axelaiasiiua State Immigration
STATES Network :
Project:
Policy Options for 2009
PROGRESSIVE
STATES Network
About the Progressive States Network
The Progressive States Network was founded in 2005 to drive public policy debates and change the political landscape
in the United States by focusing on attainable, progressive state actions. The Progressive States Network advances this
agenda by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state policymakers, legislative
staff, and non-profit organizations. We function as a meeting space for progressive legislators, activists, and citizens,
and serve as a hotbed of information exchange. We track legislation in all 50 states, helping to spark change across the
country. We make it easier for people to learn more about how to get good ideas passed into law — and how to take power
into their own hands.
Progressive States Task Forces
Progressive States works with the following organizations
and additional allies in developing these policies. We work
with these groups to provide support to state legislators
and campaigns seeking to enact these policies into law.
ACORN
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
Americans for Health Care - SEIU
America’s Agenda
Apollo Alliance
Center for American Progress
Center for Housing Policy
Center On Wisconsin Strategy (COWS)
Citizens for Tax Justice
DEMOS
Economic Policy Institute
Community Catalyst
Families USA
Herndon Alliance
Northeast Action
UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research
Universal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN)
Federation of State PIRGs
Free Press
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators
Smart Growth America
Gamaliel Foundation
Labor Project on Working Families
Mobility Agenda
MomsRising
Multi-States Working Families Consortium
National Employment Law Project
National Housing Conference
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women’s Law Center
People for the American Way
Public Campaign
PolicyLink
Smart Growth America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Urban Land Institute
Progressive States Board of Directors
Joel Barkin, Executive Director
Texas Rep. Garnet Coleman, Co-Chair
David Sirota, Co-Chair
Sen. Joe Bolkcom, /owa Senate
Wes Boyd, Moveon.org
David Brock, Media Matters for America
Anna Burger, SE/U
Rep. Morgan Carroll, Colorado House of Representatives
Sen. Spencer Coggs, Wisconsin Senate
Steve Doherty, Former Montana Senate Minority Leader
Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Skyline Public Works
Del. Tom Hucker, Maryland House of Delegates
Steve Kest, Executive Director, ACORN
Ned Lamont, Campus Televideo
Sen. Nan Orrock, Georgia Senate
Rep. Hannah Pingree, Maine House of Representatives
John Podesta, Center for American Progress
Lee Saunders, AFSCME
Ben Scott, Free Press
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona House of Representatives
Naomi Walker, AFL-C/O
For More Information
For more information on policy options discussed in this
program or for help in your states, look for additional
details in coming months at www.progressivestates.org
and feel free to contact:
Nathan Newman
Policy Director
212-680-3114
nnewman@progressivestates.org
To read this document online with clickable links to
resources, go to:
www.progressivestates.org/immigrationpolicies/
PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
.
NNODAGGTRRwW
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction : Using Smart State Policy To Challenge The Anti-Immigrant Movement
Wage Law Enforcement As Immigration Policy
Increase Penalties for Wage Law Violations
Fight Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors
Expand Coordination and Funding by Enforcement Agencies
Enforce Wage Laws Against Employers Using Immigrant Workers
Strengthen Legal Services for Low-Wage Workers
Encourage Private Action Against Wage Law Violators
Block E-Verify to Prevent Discrimination Based on National Origin
Make It a Crime to Coerce Labor based on Workers’ Immigration Status
Stop Government Purchases from Domestic and Overseas Sweatshops
Immigrant Integration And Naturalization
Expand Access to Adult English Classes
Create Government Offices to Assist the Naturalization Process for Aspiring Citizens
Provide In-State Tuition and Scholarships for All State Residents
Protect Immigrants from Private Discrimination
Prevent Abuses Committed by “Notarios" and Others Hurting Immigrants Through Fraud
Immigrants And Public Benefits
Commission Studies Showing Taxes Paid and Economic Contributions by Immigrants,
Both Legal and Undocumented
Measure Costs of Burdensome ID Rules for Receiving Benefits
Protect Privacy of Users of Public Benefit Programs
Make Services Available to Victims of Human Trafficking
Provide Health Care for Immigrant Communities
Pass Resolutions Asking Federal Government to Provide Funding for Local Immigrant Services
Voting Reform Versus “Voter ID” Attacks
Hold Hearings or Create Commissions to Expose the Lack of Immigrant Voter Fraud
Pass Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Acts
Pass Laws to Make Voting Easier Once People Manage to Register to Vote
Immigrant Outreach As Public Safety and Anti-Terror Policy
Community Policing in Immigrant Communities
Protect Immigrant Victims and Witnesses to Crimes, Particularly of Domestic Violence
Issue Licenses and Identification
Condemn Private Vigilantism
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/
Additional details on legislative models and other support
materials will be available on Progressive States’ website:
http://www.progressivestates.org/immigrationpolicies/
in coming months.
We also encourage you to subscribe to our twice weekly
e-dispatch which regularly updates state legislators and
advocates on progressive policy proposals and victories
(as well as defeats) across the country.
Please go to
http://www.progressivestates.org/dispatch/ to sign up.
Vv
PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
State ImmigrationProject: Policy Options for 2009
INTRODUCTION
USING SMART STATE POLICY TO CHALLENGE
THE ANTI-
In 2007, Progressive States Network launched our State
Immigration Project to support efforts by legislators and advocates
to challenge anti-immigrant policies and promote smarter,
humane policy that would address the real concerns of voters
over illegal sweatshops and integrating new immigrants into their
communities. Since then, while some states have continued to
enact punitive measures against new immigrants, other states have
chosen a more constructive direction — building policies aimed at
creating one America that unites and lifts living standards for all,
immigrant and native alike.
The key to challenging anti-immigrant movements in the
states is to respond with legislation that puts supporters of such
anti-immigrant policies on the defensive. Where their goal is to
pit African-American voters against Latinos, legal immigrants
against undocumented immigrants, and native-born workers
against undocumented workers, progressive leaders need to
promote policies that unite people across those divides. Leaders
must highlight that those leading the anti-immigrant charge are
actually campaigning against the interests of working families of
all races and immigrant status.
Progressives should focus not only the facts that challenge
immigrant myths, but also identify policies that undercut the
political alliances that anti-immigrant forces are trying to build
around these myths. In this document, we highlight five sets of
policies that can directly challenge those right-wing views on
immigrants and build alternative political coalitions:
ant
Wage Enforcement as Immigration Policy: Much of the
anger at immigrants derives from fears that sweatshops and
sub-minimum wage labor will undermine wage standards.
Punishing employers who violate wage laws will politically
unite all workers, immigrant and native alike, and actually
strengthen the progressive political base. If wage enforcement
bills are attached to anti-immigrant bills, many in the business
lobby will break their current alliances with rightwing, anti-
immigrant politicians.
Encouraging Immigrant Integration and Naturalizatio
Progressives need to emphasize that all available evidence
shows that most immigrants are eager to become full
IMMIGRANT MOVEMENT
members of our communities if given a chance. Legislators
need to highlight policies that help all immigrants better
integrate into society, and unite the interests of legal and
undocumented immigrants along with the members of their
communities who are already voting citizens.
Immigrants and Public Benefits: While state leaders and
advocates need to stress the studies show how undocumented
immigrants actually pay substantial taxes and use limited
public benefits, they also need to demand studies that reflect
the lost benefits to citizens and the costs to taxpayers from
onerous anti-immigrant enforcement rules. Progressive
leaders can show that broad-based benefits for all residents
are the best investment in the long-term, and should demand
that the federal government, which receives billions in
taxes paid by undocumented workers, share those revenues
with states to expand services for communities with heavy
immigrant populations.
(© READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CI
LICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/
1
Introduction
+ Voting Reform versus “Voter ID” Attacks: Given the
complete lack of evidence that non-citizens have illegally
voted in U.S. elections, progressives need to challenge the
voter ID requirements that are disenfranchising many legal
voters. While voter ID laws need to be defeated, the other part
of progressive mobilization should be demanding that voting
be made easier, through reforms like same day registration
and voting by mail, for people who are forced to overcome
any new barriers to proving their legal right to vote.
+ Immigrant Outreach as Public Safety and Anti-Terror
Policy: Mostlaw enforcement groups recognize thatitis harder
to protect victims of crime when millions of people living in
our communities are afraid to speak to the police when they
either see a crime or are victims themselves . Progressive leaders
can highlight this reality by promoting policies that protect
undocumented immigrant victims and witnesses of crime when
they contact the police, and encourage community-policing
efforts involving undocumented immigrant communities.
Each of these sets of policies emphasize why better inclusion
of immigrants in our communities, not sanctions, are the best
approach. The key is to use legislative campaigns to actively focus
public debate on areas where public attitudes towards immigrants
are most positive, and to direct frustrations over the economy at
the corporate interests who are most responsible for stagnating
family incomes.
Different policies will, no doubt, be promoted in different states.
In a number of states where heavy immigration in the modern era
is a relatively new phenomenon, political leaders are facing more
fear from the public, and may have to be more strategic in the
policies they promote. In such states, a heavier focus on issues like
wage enforcement policies may be the best option to create the
greatest unity among progressive constituencies. In other states,
where long-term immigrant communities are politically mobilized
in broader local alliances, passing more proactive immigrant
policies can help change the national narrative and emphasize the
strong pro-immigrant constituencies across the nation.
To read this document online with clickable links to resources,
go to: www.progressivestates.org/immigrationpolicies/
General Resources for State Immigration Policies
The National Immigration Law Center has a list of suggested
pro-active measures in its Pro-Immigrant Measures Available to
State or Local Governments: A Quick Menu of Affirmative Ideas that
contributed to producing this document. The following additional
documents and groups have many resources that provide research
and other documents to assist state advocates in promoting good
state immigration policies.
NILC, State and Local Policies on Immigrant Access
to Services .
National Employment Law Project, More Harm Than
Good: Responding To States’ Misguided Efforts To
Regulate Immigration
Center for Community Change/Fair Immigration Reform
Movement, State Campaigns
National Council of La Raza, State and Local Immigration
Initiatives
Drum Major Institute, Principles for an Immigration Policy
to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class
NCSL, Overview of State Legislation Related to Immigration
and Immigrants in 2007 (April 2007)
ACLU Immigrant Rights Project
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers
Guild
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO)
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA),
Navigating the Immigration Debate: A Guide for State &
Local Policymakers and Advocates
Migration Policy Institute
Key religious allies include: Christians for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform, Catholic Legal Immigration Network,
Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,
Luther Immigration & Refugee Services, Sisters of Mercy
of the Americas
American Immigration Law Foundation’s Immigration
Policy Center
2 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
WAGE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS IMMIGRATION POLICY
Given the justifiable concern by voters surrounding illegal
sweatshops, a number of state leaders are looking beyond
punishing immigrant workers, to concentrating on raising wages
for all workers, and increasing penalties for wage law violators
across the board.
While many advocates of “fighting illegal immigration” claim
to be doing so in the name of helping low-income workers, it is
remarkable that almost none of them are addressing the pervasive
theft of low-income worker wages by employers violating wage
laws. Instead of promoting a narrow tactic like sanctions against
employers of undocumented workers, which only drives the
problem of low-wage employment underground, cracking down on
sweatshops and wage violators would be one of the most effective
deterrents to employers recruiting undocumented immigrants. If
all employers have to pay a decent wage, the attraction of hiring
undocumented immigrants would diminish tremendously. Since
going after employers who violate wage laws will politically
unite all workers, immigrant and native alike, cracking down on
those abusive employers will actually strengthen the progressive
political base.
Where anti-immigrant politicians proposed workplace
sanctions against immigrants in 2008, a number of progressive
leaders in states proposed bills or amendments that highlighted the
broader illegality of broken wage and safety laws that undermine
workplace standards for all Americans.
Anti-Immigrant Bills Stall where Wage Enforcement Seen
as Better Solution: A number of states that initially debated
purely anti-immigrant measures recognized that failure to enforce
state wage laws is the crux of the economic problem outraging
state voters:
* In Connecticut in 2007, a bill was introduced that would have
made it a criminal offense to hire undocumented workers,
but instead it was modified into a state law to go after all
employers who commit workers’ compensation premium
fraud to cheat workers out of benefits.
‘When the lowa Senate approved SF 2416, a bill to toughen
enforcement against employers violating Iowa state wage laws,
it stalled movement in that chamber of an anti-immigrant bill
approved in that state’s House—and killed anti-immigrant
legislation for 2008.
‘When the Kansas House in 2008 voted to gut an anti-
immigrant bill and added provisions to severely punish
employers violating wages laws and exploiting undocumented
immigrants, it led to deadlock with a purely anti-immigrant
bill in the state Senate that lacked those wage enforcement
provisions.
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 3
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
Core wage enforcement legislation should include:
e Increase Penalties for Wage Law Violations
e Enforce Wage Laws Against Employers Using
Undocumented Workers
*¢ Stop Misclassification of Workers as
“Independent Contractors”
e Expand Coordination and Funding by
Enforcement Agencies
¢ Strengthen Legal Services for Low-Wage Workers
e Encourage Private Action Against Wage
Law Violators
e Prevent Discrimination Based on National Origin
¢ Make it a Crime to Coerce Labor based on Worker's
Immigration Status
*¢ Stop Government Purchases from Domestic and
Overseas Sweatshops
Increase Penalties for Wage Law Violations
Despite the media focus on a handful of states passing anti-
immigrant measures, the unreported story has been the increasing
crackdown by state governments on wage law violators as
a response to the growing underground economy. A few
examples include:
+ The Arizona and Ohio minimum wage ballot initiatives
passed by voters in 2006 included new triple damages against
employers violating their state wage laws.
+ In 2008, Massachusetts made it the law, SB 1059, that tri-
ple damages will be mandatory for violations of that state’s
wage law.
SF 2416 (approved in the Senate) would have
established triple damages for wage law violations and
created significantly larger civil penalties, including
penalties for retaliation against
reporting violations.
+ Towa
severe employees
+ Responsible contracting laws in a few states and cities now
deny public contracts or operating licenses to wage law
violators. See Los Angeles Responsible Contractor Ordinance
for one example and San Francisco’s city minimum wage for
provisions that authorize city agencies to revoke permits or
licenses for businesses that violate the law.
+ A number of jurisdictions are increasingly applying “theft of
wages” statutes to enforce criminal sanctions against wage law
violators. Many states already have “theft of wages” statutes
on the books, so that all that is needed is to enforce these
provisions. See NELP’s Using Criminal Theft of Service
Laws To Enforce Workers’ Right to be Paid (NELP) for
more on how to use such criminal theft statutes or add them
to a state’s criminal code.
Fight Misclassification of Workers as
Independent Contractors
States are also increasingly targeting the employer tactic of
misclassifying employees as “independent contractors,” which
excludes workers from minimum wage, prevailing wage, overtime,
health and safety, and right to organize protections. Because of
these problems, cracking down on misclassification of independent
contractors is becoming a priority for many states:
* In 2007, Minnesota and Colorado both enacted new
laws cracking down on misclassification of employees as
“independent contractors” to evade state wage laws.
