Police in particular have a job experience that informs them about [...]]]> Our governance would certainly be improved if more police officers would run for public office — along with teachers, carpenters, doctors, scientists and soldiers. Around 45 percent of the members of Congress are lawyers, and a greater variety of backgrounds would serve the nation well.

Police in particular have a job experience that informs them about public safety issues as nothing else can. Congress needs more of that sensibility at a time when normal law enforcement is under attack as never before by the anti-sovereignty forces like La Raza.

Anyway, Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County Arizona is running for Congress and he visited with Neil Cavuto on Monday to discuss Obama’s terrible treatment of the border state. The Sheriff also emphasized that an amnesty for illegal aliens is not the way to go; as an officer, he swore to uphold the law, not excuse law breaking.

Arizona has been struggling in court to maintain its state policing, which is based on federal laws already in place. Last May, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s workplace identification law.

When state enforcement is given half a [...]]]> The Obama administration has waged a full-out war against states that are doing the immigration enforcement the feds won’t do.

Arizona has been struggling in court to maintain its state policing, which is based on federal laws already in place. Last May, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s workplace identification law.

When state enforcement is given half a chance, it is successful and benefits citizens. In Alabama, unemployment has decreased in recent months as illegals have been forced out by workplace identification checks.

It was disappointing to read today that another state has been stifled in its attempt to protect its people from Washington’s irresponsibility: Judge blocks parts of South Carolina immigration law.

Still, there’s more than one way to skin a cat in the face of powerful opposition, and state leaders haven’t stopped strategizing about how to save America from invasion.

The approaches to unwelcoming foreign job thieves include expanding E-Verify, increasing Secure Communities, invalidating all contracts made with illegals and banning aliens’ transactions with government agencies.

States make daily life harder for illegal immigrants, USA Today, December 21, 2011

State legislators looking to crack down on illegal immigration in 2012 are turning away from the law enforcement laws that dominated state houses this year, and instead are pushing other measures that can make life just as difficult for illegal immigrants.

Much of the international furor over state immigration laws in states such as Arizona and Alabama focused on the portions that granted local police the ability to conduct roadside immigration checks of people stopped for other crimes.

Alabama leaders are now considering revisions after foreign workers at Mercedes-Benz and Honda carmaking plants in the state were detained under the new law. The U.S. Department of Justice has sued to block four state enforcement laws — Alabama, Arizona, South Carolina and Utah — and Arizona’s law will be in limbo until at least next summer when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on its constitutionality.

“(Immigration enforcement) bills in other states that were advancing, you may see them stall until we can get clarification from the Supreme Court,” said South Carolina state Sen. Larry Grooms, a Republican whose enforcement bill passed this year.

That political and legal turmoil has left few legislators in other states pushing new law enforcement laws.

Mississippi state Sen. Joey Fillingane, a Republican whose enforcement bill passed the state Senate and could pass the House with a new Republican majority there this year, said he won’t let potentially-lengthy reviews of Arizona’s enforcement law stop him from pushing a similar measure.

“We understand from being attorneys and dealing with appeals that rulings can take a long, long time,” Fillingane said. “I don’t think that’s any reason … to stop everything in its tracks.”

But Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has helped Arizona and other state legislators craft laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, sees that as the exception. He said legislators will continue expanding the use of E-Verify, which businesses can use to check the immigration status of job applicants, Secure Communities, which allows police to check the immigration status of people booked into local jails, and laws that restrict illegal immigrants from accessing public benefits.

Yet it’s a new provision in Alabama’s law that has caught the eye of many state legislators. Kobach said Alabama was the first state to invalidate all contracts entered into with illegal immigrants. A strict reading of the law could mean that any contract, including mortgages, apartment leases and basic work agreements, can be ruled null and void.

“That is one that has a much greater effect than some people might expect at first glance,” Kobach said. “Suppose an illegal alien is doing some roofing business and wants to rent some equipment. Some short-term or long-term rental suddenly becomes more difficult to do.”

Another aspect of Alabama’s law forbids illegal immigrants from conducting any “business transaction” with a government agency. An Alabama federal judge ruled that the state must stop using that provision to prohibit illegal immigrants from renewing permits for their mobile homes, but it’s being applied elsewhere.

The combination of those provisions “has led to nothing short of chaos in the state,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, which was part of a lawsuit against Alabama’s law. “They’ve been applied to a striking range of activities, from getting tags on your cars to getting public utilities to changing title on your cars.”

Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican and founder of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, which pushes for federal and state laws that restrict illegal immigration, said he will wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the Arizona law before pushing anything similar in his state. But he said the recent success of Alabama banning contracts and business transactions by illegal immigrants has placed them on his “wish list” for the upcoming session.

“That’s a very good way to expand the fight to shut down access to revenue that they get,” he said.

North Carolina state Rep. Harry Warren, co-chairman of the state’s Select Committee on the State’s Role in Immigration Policy, said he is intrigued by the Alabama’s law ability to prevent illegal immigrants from securing utilities such as heat and gas. He said that could be part of a package that the committee recommends to the Legislature some time in 2012.

But he worried about some of the unintended consequences that the contract and business transaction provisions have had in Alabama. Legal residents had to wait for hours in lines to renew their car registrations because they had to prove their citizenship.

“Going to the DMV is a long line already,” Warren said. “The only thing you can do in your state is make it less attractive (for illegal immigrants) to come to, a little harder to live here legally. But the flipside is unforeseen circumstances. We need to really try to see what the ramifications would be of the laws that we would pass to try to accomplish those means.”

So it’s a fine thing to hear a major Presidential candidate say that a public lawbreaker with powerful connections should be sent home. That’s what happened on a Wednesday radio interview in Boston with Mitt Romney. The former Governor opined that Obama’s illegal alien drunk-driving uncle [...]]]> Deport. It’s my favorite verb (next to self-deport, of course).

So it’s a fine thing to hear a major Presidential candidate say that a public lawbreaker with powerful connections should be sent home. That’s what happened on a Wednesday radio interview in Boston with Mitt Romney. The former Governor opined that Obama’s illegal alien drunk-driving uncle Onyango Obama (pictured below) should be deported.

Hey, don’t forget Obama’s Aunt Zeituni, the illegal alien who is living off the taxpayer in public housing. You would think her millionaire nephew in the White House could pay for her upkeep.

Mitt Romney Says ‘Yes’ To Deporting President Obama’s Uncle, ABC News, December 21, 2011

ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a Boston talk radio host on Wednesday that he supports the deportation of President Obama’s Kenyan-born uncle who was arrested this fall on drunken driving charges in Massachusetts.

When asked by Boston radio personality Howie Carr whether the president’s relative, Onyango Obama, should be deported, Romney said, “the answer is ‘yes.’”

“Well, if the laws of the United States say he should be deported, and I presume they do, then of course we should follow those laws,” Romney said. “And the answer is ‘yes.’”

When Carr brought up Onyango Obama case, Romney first sought clarification: “Who is Uncle Omar, Howie?” the former Massachusetts governor asked the radio host.

Carr explained that the uncle, nicknamed “Omar,” was recently arrested in Framingham, Mass.

“Now he’s claiming he’s got a Social Security number and drivers’ license and no one knows how he got them,” Carr told Romney, “but they’re apparently legit even though he’s in the country illegally.” (Onyango Obama had reportedly defied a 1992 deportation order.)

“Uncle Omar,” who is the half-brother of the president’s father, was arrested on Aug. 24 for driving under the influence, failing to yield and negligent operation of a vehicle. At the police station, he told an officer, “I think I will call the White House,” according to a police report.

A lawyer for Onyango Obama appeared in Framingham District Court in Massachusetts last month to tell a judge that he plans to file a motion to suppress the traffic stop.

According to the Associated Press: “Obama initially was held without bail on a detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials on allegations he violated an order to return to Kenya 20 years ago. He was subsequently released and ordered to regularly check in with immigration officials.”

Some NC counties were early adopters of [...]]]> It’s reassuring that the heavy hand of the federal government against state immigration enforcement has not scared off everyone. North Carolina is moving in that direction, while being aware of the inevitable punishment down the road, as long as Obama is in charge with Eric Holder as his muscle.

Some NC counties were early adopters of the effective 287(g) program, one form of state-federal partnership, which is how the system should work.  The program has racked up impressive numbers, as noted by the Alamance County Sheriff in a recent committee meeting examining legislative proposals (Lawmakers weigh immigration changes, WRAL):

Alamance Sheriff Terry Johnson says his county’s participation in the federal 287(g) program has helped his deputies arrest and arrange for the deportation of nearly 1,800 illegal immigrants over the past five years. All had been charged with a criminal offense, brought to the detention center, and put into a federal fingerprint database to verify their actual identities.

