Correction of paper

Immigration Conflict Should states crack down on unlawful aliens?

A mericans are very concerned about illegal immigra-

tion but ambivalent about what to do about it —

especially the 11 million aliens currently in the

United States illegally. Frustrated with the federal

government’s failure to secure the borders, several states passed

laws allowing state and local police to check the immigration sta-

tus of suspected unlawful aliens. Civil rights organizations warn

the laws will result in ethnic profiling of Latinos. The Obama ad-

ministration is suing to block several of the laws for infringing on

federal prerogatives. Advocates of tougher enforcement say undocu-

mented workers are taking jobs from U.S. citizens, but many busi-

ness and agricultural groups say migrant workers are needed to fill

jobs unattractive to U.S. workers. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme

Court upheld an Arizona law providing stiff penalties for employers

that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Now, the justices are preparing

to hear arguments on the controversial, new Arizona law that in-

spired other states to crack down on illegal immigration.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ....................231

BACKGROUND ................238

CHRONOLOGY ................239

CURRENT SITUATION ........243

AT ISSUE........................245

OUTLOOK ......................247

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................250

THE NEXT STEP ..............251

THISREPORT

Opponents of Alabama’s tough, new immigration law protest in Montgomery on Feb. 14, 2012.

CQResearcher Published by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • March 9, 2012 • www.cqresearcher.com Volume 22, Number 10 • Pages 229-252

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE � AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

230 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

231 • Is illegal immigration anurgent national problem? • Should state and local police enforce immigration laws? • Should Congress make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens?

BACKGROUND

238 Constant AmbivalenceAmericans have been al- ternately critical and sup- portive of immigrants through history.

241 Cracking Down?Illegal immigration has been increasing, despite tougher laws and enforce- ment.

242 Getting ToughPresident Obama has stepped up enforcement while backing some re- forms.

CURRENT SITUATION

243 Obama’s ApproachHis mix of firm and flexi- ble policies is drawing critics from both sides.

246 Supreme Court ActionArguments on Arizona’s tough law are set for April 25.

OUTLOOK

247 A Broken SystemPublic opinion on immi- gration is conflicted.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

232 West Has Highest Shareof Unlawful Aliens In several states they comprise 6 percent of the population.

233 Americans Want Less Immigration More than 40 percent favor lower levels.

234 Immigration Law BasicsHere are key points on issues such as quotas, visas and refugees.

235 Major State ImmigrationLaws in Court Six states give police a role in enforcing U.S. laws.

236 Unlawful ImmigrationHigh Despite Dip The number increased by one-third in last decade.

239 ChronologyKey events since the 1920s.

240 Journalist Reveals HisImmigration Secret “There’s nothing worse than being in limbo.”

245 At IssueShould Congress pass the DREAM Act?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

249 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

250 BibliographySelected sources used.

251 The Next StepAdditional articles.

251 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

Cover: AP Photo/Dave Martin

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Billitteri [email protected]

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch [email protected]

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Thomas J. Colin [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITER: Marcia Clemmitt

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt, Peter Katel,

Barbara Mantel, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT CHECKER: Michelle Harris

An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

VICE PRESIDENT AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP:

Michele Sordi

DIRECTOR, ONLINE PUBLISHING: Todd Baldwin

Copyright © 2012 CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Pub-

lications, Inc. SAGE reserves all copyright and other

rights herein, unless pre vi ous ly spec i fied in writing.

No part of this publication may be reproduced

electronically or otherwise, without prior written

permission. Un au tho rized re pro duc tion or trans mis -

sion of SAGE copy right ed material is a violation of

federal law car ry ing civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Pub lished weekly, except: (March wk. 5)

(May wk. 4) (July wk. 1) (Aug. wks. 3, 4) (Nov. wk.

4) and (Dec. wks. 3, 4). Published by SAGE Publica-

tions, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Annual full-service subscriptions start at $1,054. For

pricing, call 1-800-834-9020. To purchase a CQ Re-

searcher report in print or electronic format (PDF),

visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single

reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and

electronic-rights licensing are also available. Periodicals

postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California, and at

additional mailing offices. POST MAS TER: Send ad dress

chang es to CQ Re search er, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800,

Wash ing ton, DC 20037.

