the group to follow up.

Remember to get the contact information and cards for any staffers you meet.

. AFTER THE MEETING

Send a thank you email or note. Include additional materials or provide answers to
questions that came up during the meeting. Follow up on anything you promised.

Document your meeting with your state coalition. If you are a member of a state
coalition, provide documentation of your meeting and its outcomes with your partners.

18
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Background

e Textof SB 1070 from the Arizona legislature

¢ Governor Brewer’s executive order establishing law enforcement training for
immigration laws

e Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board training information on SB 1070

e Ananalysis of Judge Bolton’s ruling on SB 1070 by Phoenix lawyers Timothy Berg and
Mark Bolton of Fennemore Craig for the Arizona Republic

e American Civil Liberties Union summary of SB 1070

Economic Impact
e Center for American Progress, Stop the Conference, November 2010

Impact on Community Safety

e The Police Foundation, The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance between
Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties (executive summary), A pril 2009

Resources for Building C oalitions

e The Opportunity Agenda, Media and Public Opinion Analysis: African Americans on
Immigration, October 2007

Sample Op-eds and Blog Posts

e Clarissa Martinez De Castro, “What’s Good for Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce Is Bad for
Arizona,” The Huffington Post, November 18, 2010

e Clarissa Martinez De Castro, “Lesson from Arizona: Proceed with Caution,” The
Huffington Post, November 1, 2010

e Janet Murguta, “Florida Immigration Bill A mounts to Political Suicide,” Orlando
Sentinel, August 20, 2010

e Janet Murguia and Wade Henderson, “MLB Should Move the 2011 All-Star Game Out
of Arizona,” Washington Post, July 12, 2010

General Information

¢ NCLR’s website on SB 1070 and copycat legislation

e Henry Fernandez, Fighting Back Against Copycat Immigration Laws Like Arizona's,
August 2010

e National Immigration Forum, Deficits, Lawsuits, Diminished Public Safety: Your State
Can't Afford SB 1070, December 2010

19
APPENDIX A: SECTION-BY -SECTION SUMMARY OF SB 1070

The following is a detailed explanation from the National Conference of State Legislatures of
what the original text of SB 1070 does. Further information may be found at
http://www.ncsl.org/? tabid=20263#Summary of SB1070 and HB2162.

Enforcement of Immigration Law

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from restricting enforcement of federal
immigration laws.

Requires state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the
immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention, or arrest in the
enforcement of any other local or state law or ordinance where reasonable suspicion
exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present, except if it may hinder or
obstruct an investigation.

Requires the immigration status to be verified with the federal government for

anyone who is arrested.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin when
implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona driver license or ID;
tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state, or local govemment-issued
identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.
Stipulates that these provisions do not implement or authorize REAL ID.

Allows legal residents to sue state or localities that restrict enforcement of federal law.
Indemnifies officers unless they acted in bad faith. Violating entities must pay a civil
penalty of at least $500 for each day the policy is in effect.

Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document

Creates a state violation comparable to federal law in 8 USC 1304(e) or 1306(a) and
creates state penalties of jail costs and $100 fora first offense. Stipulates immigration
status may be determined by a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal
government to verify an alien’s immigration status; or U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. NOTE: The federal provisions
mentioned in the Arizona law are included here for easy reference.

o 8USC 1304(e): Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties.
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and
have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien
registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be
guilty of amisdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not
to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

o 8USC 1306 (a): Willful failure to register. Any alien required to apply for
registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or
refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal
guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or
refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a

20
misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or
be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Unlawfully Picking Up Passengers for Work

Makes it a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle to hire on a street,
roadway, or highway if the vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic; or
to enter a vehicle to be hired and transported; or for an unauthorized alien to knowingly
apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or
independent contractor.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin in the
enforcement when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or
Arizona Constitution.

Unlawful Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens

Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to
transport an alien; conceal, harbor, or shield an alien; or encourage an alien to come to
this state, if the person recklessly disregards the fact that the person is here unlawfully.
The vehicle may be immobilized or impounded. Provides exceptions for child protective
services, first responders, ambulance, or emergency medical technicians. Violators are
guilty of aclass 1 misdemeanor and subject to a fine of at least $1,000.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin in the
enforcement when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or
Arizona Constitution.

Employer Sanctions

Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must
admit the substantial elements of the violation. The employer has the burden of proof to
show that the law enforcement officer induced the violation.

Requires employers to keep a record of employment verification for the duration of the
employee’s employment or 3 years, whichever is longer.

Miscellaneous

Authorizes peace officers in the enforcement of human smuggling laws to lawfully stop a
person if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil
traffic law and to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to
believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable
from the United States.

Penalties and fines under this bill are to be deposited to the Department of Public Safety
for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund.