+ In 2008, legislatures in California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Wisconsin all introduced new laws to crack down on
employers misclassifying employees as independent
contractors to evade wage laws.
+ In 2008, Utah, SB 159 makes it fraud to misclassify an
employee to avoid the obligation to obtain workers’
compensation insurance coverage, and SB 189 establishes
a council to study how to reduce costs resulting from the
misclassification of workers.
+ The New York Attorney General's office has aggressively
pursued wage claims against joint employers, including
against large supermarket and drugstore chains for unpaid
wages due to delivery workers misclassified as independent
contractors.
+ Connecticut’s 2007 law, Pub. Act. No. 07-89, provides that
employers who misrepresent the number or type of their
employees for purposes of the workers’ compensation system,
can be issued a stop work order and ordered to pay a fine of
up to $1,000. In 2008, Connecticut HB 5113 and SB 454
established a commission to review the problem of employer
misclassification for purposes of avoiding obligations under
state and federal labor, employment, and tax laws.
4 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
See Also:
+ National Employment Law Project, Combating Independent
Contractor Misclassification in the States
+ Workplace Fairness, Contractors
* Cornell University Institute for Labor Relations, The Cost of
Worker Misclassification in New York State (Feb. 2007)
+ Office of Minnesota Legislative Auditor, Misclassification of
Employees as Independent Contractors
Expand Coordination and Funding by
Enforcement Agencies
Whatever the penalties and the law, one key to enforcement is
making sure agencies are well-funded and creatively coordinate
their work for maximum effectiveness. Instead of promoting a
narrow tactic like sanctions against employers of undocumented
workers, which only drives the problem of low-wage employment
underground, New York State has created a new Bureau of
Immigrant Workers’ Rights. This new agency has already moved
forward in cracking down on low-wage law violators - sending avan
out to churches and community groups to encourage immigrant
workers to come forward to report wage law violations — teaching
an important lesson that outreach, not pushing immigrants into
the shadows, is the key to raising wage standards for all.
One reason for this trend towards wage enforcement is that
state governments lose billions of dollars in revenue each year due
to the failure to enforce state wage laws. Instead of wasting state
money on costly, wasteful local enforcement of immigration laws,
stepped up wage law enforcement will more than pay for itself, For
example, a February 2007 report by Cornell University researchers
estimated that 704,000 of the seven million private-sector workers
in New York state were misclassified as independent contractors,
costing the state $175 million in unemployment insurance taxes
each year and undermining those workers’ rights. Another study
by New York's Fiscal Policy Institute estimated that off-the-book
wage payment violations the state was losing $26 million in unpaid
income taxes in the construction industry alone.
+ A California Joint Enforcement Strike Force on the
Underground Economy was created over a decade ago; a
2005 state labor department report found that in one year,
various agencies investigating laborand payreporting violations
collected over $100 million in citations and assessments.
+ In New York, a new state joint task force of state
labor, tax and worker compensation agencies conducted a
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
dramatic sweep this year of 117 employers, finding 2,078
illegally misclassified employees and another 646 workers
who were owed minimum wage and overtime pay totaling $3
million. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick created a similar
task force earlier this month via Executive Order 499.
+ Illinois, along with a number of other states, has mandated
a state study commission to collect data and information on
lost tax revenues due to independent contractor abuses.
Enforce Wage Laws Against Employers Using
Immigrant Workers
In the words of New York’s highest court, applying state wage laws
fully against employers of undocumented workers is necessary
since weak employment rights for undocumented workers makes
“it more financially attractive to hire undocumented aliens [and]
would actually increase employment levels of undocumented
aliens, not decrease it.” To deter employers seeking to exploit the
vulnerability of immigrant workers:
+ California, through passage of SB 1818 and New York in
Balbuena v. IDR Realty by the New York Court of Appeals,
has declared that all legal remedies are available to workers
regardless of immigration status.
+ To assure that workers understand their rights at work, lowa
and Nebraska have laws requiring translators on the job
where more than 10% of the workforce is non-English-
speaking. See Iowa Code section 91F.2.
+ New Mexico HM 15 requests that the federal government
establish an immigrant worker program that will prevent
the unnecessary loss of life for undocumented workers and
provide for worker safety.
* See Also:National Employment Law Project, 4 Comparison
of State Day Labor Laws, and Drafting Day Labor Legislation:
A Guide for Organizers and Advocates
Strengthen Legal Services for
Low-Wage Workers
A number of states are increasing funding for legal services,
often a critical ally for low-wage workers seeking to enforce
their rights.
A number of states have also increased funding from so-called
IOLTA accounts — lawyers’ accounts whose interest is used to
fund low-income legal services — by requiring that banks provide
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 5
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
competitive interest rates. Florida —the first state back in 1981 to
use interest on lawyer accounts to fund legal services — was also
the first state in 2004 to require banks to offer competitive interest
rates on those accounts, increasing revenue from that source from
$22.7 million in fiscal year 2004-05 up to $67.3 million by the
following year. New York and other states have since joined
Florida with similar programs.
Since the federal Legal Services Corporation bars funding
for many immigrant workers, some states are working to provide
funding for immigrant workers denied fair treatment. One model
is New York's proposed A2289 in 2007, which would provide legal
services for immigration and immigrant worker matters excluded
from federally-funded legals services.
See Also:
+ New York Governor's Office, New State Regulations to
Increase Funding for Civil Legal Assistance to Eligible Poor New
Yorkers
+ ABA Journal Report, Expressing Their Interest: Rise in Rates
Swells IOLTA, and Legal Services Gain
* Brennan Center - Access to Justice: Opening the
Courtroom Door
Encourage Private Action Against Wage
Law Violators
To supplement often under-funded public enforcement and
legal services agencies, states can also encourage unions and
other workers’ advocates to help bring legal actions against wage
law violators.
+ Laws can be modeled on California's Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, which allows present and former
employees to collect not only damages for unpaid wages,
but also twenty-five percent of the civil penalties that are
normally paid to the state as well.
+ San Francisco's city minimum wage ordinance, authorizes
community groups and unions to file complaints, without
having to show that the workers not being paid are their
members.
+ A number of states give outside labor advocates
access to non-work areas of employer property to educate
employees on their rights. Massachusetts, California (see
§20900 of the CA Agricultural Labor Relations, Solicitation
by Non-Employee Organizers regulations) and a few other
states give farmworker advocates access to agricultural fields;
states including California, Colorado and New Jersey require
mall owners to give union organizers, as well as others, access
to sidewalks, parking lots and interior public spaces.
Block E-Verify to Prevent Discrimination
Based on National Origin
The most typical workplace anti-immigrant bill has required
employers to use the often inaccurate federal “E-Verify” system of
employee verification, a pilot ID system used by the Social Security
administration that was never meant to be used on a mass basis by
employers. Most in the business community recognize that the
inaccuracy of E-Verify may open them up to anti-discrimination
lawsuits. And, many worry about the broader economic damage
of inducing many legal workers to flee states rather than face
such discrimination by inaccurate systems. Oklahoma Republican
State Rep. Shane Jett voted for Oklahoma's HB 1804 mandating
E-Verify last year but now says it “will be the single most destructive
economic disaster since the Dust Bowl.” In Tennessee, despite
the new legal sanctions against hiring undocumented workers,
employers have shunned the federal E-Verify system as unreliable,
with only 542 our of 117,903 employers initially registering to
use E-Verify.