March 9, 2012 Volume 22, Number 10

CQRe search er

March 9, 2012 231www.cqresearcher.com

Immigration Conflict

THE ISSUES M

icky Hammon minced no words when he urged his

fellow Alabama legislators to enact what would become the toughest of a batch of new state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants. “This bill is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport them- selves,” Hammon, leader of the Alabama House of Rep- resentatives’ Republican ma- jority, said during the April 5, 2011, debate on the bill. 1

Immigrant-rights groups say the law, which took ef- fect Sept. 28 after partly sur- viving a court challenge, is as tough as Hammon hoped — and more. “It’s been pret- ty devastating,” says Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Cen- ter in Montgomery, Alabama’s capital. “Tens of thousands of people have left, and the people who remain are com- pletely terrorized by this law.”

Among other provisions, Alabama’s law requires state and local law en- forcement officers to determine the immigration status of anyone arrested, detained or stopped if there is a “rea- sonable suspicion” that the person is an alien “unlawfully present” in the United States. Failure to carry alien- registration papers is made a state crime, punishable by up to 30 days in jail for a first offense.

Alabama, with an estimated 120,000 unlawful aliens living within its bor- ders as of 2010, was one of five states that last year followed Arizona’s lead a year earlier in giving police new re- sponsibilities to look for immigration law violators.* Republican-controlled

legislatures in each of the states said they were forced to act because the federal government was not doing enough to control illegal immigration at the border or in U.S. workplaces. Opponents warned the laws risked profiling Latinos, including U.S. citizens and aliens with legal status.

All six of the laws are being chal- lenged in federal court, with the “stop and check” provisions blocked except in Alabama’s case. In the most impor- tant case, the Arizona measure is sched- uled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25 after a fed-

eral appeals court struck some of the law enforcement pro- visions as interfering with federal immigration policy. 2

(See chart, p. 235.) Alabama’s law includes a

unique provision that pro- hibits unlawful aliens from entering into any “business transaction” with state or local governments. Some public utilities in the state interpret- ed the provision to require proof of immigration status for water or electricity ser- vice. Until a federal judge’s injunction on Nov. 23, some counties were applying the law to prevent unlawful im- migrants from renewing per- mits for mobile homes. 3

Once the law went into effect, school attendance by Latino youngsters dropped measurably in response to a provision — later blocked — requiring school officials to ascertain families’ immigration status. The fear of deporta- tion also led many immigrants in Alabama to seek help in preparing power-of-attorney documents to make sure

their children would be taken care of in case the parents were deported, ac- cording to Isabel Rubio, executive di- rector of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama. “You have to understand the sheer terror that people fear,” Rubio says.

The law is having a palpable effect on the state’s economy as well, ac- cording to agriculture and business groups. With fewer migrant workers, “some farmers have planted not as much or not planted at all,” says Jeff Helms, spokesman for the Alabama Farmers Federation. Jay Reed, president of Associated Builders and Contractors of Alabama, says it has been harder to find construction workers as well.

BY KENNETH JOST

G e tt y I m a g e s/ Jo h n M

o o re

Arizona residents rally in Phoenix on July 31, 2010, in support of the state’s hard-hitting immigration law, which gives police new responsibilities to look for

immigration law violators. Five states last year followed Arizona’s lead. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear

arguments on the disputed Arizona measure on April 25.

* The others were Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina.

232 CQ Researcher

Reed, co-chair of the multi-industry coalition Alabama Employers for Im- migration Reform, wants to soften provisions that threaten employers with severe penalties, including the loss of operating licenses, for hiring undoc- umented workers. He and other busi- ness leaders also worry about the per- ception of the law outside the state’s borders. “Some of our board mem- bers have expressed concern about our state’s image and the effect on economic-development legislation,” Reed says.

Reed says the state’s Republican gov- ernor, Robert Bentley, and leaders in the GOP-controlled legislature are open to some changes in the law. But the two chief sponsors, Hammon and state Sen. Scott Beason, are both batting down any suggestions that the law

will be repealed or its law enforce- ment measures softened.