21
APPENDIX B: NATIONAL COPYCAT LANDSCAPE

While 2010 proved fruitless for other states seeking to imitate SB 1070, the 2011 legislative
sessions will prove more challenging for defeating or delaying these misguided measures.
However, the 2010 elections changed the composition of many statewide chambers, with a
number of states electing candidates that campaigned on the promise that they would introduce
copycat legislation. While it is difficult to predict the events that will unfold with regard to
copycat legislation, below is a summary of the states that pose the greatest threat. Since the
legislative environment is constantly evolving, please refer to www.boycottintolerance.org for
updated information throughout the legislative session.

The following is a list of states where legislation failed in 2010.

In Arkansas, the group Secure Arkansas failed to attain the 77,468 signatures needed to
put the measure on the November 2010 ballot. However, it is expected that similar
legislation will be introduced by the legislature in the 2011 session.

Illinois’ HB 6937 was filed by Representative Ramey on November 3, 2010, and did not
move after being introduced.

In the 2010 session, Louisiana defeated HB 1205, introduced by Representative Joe
Harrison, which would have required state agencies and local governments to verify the
citizenship status of all people who apply for public benefits and further criminalized the
employment or transportation of illegal immigrants. This measure was defeated with the
help of associations such as the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, the
National Federation of Independent Business, and Associated Builders and Contractors.
In fall 2010, Maryland’s Frederick County Commissioners wanted to introduce SB 1070
copycat legislation to the state house, but it was defeated at the commissioner level and
failed to reach the state house.

In Michigan, H 6256 and S 1388, introduced by Representative Meltzer and Senators
McManus, Cropsey, Allen, and Brown in June, did not move before the 2010 legislative
session ended on September 30.

In Minnesota, HB 3830 was introduced by Representative Steve Drazkowski on May 6
and was referred to the Public Safety and Oversight Committee when the legislative
session ended without further discussion. It is expected that similar legislation will be
introduced in the 2011 session.

In Nevada, Assemblyman Chad Christensen was unable to attain the signatures needed
for the initiative to reach the 2010 ballot. He also attempted to get a special session to
vote on the bill, but that too was rejected. It is expected that similar legislation will be
introduced in the 2011 session by Assemblyman Don Gustavson, though his colleagues
say that it doesn’t have a chance of passing and they are interested in focusing on other
issues.

In North Carolina, SJ 1349 was introduced by Senator Don East, which would have
allowed for the consideration of an Arizona-like bill. East’s resolution stalled in the
Senate rules committee and North Carolina’s 2010 legislative session ended. It is
expected that similar legislation will be introduced in the 2011 session.

In Pennsylvania, Assemblymen Daryl Metcalfe and Harry Readshaw introduced HB
2479 on May 5, but the bill did not move after its initial introduction.

22
In Rhode Island, House Speaker Gordon Fox decided that HB 8142, Representative
Peter Palumbo’s copycat bill, would not be heard in the 2010 legislative session.

The following are states where no bill has been filed but debate is likely to take place.

A coalition of Alabama Republicans pledged to introduce A rizona-like legislation if they
gained the majority in the state chambers, which they did in November.

In Colorado, a group of conservative lawmakers hosted a summit on immigration in
preparation for introducing an Arizona-style immigration bill in January. However,
several leaders in the state, including Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper and
notable law enforcement officers, have stated opposition to such a measure.

Georgia’s Republican Govemor Nathan Deal is a staunch critic of comprehensive
immigration reform and has vowed to pass Arizona-like legislation as governor.
Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman announced that early in his second
term he would push for an Arizona copycat bill, making it easier for local police officials
to arrest undocumented immigrants.

In Tennessee, Senator Bill Ketron is working on an Arizona-like bill for his state.

The following are states where bills have already been filed for the 2011 legislative session.

In California, AB 26 was introduced by Tim Donnelly for the 2011 legislative session.
A community group has also begun collecting signatures to push the issue as a 2012
ballot measure.

In Florida, Senator Paula Dockery and Representative Kevin Ambler pushed for the
consideration of A rizona-like legislation in a 2010 special session, but they were unable
to gain the two-thirds approval needed to bring up the legislation. However, for the 2011
session, Senate President Mike Bennett has already introduced SB 136 and
Representative William Snyder is working on a bill in the House.

In Mississippi, A rizona-like legislation has been filed in the House (HB 54) and Senate
(SB 2179) for the 2011 session.

In South Carolina, Representative Eric Bedingfield and Senator Larry Grooms failed to
pass HB 4919 and SB 1446 in 2010. However, Bedingfield has prefiled H 3129 for the
2011 session.

In Texas, Representative Debbie Riddle filed HB 17 for the 2011 legislative session,

though Republican Governor Rick Perry has publicly opposed an SB 1070 copycat for
Texas.

In the following state, proactive measures have offered real solutions to fix the broken
immigration system.

In Utah, a group of business, faith, and community leaders released The Utah Compact
(see A ppendix F), a statement of five principles that support comprehensive immigration
reform. Despite this strong statement opposing state-level anti-immigrant legislation, a
number of legislators have promised to introduce bills addressing immigration, including
one that resembles SB 1070.

