Written by: Ally Bolour, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

A new attitude seems to have taken hold in American society these days – one that appears to be spreading through every medium and every social group. I see it on television, in newspapers, and on the internet; I hear it on the radio and in everyday conversations. Alienating and dehumanizing any group that is “different,” starting of course with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented – we call them illegal. If they are U.S. citizen children, but have undocumented parents – we call them the children of illegals! We pass laws in Alabama to demand that children bring proof of the “legality” of their parents to the classrooms. We no longer exhibit pride in the American melting pot; we try to explain it away and hyphenate it instead.

We give police officers the power to ask for papers from people who look different – perhaps they wear traditional clothing, or speak with an accent, or have darker skin than the next person. We even debate the “true” meaning of the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and plant seeds of doubt regarding the rights to birthright citizenship in America.

Just recently, the House of Representatives proudly presented a bill for markup which would have given protection against civil lawsuits to those who report “suspicious activity” and would have designated yet another federal czar – this time to counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism. The bill is notably silent on reporting non-Islamic violent extremism. The proposed law reminds me of another congressional action which created the House Committee on Un-American Activities circa 1938-1975, which destroyed countless lives and families.

This marginalization extends beyond the immigration debate. To date, we’re still attacking President Obama for not being black enough. Herman Cain, a Republican presidential contender, declared the President of the United States of America to be of the “other” camp – specifically that he has “never been part of the Black experience.” The President’s father was Kenyan, so it has been open season to insult Mr. Obama as a non-American and to actually demand the original of his birth certificate. Prominent persons of influence have declared President Obama to be a Moslem. When cornered by reporters, they cowardly make non-committal statements such as “I take him at his word that he is a Christian!”

And that is yet another group to marginalize. Pundits define “Christianity” to include only Evangelicals; certainly not Mormons. A few days ago, the conversation on every news channel was whether or not Mormonism is a cult. Pundits proudly pronounce that Americans “tolerate” Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems and persons from other faiths and even non-believers. The caveat being that though these tolerated folk may stick around, they are not equals and therefore can’t hold certain positions, thereby ignoring the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

But then we have yet another group to marginalize, because Evangelical Christians can’t be gay, but if they insist that they are, then they also go in the tolerance category. Additionally, they will have the extra burden of going to church every Sunday and repent ad nauseam for who they are. Still, they shouldn’t be able to serve in the military because they’d be taking showers in close quarters; and marriage for them is categorically out of the question! To make sure of that, Congress will spend at least $1.5 million of public funds to defend a law – DOMA – which President Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the very author of that discriminatory bill, former Georgia Congressperson Robert Barr, have all called unconstitutional.

You see, once you start removing groups from our American society the way it has become customary to do so in the public arena, we end up with a hard-core minority who will do anything and everything to hold onto their narrative in order to control the debate, thereby leaving the majority out in the cold.

We can’t just tolerate the cultural mosaic that is America; we must embrace, love, and cherish it just as we have done throughout our history. As part of that, we must reintroduce the notion of the melting pot society in the classrooms of Alabama, Arizona, Utah, and beyond. We need to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill to bring millions of families out of the shadows and into our fold. The definition of families under CIR must be all encompassing. LGBT families have long suffered from this lack of recognition and are still battling discriminatory laws in America. As such, DOMA must be repealed so bi-national couples have the option of immigrating to the U.S. All of these families will create jobs, pay taxes, and attend schools; they will apply for loans, and then buy homes and cars; they will travel, book hotels, buy tickets and go to the movies, therefore stimulating our depressed economy.

At the same time, we can relieve the Department of Homeland Security from issuing endless memos on how their various dragnet policies are color-neutral. Resources will be freed up to secure our borders. Congress can retreat from passing laws that target any particular segment of our society. Local law enforcement will once again gain the trust of every community and thus be able to go after criminals amongst us – documented or otherwise. Only then will the national debate be able to move forward on how to improve life for every American, not just the selected few. Under this vision, no one – whether majority, minority, or any sub-group in the middle – is marginalized or dehumanized.

This week a federal judge in Alabama enjoined key sections of that state’s radical “make life miserable for the undocumented and so what if others get caught up in it too” law. However, she let stand some other provisions of the statute, including the “papers please” provision for traffic stops and the requirement that schools check the immigration status of schoolchildren and their parents.