“We are not going to weaken the law,” Hammon told reporters on Feb. 14 as hundreds of opponents of the mea- sure demonstrated outside the State House in Montgomery. “We are not going to repeal any section of the law.” 4

On the surface, Alabama seems an improbable state to take a leading role in the newest outbreak of nativist con- cern about immigration and immigrants. Alabama’s unauthorized immigrant pop- ulation has increased nearly fivefold since 2000, but the state still ranks rela- tively low in the proportion of unau- thorized immigrants in the population and in the state’s workforce.

Alabama’s estimated 120,000 unau- thorized immigrants comprise about 2.5 percent of the state’s total population.

Nationwide, the estimated 11.8 million unauthorized immigrants represent about 3.7 percent of the population. Alabama’s estimated 95,000 unautho- rized immigrants with jobs represent about 4.2 percent of the workforce. Nationwide, 8 million undocumented workers account for about 5.2 percent of the national workforce. 5

Nationwide, the spike in anti-immigrant sentiment is also somewhat out of synch with current conditions. Experts and advocates on both sides of the immigration issues agree that the total unauthorized immigrant population has fallen somewhat from its peak in 2007, mainly because the struggling U.S. econ- omy offers fewer jobs to lure incom- ing migrant workers.

“The inflow of illegals has slowed somewhat,” says Mark Krikorian, ex- ecutive director of the Center for Im- migration Studies (CIS) in Washington. The center describes its stance as “low- immigration, pro-immigrant.” 6

Jobs were a major focus of the de- bate that led to Alabama’s passage of the new law. “This is a jobs bill,” Bea- son said as the measure, known as HB 56, reached final passage in June. “We have a problem with an illegal workforce that displaces Alabama work- ers. We need to put those people back to work.” 7

Today, Beason, running against an in- cumbent congressman for the U.S. House seat in the Birmingham area, credits the law with helping Alabama lower its un- employment rate from 9.8 percent in September to 8.1 percent in Decem- ber. “I promised that the anti-illegal immigration law would open up thousands of jobs for Alabamians, and it has done that,” Beason said in a Jan. 26 statement.

A University of Alabama economist, however, doubts the law’s claimed ef- fect on unemployment. Samuel Addy, director of the university’s Center for Business and Economic Research in Tuscaloosa, notes that unemployment actually has increased, rather than

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

West Has Highest Share of Unlawful Aliens

Undocumented immigrants comprise at least 6 percent of the population of Arizona, California, Nevada and Texas and at least 3.8 percent of the population of New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. Unlawful immigrants also make up sizable percentages of several other states’ populations, including New Jersey and Florida. The nationwide average is 3.7 percent.

Source: Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010,” Pew Research Center, February 2011, p. 29, www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

N.Y.

Ohio

Texas

Va.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Calif.

Nev.

Ore.

Colo.

Wash.

Idaho

Mont.

Utah

Ariz. N.M.

Wyo.

N.D.

S.D.

Alaska

Okla. Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Tenn.

Ga.

Conn.

Mass.

R.I.

Maine Vt.

W.Va. N.J. Del.

Md.

Ala.

Fla.

Wis.

Mich.

Ind.

N.C.

S.C.

N.H.

Kan. Ky.

Hawaii

D.C.

Neb. Pa.

6.0%-7.2% 3.8%-4.6% 3.0%-3.6% 1.8%-2.7% <1.6%

Unauthorized Immigrants as a Share of State Population, 2010

U.S. Average = 3.7%

March 9, 2012 233www.cqresearcher.com

declined, in the four sectors in the state viewed as most dependent on immigrant labor: agriculture, construc- tion, accommodation and food and drinking places. 8

In a nine-page study released in January, Addy contends instead that the immigration law is likely to hurt the state’s economy overall. After as- suming that 40,000 to 80,000 workers leave the state, Addy calculated that the law could reduce the state’s gross domestic product by $2.3 billion to $10.8 billion. State income and sales taxes could take a $56.7 million to $265.4 million hit, Addy projected, while local sales tax revenue could decline by $20.0 million to $93.1 million. Hammon dismissed the report as “baloney.” 9