23
APPENDIX C: ALTERNATIVE PROACTIVE LEGISLATIVE
MEASURES

PROACTIVE APPROACHES TO STATE LEGISLATION

In an SB 1070 environment, pushing back on bad legislation is not enough. In the absence of
federal legislation, the public is hungry for solutions that will address a situation with which they
are frustrated and confused. Given this environment, many people—including potential allies—
may view harsh enforcement policies as plausible solutions if they are not given alternative,
proactive measures to consider. Bringing forward affirmative measures can serve to:

Show that legislators stand for real solutions and meaningful action

Introduce facts and figures on the contributions of immigrants in the state

Delay a vote on negative measures

Enact policy change that will positively impact the whole state, as well as immigrant and
minority communities

MENU OF AFFIRMATIVE IDEAS
The following is a menu of affirmative measures that you may be able to push for or implement
in your state.

Signal support for immigrants and humane immigration reform through resolutions.
e Urge Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Hold your state’s federal
representatives accountable for taking action instead of passing the buck to the state.
Public opinion research shows support across most communities for a federal solution
that includes securing our borders, punishing unscrupulous employers, requiring
immigrants to learn English and pay fines before gaining citizenship, and fixing the
immigration system for future immigrant flow.

Commission a study on the economic contributions of immigrants.

e Conduct or commission studies on the economic contributions of immigrants (e.g.,
workforce participation, business or jobs generated, buying power, revitalization of
neighborhoods, full range of income, payroll, sales, and property taxes paid). A key
concem in some communities is that undocumented immigrants are taking more than
they are contributing. However, real facts and data will refute this belief and may help
persuade these groups to be more supportive of inclusive policies.

Promote public safety and protecting confidentiality.

e Implement policies to protect victims of and witnesses to crime by limiting police inquiry
into immigration status. One approach to opposing SB 1070 copycat laws is to reframe
the debate to focus on community policing, but the public needs more reminders about
why open communication with police is important for the entire community, which
policies like this can undermine.

* Adapted from National Immigration Law Center, Pro-Immigrant Measure Available to State or Local
Governments: A Quick Menu of Affirmative Ideas (Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2007),
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/misc/affirmstatelocalmenu_2005-09-13.pdf (accessed December 13, 2010).

24
Enforce and enhance labor and employment law protection.
e Enforce wage and hour laws and increase penalties for wage theft for all workers. It is
important to show potential allies that we are interested in strengthening and protecting
the entire community and that these efforts are about more than just immigrant workers.

Promote English language instruction for English language learners.

e Increase funding for affordable and accessible adult English language instruction.
Research indicates that some groups are unsure about new immigrants’ intention to learn
English, particularly for those here without documentation. A key fact that helped move
them toward supporting immigrant-friendly policies was that demand outstrips supply for
English language learning programs.

Promote community membership and civic participation.

e Fund organizations that assist immigrants in successfully completing the process of
obtaining U.S. citizenship through naturalization (e.g., application assistance, English and
civics classes for lawful permanent residents). The same groups who worry about new
immigrants’ intentions to learn English express concern about their interest in becoming
American both culturally and in citizenship. Many of these groups also express an
interest in assisting immigrants in taking the first steps in this process but have no idea
that such assistance is currently difficult to obtain.

Promote entrepreneurialism and wealth-building for small businesses.

e Additional funding to educate immigrant and minority communities about zoning,
licensing, and small business rules. Education and training for small business owners and
their staff will allow for immigrant- and minority-owned businesses to thrive and fully
participate in the mainstream economic sector.

Improve government communication and coordination over programs promoting
immigrant integration.
e Establish a government office promoting immigrant integration and coordination among
agencies (e.g., an office or commission on immigrant affairs).

25
APPENDIX D: QUOTES FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHO
OPPOSE SB 1070

The following are quotes from a variety of stakeholders who oppose SB 1070; a full list can be
found on a website dedicated to SB 1070 and copycats, Boycott Intolerance. In addition, a
diverse set of national and local organizations have also issued statements opposing SB 1070.

Business L eaders

November 18, 2010—Competitive Enterprise Institute Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh:
“Does Texas want to drive away entrepreneurs in a rough economy? If it copies Arizona,
that is exactly what will happen...HB 17 [Texas’ Arizona copycat bill] will harm
businesses and blot Texas’ otherwise wise policy choices. It would cast a wide net that
will punish undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants and hardworking American
entrepreneurs trying to survive in precarious economic times.”

September 30, 2010—News Corporation Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch: “And as
an immigrant, I feel an obligation to speak up for immigration that will keep America the
most economically robust, creative and freedom-loving nation in the world. America’s
future prosperity and security depends on getting our immigration policy right and doing
it quickly.”

Elected and Appointed Officials

December 5, 2010—Former Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush: “It’s the wrong
approach. The net result is not much has been done.”

November 10, 2010—Texas Republican Govemor Rick Perry: “I fully recognize and
support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with
portions of the law passed in Arizona.”