That works out to 360 illegals annually, around one daily in one county alone. It sounds like a lot of crime prevention, from drunk-driving deaths to drug dealing and thefts. Plus it’s likely that word of the county’s tough enforcement got around, making it a less popular landing spot than sanctuary cities which have put out the welcome mat for illegal aliens.

Here’s more:

GOP aims to flex muscle over N.C. immigration law, News & Observer, December 8, 2011

Republicans now in charge of the state legislature are using their clout to push for new laws identifying illegal immigrants and limiting their use of public services.

That effort got its start Wednesday in the House Committee on the State’s Role in Immigration Policy, which drew a crowd representing both sides of the controversial issue. The committee can recommend legislation to be considered next year.

For years, a legislative contingent has focused on more laws limiting illegal immigrants’ access to public services – seeking to bar their admission to community colleges, for example – but they have had limited success.

Republicans won control of the legislature last year, giving their efforts new life. The wave of tough laws in other states such as Arizona and Alabama has given them another reason to act.

With other states tightening their laws, North Carolina could become a magnet for illegal immigrants, said Rep. Bert Jones, a Rockingham County Republican.

Arizona passed a law last year that made being an illegal immigrant and failure to carry immigration documents state crimes.

Alabama this year approved a sweeping law banning illegal immigrants from attending public colleges, prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants, and voiding all contracts with illegal immigrants, among other provisions. Parts of the law are under court review.

No specific laws were mentioned at the committee meeting Wednesday, but the legislature has bills pending that would prohibit use of consular or other embassy documents as official identification, specify documents that must be shown to receive public benefits, and a put an identifying mark on the driver’s licenses of people living in the country temporarily.

A comprehensive Arizona-style immigration bill has been filed, but has not been considered by the House or Senate.

Legislators seeking to crack down on illegal immigration tout the effort as a potential money-saver while detractors say the focus on tougher laws does little more than scapegoat Hispanics.

Though legislators and the two county sheriffs who talked about their work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to identify illegal immigrants said the efforts are not focused on Spanish-speakers or based on skin color, opponents of stiffer laws said it is clear that Hispanics are the targets.

Legislators should consider the labor and tax revenue contributed by Hispanic residents, said Ron Cox, president of Jesus Ministry of Charlotte. He attributed the increased focus on illegal immigration to the country’s bad economy.

“Instead of looking for scapegoats or someone to blame, let’s look for ways all of us can work together,” he said. The Charlotte nonprofit brought several dozen people opposed to more stringent laws to Raleigh. Most wore stickers saying “I’m a citizen and I vote.”

While Cox wanted to highlight a Kenan Institute report from 2006 that said Hispanics contributed $9 billion to the state’s economy in purchases, taxes and labor, legislators were focused on figures from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, that reported illegal immigrants cost the state about $2 billion in services, including education, law enforcement and health care.

The federal courts require states provide some services to illegal immigrants. For example, children cannot be barred from public school based on their immigration status. Some provisions of the Alabama law have been blocked by federal courts.

North Carolina has adopted several immigration laws since 2006, but none as strict as those in Alabama or Arizona.

Ron Woodard, executive director of NC Listen, offered to send Jones information on how the state could limit services to illegal immigrants without running afoul of federal law.

“I’m delighted they’re doing anything,” said Woodard, whose group wants to end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. “When Democrats were in charge, any reform was put on the back burner.”

Others were distressed to see the immigration efforts gaining prominence.

Carlos Cortez of Raleigh said the state should cooperate with residents, rather than drive them out of the state.

“There are people who are next to us who are contributing to the well-being of this state, to the well-being of this nation,” he said. “We are the best nation in the world. We have the worst laws dealing with immigration.”

Rep. Rob Bishop, a friend of both the parks and national security, wants to allow Border Patrol agents to act on public [...]]]> America’s public lands on or near the southern border have been given over to illegal aliens and Mexican organized crime because of invader-friendly environmental rules let the bad guys control large areas in Arizona.

Rep. Rob Bishop, a friend of both the parks and national security, wants to allow Border Patrol agents to act on public lands the same way they do on private. Sadly, open-borders Democrats like Edward Markey (career voting grade F and mentioned in the clip below) object to the common-sense bill in the name of environmentalism, despite the fact that hoards of illegal aliens do the most damage to the border lands with their tons of trash which is devastating to the environment.