+ To respond to the problems of E-Verify, Illinois, in 2007,
enacted HB 1744. The bill prohibited employers from
enrolling in the E-Verify system until the Social Security
Administration and Department of Homeland Security
databases could make a determination on 99% of the tentative
non-confirmation notices issued to employers within 3
days—something they cannot yet do. The law was suspended
during a federal lawsuit against the law, but it highlights
basic standards that should be required of any employment
verification system to avoid discrimination.
+ The spring of 2008 also saw a decision by the U.S. District
Court in Oklahoma prohibiting a state from penalizing
employers who do not use a federal verification program.
As the court decision plays out, progressives can continue
to introduce legislation urging employers and the federal
government not to use E-Verify (see proposed bill Rhode
Island HR 8031).
* — To directly deal with discrimination against legal immigrant
workers, New York's proposed A4603 would amend the
state executive law and the civil rights law to clearly outlaw
discrimination because of alien status.
6 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
See Also:
+ Electronic Privacy Information Clearinghouse, E-Vérify
System: DHS Changes Name, But Problems Remain for U.S.
Workers
+ National Immigration Law Center, How Errors in Basic Pilot/
E-Verify Databases Impact U.S. Citizens and Lavwfully Present
Immigrants
+ NILC, Why States and Localities Should Not Require
Participation in the Basic Pilot Program
+ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Testimony on
challenges of implementing a mandatory E-verify system
+ National Employment Law Center, Basic Pilot / E-Verify: Not
a Magic Bullet
Make it a Crime to Coerce Labor based on
Worker’s Immigration Status
States are increasingly protecting the victims of human trafficking
and punishing employers and others who coerce immigrants to
perform labor under threat.
+ In 2006, Colorado enacted SB 06S-005, and in 2007,
Virginia enacted a similar bill, HB 1921, to make it a felony
to coerce labor by threatening to destroy documents relating
to a person’s immigration status or by threatening to notify
law enforcement that a person is in violation of federal
immigration law.
+ In 2008, anti-trafficking laws were passed in Maine (LD
461), New Mexico (SB 71), Oklahoma (HB 1021), Utah (HB
339, amending SB 81), Tennessee (HB 71), and Missouri
(comprehensive anti-immigrant bill HB 1549).
Stop Government Purchases from Domestic
and Overseas Sweatshops
While states cannot change the bad trade policy that has
undermined the economy of Mexico and other countries from
where immigrants frequently emigrate to the U.S., states do have
the power through their own purchasing decisions to help end
the global sweatshops that drive undocumented immigration.
California, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
along with sixty cities, counties and school districts, have changed
their procurement policies to ban government purchases from
contractors violating internationally recognized labor rights.
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
In Oklahoma this year, state Representative Rebecca Hamilton
filed HB 3067 to address some of these roots causes of immigration.
‘The bill repealed portions of last year’s anti-immigration law, and
instead, made it illegal for the state of Oklahoma to contract with
any company that has closed American facilities and opened new
factories outside the country, unless they operate those factories
in compliance with United States wage, safety and human
rights guarantees.
See Also:
* Progressive States, Stopping Immigration at the Source:
Anti-Sweatshop Legislation
+ Global Exchange, Sweatfree Campaigns
+ AFL-CIO, Stop Sweatshops
* Sweatfree Consortium, Model Resolution to Join the State
and Local Government Sweatfree Consortium
+ Sweatfree Communities,
Sweatfree Movement
Procurement Officials in the
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 7
Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy
General Resources: Wage Enforcement as
ae . Research Studies on Enforcing Wage Laws
Immigration Policy
+ LA Times, How L.A. Kept Out a Million Migrants- article
highlighting how strong wage enforcement efforts encouraged
undocumented immigrants to seek out states with weaker
+ Progressive States, Pervasive Violations of Wage
Laws — and What States Can Do About It
+ Progressive States, Cracking Down on Wage Law
Violators
+ National Employment Law Project (NELP), From
Pro-Immigrant to Pro-Worker
+ National Empl it Law Project, More Hi 7
Food tis sponding To iy i ; Miu ie d Bf, es Tas Prevalence of Employment and Labor Law Violations in the
é US (2005:
Regulate Immigration ( ) ; ; .
+ AFL-CIO, Executive Council Statement on : Urban Institute, Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration
Immigration Policy Raids on America’s Children report highlighting the devastating
«Drum Major Institute, Principles for an Immigration effect of workplace raids on children often left abandoned or
, a tized in their wake.
Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle OEE LLA
Class + Urban Institute- Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration
Raids on America’s Children
wage laws and enforcement
+ Brennan Center, Unregulated Work in the Global City
(2007)
+ Brennan Center, Survey of Literature Estimating the
+ National Immigration Law Center, Szate and
Local Proposals That Punish Employers for Hiring + National Council of La Raza (NCLR), The Status of Latinos
Undocumented Workers Are Unenforceable, in the Labor Force
Unnecessary, and Bad Public Policy
+ List of Organizations involved in wage law
enforcement, participants in a 2005 wage
enforcement conference sponsored by NELP and the
Brennan Center for Justice.
+ AFL-CIO, Immigrant Workers resource page
* AFL-CIO, Executive Council Statement on
Immigration Policy (2006)
+ National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Five Facts
About Undocumented Workers in the United States
8 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Immigrant Integration And Naturalization
IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION
While anti-immigrant forces raise fears that recent immigrants
resist integration into American society, progressives should
emphasize that all available evidence shows quite the opposite —
if given a chance, most new immigrants are eager to become full
members of our communities. Studies by research groups like
RAND have shown that Latino immigrants, for example, are
assimilating into the economy at the same rate as earlier waves of
European immigrants.
Politically, progressives can promote legislation that helps all
immigrants better integrate, which will unite the interests of legal
and undocumented immigrants along with the members of their
communities who are already voting citizens. Especially if anti-
immigrant politicians oppose policies that help legal immigrants,
it will emphasize that all the rhetoric about the problem being
“illegal” immigration is empty, and the bigotry is aimed at the
whole racial or ethnic community.
Illinois has created the most comprehensive “New Americans
Policy” involving business, religious and community leaders
to expand English language programs, welcome centers, jobs
programs and document translation programs aimed at new
immigrants; but a number of states have promoted a range of
legislation to better integrate new immigrants.
Core immigration integration and naturalization
legislation should include:
e Expand Access to Adult English Classes
e Create Government Offices to Assist
Naturalization Process for Aspiring Citizens
* Provide In-State Tuition for All State Residents
* Protect Immigrants from Private Discrimination
Committed by
the
e Prevent Abuses “Notarios”
and Others
e¢ Hurting Immigrants Through Fraud
AND NATURALIZATION
Expand Access to Adult English Classes
Despite claims by anti-immigrant groups that new immigrants
do not want to learn English, all evidence shows that there are
millions of immigrants literally begging to learn English, only to
find insufficient classrooms teaching in their communities. In Los
Angeles, for example, 50,000 students remain on waiting lists for
English language classes, even though schools teaching ESL run
24 hours a day.
Many business leaders recognize that problem and want better
language training programs, diverging sharply from anti-immigrant
groups wanting to deny such help. A number of states have
proposed directed funding to help new immigrants learn English
and integrate more easily into their communities:
+ Illinois’s SB 1446, also know as the “We Want to Learn
English Initiative” was enacted in 2007. It requires the
Illinois Community College Board to administer a program
for lawful immigrants and refugees to learn English,and move
towards becoming full members of American society. The
initiative provides for an annual budget of $25 million, with
no less than half of the funds appropriated for the Initiative
being disbursed through community-based, not-for-profit
organizations, immigrant social service organizations, faith-
based organizations, and on-site job training programs.