I will leave for the constitutional scholars the legal analysis of the judge’s decision. Instead, I’d like to focus on the utter silliness of the provision requiring a check of children’s immigration status.

How is it silly? Let me count the ways:

First, the cost. At a time when school budgets are being slashed, impacting the quality of education, schools all over Alabama are being asked to set up a bureaucracy to check all its students’ papers and maintain elaborate recordkeeping of what they find.

Second, the so-called reasoning. Alabama maintains that this is to gauge the cost of educating the undocumented (or the children of undocumented—their line gets fuzzy). But there is an assumption here that makes this whole premise ridiculous. They are counting only costs, but not counting the immigrants’ contributions. Overlooked is the fact that Alabama schools are funded by property and sales taxes. Everyone but the homeless pay property taxes, either directly or as part of their rental payments to landlords who in turn pay the taxes. And, anyone who buys anything pays sales tax. So how is Alabama going to tally how much immigrants are paying into the system?

Third, the inaccuracy of the figures this process will collect. Because of the way the law is written, if the documentation or information about status is not forthcoming, the student will be presumed to be undocumented. Anyone who has ever dealt with American citizens being asked for immigration status documents can tell you that many are outraged at the very idea of producing papers:  “Isn’t is apparent that I’m American?” Not to mention, the outright unfairness of the law is compounded immeasurably when you consider that Alabama is home to many military families. It’s not hard to imagine a child who was born outside the U.S. registering for school. Nor is it difficult to imagine an Alabama child who has one U.S. citizen parent (perhaps even a military parent) and one undocumented parent. So, many citizens will simply shrug off these demands, resulting in a much higher count of undocumented than is the reality.

Fourth, the impact on the children. Demands for immigration papers are intimidating to undocumented or mixed families. The temptation for some in the school to “turn them in” will be great, and even if families are aware of the law’s prohibitions against this, they will know about that temptation. Children will be taken out of school by their parents for the protection of the family. This will result in citizens (since the U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents are covered) and residents of the U.S. lacking education. Plus, if English is not spoken at home, these children will grow up unassimilated, as they will be denied the setting where English is learned most rapidly.

Fifth, the impact on society. The whole point of this provision is to discourage getting certain children educated. An uneducated populace hurts us all. That is why people like me, with no children, have willingly paid all these years to have other people’s children educated. We all benefit in the end.

But, in the end, Alabama loses here. Unfortunately, so does the rest of America.

In a blog published yesterday, Cecilia Munoz, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, argued that the Secure Communities program is critical to smart and effective enforcement of the immigration laws. Ms. Munoz listed some statistics showing that the removal of immigrants with criminal records has increased dramatically from FY2008 through FY2010. Her point, echoed by ICE Director John Morton in comments to the New York Times, was that approximately 90 percent of those deported under Secure Communities since 2008 were either convicted criminals or foreign nationals who had failed to obey a court order to leave the country or who had returned to the United States illegally after deportation.

The problem with these statistics is they don’t tell the whole story. The most current ICE data shows that nearly 60 percent of all those deported under Secure Communities were either misdemeanants or people with no criminal offense. How does that square with the 90 percent figure Mr. Morton cites above? He is grouping together all foreign nationals with criminal records and by doing so he does not take into account the difference between a person convicted of jay walking and one convicted of armed robbery. Secure Communities leads to the arrest and deportation of both. Nobody argues with the need to get rid of violent criminals and drug dealers. But why waste limited law enforcement resources on people who may have a minor infraction on their record.

AILA’s report Immigration Enforcement Off Target: Minor Offenses with Major Consequences, released today, describes 127 cases of people put in deportation proceedings after being picked up for precisely these kinds of minor offenses like loitering, changing lanes without signaling, or talking on the phone while driving. Are these really the kinds of criminal offenses that should put someone on DHS’s priority list for deportation?

The government’s statistics on annual deportations as a whole also tell a different story from Ms. Munoz and Mr. Morton. In 2010, 387,242 individuals were removed, of whom 168,532 were “convicted criminal aliens.” However, of those “convicted criminal aliens” 30,808 had been convicted of only criminal traffic offenses.  In contrast, in 2008, 358,886 individuals were removed of whom 97,133 were “criminal aliens.” Oddly, in 2008, it does not appear that individuals who had committed traffic offenses were even categorized as “criminal aliens.” While deportations of “criminal aliens” may have shifted, so has ICE’s definition of who is a “criminal alien.” ICE seems to have bolstered its criminal alien numbers by lumping in small time offenders.