The media is full of sob stories about lawbreakers leaving. But Rep. Brooks is not disappointed that illegals are packing up — that was the [...]]]> Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is pleasantly plain-spoken on the subject of illegal aliens: he says he wants them to leave his state to open up jobs and improve services for the citizens.

The media is full of sob stories about lawbreakers leaving. But Rep. Brooks is not disappointed that illegals are packing up — that was the idea.

In the video below, the immigration discussion starts at around 2.30 in:

Alabama immigration law is working, Rep. Mo Brooks says, Politico, October 6, 2011

Many Hispanic students and workers have stayed home in response to Alabama’s tough new immigration law — and that’s the whole point of the measure, Rep. Mo Brooks said on Thursday.

The Alabama Republican told POLITICO in an interview that he does not consider the above-average number of absences “unintended consequences” of the law.

“Those are the intended consequences of Alabama’s legislation with respect to illegal aliens,” Brooks said. “We don’t have the money in America to keep paying for the education of everybody else’s children from around the world. We simply don’t have the financial resources to do that. Second, with respect to illegal aliens who are now leaving jobs in Alabama, that’s exactly what we want.”

U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled on Sept. 28 that Alabama can enforce the law’s requirements for schools to verify students’ immigration status and for police to determine citizenship and status of those they stop, detain or arrest. Police are allowed to arrest anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant during a routine traffic stop, under the law. (See the full discussion in The Arena.)

An alarming number of Hispanic students in the state failed to show up for school on Monday — over 2,000 did not attend classes, POLITICO reported. On Tuesday, there were 1,525 Hispanic students absent, and on Wednesday 1,357 did not show up for class, according to the state’s Dept. of Education public information manager Malissa Valdes. While the numbers of absent students has been shrinking, it’s still at least 15 percent above the norm.

The number of absent Hispanic students statewide has been decreasing since Alabama’s top education official said on Tuesday that kids will be accepted at school even without documents, but attendance is still down compared to before the ruling.

Brooks told POLITICO he wants a “sound immigration policy” that would permit people in the country who would be productive members of society.

“Granted, we need to have a sound immigration policy that allows people into our country who are going to produce more than they are going to consume, but the bottom line is illegal aliens consume far more of our tax resources than they generate,” he said. “They commit heinous crimes against American citizens.”

The main purpose of the law, Brooks said, is to remove illegal immigrants from the state — and the legislation’s enforcement is clearly working toward that goal.

“So these aren’t unintended consequences,” Brooks said. “We want illegal aliens out of the state of Alabama and I want illegal aliens out of the United States of America, thereby opening up 7.4 million jobs that Americans can apply for that now they can’t get.”

One example is an estimated 120,000 illegal aliens residing in the state, which is quite a large number given that the influx has been rapid [...]]]> The Associated Press reports that Alabama’s tough enforcement law has gone before a federal judge, and along the way, explains perhaps inadvertently the reasons for alarm on the part of Alabamans.

One example is an estimated 120,000 illegal aliens residing in the state, which is quite a large number given that the influx has been rapid and unrequested. According to the Census, Alabama’s Hispanic population grew 145 percent between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s second-largest percentage growth in that time.

Alabama’s unemployment rate for July was 10 percent, above the national average.

Below, in Crossville Elementary School, enrollment is about 65 percent hispanic, while the town population is almost entirely white, illustrating the rapid demographic change of the state.

Contentious Ala. immigration law goes before judge, Associated Press, August 24, 2011

A federal judge in Birmingham is poised to hear arguments from the Obama administration and others Wednesday over whether a new Alabama immigration law constitutes an unfair assault on civil liberties or is a long-overdue effort to protect American jobs and borders.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn scheduled a hearing starting at 9 a.m. Wednesday on motions seeking to temporarily block a new state law that’s been described by supporters and opponents as the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in the country. Attorneys said they don’t know when Blackburn will rule, but pointed out that she doesn’t have much time because the immigration law is set to take effect Sept. 1.

The measure allows police officers, in conducting routine traffic stops, to arrest those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. The law’s broad provisions also make it a crime to transport or provide shelter to an illegal immigrant. It also requires schools to report the immigration status of students, a provision opponents say will make many parents afraid to send their children to school.

The lawsuits challenging the law — filed by the Obama administration, a coalition of civil rights groups and church leaders — have all been consolidated before the chief federal judge from Alabama’s northern district.

