DRAFT
PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS
AGAINST SB 1070 COPY-CAT LEGISLATION
The Bill Would Divert Law Enforcement Resources from Its Core
Responsibilities
Consumes Scarce Law Enforcement Resources: The bill will likely require police officers to
ask about immigration status every time they encounter a potential unauthorized immigrant. This
requirement is burdensome. It will likely divert scare resources away from investigating and
pursing serious criminals to arresting people for civil immigration violations. (Being illegally
present in the U.S. is a civil violation not a criminal violation under federal immigration law.)
The bill also will likely require the state to spend significant resources on hiring and training
prosecutors and judges on immigration law. _
Discourages Victim and Witness Cooperation: The use of police officers to enforce
immigration laws will likely undermine the relationship between the local police and the
communities they serve. As an example, immigrant victims of crime will be less likely to seek
assistance from police if they think their immigration status will be verified. Additionally,
witnesses to crimes will be reluctant to come forward to help with an investigation or assist in a
prosecution if their involvement will lead to their deportation.
Marginalizes a Vulnerable Population: This bill will likely marginalize an already vulnerable
population by making immigrants feel more isolated and excluded. Therefore, they will be more
susceptible to exploitation and becoming victims of crime. The safety of communities will likely
be compromised if criminals believe that they can prey on individuals who may not seek
assistance from law enforcement agencies.
Legislators and the governor may wish to visit www.policefoundation.org and download the
group’s 256-page report entitled, “Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and
Civil Liberties.” It concludes that the costs of local police enforcement of immigration far
outweigh the benefits and recommends that police officer be prohibited from detaining anyone to
investigate immigration status where there has been no state criminal law violation.
The Bill Could Violate Individuals’ Civil Rights
Could Lead to Racial Profiling: The bill would likely allow law enforcement officers to stop
citizens and noncitizens to check their immigration status based simply on “reasonable
suspicion” that individuals are in the country without proper documentation. This type of
provision adopts a relatively low legal standard — reasonable suspicion — that could trigger
heightened police scrutiny of racial and ethnic minority residents. Under the bill, officers may
base reasonable suspicion partly on race or ethnicity, but not solely. The bill could open the door
to the use of racial profiling against individuals that look or sound foreign.
Could Ensnare Citizens and Lawful Residents: The bill would likely cast a fairly wide net that
could unintentionally ensnare U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Under SB 1070, the police
must attempt to determine a person’s immigration status every time they have lawful contact with
an individual that they have reasonable suspicion might not be lawfully present. Those who
cannot produce state issued identification or a valid US document showing legal presence will be
presumed unlawfully present, even if they left their ID at home. This could easily trigger the
lengthy questioning and wrongful detention of lawful citizens and residents.
The Bill Likely Will Have A Harmful Economic Impact
This law affects not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and all residents of the
state. Indeed, it is likely that the bill will likely have a devastating economic impact on the state.
Costly Litigation Associated with the Bill: The state will likely face a vast number of costly
lawsuits if the bill becomes law. Like Arizona, the state will likely face litigation challenges
from legal immigrants and native-born citizens who feel they have been unjustly targeted by
police. In addition, like Arizona, the state may face a barrage of costly constitutional challenges
during the implementation of the law. Additionally, the bill, like the Arizona law, would likely
allow a legal resident of the state to bring a suit against any official or agency that does not
enforce the law. Thus, the state will likely face legal challenges from residents who disagree
with how law enforcement agencies are implementing the law. Given the immense cost of
litigation, it would be far more prudent and cost effective for the state to wait for the courts to
sort out all the legal issues that currently surround the implementation of SB 1070 in Arizona
before considering a similar measure.
Business Costs: As evidenced in Arizona, it is likely that the state will suffer economically if
legislation like SB 1070 is passed. In Arizona, the tourism industry has been devastated as
individuals and companies have boycotted the state because of its anti-immigrant and anti-
foreigner legislation. For instance, on the day that the Arizona Governor signed the SB 1070
into law, the Board of Governors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
instructed its Executive Committee to move the Association’s fall 2010 conference, previously
scheduled for Arizona, to another state. Indeed, Arizona’s Hotel and Lodging Association
publicly reported a combined loss of $15 million in lodging revenue due to meeting cancellations
just four months after the bill passed.
According to extensive research performed by the Center for American Progress, the actual lost
lodging revenue from cancellation of events is closer to $45 million. Additionally, if you add
other losses, including food, beverage, entertainment and retail sales, the Center for American
Progress estimates the losses to be closer to $141 million. Indeed, these economic losses hurt the
state’s businesses and workers as well as the state’s budget through lost economic activity and
loss sales and bed taxes from convention attendees. The Center for American Progress has
pointed out that Arizona also will lose income taxes on lost salaries, and sales taxes on goods and
services that would have been purchased with those earnings.
Implementation Costs: The state would likely incur significant costs in implementing this bill.
These costs include: (1) increased funding for additional assigned counsel who will be needed to
represent those facing the newly created state criminal charges; (2) training and materials for the
police to implement the bill; (3) incarceration and transportation costs of new prisoners; (4)
public relations and public education costs — how will police departments reach out to domestic
violence victims who are afraid to call the police; and (5) costs associated with the need for more
prosecutors and judges to litigate and adjudicate cases.
There also is the likelihood that a significant number of immigrants will leave the state if the bill
becomes law. When these individuals leave, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and
purchasing power with them.
Given the state’s current fiscal crisis, it makes little sense to burden municipalities, police
departments, state coffers and residents with these additional costs.
The Bill Marginalizes Immigrants
Criminalizing unlawful presence and requiring frequent police questioning stigmatizes and
marginalizes immigrants living in the state. Under federal law, “unlawful presence” is a civil not
a criminal offense. The bill will likely create distrust and misunderstanding of immigrants and
thus undermine communities within the state.
The U.S. has traditionally been a nation of immigrants grounded in the firm belief that
newcomers offer new energy, hope, and cultural diversity. Communities are informed, enriched
and strengthened when immigrants and native-born residents respect one another and work
together toward a common good. Indeed, for individuals, families and communities to remain
strong, it is essential that they be hospitable and open-minded, not hostile and close-minded. The
“us” versus “them” mentality and practices divide rather than build and sustain communities.
All communities and public agencies, including law enforcement agencies, need to celebrate,
integrate and support immigrants and their families for the good and well-being of all. An Iowa
bill would contribute to an inhospitable environment by isolating and marginalizing immigrants
from the greater community and reinforcing the negative and unproductive “us” versus “them”
dichotomy which tears down rather than builds and strengthens communities.
The Bill Shows that Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Needed
A bill, similar to SB 1070, underscores the desperate need for federal comprehensive
immigration reform. It is critical that legislators in all the states focus attention on their own
federal lawmakers in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation that is fair and
workable.
I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me at kherrling@cliniclegal.org