June 14, 2010—Untied States Conference of Mayors: “Now, therefore, be it resolved
that The United States Conference of Mayors register its strong opposition to Arizona
Law SB 1070; and be it further resolved that the Conference of Mayors oppose the
enactment of laws similar to Arizona Law SB 1070 in others states...”

May 11, 2010—Califormia Republican Governor Amold Schwarzenegger: “I was also
going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was
afraid they would try to deport me.”

April 28, 2010—Political Strategist Karl Rove: “I think there is going to be some
constitutional problems with the bill. I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.”

Law Enforcement

June 25, 2010—Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: “I believe SB 1070 will havea
negative effect on our community policing efforts... Deterring, investigating and solving
serious and violent crimes are the department’s top priorities, and it would be impossible
for us to do our job without the collaboration and support of community members,
including those who may be in the country unlawfully... The new SB 1070 may also
adversely impact the department’s ability to fulfill its investigative priorities because its
implementation will require the department to reassign officers from critical areas.”

26
e June 25, 2010—Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor: “The impact of illegal
immigration on Arizona’s well-being cannot be denied. But to require local police to act
as immigration agents when a lack of local resources already makes enforcing criminal
laws and ordinances a challenging proposition is not realistic.”

e April 28, 2010—Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: “If tell my people to go out
and look for A, B, and C, they’re going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a
tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.”

Civil Rights Leaders
e July 29, 2010—AlIpha Phi Alpha Fraternity President Herman “Skip” Mason, Jr.: “The

provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton specifically enjoined were those that
required police officers to check a person’s immigration status. ..and the requirement
(like in apartheid-era South A frica or WWII-era Germany) that people ‘carry papers’ that
prove their residential status... The injunction is a step in the right direction, and for this
we are pleased. However, so much more work needs to be done.”

e April 30, 2010—NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous: “The NAACP is
outraged that in 2010, a sitting Governor would sign a law that empowers local law
enforcement to legally use racial profiling to target entire communities. It is a violation
of the respect for human rights that is the moral standard of our nation...”

e April 22, 2010—National Council of La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguia: “This
bill throws the door wide open to the racial profiling of Arizona’s Latinos, the vast
majority of whom are native-born U.S. citizens and legal residents, without doing a single
thing to protect the people of Arizona.”

e April 22, 2010—The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights President and
CEO Wade Henderson: “The passage of SB 1070 is a catastrophe in the making that
would institutionalize racial profiling in a misguided attempt to fix our broken
immigration system...While immigration policy has often proved a challenge to our
country, it should never be used to tamish the fundamental ideal of equal justice.”

e April 22, 2010—Anti-Defamation Leaque Civil Rights Director Deborah Lauter: “We in
the Jewish community recall the ugly anti-immigrant backlash against our parents and
grandparents. We do not want to see that history repeated for anyone and we cannot let
the task of fighting it fall on the shoulders of its victims alone.”

Celebrities and Artists

e August 7, 2010—Eva Longoria Parker, Jessica Alba, and Rosario Dawson all spoke out
against SB 1070. Longoria Parker: “I haven’t made it a secret that I’m strongly opposed
to the Arizona law and I’ve been pretty vocal about it.”

e May 29, 2010—Shakira: “I’m not an expert on the [U.S.] Constitution. But I know that
the Constitution exists for a reason. It exists to protect human beings. To protect the
rights of people living in a nation, with or without documents.”

e May 25, 2010—The Sound Strike founder Zach de la Rocha of Rage A gainst the
Machine: “Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law (SB 1070)
takes it to a whole new low. If other states follow the direction of the Arizona
government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights era reality.”

27
From Inside Baseball

e August 12, 2010—Scott Miller, CBS Sports Columnist: “There very well may be some

seriously uncomfortable moments to come regarding the 2011 All-Star Game.”

e July 12, 2010—St. Louis Cardinals First Baseman Albert Pujols: “I’m opposed to it [SB
1070]. How are you going to tell me that, me being Hispanic, if you stop me and I don’t

have my ID, you’re going to arrest me? That can’t be.”

e May 12, 2010—Texas Rangers Third Baseman Michael Young: “You can quote me.
It’s a ridiculous law. And it’s an embarrassment for American citizens.”

e April 30, 2010—Major League Baseball Players Association: “The recent passage by
Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major
League players...All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely
affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. The Major League
Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written.”

28
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN PLAN

This grassroots campaign plan was developed by The Leadership Conference for one of its
partners, South Carolina Immigrant Rights Coalition.