The challenges in Alabama are being closed watched nationwide. At issue is just how far Alabama can go in controlling illegal immigration. Injunctions have been issued against all or parts of similar immigration laws in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah. Impacts are potentially wide-reaching as some Alabama farmers fret they won’t find affordable workers to harvest crops and school officials worry over whether the children of illegal immigrants will be denied an education. One provision, critics say, may even create long lines at courthouses by requiring vehicle owners to show proof of citizenship when they buy tags.

The Obama administration argues in its lawsuit that enforcing immigration laws is the job of the federal government, not the states. Another challenge was filed by a coalition of civil rights groups including the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union. A third lawsuit was filed by bishops of the Catholic, United Methodist and Episcopal churches in Alabama and claims the law makes it a crime for Christians to follow the Biblical instructions to be “Good Samaritans” and help one another.

But lawmakers who passed the law argued it was necessary because the federal government had been lax in enforcing immigration laws.

An attorney for the bishops, Augusta Dowd of Birmingham, said she expects the hearing will continue into Wednesday afternoon. She said she doesn’t know when a ruling will be issued by Blackburn, a former federal prosecutor who became a federal judge in 1991 after being nominated by George H.W. Bush.

“I know she’s very cognizant of the Sept. 1 date,” Dowd said.

Sam Brooke, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the civil rights groups will be asking that “the entire law” be tossed out even as their attorneys object to specific provisions of the law.

“This law is unconstitutional in many ways,” Brooke added.

Brooklyn Roberts, an attorney and executive director of the Eagle Forum of Alabama, which supports the new law, said she expects some of the major provisions to be upheld in court — including a provision that requires employers to use a federal system called E-Verify to determine if new workers are in the country legally.

The group pushed for years for such a law, complaining that illegal aliens constitute a security risk and a drain on state resources.

“It took a couple of years, but we finally got something through,” Roberts said, adding “we can’t continue to let people flood over the border unchecked.”

Supporters in the Legislature said the law would protect Alabama jobs and even those immigrants in the country legally.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Micky Hammon, has said it would ease unemployment by opening up jobs currently held by illegal immigrants. More than 200,000 people in Alabama were unemployed in May, according to the latest statistics available.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are about 120,000 illegal immigrants in the state, many believed to be working at farms, chicken processing plants and in construction.

Some Alabama farmers fret, however, that the law will make it difficult to raise a work force at planting and harvesting time.

Tom Bentley, a 65-year-old retired peach farmer, said he stopped farming on most of his property years ago because of the headaches of ensuring his work force was legal. He said he obtained his workers through a federal program that provides documented workers for nine months out of the year, but keeping up with the myriad rules and red tape was time-consuming and expensive.

He warned workers would go pick crops elsewhere in the U.S. without such laws, leaving farmers the trouble of finding local workers willing to work long days picking peaches in the withering summer heat in Alabama. Most say that’s a job mainly immigrants are willing to do.

“These folks that are in jail or on welfare aren’t going to pick peaches,” Bentley said.

Given federal fecklessness and state leadership, Rep. Lamar Smith’s proposal for national e-verify that would eliminate [...]]]> Washington remains worse than useless on immigration enforcement, but fortunately the states have moved to pick up the slack, as indicated by a report showing that the number of state bills is increasing, and some are even signed into law.

Given federal fecklessness and state leadership, Rep. Lamar Smith’s proposal for national e-verify that would eliminate the ability of states to enforce immigration law — the pricetag of the business community for its support of the Smith bill — would be a disastrous choice. The Smith bill would be another stealth amnesty like the 1986 law that promised enforcement which never happened in exchange for rewarding millions of lawbreakers with US citizenship. All carrot, no stick. It appears that bad history may be repeated once again.

See also Virgil Goode: Flawed E-verify Undermines State Enforcement and Kobach Doubts Good Intentions from Chamber of Commerce.

States are doing the job that Washington won’t, so the friends of law and borders should support states that are defending national security and public safety.

States introduced record number of immigration bills this year, Bellingham Herald, By STEPHEN CEASAR / Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2011

LOS ANGELES — State lawmakers considered a record number of immigration-related bills this year, highlighting their continued frustration with federal government inaction on immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A total of 1,592 bills were introduced in all 50 states and Puerto Rico in the 2011 legislative session that ended June 30, a report by the bipartisan research organization found.

State legislators in 40 states enacted 151 of the bills, which mainly addressed law enforcement, identification and employment issues, said Ann Morse, program director of the conference’s immigrant policy project. An additional five laws were vetoed by governors.

Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – created laws similar to a controversial Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070, which requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and whom they suspect to be in the country illegally.

All five of those laws been challenged in federal court, with opponents citing federal pre-emption and violation of the Fourth and 14th amendments.

“The level of interest in the states is still very high,” Morse said. “What we’re seeing is a frustration with the federal government that it won’t take up these issues.”

An uptick in states’ legislation began in 2005, when 300 bills were introduced and 38 laws were enacted, Morse said.

At that time, states focused primarily on social services and naturalization issues, areas lawmakers believed the federal government was failing to address. But as frustrations with the federal government began to rise, so did the amount of legislation that was introduced, Morse said.

President Barack Obama has said that his administration is continuing its efforts to overhaul the immigration system, but Republicans have become unwilling partners.

While running for office in 2008, Obama said that he would deal with immigration reform in his first year. After the health care overhaul received top priority, it became increasingly less likely that he will be able to pass a bill until after the 2012 election.

By 2007, over 1,500 states’ bills were introduced and 240 bills were signed into law. The high numbers have held relatively steady ever since.

Today, lawmakers address “virtually everything you can think of,” Morse said.

Ten states passed legislation requiring employers to use E-Verify, an online program that uses federal databases to check whether employees are in the country legally and authorized to work.

New laws in Maryland and Connecticut will allow illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition. In California, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the DREAM Act, easing access to privately funded financial aid for undocumented college students.

Six states – Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota and Utah – passed laws requiring that sex offender registries include a requirement of proof of citizenship or immigration documents.

“It’s a push and pull between what the federal government does or doesn’t do and what the states end up doing themselves,” Morse said.

Below is a relevant snip from the National Conference of State Legislatures of the original material:

2011 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States (January-June), August 9, 2011

2011 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States (January-June)

Chart of 2011 Enacted Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions  States

In the first half of 2011, state legislators introduced 1,592 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants and refugees in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The number of bill introductions is an increase of 16 percent compared to the first half of 2010, when 46 states considered 1,374 bills and resolutions pertaining to immigrants.

As of June 30, 2011, 40 state legislatures enacted 151 laws and adopted 95 resolutions for a total of 246.  Twelve additional bills passed but were vetoed by governors.  For the same period in 2010, 44 state legislatures passed 191 laws and adopted 128 resolutions, for a total of 314. An additional five bills were vetoed. The 2011 total of laws and resolutions is a decrease of 22 percent. As of June 30, an additional 10 bills were pending governors’ approval – these bills are not included in this report of enacted laws.  For the same period in 2010, [missing text in original].

As in previous years, law enforcement, identification/driver’s licenses and employment remained the top issues addressed in state legislation related to immigrants. Several states – Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota and Utah – enacted sex offender registries that include a requirement of proof of citizenship or immigration documents. Montana required that the DMV use the SAVE program to verify a driver’s license or an ID applicant’s lawful presence. E-Verify legislation was enacted in 9 states: Alabama,  Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. Florida added an E-Verify requirement by executive order.  Eighteen states now have an E-Verify requirement.

Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana South Carolina and Utah – crafted omnibus laws following the example of Arizona’s SB.1070. The legislation includes provisions that require law enforcement to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop; allowing state residents to sue state and local agencies for noncompliance with immigration enforcement; requiring E-Verify; and making it a state violation for failure to carry an alien registration document.  Alabama’s HB.56 requires schools to verify students’ immigration status.   Court challenges based on preemption and civil rights have been filed against the Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana laws and Utah’s HB497.

As we have seen, some states, like Arizona and Alabama, are willing to do the work the feds just won’t do, that of policing the borders [...]]]> Add Virgil Goode, the former Congressman from Virginia, to the growing group of American sovereignty supporters who fear Lamar Smith’s e-verify bill will sabotage states trying to enforce immigration law.

As we have seen, some states, like Arizona and Alabama, are willing to do the work the feds just won’t do, that of policing the borders and workplaces. Under President Obama, immigration enforcement exists only in terms of appearance. Millions of jobs are still occupied by unlawful foreigners, despite years of terrible joblessness among citizens of this country, when workplace enforcement could liberate those positions for Americans who need them. Plus, Obama’s administrative amnesty ensures that Washington deports only the very worst criminals.

It is highly unlikely that even a well crafted national e-verify would be actively enforced by this pro-amnesty administration, so why cripple the states when they are working to protect American citizens from criminals and job thieves?