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 9
Immigrant Integration And Naturalization
+ Minnesota’s HF 979 / SF 923 in 2007 increased funding for
affordable and accessible adult English language instruction.
+ New York's proposed A2289 would establish a program to
provide resources to community-based organizations to
facilitate adult English and civics instruction, along with
assistance with the citizenship process.
See Also:
+ Migration Policy Institute, Adult English Language Instruction
in the United States: Determining Need and Investing Wisely,
July 2007
+ American Immigration Law Foundation, ESL Education
Helps Immigrants Integrate, Interest remains high despite a
national shortage of ESL programs, 2002
+ Pew Hispanic Center, English Usage Among Hispanics in
the United States
Create Government Offices to Assist the
Naturalization Process for Aspiring Citizens
States and local governments can take action to further assist
naturalization — from improving registration procedures at driver
licensing offices and other government offices, to assisting in the
naturalization process. Illinois’ Office of New Americans has
become the leader among the at least 15 states that have offices to
tailor services to immigrants and help with naturalization.
States can create government offices or fund organizations
to assist immigrants to successfully complete the process of
obtaining U.S. citizenship through naturalization. A few recent
examples include:
+ In February 2008, Washington's Governor Christine Gregoire
signed Executive Order 08-01, creating a New Americans
Policy Council to promote naturalization, English skills,
and public-private partnerships for integration. The
Washington state legislature took the additional step of
providing $340,000 in funding to promote community
economic development and build the capacity of organizations
across the state that provide naturalization assistance to legal
permanent residents.
+ Arizona SB 1096 appropriates funds for English language
learners, and Missouri HB 2010 provides funds for
naturalization assistance to certain legal immigrants.
+ In fall of 2007, New Jersey created a Blue Ribbon Panel
on Immigrant Policy to develop strategies to better integrate
immigrants in that state, and New York announced a
$6 million initiative to fund nineteen state organizations that
help New York immigrants become United States citizens.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s FY 2009 budget
proposed increasing funding for that state’s Citizenship for
New Americans Program from $500,000 to $1.5 million.
credits for
States can also refundable tax
naturalization expenses:
+ Indiana's SB 240 would create an Adult Education Tax
Credit which would give employers a credit of up to $300
per employee and up to $5,000 per year for payment of an
employee’s expenses related to adult education programs,
including citizenship training.
enact
+ Minnesota's HF 747 would create a specific Citizenship
Income Tax Credit.
* Texas's HB 240 would require school districts to grant
students an excused absence from school when appearing
at a governmental office to complete paperwork required in
connection with the student’s application for U.S. citizenship
or to take part in a naturalization oath ceremony.
States can also improve government communication and
coordination over programs promoting immigrant integration:
+ Illinois’s SB 1746 enacted the Latino Family Commission
in 2007, which will advise the Governor and General
Assembly, as well as work directly with State agencies to
improve and expand existing policies, services, programs, and
opportunities for Latino families. In 2008, Illinois approved
SB 783 to provide funds for more bilingual personnel in
public agencies.
See Also:
+ Progressive States, IL: Policies to Bring Immigrants into
Economic Mainstream
+ New Americans Policy Council, For the Benefit of All: Strategic
Recommendations to Enhance the State’ Role in the Integration
of Immigrants in Illinois
+ Illinois Coalitions for Immigrants and Refugee Rights,
The New Americans Initiative
* NCSL, State and Local Immigrant Offices
10 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Provide In-State Tuition and Scholarships for
All State Residents
One key to integrating the children of new immigrants into our
communities is making sure they can get a college education. In
2006, Nebraska joined nine other states that have passed laws,
often called DREAM acts, to provide the in-state tuition rate
to undocumented immigrants who attend state colleges and
universities. In 2007, the Connecticut legislature voted to do so
as well, although unfortunately the Governor in that states vetoed
the bill. Attempts to repeal Nebraska and Utah’s DREAM acts
failed in both states in 2008.
States can also ensure access to state or locally funded financial
aid and scholarships, regardless of immigration status:
* — California’s SB 1, which was enacted by the legislature in
2007 but vetoed by the governor, would have made California
high school graduates who meet the non-resident in-state
tuition requirements eligible for a fee waiver at community
college, and enabled them to participate in the Cal Grant
state financial aid program.
+ In 2007, New York's proposed A4653 would have expanded
scholarship opportunities for immigrant students.
See Also:
+ FIRM, In-State Tuition Campaigns
* University of Houston Law Center, State Legislation
Concerning Undocumented College Students (Fall 2007)
Protect Immigrants from Private Discrimination
To prevent local discrimination against immigrants, legislation
should add immigration and citizenship status to the grounds
of prohibited discrimination under fair housing laws and/or
prohibit cities, counties, and landlords from making inquiries into
immigration status.
* California AB 976 was enacted in October 2007 to block
local ordinances that promote housing discrimination against
immigrant community members; the bill also prohibits
landlords from making inquiries about immigration status or
request documentation in most cases.
+ In.2007,Texas’s proposed HB 2676 would have prevented any
political subdivision from requiring landlord not to lease to
a prospective tenant solely on the basis of their immigration
status and would have prohibited landlords from inquiring
into a tenant’s immigration status.
Immigrant Integration And Naturalization
+ In late May 2008, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay struck
down an ordinance passed by the city of Farmers Branch,
Texas prohibiting landlords from renting to undocumented
immigrants, finding that the ordinance was preempted
by Federal law. See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of
Farmers Branch.
Prevent Abuses Committed by “Notarios” and
Others Hurting Immigrants Through Fraud
A number of states are taking action to stop the abuses committed
by “notarios” and others who harm community members by
engaging in fraudulent and unauthorized practice of law.
+ California's AB 630, which was enacted in 2006, requires
a person acting as an immigration consultant to submit to
and pass a background check by the Department of Justice
and FBI. It also requires a registration with the Secretary
of State.
+ Kentucky’s HB 166, also passed in 2006, prohibits any person
in the business of providing immigration assistance from
giving legal advice and requires registration with the Attorney
General's Office before providing immigration assistance
services in the state. The bill also requires providers to post
signs that specify that the provider is not an attorney and may
not give or accept fees for giving legal advice.
+ Indiana's SB 445, passed in 2007, requires any non-attorney
who advertises as a notary public or notario publico to include
a disclosure stating that the person is not an attorney, and
contains criminal penalties for failure to do so or for accepting
payment for legal advice.
+ Additional 2008 bills passed included Georgia HB 1055,
Wisconsin HB 468, and South Carolina HB 4400.
Other General Resources on Immigrant
Integration Policies
* Migration Policy Institute, Leaving Too Much to Chance: 4
Roundtable on Immigrant Integration Policy
+ Urban Institute, Immigration Studies: The Integration of
Immigrant Families in the United States
+ Grant-makers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees,
Investing in Our Communities: Strategies for Immigrant
Integration (2006)
+ CLASP, The Challenges of Change: Learning from the
Child Care and Early Education Experiences of Immigrant
Families (2007)
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 11
Immigrant Integration And Naturalization
+ Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
(MIRA), New Workers, New Voters: Why Massachusetts Should
Recruit, Retain, and Train Newcomers (2008)
+ Immigration Policy Center, From Newcomers to
Americans: An Integration Policy for a Nation of Immigrants
(April 2007)
12 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Immigrants And Public Benefits
IMMIGRANTS AND PUBLIC BENEFITS
Many of the attacks on immigrants are focused on the idea that
undocumented immigrants use more benefits than they pay in taxes.