Five months after it took effect, however, the law’s impact may be ebbing. Police appear not to have en- forced the law vigorously, perhaps stung by the nationwide embarrass- ment when a visiting Mercedes-Benz executive from Germany carrying only a German identification card was held after a traffic stop until he could retrieve his passport. With police en- forcement lagging, some of the im- migrants who left appear to be com- ing back. “Some people have returned,” Rubio says. 10

Meanwhile, attorneys for the Obama administration and the state were preparing for arguments on March 1 before the federal appeals court in At- lanta in the government’s suit chal- lenging the state law on grounds of federal pre-emption, the doctrine used to nullify state laws that conflict with U.S. laws and policies. The Hispanic In- terest Coalition had challenged the law on broader grounds in an earlier suit, represented by the American Civil Lib- erties Union and other national groups.

In a massive, 115-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Blackburn upheld major parts of the law on Sept. 28 and then allowed the upheld parts to go into effect even as the government and civil rights groups

appealed. Blackburn blocked half a dozen provisions on pre-emption grounds but found no congressional intent to prevent states from checking the immigration status of suspected unlawful aliens. 11

With the legal challenges continu- ing, the political debates over immi- gration are intensifying. Republican presidential candidates generally agree on criticizing the Obama administra- tion for failing to control illegal im- migration even though the adminis- tration has increased the number of immigrants deported to their home countries. The Republican hopefuls disagree among themselves on the steps to deal with the problem.

For his part, Obama concedes that Congress will not approve a broad im- migration overhaul in this election year. But he used his State of the Union speech to call for passage of a bill — the so-called DREAM Act — to allow legal status for some immigrants who

have served in the U.S. military or com- pleted college. (See “At Issue,” p. 245.)

As the immigration debates contin- ue, here are some of the major ques- tions being considered:

Is illegal immigration an urgent national problem?

As the anti-illegal immigration bill HB 56 was being signed into law, Al- abama’s Republican Party chairman de- picted the measure as needed to pro- tect the state’s taxpayers and the state’s treasury. “Illegal immigrants have be- come a drain on our state resources and a strain on our taxpaying, law- abiding citizens,” Bill Armistead declared as Republican governor Bentley signed it into law on June 9, 2011. 12

Today, Republican officials contin- ue to defend the law in economic terms. “Unemployment was sky high, especially in areas where there’s high concentration of these undocumented workers,” says Shana Kluck, the party’s

Americans Want Less Immigration

More than 40 percent of Americans say they favor a lower level of immigration, reflecting a view that has prevailed over most of the past half-century. About one in six want immigration to increase, while about one-third favor the current level.

Sources: Jeffrey M. Jones, “Americans’ Views on Immigration Holding Steady,” Gallup, June 2011, www.gallup.com/poll/148154/americans-views-immigration-holding- steady.aspx; Roger Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door, Hill and Wang Press, December 2004, p. 233

Should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

(Percentage of Americans) Increased Present level Decreased

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

80%

201120102009200820072006200520012000199919951993198619771965

234 CQ Researcher

spokeswoman. Kluck also points to the cost on public treasuries. “The public-assistance budgets were burst- ing at the seams,” she says. “That’s why HB 56 was necessary.”

Nationally, groups favoring tighter immigration controls make similar ar- guments about immigrants’ economic impact, especially on jobs and wages for citizen workers. “We need to slow down immigration,” says Dan Stein, pres- ident of the Federation for American

Immigration Reform (FAIR), pointing to the current high levels of unemploy- ment and underemployment.

“Immigration helps to decimate the bargaining leverage of the American worker,” Stein continues. “If you use a form of labor recruitment that bids down the cost of labor, that leads you to a society where a small number are very, very rich, there’s nobody in the middle, and everyone is left scrambling for crumbs at the bottom.”