Stopping Anti-Immigrant Initiatives in South Carolina

The South Carolina legislature will likely take up Arizona SB 1070-like legislation in early 2011.
Indeed, statewide hearings on the issue echoed the likelihood of such a bill coming forward.
Below are some ideas for a grassroots campaign to build opposition and awareness of the
negative impacts of this legislation. The Leadership Conference can provide technical
assistance, campaign consultation, and on-the-ground support to the coalition to defeat this
initiative and to support a stronger multiethnic coalition.

ing: Ground-softening activities are activities that would occur prior to January,
when we expect the bill to be introduced. These activities would focus on increasing and
diversifying the voices of opposition to the legislation and provide opportunities to garner press
around opposition to the bill. Such activities could include:

e Collaboration and development of a proactive message framework and strategy to oppose
this legislation

e Presentations to nontraditional allies such as churches, law enforcement, service provider
organizations, and other minority groups on the negative impact of the legislation

Grassroots activities: Grassroots activities that build momentum before the introduction of the
bill and effectively frame the issue to increase the diversity of opposition will be critical. The
coalition can leverage a two-pronged approach to grassroots activities—one directed at
convincing the legislature and mainstream community, and the second focused on building and
diversifying our base.

e Postcard campaign—The postcard campaign encourages the legislature to focus on
issues that matter most, like jobs creation, and not waste time on a racial profiling bill
like SB 1070. Postcards can be distributed to and collected by local churches, during
presentations to allied organizations, directly to the community, etc. The postcards can
be used during a press event prior to the legislative session or sent directly to legislators.
Faith outreach—Meet with faith leaders across the state regarding immigration.
Training and dialogue—‘“Caring for the Stranger from the Faith Perspective” is a two-
to three-day training and dialogue on immigration with various faith leaders.

e Martin Luther King Jr., Day—Coordinate activities in January that focus on the social
justice impact of such legislation and build diverse support for the coalition’s efforts.

Legislative strategy: The legislative strategy of this campaign could begin as early as December
by meeting with strategic partners and legislators.

e Testifying—Develop a diverse list of spokespeople who can testify.

29
APPENDIX F: THE UTAH COMPACT

On November 11, 2010, the following Utah state leaders released this declaration of five
principles to guide Utah's immigration discussion: President of the Sutherland Institute Paul
Mero, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce President Lane Beattie, Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, Former
Governor Norm Bangerter, and Bishop J ohn C. Wester of the Salt Lake City Catholic Diocese.

Following the announcement of the Utah Compact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints issued a statement of support, which can be found at http://beta-
newsroom.|ds.org/article/church-supports-principles-of-utah-compact-on-immigration.

THE UTAH COMPACT

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government
and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation,
and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge
state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.

LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s
professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal
activities, not civil violations of federal code.

FAMILIES Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies
that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve
the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.

ECONOMY Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual
freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and
taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and
business-friendly state.

A FREE SOCIETY Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a
humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion.

The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our
immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

For more information, visit www.utahcompact.com.

30
APPENDIX G: NEBRASKA APPLESEED FACT SHEET

The High Costs and Risks of an Arizona-Style Law in Nebraska

An Arizona-style law in Nebraska would rapidly create fiscal,
ona vey ARIZONA
economic, and social costs to our state, and will make us less safe.

Since April, Arizona has lost tens of millions of dollars in business
and tax revenues as sporting events, conferences, and meetings
have moved to other states. This has happened even though the
law is not yet in effect (a federal court has blocked key sections Ada sista
likely to be ruled unconstitutional). If the law were to go into

effect, costs would skyrocket further.
An Arizona-style law in Nebraska would...

Create high fiscal and economic costs during a budget deficit.

e Arizona has lost sporting events, conferences, and meetings to other states to the tune of tens
of millions of dollars. A recent economic study estimates $141 million in lost spending as of
Nov. 2010. In the first week alone, the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association reported that 19
meetings had been cancelled because of the law, representing $6 million in lost revenue to the

state. (“Arizona tourism loses more business in wake of immigration law vote,” Washington Post, 5/12/10, “Early Economic
Impact of SB 1070: Tourism Takes $6 Million Hit in First Week,” The Tucson Weekly, 5/3/10, Stop the Conference: The Economic and
Fiscal Consequences of Conference Cancellations Due to Arizona's S.8. 1070, www.americanprogress.org)

e The City of Phoenix has estimated that boycotts could cost the city $90 million in hotel and
convention business over five years, not including incidental spending in local restaurants and
shops. (“Phoenix Counts Big Boycott Cost,” The New York Times, 5/11/10)

e In July, Arizona’s governor allocated $250,000 to help repair the state’s image because its
“brand has been beaten up,” and “there is a sense that [Arizona] has fallen to the bottom,

maybe as far as the South in the 1960s,” according to business leaders. (“Arizona Leaders Call on Brewer
to Fix State’s Image,” The Arizona Republic, 9/9/10)

Generate expensive legal costs to defend an unconstitutional law.