Advocates first need to highlight the multiple studies that have
shown that even when you total up the limited services for which
they do qualify — public school education and emergency medical
care for example — undocumented immigrants pay significantly more
in state taxes than states spend on those benefits. The Texas State
Controller, for example, estimated that undocumented immigrants
added over $17 billion to the state economy and paid over $400
million more in taxes than they received in benefits from the state.
Progressives need to emphasize three key points beyond
educating the population:
+ When draconian ID requirements are imposed, legal citizens,
not undocumented immigrants, lose more benefits under
such policies;
+ The costs of trying to screen out undocumented immigrants
are higher than their current burden to taxpayers;
+ Federal level anti-immigrant politicians have made the
problem worse for state and local leaders by denying federal
aid for communities needing financial help.
State leaders need to both document the myths promoted by
anti-immigrant forces, but also promote policies that emphasize
the ways investing in public services reflects our common values
and the long-run economic benefits from such investments.
Core immigration integration and naturalization
legislation should include:
e Commission Studies Showing Taxes Paid and
Economic Contributions by Immigrants, Both
Legal and Undocumented
e Measure Costs of Burdensome ID Rules for
Receiving Benefits
e Protect Privacy of Users of Public Benefit
Programs
e Make Services Available to Immigrant Victims of
Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking
e Provide Health Care for Immigrant Communities
e Pass Resolutions Asking Federal Government to
Provide Funding for Local Immigrant Services
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/
Immigrants And Public Benefits
Commission Studies Showing Taxes Paid and
Economic Contributions by Immigrants, Both
Legal and Undocumented:
To bring to light the real facts about the costs and real benefits
of immigration, a number of states are proposing commissioned
studies on the economic role and contributions of immigrants,
including workforce participation, business or jobs generated,
revitalization of neighborhoods, and taxes paid.
+ Virginia’s HB 1673, passed in April 2007, creates the
Virginia Commission on Immigration to study, report, and
make recommendations to address the costs and benefits of
immigration on the Commonwealth.
+ Maryland passed HB 1602, establishing a 3-year Commission
to Study the Impact of Immigrants in Maryland, including a
study of the demographic profile and impact of immigrants,
and the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration. The
Commission's recommendations are due by January 2011.
Such official studies will just reinforce the message of other
reports from Arizona, Arkansas, California, Texas, Florida, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, Washington DC, Long
Island, NY, and Arizona that new immigrants both pay taxes and
contribute significantly to our state economies.
See Also:
+ National Immigration Law Center, Immigrants and the US
Health Care System
+ Texas Office of the Controller, Undocumented Immigrants in
Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and
Economy
* Congressional Budget Office, The Impact of Unauthorized
Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments
+ Conservative think-tank America’s Majority Foundation,
Immigration and the Wealth of States
+ Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Assessing the
Economic Effects of State Laws Addressing the Employment of
Foreign-Born Unauthorized Workers
+ Immigration Policy Center,
as Taxpayers
Undocumented Immigrants
+ Immigration Policy Center, Assessing the Economic Impact of
Immigration at the State and Local Level (April 2008)
+ National Immigration Law Center, Paying Their Way and Then
Some
Measure Costs of Burdensome ID Rules for
Receiving Benefits
While the justification for passing these anti-immigrant laws
‘was to save taxpayer money, follow-up studies have shown little
evidence of any savings — hardly surprising since there was
little evidence beforehand that undocumented immigrants were
receiving so many benefits. ID requirements are usually so extreme
that many legal citizens are turned away. For example, Colorado
passed a law that prevented state agencies from even accepting
a USS. passport as documentation to obtain a driver's license,
leading to the irony that one of the state’s main proponents of the
bill saw his daughter rejected for a license. The sad result, as the
National Immigration Law Center notes, is that “U.S. citizens are
less likely than noncitizens to have the documents required by the
new verification laws.” (p.7) While the law was amended to allow
passports and a few other documents, the law has still inflicted
burdens, both financial and personal on citizens of the state.
In fact, one study in Colorado found that the law there
was costing the state an additional $2 million in increased
administrative costs without any identifiable savings. In Kansas,
the Wichita Eagle highlighted that Kansas spent $1 million last
year to comply with federal proof-of-citizenship requirements for
the state SCHIP program and caught only one undocumented
immigrant using the program. And as an article in USA Today
emphasized, the reality is that anti-immigrant proposals may be
discouraging families from getting early treatment for sickness or
injuries, just increasing the cost when they show up at the hospital
in an emergency.
But, if such ID rules save the taxpayers little money, the impact
on legal residents and citizens can be severe. This was highlighted
when the federal government imposed new identification
requirements for new applicants for Medicaid. The result? Initial
estimates were that 1.2 to 2.3 million citizens lacked the documents
required by the new rules and were in danger of losing coverage.
Follow-up studies by both the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found that Medicaid rolls declined in 44 states after Congress
imposed the new requirements — and most of those losing coverage
were legal residents eligible for coverage but unable to produce the
necessary documents. For other social programs covered by the
states with the new anti-immigrant laws, confusion and fear led
people to lose other benefits. States should commission their own
studies to show the impact of benefit ID laws in hurting legal
residents of their states.
PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
See Also:
+ Progressive States, Kids are collateral damage in immigration
witch hunt
+ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New Medicaid
Citizenship Documentation Requirement is Taking a Toll:
States Report Enrollment is Down and Administrative Costs Are
Up
+ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Medicaid:
States Reported that Citizenship Documentation Requirement
Resulted in Enrollment Declines for Eligible Citizens and Posed
Administrative Burdens (June 2007)
Protect Privacy of Users of Public Benefit
Programs:
State leaders can highlight the lost privacy that anti-immigrant
witchhunts engender by pursuing policies and resolutions that
limit questioning and recording of immigration status by city and
state agencies, except where required by federal law.
+ Texas proposed HB 2381 to prohibit an officer, employee, or
medical staff member of a general hospital to inquire as to
the immigration status or nationality of a person who needs
or receives emergency services, unless the information is
necessary to provide those services to the person.
+ New York’s proposed SB 6738 would prohibit state officers or
employees from disclosing a person's immigration status.
Make Services Available to Victims of Human
Trafficking
One area where the public has great sympathy for extending public
benefits is to immigrant victims of trafficking, domestic violence,
and other serious crimes.
+ Florida HB 7181, California SB 1569, and North Carolina
SB 1078 all make public social service benefits available to
victims of trafficking, domestic violence, and other serious
crimes.
+ Hawaii HCR 204 proposed a resolution to have the state
investigate existing obstacles, in statute, rule, or policy, that
limit or deny benefits to victims of trafficking and assist such
victims in attaining needed services.
Immigrants And Public Benefits
Provide Health Care for Immigrant Communities:
Many states are providing health care to immigrants, both legal
and undocumented, recognizing that long-term investments in
education and health care will pay off with a more skilled and
healthy workforce in the future. More than half of the states spend
their own funds to provide services to at least some immigrants
ineligible for federal services.
+ Illinois’ AlIKids program extended its coverage to children
of all income levels, regardless of immigration status. It was
joined by Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York and California
as those states continued to expand health benefits for many
immigrant children. In 2007, the state of Washington
extended health coverage to all children in families up to
250% of the federal poverty line (moving to 300% in 2009),
again, regardless of immigration status.
+ In California, even Republican Governor Schwarzenegger
has said he wants to include all undocumented immigrants
in any plan for universal access to health care, because as he
argued in a speech announcing his own plan in January, “the
decision for my team was, do we treat them in emergency
rooms at the highest cost available or we do it right and do
it efficiently?”