Secure Communities can only be an effective law enforcement tool coupled with the meaningful exercise of prosecutorial discretion—namely a system that screens every case to make sure it falls within enforcement priorities before DHS proceeds to deportation. That’s the main recommendation AILA makes in our Off Target report. I applaud the Administration, and in particular ICE Director John Morton, for putting pen to paper in mid-June and issuing a memorandum to the ICE field directing agents to exercise discretion. Yet, the Morton guidance was the most recent in a series of memoranda issued over the years calling on ICE agents to exercise discretion, none of which have made much of a difference. And while the Morton directive likely provides the best architecture yet for more effective, smarter enforcement, the jury is still out on the whether or not it has made a positive difference across the country.

Cecilia Munoz is correct that the President has a responsibility to enforce the law.  But immigration law, as broken as it is, gives President Obama ample authority to enforce it in a manner that is effective, smart, and humane. The law includes provisions which allow the Administration to prevent the deportation of DREAM students and others who may not have lawful immigration status, but who add to the social fabric of America. It also gives the Administration the authority to keep families together until Congress develops the political courage to fix the broken system so that it serves the needs of American businesses and families. Smart, humane immigration enforcement is hardly an abdication of the President’s oath to faithfully execute the law of the land. To the contrary, protecting American families and youth in the context of rigorous immigration enforcement is exactly what the President’s oath requires him to do.

Yet day after day, children, teenagers, and hard working adults are deported from the United States due to blind, aimless enforcement of a badly dysfunctional immigration law and the lack of a coherent policy. Indeed, some deportations are quite cruel, separating parents from children, husbands from wives and destroying lives in the process. Across the southern border, for example, Border Patrol agents remove law abiding teenagers, sometimes in the dead of night and, like pieces of garbage, they are dumped out the back door of the U.S. into Mexico.  Such enforcement of the immigration law is neither humane nor smart.

Ms. Munoz is correct, facts do matter. And the fact is that without the exercise of meaningful prosecutorial discretion throughout the country the Secure Communities program cannot and will not work. It will neither serve America’s communities nor make them more secure. I eagerly await the findings of the advisory task force set up by ICE Director Morton to study, report, and make recommendations about the Secure Communities program. In the meantime, however, I have serious doubts about the wisdom and usefulness of the Secure Communities program an effective law enforcement tool.

The baseball players at Chase Field were not the only all-stars in Arizona last night.

Although there were no big salaries or major league teams involved, the good citizens of West Mesa Arizona hit a home run when they forced Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to sign off on a proclamation recalling Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, the chief sponsor of Arizona’s SB 1070, the infamous “Show Me Your Papers” law.  That puts Pearce in a fight for his extremist political life.  Come this  November he will be forced to defend his state senate seat in an unexpected sudden death electoral playoff.

Make no mistake, Russell Pearce earned it.  In fact he worked hard for it.  His anti-immigrant crusade-in which he partners with extremist anti-immigrant restrictionists-has cost the hard working taxpayers of Arizona millions in legal fees and lost tourist and business revenue, while doing nothing to make Arizona or the nation safer.

It is ironic that just a year ago Jan Brewer, a political ally of Pearce, dutifully took the pitch when Pearce, who shepparded SB 1070 through the Arizona legislature, lobbed it her way.  Brewer could have swung for the fences and hit one out of the park by vetoing the law for the good of Arizona and the nation.  But she didn’t.  She dutifully stood by and signed the bill into law.

But Tuesday the citizens of Pearce’s district forced Brewer to sit on the bench and watch as her signature on their recall proclamation became a mere formality forcing her to call for a special election for Pearce’s senate seat.

The All Star game is a celebration of statistics.  Which player has the highest batting average?  Which player has the most hits (New York Yankees slugger Derek Jeter’s absence in Phoenix notwithstanding)? Which player is on track to hit the most home runs?  Which pitcher has the lowest earned run average?

But last night the most impressive statistic in Arizona was 10,365.  That is the number of folks in West Mesa who demanded that Senate President Russell Pearce, chief sponsor of Arizona’s mean spirited SB 1070, answer to the voters.