“The longer this economic doldrum continues, the more likely you are to see some real pushback on immigra- tion levels as such, not just illegal im- migration,” says Krikorian with the low- immigration group Center for Immigration Studies. The group’s research director, Steven Camarota, said if illegal immi- grants are forced to go back to their home countries, there is “an ample supply of idle workers” to take the jobs freed up. 13

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

I mmigrating legally to the United States is difficult at best for those who fit into categories defined in mind-numbing detail by federal law and impossible for those who do not. Here is

a primer on a body of law that is complex and confusing even to immigration experts, and all the more so for would-be Americans.

The Immigration and Nationality Act — sets an overall limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants each year. The limit does not apply to spouses, unmarried minor children or par- ents of U.S. citizens, but the sponsoring U.S. citizen must have an income above the U.S. poverty level and promise to sup- port family members brought to the United States.

Who gets visas — Out of the 675,000 quota, 480,000 visas are made available under family-preference rules, and up to 140,000 are allocated for employment-related preferences. Un- used employment-related visas may be reallocated to the family- preference system.

The family-sponsored visas are allocated according to a pref- erence system with numerical limits for each category. Un- married adult children of U.S. citizens are in the first category, followed, in this order, by spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents; unmarried adult children of lawful permanent residents; married adult children of U.S. citizens; and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. No other relatives qualify for a family preference. Again, the sponsor must meet financial and support requirements.

Visa categories — The employment-based preference sys- tem also sets up ranked, capped categories for would-be im- migrants. The highest preference is given to “persons of ex- traordinary ability” in the arts, science, education, business or athletics; professors and researchers; and some multina- tional executives. Other categories follow in this order: per- sons with professional degrees or “exceptional” abilities in arts, science or business; workers with skills that are in short supply and some “unskilled” workers for jobs not temporary

or seasonal; certain “special immigrants,” including religious workers; and, finally, persons who will invest at least $500,000 in a job-creating enterprise that employs at least 10 full-time workers.

In addition to the numerical limits, the law sets a cap of 7 per- cent of the quota for immigrants from any single country. The limit in effect prevents any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns.

Refugees — Separately, Congress and the president each year set an annual limit for the number of refugees who can be admitted based on an inability to return to their home coun- try because of a fear of persecution. Currently, the overall ceil- ing is 76,000. The law also allows an unlimited number of per- sons already in the United States, or at a port of entry, to apply for asylum if they were persecuted or fear persecution in their home country. A total of 21,113 persons were granted asylum in fiscal 2010. Refugees and asylees are eligible to become law- ful permanent residents after one year.

Debate over the rules — An immigrant who gets through this maze and gains the coveted “green card” for lawful per- manent residents is eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after five years (three years for the spouse of a U.S. citizen). An ap- plicant must be age 18 or over and meet other requirements, including passing English and U.S. history and civics exams. About 675,000 new citizens were naturalized in 2010, down from the peak of slightly more than 1 million in the pre-recession year of 2008.

Applying for citizenship — Immigration advocates say the quotas are too low, the rules too restrictive and the wait- ing periods for qualified applicants too long. Low-immigration groups say the record level of legal and illegal immigration over the past decade shows the need to lower the quotas and limit the family-reunification rules.

— Kenneth Jost

Immigration Law Basics Even experts find it confusing.

March 9, 2012 235www.cqresearcher.com

Pro-immigration groups say their op- ponents exaggerate the costs and all but ignore the benefits of immigrant labor. “They never take into account the contributions that undocumented immigrants make,” says Mary Giovagnoli, director of the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Policy Center.

“We’ve had an economy that de- pends on immigration,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Na- tional Immigration Forum. “It would be an economic and social disaster for 11 million people to pick up and leave.”

Madeleine Sumption, a senior labor market analyst with the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute in Washing- ton, acknowledges that immigration may have what she calls a “relatively small” impact on employment and wages for citizen workers. But the costs are more than offset, she says, by the bene- fits to employers, consumers and the overall economy.

The benefits can be seen particu- larly in sectors that employ large num- bers of immigrants, according to Sump- tion. “The United States has a large agriculture industry,” she says. “With- out immigration labor, it would al- most certainly not be possible to pro- duce the same volume of food in the country.” The health care industry also employs a high number of immi- grants, especially in low-end jobs, such as home-health aides and hospital or- derlies. “These are jobs for which there is a growing demand and an expectation of an even more rapidly growing demand in the future,” Sump- tion says.