+ In 2007, Rhode Island’s HB 5412 provided for assistance to
legal immigrants ineligible for federally funded services while
its proposed SB 415 would extend health coverage to children
who do not meet citizenship requirements.
See Also:
+ National Immigration Law Center, Comprehensive Health
Care for Immigrants: A Sound Strategy for Fiscal and
Public Health
+ National Immigration Law Center, Immigrant-Friendly
Health Coverage: Outreach and Enrollment
+ UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research, Immigration,
Health & Work: The Facts Behind the Myths
+ UCLA’ Center for Health Policy Research, Expansion of
Health Insurance in California Unlikely to Act as Magnet for
Undocumented Workers
+ Archives of Internal Medicine, Health Care Access, Use of
Services, and Experiences Among Undocumented Mexicans and
Other Latinos
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 15
Immigrants And Public Benefits
Pass Resolutions Asking Federal Government to
Provide Funding for Local Immigrant Services
Since the federal government collects many taxes from
undocumented immigrants, including social security taxes, for
which the federal government has to pay no benefits, a number
of programs have been designed to funnel those revenues back
to the states. Programs like the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP) were designed to channel some of those
increased tax revenues to states that are particularly impacted by
new immigrants, to help them deal with increased costs that local
tax revenues might not fully cover, yet the Bush administration
and others have argued for cutting its funding. In fact, federal
policies continue to deny help even for legal immigrants who
clearly pay taxes. A clear example is the failure to include funding
for legal immigrant children in the recent SCHIP bill approved
by Congress.
Recognizing that the federal government collects taxes from
immigrant workers without providing funds even for federally-
mandated health care services, proposed California SJRX1 asks the
Congress and President of the United States to enact legislation
that would provide full reimbursement for the costs of providing
federally mandated health care services to anyone, regardless of
immigration status.
+ In 2008,a number of states introduced bills requesting federal
reimbursement for state immigration-related expenses,
including Arizona HCM 2011, Minnesota SF 886 and HB
771, Oregon HJM 24, Virginia SJR 120, and South Carolina
HR 4347. New Mexico successfully passed HJM 3.
* Utah’s HB 262, enacted in March 2008, calls for the Office
of Legislative Research and General Counsel to study all
available remedies the state has for seeking reimbursement
from the federal government for costs incurred from illegal
immigration.
16 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Voting Reform Versus “Voter ID” Attacks
VOTING REFORM VERSUS
The charge that undocumented immigrants voting is a major
problem is, unfortunately, nothing but a big lie, stoking hate
on pure fiction.
‘The cynical goals of voter identification laws pushed by the
right-wing are exposed by a basic fact — there is zero evidence that
undocumented immigrants are illegally voting. At its “Truth about
Fraud” website, for example, the Brennan Center for Justice has
highlighted that fraud is a red herring used by the right-wing to
disenfrachise legal voters through abusive identification rules. This
is emphasized by the national scandal of the Bush Administration
firing U.S. Attorneys, in part because some of those appointees
refused to go along with partisan pressure to generate non-existent
cases of voter fraud. Five years of investigations revealed no real
evidence of voter fraud by an administration as determined to find
non-existent voter fraud as non-existent WMDs in Iraq.
Core voting reform legislation should include:
e Hold Hearings or Create Commissions to Expose
the Lack of Immigrant Voter Fraud
e Pass Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Acts
e Pass Laws to Make Voting Easier Once People do
Manage to Register to Vote
Hold Hearings or Create Commissions to Expose
the Lack of Immigrant Voter Fraud
State leaders need to expose the fraud in anti-immigrant myths
about non-citizens voting in large numbers, and use such hearings
or commissions to refocus debate on the real ways voters are
disenfranchised — by burdensome election rules and voter
suppression tactics.
“VOTER ID” ATTACKS
See Also:
Progressive States,
the Rightwing
New York Times, ‘In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of
Voter Fraud”
Brennan Center, The Truth About Fraud
Project Vote, The Politics of Voter Fraud
Century Foundation, Where's the Voter Fraud?
Fighting Vote Suppression _ by
Eagleton Institute, Testimony presented to the U. S. Election
Assistance Commission (February 8, 2007).
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES,
GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 17
Voting Reform Versus “Voter ID” Attacks
Pass Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Acts
Too often, we see have seen disturbing campaigns to intimidate
voters based on their race or use other tactics to suppress the
vote of legal voters. States need Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Prevention Acts to create strong penalties for groups
that suppress voter turnout through deception and intimidation. If
anti-immigrant forces are going to raise fraud as a justification for
voter ID bills, then progressives should demand through proactive
legislation and amendments attached to their bills, that all forms
of fraud, deception and intimidation be removed at the ballot box.
The Kansas House attached anti-voter intimidation provisions
(see Sec. 12) to the immigration bill debated in that state.
See Also:
+ Center for Policy Alternatives, Voter Protection Model Bill
+ NAACP LDF and MALDEF Uncover Significant Voter
Intimidation Attempts During Recent 2006 Election Cycle
+ People for the American Way, The Long Shadow of Jim Crow:
Voter Suppression in America
Pass Laws to Make Voting Easier Once People
Manage to Register to Vote
In states moving to create greater hurdles to registration and
voting, progressives need to demand simplification of the process
once people produce the necessary ID.
+ Registration to vote and voting itself should be combined, as
anumber of states have done with same day voter registration
laws. In 2007, both Iowa and North Carolina approved same
day voter registration laws. See [A HSB 204.
+ When Oklahoma in 2008 debated a voter ID bill, opponents
in the Senate attached election day registration and other real
election reforms which helped create a deadlock with the state
House, which only wanted a bill that would disenfranchise
voters.
+ States also need to reform database procedures, following
best practices to improve voter matching and verification
after registration, to avoid problems when voters show up on
election-day.
18 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Immigrant Outreach As Public Safety And Anti-Terror Policy
IMMIGRANT OUTREACH AS PUBLIC
SAFETY AND ANTI-TERROR POLICY
While anti-immigration forces seek to paint immigrants as
a dangerous criminal force, the facts show that immigrants
commit fewer crimes than the general population proportionately.
But more importantly, most law enforcement groups recognize
that it becomes harder to protect victims of crime, particularly
immigrants themselves, when millions of people living in our
communities are fearful of talking to the police when they witness
a crime or are a victim of one. A report endorsed by the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, representing the police departments
of New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and city departments
serving over fifty million residents outlined:
“Immigration enforcement by local police would likely
negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and
cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.
If the undocumented immigrant’s primary concern is that
they will be deported or subjected to an immigration status
investigation, then they will not come forward and provide
needed assistance and cooperation...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.”
Progressive leaders can frame reasonable treatment of
immigrant communities as critical to promoting public safety.
Core immigrant outreach for public safety and anti-
terror policy legislation should include:
e Promote Community Policing in
Communities
Immigrant
e Protect Immigrant Victims and Witnesses to
Crimes, Particularly of Domestic Violence
e Issue Licenses and Identification
* Condemn Private Vigilantism
Community Policing in Immigrant Communities
Progressives should emphasize that we do not improve public
safety by making immigrants afraid to cooperate with the police
or anti-terror authorities. States should condemn turning every
police officer or, even worse, every social worker into a potential
immigration enforcement agent, because it undermines community
policing and other known effective law enforcement approaches.
Rhode Island’s HB 5237 and New Hampshire’s HB 404 would
prohibit the use of state and local law enforcement agencies for
the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only
violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship who
are in violation of federal immigration laws.