A visitor walking through the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum starts at the top floor of the museum, viewing film clips, photos and other documentation of the ominous and jarring beginnings of the Nazi regime in Europe – a regime that succeeded in great part because of a vast propaganda machine that constantly spewed a rhetoric of hate against Jews. In posters, films, textbooks, comic books, radio and through other media, Jews were consistently portrayed as a subhuman group who posed a threat to the ability of Germany to succeed as a nation. The dissemination of these ideas constituted a carefully laid foundation for the Nuremburg laws, which stripped away the basic civil rights of the Jewish population of Germany. When a country demonizes and de-humanizes a particular group, it is much easier to rationalize the elimination of that groups’ human rights.

The tour of the museum becomes progressively more harrowing, as the story of the persecution and mass killing of millions of Jews, and other “outsiders,” unfolds before you. Almost at the end of the visit, on the bottom floor of the museum, is an exhibit that lifts the heavy heart, almost like a small light at the end of a dark tunnel. It begins with a glimpse of a small red fishing boat—one of the boats used by Danish fisherman to ferry almost the entire Jewish population of Denmark to safety in secret. This is the museum’s section on “The Righteous Among Nations,” selfless people from all walks of life, all creeds and nationalities, who –individually or in groups—risked their lives and those of their loved ones to save Jews. Here you can find the story of Miep Gies, the Dutch woman who helped to hide Anne Frank and her family in the now-famous attic in Amsterdam, as well as the story of the Village of Le Chambon in France, where the entire population worked under the leadership of the local minister to save between 3,000 and 5,000 Jews. You can also read the stories of the lesser-known rescuers, such as Aristides Sousa Mendes, a Portuguese diplomat who signed 30,000 visas to assist Jews and other persecuted groups trying to escape from the Nazis, as well as the Bulgarian Orthodox church and Dimitar Peshev, a Bulgarian parliamentarian who led an effort that resulted in the preservation of the Jewish population of Bulgaria, in spite of the fact that the Bulgarian government was sympathetic to Hitler at the time. As you walk along the wall of rescuers, you realize that most of them were individuals—teachers, diplomats, clergy, police officers, soldiers, nannies, grandmothers—who made a personal decision to take responsibility for another human life in spite of the potentially dangerous consequences of doing so.

“The Righteous Among Nations” was brought to mind in recent weeks by the various news stories on the immigration debate here in the U.S.  Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who revealed several weeks ago that he is undocumented, spoke poignantly of his “underground railroad,” his network of teachers, friends and work colleagues who kept his secret and in many cases assisted him in overcoming the challenges presented by his undocumented status, to succeed at school and professionally. Some simply wanted Jose to be able to participate in life’s experiences as fully as any other teenager, like the choir teacher who decided to take the choir singers to Hawaii instead of Japan, so that Jose would not be left behind.

Paul Bridges, the Republican mayor of tiny Uvalda, Georgia, decided to sue to stop implementation of Georgia’s poisonous immigration law, not only because of the detrimental economic impact the law would have on the farms in his town, but also because the law threatens to tear apart a tightly-knit community where people open their homes to others during harvest season, and he himself drives parishioners to church on Sunday without asking whether they have papers. These acts would become illegal under the Georgia law. Alabama’s recent addition to the state immigration initiatives would similarly prevent neighbors from helping neighbors by criminalizing the provision of assistance to anyone who might be undocumented. No doubt, the hate-filled Alabama law will induce many citizens—public officials, teachers, neighbors—to risk prosecution in order to assist others in the community.

Just as the Holocaust Museum’s exhibit on rescuers serves as a light in a dark tunnel, the stories of those who would assist a young boy to reach adulthood and achieve success, and those who might assume the responsibility of housing or driving an undocumented worker even when that act has been criminalized, are inspiring and encouraging signs that many Americans can be relied upon to stand up and be part of the “Righteous Among Nations” when necessary. But we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. Those who rescued Jews and other oppressed people during World War II did so against the backdrop of a murderous regime that had singled out these groups for persecution and elimination. That is certainly not where we are as a country.  But when statutes such as the state initiatives in Alabama and Georgia are passed, and people begin to discuss choices between being law-abiding citizens and assisting another human being in need, or preserving the welfare of an entire community, we must seriously question the direction in which our nation is heading with respect to the rights and human dignity of our most vulnerable residents.

By David Leopold and Eleanor Pelta

Remember Kindergarten?  For us it was long time ago, but we both still have vivid memories of our teachers, some of the other kids of the class, and, of course, the playground.  It can be frightening for young children to start school and learn to separate from the security of home.