States’ Rights Key to Immigration Control By Virgil Goode, TownHall.com, August 2, 2011

One of the most tired clichés of the immigration debate is that “immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do.” With 16 million Americans out of work, this justification for not enforcing our immigration laws rings hollower than ever.

There are an estimated 7-8 million illegal aliens in the workforce. Virtually all of them are in unskilled sectors such as agriculture, food service and preparation, and construction; which also have extremely high levels of native born unemployment.

Freeing up those jobs for Americans should be common sense during a recession.

Hiring illegal aliens is already a crime under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, but neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama enforced this law. Part of the problem is that it is easy for “undocumented” immigrants to get fake documents. Under the current system, an honest employer may be duped into hiring or an illegal, while unscrupulous businesses can intentionally look the other way and plead ignorance if they get caught.

In 1996, Congress created the E-Verify program to help close this loophole. E-Verify is an electronic system that allows an employer to enter the social security or alien registration number of a potential employee. This gets checked against a government database to confirm whether an employee is here legally within minutes. When I served in Congress I cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation to mandate E-Verify nationwide.

These bills never made it through Congress, so states and localities began to do the job the federal government wouldn’t do. In 2006, Hazleton, PA, under the leadership of their mayor Lou Barletta, passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The next year, Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Worker Act (LAWA.) Following Arizona’s lead, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, and many other states passed their own E-Verify laws.

Predictably, the ACLU sued Hazleton and the Chamber of Commerce sued Arizona on the grounds that states were preempted from enforcing immigration law.

In May, the Supreme Court ruled that LAWA was constitutional in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. The next week, they upheld the Hazleton law. This opens the door for even more states to pass E-Verify laws when they go back in session.

In the wake of all this momentum in favor of state laws and E-Verify, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced the H.R. 2164, The Legal Workforce Act in June. On the surface, the Legal Workforce Act is a great bill. It requires E-Verify for all new hires and improves the system to prevent identity theft. Unfortunately, the bill includes a preemption provision that will prevent States and localities from enforcing employer sanctions on illegal immigration unless the federal government acts first. This, in effect, will completely wipe out our victory in the Supreme Court.

By including the preemption section, Rep. Smith has won the support of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups who lobbied against every previous piece of immigration control legislation because it restricts their supply of cheap labor.

However, he has lost the support of some conservatives. Lou Barletta, who is now a freshman Congressman (R-PA), opposes the bill. He claims, “If this bill becomes law, states and municipalities will be powerless without the federal government acting first. Waiting for the federal government to enforce its own immigration laws is how we got into this mess in the first place.”

Rep. Barletta is right. While E-Verify is an excellent program, if the federal government was serious about enforcing the laws on the book, it probably would not be necessary. At the same time, nothing will be accomplished by passing an E-Verify law if the federal government won’t enforce it. There are already states and localities enforcing the law, and taking away their right in exchange for the hope the federal government will act is a risky bargain.

As Arizona Senate President and SB 1070 author Russell Pearce wrote in a column for the Poltico, “It all boils down to one question: Whom do you trust to enforce the law: Obama or Arizona?”

Rep. Barletta and Sen. Pearce are not alone in their concern over the Legal Workforce Act. Many conservative and immigration control leaders like Kris Kobach, Bay Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly, and Tom Tancredo say the bill needs to be amended.

In a column in Townhall.com, Lamar Smith dismisses the concerns over states’ rights because “although the Legal Workforce Act preempts state E-Verify laws, it grants states and localities the right to issue or rescind business licenses based on the requirement that the employer use E-Verify as directed by federal law.” This misses the point. The problem is that it is unlikely that federal government will enforce the law. Allowing states to act only act after the federal government sanctions a business fails to address this concern.

Rep. Smith also argues that blue states with high illegal populations like New York and California are unlikely to pass statewide E-Verify laws, so unless we pass a nationwide law there would be nothing to keep illegals from getting jobs in those states. This may be true, but it once again assumes that the federal government will enforce the law at all. It also assumes we can’t pass an E-Verify bill without pre-emption.

As he notes in his column, a Rasmussen poll showed that 82% of Americans want mandatory E-Verify. With that level of support, why should we water down the bill?

I am not criticizing the preemption language to disparage Lamar Smith who I know is genuinely concerned about fighting illegal immigration. However, it is a huge mistake to sacrifice States’ Rights on immigration control in exchange for the slim possibility that the Obama administration will enforce our laws.