Skip to Content

State and Local

What Arizona v. United States May Mean for States with Similar Immigration Laws

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Arizona v. United States, a case addressing the legality of the Arizona immigration law known as SB 1070.  According to the statement of legislative intent, the law was designed to make “attrition through enforcement” the official policy of all state and local agencies in Arizona.  Following the passage of SB 1070, numerous other states—including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—passed legislation with similar provisions, which have also been challenged in court.  Read more...

Published On: Tue, Apr 17, 2012 | Download File

Guide to Arizona v. United States: What You Need to Know About the SB 1070 Supreme Court Case

What You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Case Over SB 1070

By Ben Winograd

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in Arizona v. United States, a dispute over the legality of the immigration law known as “SB 1070.” More than any matter in recent history, the case involves a range of important questions regarding the role that states may play in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The Court’s decision will likely affect not only the future of SB 1070, but the fate of other state immigration laws being challenged in court and the odds of similar laws being passed around the country.

This guide provides brief answers to common questions about the case, including how the litigation began, what the contested provisions do and do not say, and what arguments have been raised by each side. The guide also includes an appendix listing all of the outside individuals, organizations, and governments that filed briefs supporting and opposing SB 1070. As the Supreme Court considers the case, knowing the facts and legal arguments behind the case will prove critically important in furthering a rational discussion about the implications of the Justices’ decision.

For ongoing updates on Arizona v. United States, check out our blog, ImmigrationImpact.com.

Published On: Mon, Apr 02, 2012 | Download File

Bad for Business: How Anti-Immigration Legislation Drains Budgets and Damages States’ Economies

Updated 03/26/12 - This session, state legislatures are once again considering harsh immigration-control laws. These laws are intended to make everyday life so difficult for unauthorized immigrants that they will choose to “self-deport” and return to their home countries. Proponents of these laws claim that the departure of unauthorized immigrants will save states millions of dollars and create jobs for U.S citizens. However, experience from states that have passed similar anti-immigration measures shows that the opposite can occur: the impact of the laws can hinder prospects for economic growth, and the costs of implementing, defending, and enforcing these laws can force taxpayers to pay millions of dollars. Read more...

Published On: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 | Download File

Bad for Business: How Anti-Immigrant Laws Can Hurt the Kansas Economy

While proponents of harsh immigration laws in Kansas claim that passing these laws would save the state money, experience from other states shows harsh immigration-control laws will actually cost the state millions of dollars. Implementing the laws and defending them in the courts would cost Kansas’s taxpayers millions they can ill afford. The laws would make it more difficult for businesses to operate in the state and would deter investment, and the loss of taxpayers and consumers could devastate Kansas’s economy. Read more...

Published On: Fri, Feb 24, 2012 | Download File

Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws

What You Need to Know if Your State is Considering Anti-immigrant Legislation

Updated 2012 - In April 2010, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” or, as it is commonly known, SB1070. At the time of its passage, Arizona’s immigration law surpassed all previous state immigration-control efforts. While much of the law has been enjoined by the courts, its passage inspired legislators in other states to pass similar legislation.

Since SB1070 passed, 36 other states have attempted to pass harsh immigration-control laws. Of those, 31 states have rejected or refused to advance their bills. However, five states—Utah, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama—have passed laws that mirror or go beyond the Arizona law. It is likely that additional states will attempt to pass similar anti-immigrant legislation during the 2012 legislative session.

SB1070 and other immigration-related state legislation represent, among other things, a growing frustration with our broken immigration system. The courts will decide the constitutionality of the various laws, and time will answer many questions about their impact. In the short term, much evidence suggests that an enforcement-only strategy—whether attempted at the federal or state level—will not solve the root causes of unauthorized immigration.Read more...

Published On: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 | Download File

Bad for Business: How Mississippi’s Proposed Anti-Immigration Laws Will Stifle the State Economy

While proponents of harsh immigration bills in Mississippi claim that passing these laws would save the state money, experience from other states shows these immigration laws will actually cost the state millions of dollars. Implementing the laws and defending them in the courts would cost Mississippi’s taxpayers millions they can ill afford. The laws would make it more difficult for businesses to operate in the state and would deter investment. The loss of taxpayers and consumers would devastate Mississippi’s economy.  Read more...

Published On: Thu, Feb 02, 2012 | Download File

The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program: A Fact Sheet

Immigration law is highly complex. Determining which non-citizens are “lawfully” or “unlawfully” present and whether they should be allowed to stay in the United States are complex matters which involve the interpretation of a range of federal laws and regulations, broad policy considerations, and prioritization of existing resources, to name just a few considerations. Read more...

Published On: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 | Download File

Bad for Business: How Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Law Stifles State Economy

Although key provisions of Alabama’s HB 56 are on hold while its constitutionality is being tested in the courts, evidence is mounting of the growing fiscal and economic impact of the new law. State economic experts and business leaders agree that the law has already caused hardship for Alabama’s businesses and citizens.
Read more...

Published On: Wed, Nov 09, 2011 | Download File

Turning Off the Water: How the Contracting and Transaction Provisions in Alabama's Immigration Law Make Life Harder

Turning Off the Water: How the Contracting and Transaction Provisions in Alabama's Immigration Law Make Life Harder For Everyone

By Joan Friedland

Since passage of HB 56, Alabama’s extreme new immigration law, many are aware of the most immediate consequences of the law—rotting tomatoes, racial profiling, and frightened school children. However, two provisions of the law that have the potential to be extremely damaging to the state’s economy, rule of law, and municipal functioning have received comparatively little attention. These two provisions have been in effect since September 30,, 2011, and are likely to result in an increase of exploitation of workers, erosion of fundamental legal protections, and denial of access to state and local government services and activities. In other words, these provisions will undoubtedly impact the daily lives of all Alabamians.Read more...

Published On: Tue, Nov 01, 2011 | Download File