Luckily for us we attended kindergarten Michigan and Pennsylvania in the 1960’s, not in Alabama in 2011.  Today, crayons and nap time are the least of a 5 year child’s worries in the Heart of Dixie.  Come this fall the children in Alabama better be ready to prove they are “legal” before they can even hope to qualify for play time.  Ever vigilant in performing their sacred duty to protect the good citizens of the Yellowhammer State, the Alabama Legislature and Governor Robert Bentley have conspired to enact an immigration law so nasty and mean spirited that it has been described as “Arizona SB1070 on steroids.”  The new law incorporates most of Arizona SB1070’s ugliest provisions, including racial profiling, overbroad harboring provisions, and, that old favorite, the criminalization of undocumented workers.  But it goes a few steps further.  In their zeal to dehumanize undocumented immigrants, the cynical politicians of Montgomery have actually set their sights on, of all things, children.

And how exactly does the Alabama law go after kids?

Instead of the relatively tame learning activities that we grew up with, like sharing with others and playing in the sandbox, the Alabama law requires, upon registration for school, that school officials determine whether a child was born in or outside the United States or, even if the child is a US citizen, whether he or she has a parent who is an undocumented immigrant.

Alabama is home to many military families so it’s not hard to imagine a child who was born outside the US registering for school. Nor is it difficult to imagine an Alabama child who has one US citizen parent (perhaps even a military parent) and one undocumented parent.

Once the school learns that the child or one of his or her parents is or may be undocumented, officials must report the information to law enforcement. If they don’t, officials risk being charged with obstruction of justice.  And even if the official is not charged with a crime the Alabama law includes a provision which allows private citizens to sue “any official or heard of agency” if the citizen believes they are not reporting alleged undocumented immigrants.  In this way, Alabama politicians were careful to make room for racial profiling by private citizens.

In the competition for the most gratuitously vicious law aimed at immigrants, Alabama’s is the clear winner thus far.  It surpasses Arizona’s in many ways, not only in its venomous provisions aimed at the most innocent citizens of the state–children–but in its successful creation of a Gestapo-like environment which not only encourages, but mandates that citizens spy and report on their neighbors.

Congratulations, Alabama. You get the prize.

Of course, Alabama’s offensive and extreme law echoes a much earlier period of infamy for that state, a period also marked by extremism. Let’s not forget the Bloody Sunday confrontation on March 7, 1965, when 600 civil rights marchers were met in Birmingham by a wall of Alabama state troopers who used tear gas and clubs to beat them back.  Alabama’s violent reaction to the protesters prompted the songwriter and comedian Tom Lehrer to write these words in his satirical song about nuclear proliferation, “Who’s Next?”:

We’ll try to stay serene and calm

When Alabama gets the bomb

One has to wonder how much has really changed in Alabama from the days when state-sponsored violence constituted its reaction to the nascent Civil Rights movement, to today, when unconcealed hatred informs its laws and policies regarding immigration. And, unfortunately, one also has to wonder “Who’s Next?”

As for now, kindergartners in Alabama better be ready to show their papers before they even think about nap time.

by:  Charles Kuck

We all read that the Arizona legislature has had its fill of anti-immigrant legislation, backing off passing any of the unconstitutional, anti-immigrant legislation proposed by immigrant basher-in-chief State Senator Russell Pearce. Now Kansas, home to the author of all of this anti-immigrant legislation, Kris Kobach, is the latest state to “just say no” to immigrant bashing legislation. We know why the Arizona legislature decided to not enact their most recent proposals–the Arizona economy has been devastated by SB 1070 passed last year, and the business community finally had enough–hand delivering a letter to each state legislator saying to stop the immigrant bashing.

In Kansas, a coalition of forces, including business leaders, community leaders, law professors, and religious leaders joined forces to point out ALL of the legitimate reasons why anti-immigrant legislation was tabled this week. The Kansas Business Coalition, lead by AILA member Allie Devine, is a group of twenty trade groups that were committed to defeating the bill. AILA members Angela Ferguson and Anthony Weigel volunteered to help the Coalition with legal research, general immigration information, and background on other states’ efforts. AILA members also worked closely with Immigrant and Civil Rights Interest Groups to coordinate resources and key legislative contacts.