In Alabama, Rubio with the His- panic coalition and the leaders of the agriculture and construction groups all discount Camarota’s contention that cit- izen workers are available to take the jobs currently being filled by immi- grants. “We did not have a tomato crop [last] summer because the immigrants who pick that crop weren’t there,” Rubio says. “This is hard work, and many people don’t want to do it.”

Reed, president of the state’s builders and contractors’ organization, says construction companies similarly can- not find enough workers among the citizen labor force. “Traditionally, in our recruitment efforts we have un- fortunately not found those that are unemployed are ready and willing to perform these kinds of jobs that re- quire hard labor in extreme weather conditions,” Helms says.

The claimed costs and benefits from immigration for public treasuries rep- resent similarly contentious issues. Low- or anti-immigration groups emphasize the costs in government services, es-

pecially education and medical care. Pro-immigration groups point to the taxes that even unlawful aliens pay and the limits on some government bene- fits under federal and state laws. In an independent evaluation of the issue, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Of- fice in 2007 found a net cost to state and local governments but called the impact “most likely modest.” 14

The cost-benefit debates are more volatile in stressed economic times, according to David Gerber, a professor of history at the University of Buffalo and author of a primer on immigration. “People get angry when they feel that

Major State Immigration Laws in Court

Five states have followed Arizona’s lead in giving state and local police a role in enforcing federal immigration law. With some variations, the laws authorize or require police after an arrest, detention or stop to determine the person’s immigration status if he or she is reasonably suspected of being unlawfully in the United States. In legal challenges, federal courts have blocked major parts of five of the laws; the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on April 25 in Arizona’s effort to reinstate the blocked portions of its law.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/ immig/omnibus-immigration-legislation.aspx; American Civil Liberties Union; news coverage.

State Bill, date signed Legal challenge

Arizona S.B. 1070: United States v. Arizona April 23, 2010 Major parts enjoined; pending at Supreme Court

Utah H.B. 497: Utah Coalition of La Raza v. Herbert March 15, 2011 Major parts blocked; suit on hold pending Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case

Indiana SB 590: Buquer v. City of Indianapolis May 10, 2011 Major parts blocked; suit on hold pending Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case

Georgia HB 87: Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal May 13, 2011 Major parts blocked; on hold at 11th Circuit

Alabama HB 56: United States v. Alabama June 9, 2011 Major parts upheld; on hold at 11th Circuit

South S20: United States v. South Carolina Carolina June 27, 2011 Major parts blocked; suit on hold pending Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case

236 CQ Researcher

immigrants are competing for jobs of people in the United States or when they feel that immigrants are getting access to social benefits that the ma- jority is paying for,” Gerber says. “In harder times, it makes people angrier than in times of prosperity.” 15

Even so, David Coates, a professor at Wake Forest University in Winston- Salem, N.C., and co-editor of a book on immigration issues, notes that fewer undocumented workers are entering the United States now than in the peak year of 2007, and the Obama admin- istration has been deporting unlawful aliens in significantly greater numbers

than previous administrations. Asked whether illegal immigration should be less of an issue for state legislators and national politicians, Coates replies simply: “Yes, in terms of the numbers.”

Should state and local police en- force immigration laws?

Alabama’s HB 56 was stuffed with more provisions for state and local governments to crack down on illegal immigrants than the Arizona law that inspired it or any of the copy-cat laws passed in four other states. Along with the stop-and-check section, the law in- cludes provisions making it a state

crime for an unauthorized alien to apply for work and barring unautho- rized aliens from court enforcement of any contracts. Another provision made it illegal to conceal, harbor or rent to an illegal immigrant or even to stop in a roadway to hire workers.