e@ These laws have repeatedly lost in federal courts leaving states and localities with very high legal
bills. Just at the city level, unconstitutional immigration laws have cost Hazleton, PA - $2.4
million, Farmers Branch, TX - $3.2 million+, and Riverside, NJ - $82,000. All of these have been
struck down in court. Fremont, Nebraska, recently budgeted $750,000 and an 18% tax increase

for the first year of defending its immigration ordinance. (“farmers Branch Legal Costs Rise in Immigration
Fight,” The Dallas Morning News, 4/10/10, “Attorneys want Hazleton to pay fees,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/5/07, “Towns Rethink
Laws Against Illegal Immigrants,” The New York Times, 9/26/07, “Council Adopts New Budget,” Fremont Tribune, 9/15/10)

e@ The same attorney helped draft the AZ law and each of the above laws. They are all failing in

court. (“Federal Judge Strikes Down Farmers Branch Ordinance...” The Dallas Morning News, 3/24/10, “Federal Appeals Court
Strikes Down Hazleton’s Immigration Ordinances,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/10/10)

Impose an unfunded mandate on Nebraska cities, counties, and law enforcement.
e In Prince William County, Virginia, the only place to implement an Arizona-style law, county
super-visors repealed the law after finding it would cost a minimum of $14 million for five
years.

31
e@ The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved a resolution condemning Arizona’s new law and calling
on Congress for swift federal reform. (www.usmayors.org)

Endanger community safety and take police off the street.
e Many top law enforcement officials have opposed the law, including the Arizona Association of
Chiefs of Police, noting that fear of police will diminish the public’s willingness to report crimes

and assist with the investigations, which will harm their ability to protect the community (AACOP
statement)

e Many police have raised concerns that Arizona-style laws take police off the streets: the cost of
implementation would cut into police budgets and reduce officers, and remaining officers would
have to spend more time in the office processing immigration status for individuals without
criminal records, rather than time on the street fighting crime.

An Arizona-style law would...

Expand a policy created to grow prison industry profits.

e An October NPR investigative report revealed “a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft
and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by...the private prison industry.” The law was born in a hotel
room meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a membership organization
that includes the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) — the largest private prison company
in the country. According to CCA reports obtained by NPR, its “executives believe immigrant
detention is their next big market.” 30 of 36 Arizona co-sponsors received donations from prison
lobbyists or prison companies. (“Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law, NPR, 10/28/10)

Send a signal that Nebraska permits racial profiling.

e The Arizona law creates a “show me your papers” state that could lead to a trip down to the
police station and a potentially lengthy detention for any of us not carrying sufficient
documentation at all times. This would give pause to any professional thinking of locating their
family here and create harm and humiliation to Nebraskans of color.

Change our community environment. For example, Fremont’s immigration law has already changed
the town, even before the law goes into effect. Residents describe an environment that does not feel
like Nebraska.

e “It is too sad. Somebody told us ‘go back to Mexico’ but we are from El Salvador. Anyway now
with the ordinance we are planning to move to another state. We are legal permanent
residents.”

e “June 26 my neighbors shouted ‘Go back to Mexico.’ Three days ago, while looking out the
window | discovered that we were being fired at with BB guns. | am not afraid for myself but |
am afraid for my children.”

e “| want you to know that they treat us very badly. People yell offensive things at us. | have a 10-
year-old daughter and she told me that...she doesn’t want to go outside and play anymore. She
spends her time shut inside.” (Statements collected 7/6/10. More statements at: www.neappleseed.org/CIR)

Allow out-of-state groups to conduct their legal experiments and leave Nebraska with the
cost.

¢ These laws often rely on the work Kris Kobach, attorney for the legal arm of the Federation for

American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a well-funded national organization listed as a hate group

32
by the Southern Poverty Law Center (a leading civil rights organization) because of its founder’s
writings and its repeated participation with white nationalist groups. Kobach helped draft the
Arizona law and other local immigration ordinances that are failing in the courts. Fremont, NE,
had to raise property taxes 18% to cover the first year of defending its ordinance. (The Nativist
Lobby, www.splcenter.org)

« Former city councilwoman Carol Dingman from Farmers Branch, TX, a town with a Kobach-
sponsored ordinance, said: “Our mayor said [Kobach] was an expert...who would help the city
on a pro-bono basis....We will have paid almost $4 million in legal fees at the end of this fiscal

year. Mr. Kobach was paid $100,000 of that. So much for pro bono.” (Sand Mountain Reporter 4/3/10,
mediamattersaction.org)

What does the Arizona law do?
It would require police to ask about immigration status during any lawful stop or arrest.
Police may not release someone from custody until immigration status has been verified.
It makes it a crime to transport anyone without legal status, even family or church members.

It prevents government and police from focusing on violent crime.
(http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/qa-guide-arizonas-new-immigration-law)

A patchwork of state and local laws to regulate immigration is not the answer. It would rapidly generate
unmanageable costs for our state, cities, and police, and it would make us less safe. There are real
solutions. Our communities need common-sense and humane reform at the federal level — reform that
upholds our values and moves us forward. There are also things state legislators can do: support
community policing, wage enforcement, enhanced worker safety protections, English-language
instruction, and small-business entrepreneurs — many of whom are immigrant Nebraskans — to help
build local economies and grow jobs.