As Anthony Weigel, a vocal opponent of this legislation noted:

There were three valid reasons for the bill’s failure. First, proponents failed to provide a financial impact estimate worth considering. Kentucky, a comparable state, estimated a net cost of $40 million for a similar bill. Second, succinct and persuasive evidence was presented by a UMKC law professor that the bill involved an incredibly unsettled area of the law, federal preemption, and the risk and costs of litigation could be avoided by not proceeding with the bill at this time. And third, as stated by the Kansas Business Coalition, if simple solutions existed, we wouldn’t have today’s problems.

Kansas has now joined Colorado, Nebraska and even Arizona in tabling these anti-immigration provisions. Kentucky has put the cost of its Arizona style bill (which is much like Georgia’s) at least at $40 million (and perhaps as much as $90 million dollars)! Look for that bill to die a quick death shortly.

Georgia legislators should take a clue from all of the national movement AGAINST state based anti-immigrant legislation by their colleagues in other legislatures. In Georgia, united groups in the business community, religious leaders, legal scholars and lawyers, as well as community groups from throughout the political spectrum oppose HB 87 and SB 40. Governor Deal has noted his concern with this legislation. How can Georgia legislators continue to push for a bill that will create more problems then it can hope to cure? And that will cost the state a fortune to enact and defend in court.

We already know that the Georgia House sponsors of HB 87 are incapable of giving the legal reasons why their legislation is constitutional, and that they refuse to discuss the real and quite savage economic impact of this bill on the Georgia economy should it pass. So, why is this moving forward? We still need the business community, through the Chambers of Commerce, to speak out publicly, vocally and loudly and demand a stop to this nonsense. While it is clear that business prefers to work quietly and behind the scenes with state legislators, it is also clear from what has happened in Arizona and Kansas that unless the business community starts getting VOCAL about their opposition to these bills (and not just because E-Verify is burdensome), then the march to litigation will proceed (I say this because if Georgia passes any anti-immigrant legislation, lawsuits will be filed against their enforcement on preemption and constitutional grounds.)

Let’s take the lessons learned in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas. Let’s work together as businesses, faith based organizations, community supported advocacy groups, and people who know and love immigrants for who they are–good people who make America stronger and better. Georgia is better than HB 87 and SB 40.

Broken immigration laws do not mean Broken People.

blog by Anthony Weigel, Chair of AILA’s Missouri/Kansas Chapter

As each new holiday season approaches, parents of younger children are challenged to find the perfect gift. The Zhu Zhu pets were all the rage in 2009, but Squinkies are reportedly this year’s “must-have – but impossible to get” items.

Candidates for public office are no different than parents of young children. Each is in search of the right policy idea to spell success in November. This year, the shelves are stocked full of old stand-bys, like lower taxes, less government, and more jobs. Also on the shelves are relatively newer products sold without the benefit of any “Consumer Reports” reviews.

This year’s hot items seem to be the authorized knock-offs of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 and other varieties of non-federal immigration proposals, covering topics such as employment, human smuggling, identity fraud, even birthright citizenship. Who can blame them? They have seen a smooth-talking, handsome, well-dressed salesman on TV and heard him on the radio. They can’t help but want an immigration enforcement law of their very own. For some, keeping up with the Brewers is a high priority.

However, before prospective legislators rush to the store, latch onto a non-federal immigration bill, rush to cash register and pay the price, they should be aware of the following defects.

First, non-federal immigration laws don’t work as promised. If they are of any effect, they may only cause a portion of a jurisdiction’s population to move to another. In the few states where these types have been enforced, they have resulted in only a small number of formal investigative actions resulting in even fewer sanctions. Be wary of claims that one jurisdiction’s actions will solve the U.S.’s immigration problems.

Second, there are no warranties, expressed or implied. So if one ends up in court, and loses at the first and second levels, and possibly the third, remember – we told you so.

Third, after-sales service costs extra. Jurisdictions adopting and then defending non-federal, immigration enforcement laws have spent millions of dollars to defend them, most of the time without any success – real examples of “bridges to nowhere.”

Fourth, they are engineered on faulty logic:

• The main selling point of enforcement-only, non-federal immigration laws (a/k/a Juan Crow laws) is that they will solve our country’s immigration problems.
• Their main effect, however, is to cause populations to relocate.
• For these laws to live up to their promise, every state would need to enact an identical law and enforce it uniformly.
• So, ultimately, proponents of non-federal immigration laws are advocating that we need enforcement-only, federal laws to solve our country’s immigration problems.
• The U.S. has tried the federal, enforcement-only approach since 1996 and it has failed. According to some experts, Congress’ efforts in this regard have actually contributed to the U.S.’s illegal immigration problem.