Opponents harshly criticized the enforcement provisions as they were signed into law. “It turns Alabama into a police state where anyone could be required to show their citizenship pa- pers,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project. Noorani, with the National Immigra- tion Forum, called the law “a radical departure from the concepts of fair- ness and equal treatment under the law,” adding, “It makes it a crime, quite literally, to give immigrants a ride with- out checking their legal status.” 16

Today, even with the harboring pro- vision and several others blocked from taking effect, opponents say the law is having the terrorizing effect that they had predicted on immigrants both legal and illegal as well as U.S. citizens of Hispanic background. “We’ve heard nu- merous accounts of people who have been stopped under very suspicious cir- cumstances, while driving or even while walking on the street,” says Justin Cox, an ACLU staff attorney in Atlanta work- ing on the case challenging the law.

The law “has had the effect that it was intended to have,” Cox says, “which was to make immigration status a pervasive issue in [immigrants’] everyday lives.”

Supporters of the law are defending it, but without responding to specific crit- icisms. “We’ve seen an awful lot of ille- gal immigrants self-deport,” House Ma- jority Leader Hammon said as opponents rallied in Montgomery on Feb. 14. “We’re also seeing Americans and legal immi- grants taking these jobs.” 17

When questioned by a Montgomery television station about critical docu- mentaries prepared for the progressive group Center for American Progress, Hammon declined to look at the films but attacked the filmmaker. “We don’t

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

Unlawful Immigration High Despite Dip

Despite a dip beginning in 2007, an estimated 11.2 million unauthor- ized immigrants live in the United States, one-third more than a decade ago (top graph). An estimated 8 million are in the civilian labor force, a 45 percent increase since 2000 (bottom graph).

Source: Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010,” Pew Research Center, February 2011, pp. 1, 17, www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

(in millions)

Estimated U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, 2000-2010

8

10

12

20102009200820072006200520042003200220012000

(in millions)

Estimated Unauthorized Immigrants in U.S. Civilian Labor Force, 2000-2010

4

6

8

10

20102009200820072006200520042003200220012000

March 9, 2012 237www.cqresearcher.com

need an activist director from Califor- nia to come in here and tell us whether this law is good or not,” Ham- mon said. “The people in Alabama can see it for themselves.” 18

Nationally, immigration hawks view the new state laws as unexception- able. “They’re helping the feds to en- force immigration laws,” says Center for Immigration Studies executive di- rector Krikorian. “The question is [whether] local police use immigration laws as one of the tools in their tool kit to help defend public safety.”

“Every town is a border town, every state is a border state,” Krikorian continues. “Immigration law has to be part of your approach, part of your strategy in dealing with some kind of a significant problem.”

FAIR president Stein strongly objects to the Obama ad- ministration’s legal challenges to the state laws. “It should be a massive, indus- trial-strength issue that the Obama ad- ministration” has at- tacked the laws on grounds of federal pre-emption. But Giovagnoli with the pro-immigration American Immigration Council says the state laws should be struck down. “Congress has established that immigration enforcement is a fed- eral matter,” she says. “The more states get into the mix, the more you create a real patchwork of laws that don’t make sense together.”

As Krikorian notes, federal law al- ready provides for cooperative agree- ments between the federal government and state or local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws.

U.S. Immigration and Customs En- forcement (ICE), the successor agency to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, touts the so-called 287(g) pro- gram on its website as one of the agency’s “top partnership initiatives.” The program, authorized by an immigration law overhaul in 1996, permits the fed- eral agency to delegate enforcement power to state or local law enforce- ment after officers have received train- ing on federal immigration law. 19

Pro-immigration groups say the train- ing requirement distinguishes 287(g) programs from the broader roles being given state and local police by the new state laws. “State and local law enforcement officers are not trained to do this kind of work,” says Cox. “In- evitably, they’re going to rely on per- nicious stereotypes about what an un- documented immigrant looks like.” The result, Cox continues, “is a breakdown of trust between the immigrant com- munity and law enforcement, which ultimately affects all of us. It under- mines public safety.”

Alabama Republicans, however, in- sist that the state law fulfills a 2010 cam- paign pledge that helped the GOP gain control of both houses of the state leg- islature and that it remains popular de- spite the criticisms and legal challenges. “We’ve definitely been criticized,” party spokeswoman Kluck acknowledges, but she blames the criticisms on “misinfor- mation.” As for possible changes in the law, Hammon and other legislative leaders are guarding details until a bill

with proposed revisions can be completed by late March.