33
APPENDIX H: IOWA IMMIGRATION EDUCATION

COALITION FACT SHEET

ISSUE BRIEF:

IMPLICATIONS OF STATE & LOCAL IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
An attempt to regulate immigration law at the state level would have a number of negative
consequences for lowa. Because the federal government alone has the power to make and
enforce immigration laws, state and local laws have resulted in litigation and significant costs of
defense. The cost of implementation and the potential damage to lowa’s economy and
welcoming reputation must also be considered in determining whether these laws are in lowans’
best interest.

FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND LEGAL CHALLENGES
The federal government controls immigration law.

v  State-by-state immigration legislation increases costs for localities and reduces federal
ability to effectively enforce immigration laws. It also focuses federal resources on non-
violent immigrants and overburdens local jails and police.

v Access to public education (K-12) and emergency medical services are mandated by
federal law and cannot be restricted by the State.

State & Local immigration laws will result in costly legal challenges.
Y Litigation costs for Arizona’s SB 1070 have exceeded $1 million thus far.
v Fremont, Nebraska, officials repealed an immigration ordinance when it was revealed to
be too costly (est. $750,000 per year).
v The city of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, was ordered to pay $2.4 million toward the plaintiff's
attorney fees after the city’s immigration ordinance was ruled unconstitutional.

Local immigration policies are costly to implement.
v¥ $2 million annually to implement Colorado’s state-level immigration law.
v¥ $14 million over five years to implement county-level immigration ordinance in Prince
William County, Virginia.

ECONOMIC DYNAMISM AND POLITICAL POTENCY
State-based immigration legislation would be harmful to lowa communities and businesses.

v Economic consulting firm Elliott D. Pollack & Company found that fallout from Arizona’s
SB 1070 led to losses in the convention industry alone that totaled $141 million in direct
spending. Over two to three years, the study projects additional losses of $253 million in
economic output and over $86 million in lost wages.

v  Itis estimated that if all undocumented immigrants were removed from lowa, the state
would lose $1.4 billion in expenditures, $613.4 million in economic output, and
approximately 8,819 jobs (Perryman Group).

Vv The lowa Policy Project estimates that undocumented immigrant families pay between
$40 and $62 million in state taxes per year.

Immigrants and immigrant labor are of vital importance to lowa’s economy.
v Immigrants are 30% more likely to start businesses than native-born residents
v Immigrants comprise 4.5% of lowa’s workforce and a substantial portion of workers in
the service and production industries.
v According to the American Farm Bureau, the current agricultural worker shortage could
decrease national agriculture production by between $5 billion to $9 billion. Many
agricultural sectors are heavily dependent on immigrant labor.

Immigration has accounted for all population growth in lowa in the last decade.

v _ lowa’s population is growing slowly (among the slowest nationwide) and is aging. This
has resulted in a loss of Congressional representation and will contribute to an
impending labor shortage in the coming years.

v Latinos are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in lowa and an increasingly
important segment of the electorate both in lowa and nationwide.

(mmigration Education

The lowa Immigration Education
Coalition is a multi-perspective group of
business, labor, civil rights, religious,
immigrant, education, social service,
government, and other community
leaders united for the purpose of
providing lowans with relevant and
timely information about immigration
issues and their impact on lowans and
their communities.

For more information on the lowa
Immigration Education Coalition, please
visit our website:

www.iowaimmigrationeducation.org
lowa Immigration Education Coalition

P.O. Box 506
Des Moines, IA 50302

34
APPENDIX I: LIST OF STATES AND LOCALITIES WITH
RESOLUTIONS OPPOSING SB 1070

The following is a list of the more than 60 city and state government entities and national
institutions that have passed boycott resolutions, divestment resolutions, travel bans, and/or
resolutions opposing SB 1070 and calling for comprehensive immigration reform.

National
Cherokee Nation Tribal Council

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day

Saints Connecticut
General Assembly, Presbyterian Church New Haven Board of Aldermen
National Congress of American Indians
National League of Cities Florida
Navajo Nation Council Lake Worth Commission
U. S. Conference of Mayors
Illinois
Arizona Cook County Board of Commissioners
Bisbee City Council Chicago City Council
Flagstaff City Council Illinois House of Representatives

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Denver City Council

Denver County Public Schools (travel ban)

Tohono O’odham Nation Indiana

Tucson City Council Bloomington City Council
California Maryland

Berkeley City Council Baltimore City Council
Calexico City Council

California Latino Legislative Caucus Massachusetts

Carson City Council Ambherst City Council
Chula Vista City Council Boston City Council
Coachella City Council

Los Angeles City Council Michigan

Los Angeles County Council Ann Arbor City Council
Monterey County

Oakland City Council Minnesota

Pasadena City Council
Sacramento City Council

Minneapolis Mayor (travel ban)
St. Paul Mayor (travel ban)