Candidates, please beware. Non-federal immigration laws are inherently defective. Just like parents of young children, you have some responsibilities now. We all have to grow up sometime. As hard as it may be, please resist the temptation to buy cheap, mass-produced gimmicks. Instead, please invest the time to engage in the dialogue of how we can comprehensively repair our federal immigration laws. We’ll all be better off if you do.

Nobody likes to pay for legal advice.

But it’s a double whammy when you end up paying for really bad legal advice.  Just ask the good citizens of Hazelton, Pennsylvania whose pockets have been emptied to the tune of $2,400,000 in legal bills run up by Kris Kobach, a fringe anti-immigrant restrictionist and candidate for Kansas Secretary of State.

Kobach proudly touts his role in drafting the poorly-written 2006 Hazelton statute, which thrusts on landlords and businesses the responsibility for figuring out who is and isn’t lawfully present in the U.S. before renting or providing services to an individual.  The law was quickly thrown out by a federal judge because it violated the Constitution.  Just last week, the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed stating,

It is … not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress.

Now the taxpayers of Hazelton are left with Kobach’s astronomical legal bill; and he is pining away for still more litigation claiming, “It’s going to be difficult for [the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision] to stand. The court really had to stretch to find a way to agree with the ACLU.”   Can you hear the “ch’ching” of Kobach’s legal fee cash register?  How many more small American communities will be duped by Kobach into supporting his hate filled anti-immigrant crusade?

And Hazelton is not alone.  Sharing the dubious honor of owing Kobach a lot of money are Farmers Branch, Texas ($4,000,000), Valley Park, Missouri ($270,000) and Maricopa County, Arizona ($12,600 plus expenses).   According to Political Correction this adds up to a whopping $6,600,000!  Not a bad day’s pay for shoddy lawyering.

Along with the legal bills Kobach is developing an impressive record of courtroom defeats.  His 3^rd Circuit smack-down comes on the heels of Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling that S.B. 1070, Arizona’s infamous “show me your  papers” law, also offended the Constitution.  In case you hadn’t heard, Kobach was instrumental in drafting that law too.

Kobach claims to be an expert in the Constitution. But he might want to take a moment and read it. The good news is that even if he won’t the courts will.

In the meantime, if you live in small town America hold on to your wallets.  And if Kobach visits your town you might want to count the silverware when he leaves.

She’s going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders…Jan Brewer has the “cojones” that our president does not have to  look out for Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans, in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of the immigration laws

Guess who said that? Who else but Sarah Palin!

The half-term—“I can serve the people of Alaska better on Fox News”—Governor of Alaska was on Fox News Sunday (where else?) talking about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s losing court battle to revive the moribund S.B. 1070 “show me your papers” law.

Catchy sound bites, especially when made on the safety of a facebook page or in a Fox News studio, are pretty easy to construct.  It gets a little more difficult when you try to mix in facts.

Sarah Palin, Governor Jan Brewer, and others who claim Obama doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the immigration law may want to read yesterday’s TRAC Immigration Report http://bit.ly/9iR77X.  According to the report “newly-released figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that during the first nine months of FY 2010, more non-US citizens were removed from the country than during any similar period in the Bush Administration.”  The report also shows that the “sharp increases in ICE detention and removal of non-U.S. citizens had been accomplished largely by catching noncitizens who had not committed any crimes in this country but who had either crossed the border illegally or had overstayed their visas.”  TRAC also reports a current shift in targeting to noncitizens who have committed crimes in this country.  ICE “has already broken all previous records, and climbed to an all-time high,” according to TRAC.  In fact, under Obama, the removal pace of criminal aliens is 60% higher than under the last year of the Bush administration.

To be sure, I have serious questions about whether ICE is actually engaging in smart enforcement.  Who is really being removed? Is ICE really focusing on terrorists, violent criminals, and drug dealers?  Or are they continuing to inflate the statistics by removing unfortunate folks that somehow got caught in the web of America’s dysfunctional immigration system?  And, like many others, I am also eagerly awaiting signs of significant improvements in the dysfunctional ICE detention apparatus which has claimed the lives of 113 immigrants since 2003.

Yet, to brazenly claim that Obama is soft on immigration enforcement is pure demagoguery.   But I guess speaking the truth takes “cojones.”