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 19
Immigrant Outreach As Public Safety And Anti-Terror Policy
Hysteria over immigrants encourages racial profiling by law
enforcement, so proposals like Texas HB 2428 / SB 150 would
prohibit law enforcement profiling based on a person's immigration
or nationality status.
See Also:
+ National Immigration Law Center, Laws, Resolutions, and
Policies Instituted Across the U.S. Limiting Enforcement of
Immigration Laws by State and Local Authorities (updated April
2008)
* Major Cities Chiefs Statement on Immigration- Police chiefs
statement on need for separation of local law enforcement and
federal immigration enforcement
+ Appleseed, Forcing Our Blues into Gray Areas: Local Police
and Federal Immigration Enforcement
+ Vera Institute of Justice, Strengthening Relations between
Police and Immigrants and Building Strong Police-Immigrant
Community Relations: Lessons from a New York City Project
+ CAUSA, Collaboration with federal immigration enforcement
hurts community policing
+ USAToday, Chiefi, mayors order local cops: Leave catching illegal
immigrants to the feds
+ National Immigration Forum, Police in “New Immigrant”
States Say Asking Them to Enforce Immigration Laws Would
Harm Public Safety
Protect Immigrant Victims and Witnesses to
Crimes, Particularly of Domestic Violence
Progressive leaders can ally with both law enforcement and victims’
rights groups by promoting policies that protect immigrant
victims of crime when they contact the police, and by encouraging
community policing efforts in immigrant communities.
Even as some states and local communities have promoted
local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, other
states and communities have instead encouraged victims and
witnesses of crime, particularly those suffering from domestic
violence, to come forward without fear of police inquiry into their
immigration status.
In 2008, the Virginia legislature introduced two bills, SB
441 and HB 307, prohibiting law enforcement officers from
inquiring into the immigration status of any person who
reports being a victim or witness of a crime.
Rhode Island’s proposed HB 7967 offered similar protections
for immigrant victims and witnesses, but also prohibits local
law enforcement from entering into any agreements to enforce
federal immigration laws. SB 2237 would add a requirement
that officers maintain confidentiality if an immigrant’s
status is known, and requires training and cooperation with
community organizations to implement the law.
California and Hawaii both proposed bills focusing
on protecting immigrant victims of domestic violence.
California AJR 42 urges the U.S. Congress not to change
the current policy allowing immigrant victims to pursue
permanent resident status. Hawaii HB 2140 requires the
state Department of Human Services to establish a pilot
program to assist undocumented immigrant victims.
New Jersey's Attorney General Anne Milgram issued an
August 22, 2007 directive to law enforcement officers,
prohibiting officers from inquiring about or investigating the
immigration status of any victim, witness, or person requesting
assistance from the police. The directive also prohibits
racial profiling.
See Also:
Letter to Congress from the National Network to End Violence
Against Immigrant Women. Describing the impact that REAL
ID will have on battered women
National Immigration Project,
of Domestic Violence, including Local Police Enforcement
of Immigration Laws and Its Effects on Victims of
Domestic Violence
Noncitizen Survivors
Violence Against Women Network, Somewhere to Turn:
Making Domestic Violence Services Accessible to Battered
Immigrant Women, A ‘How To’ Manual For Battered Women’s
Advocates and Service Providers
Electronic Privacy Information Center, REAL ID and
Domestic Violence
20 PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK | WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG
Immigrant Outreach As Public Safety And Anti-Terror Policy
Issue Licenses and Identification
While only a few states still issue drivers licenses to undocumented
immigrants, progressive leaders need to emphasize that many top
law enforcement officials are on record supporting such drivers
license identification programs as a way to bring undocumented
immigrants out of the shadows, and better track state residents for
law enforcement purposes.
Top officials who have publicly supported these measures
include former New York police chief William Bratton, who
now heads Los Angeles’ police force, and anti-terror officials
like Richard A. Clark, the counter-terrorism czar for Presidents
Clinton and Bush.
Eight states do not require proof of legal status to obtain a
driver license: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Utah,
and Washington, with none of them suffering ill effects to
public safety.
There are a number of models for removing bars to
undocumented immigrants receiving licenses:
+ New Jersey A2607 would permit the state to issue
driving privilege cards, with the same privileges and legal
responsibilities of a basic driver's license, to persons who
cannot prove ID or lawful presence in the country.
+ California SB 60 would require compliance with the REAL
ID Act of 2005, but would also require the Department
of Motor Vehicles to issue a driver’s license that permits
driving, and is not acceptable by a federal agency for federal
identification or for any other official purpose, to an applicant
who does not provide valid documentary evidence of lawful
status under the federal act.
Many Americans are concerned about lost privacy in all
aspects of our lives, so another approach is to combine licensing
laws for immigrants with a more general policy denying the DMV
the right to inquire about a wide range of personal information,
from legal status to gender orientation, as long as the person can
produce some reasonable identification.
See Also:
+ National Immigration Law Center, Why Denying Driver's
Licenses to Undocumented Immigrants Harms Public Safety and
Makes Our Communities Less Secure; Immigrants & Driver's
Licenses: Resources for Advocates, Driver’ Licenses for All
Immigrants: Quotes from Law Enforcement
+ New York Coalition for Immigrants’ Right to Driver's
Licenses, Equal Access for All Communities
+ City of New Haven, New Haver's Elm City Resident Cards
Fact Sheet
Condemn Private Vigilantism
A number of proposed bills condemn vigilante or hate activity
targeting immigrants:
+ California AJR 16, adopted by both chambers in 2007,
urges local, state, and federal government officials, when
crafting immigration policy that affects the United States-
Mexico border, to take steps to recognize and protect
the human rights of immigrants, and publicly denounce
xenophobia and anti-immigrant bias as having no place in
immigration policy.
+ Arizona HCR 2011 is a proposed resolution against
civilian patrol groups in Arizona. The resolution opposes
individualized groups that are not formally affiliated with any
federal or state law enforcement agency and whose members
take it upon themselves to invade Arizona.
General Public Safety Resources
+ NCLR, State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration
Law, A Toolkit for Advocates
+ National Immigration Forum, State and Local Police
Enforcement of Immigration Laws
+ Public Policy Institute of California, Crime, Corrections, and
California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?
+ National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
(NNIRR), Over-Raided, Under Siege: U.S. Immigration
Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants (or
executive summary)
+ Border Action Network, Human and Civil Rights
Violations Uncovered
+ Immigration Policy Center, Enforcement Without Reform:
How Current U.S. Immigration Policies Undermine National
Security and the Economy (2008)
+ Robert J. Sampson in Contexts, Vol 7, No. 1, American
Sociological Association, Rethinking Crime and Immigration
(March 2008)
+ Immigration Policy Center, Immigrants and Crime: Setting the
Record Straight
TO READ THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE WITH CLICKABLE LINKS TO RESOURCES, GO TO: WWW.PROGRESSIVESTATES.ORG/IMMIGRATIONPOLICIES/ 21
About PSN
The Progressive States Network was founded in 2005 to drive public policy
debates and change the political landscape in the United States, by focusing
on attainable, progressive state actions. The Progressive States Network
advances this agenda by providing coordinated research and strategic
advocacy tools to forward-thinking state policymakers, legislative staff,
and non-profit organizations.
We function as a meeting space for progressive legislators, activists, and
citizens, and serve as a hotbed of information exchange. We track
legislation in all 50 states, helping to spark change across the country.
We make it easier for people to learn more about how to get good ideas
passed into law - and take power into their own hands.
www.progressivestates.org
101 Avenue of the Americas
Third Floor
New York, NY 10013
T 212-680-3116
F 212-680-3117
staff@progressivestates.org