San Diego City Council
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Missouri
Santa Ana City Council Kansas City Council
Selma City Council St. Louis Board of Aldermen
West Hollywood City Council
New York
Colorado New Y ork City Council
Boulder City Manager (travel ban) New Y ork State Senate

35
Ohio
Cleveland City Council
Columbus City Council (travel ban)

Oregon
Portland City Council

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia City Council

Texas
Austin City Council
Brownsville City Commission

El Paso City Council

El Paso County Commission
Laredo City Council

San Antonio City Council

Vermont
Burlington City Council

Washington

Port of Seattle Commission
Seattle City Council
Tacoma City Council

36
APPENDIX J: SAMPLE MEDIA PLAN

This sample media plan was developed by The Leadership Conference for one of its local
partners, South Carolina Building Alliances.

Media Tools to Voice South Carolina’s Opposition to Anti-Immigrant Legislation

These draft materials are designed to inform your coalition’s conversation on how to engage the
media. These tools, sample messages, and documents are only ideas—the personal connections,
local knowledge, and community voice should come from you. If you decide that your coalition
would like to engage the media, these are some things to consider when creating a viable plan.
e Audience(s): Who are you trying to reach?
e What types of media outlets do your audiences pay attention to? What ways can you
reach them?
e Messages: What messages will move people to take the action you want? How can you
package and deliver those messages effectively through the media?
e Spokespeople: Who will be credible and effective at getting your message heard by your
target audience?
e Information and Events: What information do you have or events can you create that will
interest the media, enable you to place stories, and get your spokespeople in print or on
the air? What are the campaign milestones that will make good stories?

Audience(s): Who are you trying to reach?

The coalition is seeking to:
e Influence the state’s African-American communities
e Inform the rest of the state of a Black/Brown alliance against this bill

What kinds of media do your audiences pay attention to?

That is a question best answered locally. There are undoubtedly trusted voices covering politics
and community issues throughout the state. Who are those journalists, reporters, and radio
personalities and how can you reach them? In South Carolina, you have several advantages:

e The relative accessibility of South Carolina journalists to your coalition. The state’s most
prestigious and high-circulation journalists and media voices are likely to return your
calls, so ask them to ensure that a diverse group of voices are represented during this
debate. They may or may not be interested in what you have to say, but they are within
your reach.

eA thriving network of Black press and gospel/adult R&B radio stations. There are nine
newspapers and almost 40 radio stations in the state. With a limited timeframe and
resources, these may be an efficient way to reach Black audiences in particular.

e A potentially big story. This bill will get a decent amount of coverage statewide, and
your coalition has a unique voice to add to the discussion. The question for you isn’t how
to get coverage (which is the struggle in other places), but how to make sure you are
included in the conversation.

37
e SB 1070 opponents have already done a lot of writing. Y our coalition can take advantage
of the statements, messaging, and tactics that came out of the SB 1070 debate.

Messages: What messages will move people to take the action you want? How can you
package and deliver those messages effectively through the media?

A recent news story about one of the bill hearings identified powerful messages that the coalition
could use, including:

e “This law is advocating for the persecution of people because of the color of their skin,”
said Julie Smithwick-Leone, a West Columbia resident. “That’s not a community I
would be proud to live in.”

e The state won’t be able to pay for new jails, law enforcement training, and other expenses
that the law would create. “Our budget is busted,” said Barbara Coleman of Columbia.
“We cannot fund some of the mandates we already have in our immigration law.”

An organization called The Opportunity A genda recommended the following messages:

e This law is impractical, violates our values, and divides our communities. We need real
solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Our immigration
system is broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing it. Congress
needs to act now.

e This law is racial profiling, pure and simple. Singling people out based only on
stereotyping isn’t just wrong, it’s bad policing. Our communities need Congress to focus
on workable solutions that uphold our values and move us all forward together. Fixing
our immigration system the right way is about what kind of country we want to be.

e This law certainly illustrates what we don’t want to become. The problems facing our
communities are the result of a failed immigration system that only Congress can fix. Its
inability to move forward on this issue will continue to result in wrongheaded,
unworkable policies like this law, which is a dangerous distraction from the real work we
need to do to pass comprehensive immigration reform that works for everyone.

Spokespeople: Who will be credible and effective at getting your message heard?

Y our coalition needs to determine the key community, faith, and political leaders who can carry
your message. Are there everyday people who have a compelling story to share?

Information and Events: What information do you have or events can you create that will
interest the media, enable you to place stories, and get your spokespeople in print or on the
air? What are the campaign milestones that will make good stories?

With such a tight timeframe, a plan to engage the media should occur in the next two months.
The following are key upcoming events that present media opportunities to voice concern:
November 10—Final immigration hearing in Myrtle Beach

November 25—Thanksgiving (immigrants and Native Americans coming together)
January—State legislature reconvenes; anti-immigration bill is introduced

January 17—MLK Day (invoking MLK’s vision of judgment by content of character)
January—Bill will be voted on

38