Should Congress make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens?

With many Republi- can primary and caucus voters viewing illegal im- migration as a major issue, presidential can- didate and former Mass- achusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says he has a simple solution: Get undocumented immi- grants to “self-deport” to their home countries and then get in the legal waiting line for U.S. cit- izenship. But one of his rivals for the Republi- can nomination, former

House speaker Newt Gingrich, push- ing stronger enforcement at the bor- der, mocks Romney’s belief that 11 mil- lion unlawful aliens will go back home voluntarily. Speaking to a Spanish- language television network in late January on the eve of the Florida pres- idential primary, Gingrich called Rom- ney’s plan “an Obama-level fantasy.” 20

Pro-immigration groups agree that Romney’s stance is unrealistic. “It’s a fantasy to think that people are going to self-deport,” says the National Immi- gration Forum’s Noorani. Unlike border- control advocates, however, Noorani and

Republican Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley addresses lawmakers at the state capitol on June 9, 2011, before signing the state’s new immigration law. Republican cosponsors of the law, Sen. Scott Beason (left), and state Rep. Micky Hammon (right), both oppose softening or repealing the law.

But state business interests want to ease provisions that threaten employers with severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers. They also worry about the perception of the law outside the state.

A P P h o to /M o n tg o m er y A d ve rt is er /M

ic k e y W

e ls h

238 CQ Researcher

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

other pro-immigration advocates and ex- perts say the solution is “a path to legal citizenship” for the undocumented.

“We need a functioning legal im- migration system, a system that has the necessary legal channels for a per- son to immigrate here whether for a job or his family,” Noorani says. “That doesn’t exist here.” Without “a solu- tion,” Noorani says, “the only ones who are winning are the crooked em- ployer who is more than happy to ex- ploit the undocumented, poor third- country worker.”

Immigration hawks quickly de- nounce any broad legalization pro- posal as an “amnesty” that they say is neither workable nor deserved. “All amnesties attract future immigration,” says the CIS’s Krikorian. “All amnesties reward lawbreakers.” As evidence, im- migration critics point to the broad amnesty granted under the 1986 im- migration act to some 3 million im- migrants — and its evident failure within a matter of years to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from across the country’s Southern borders.

As an alternative to broader pro- posals, pro-immigration groups are pushing narrower legislation that in its current form would grant conditional legal status to immigrants who came to the United States before age 16 and have lived in the United States for at least five years. The so-called DREAM Act — an acronym for the Develop- ment, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act — had majority support in both chambers of the Democratic- controlled Congress in 2010 but failed to get a Senate floor vote in the face of Republican opposition.

The DREAM Act starts with the as- sumption that immigrants who came to the United States as children have grown up as Americans and are in- nocent of any intentional immigra- tion violations. They would be eligi- ble for a conditional permanent residency and could then earn a five- year period of temporary residency

by completing two years in the U.S. military or two years in a four-year college or university.

“The intent of the DREAM Act is to provide legal status for individuals who are enlisting in our armed services or pursuing higher education,” says Noorani. “Whether they came here at age 5 or 15, I think we only stand to benefit.”

“It’s a good way to show that if you provide legal status to folks like this, the world is not going to fall apart,” says Giovagnoli with the American Im- migration Council. “In fact, the country would be better off if these people were in the system.”

Similar proposals have been intro- duced in Congress since 2001. Immi- gration hawks acknowledge the pro- posals’ appeal and argue over details. “The concept that people who have been here from childhood, that it might be prudent to legalize people in that position, is a plausible one,” says Krikorian. But, he adds, “As it exists, it is not a good piece of legislation.”

As one change, Krikorian says the eligibility age should be lowered, per- haps to age 10 or below. “The reason they pick 16 is it legalizes more,” he says. Paradoxically, Krikorian also says the bill is too narrow by allowing tem- porary residency only by joining the military or going to college. “What if you’re not college material?” he asks.

Krikorian also dismisses the idea of absolving those who arrived as young- sters of any responsibility for immigra- tion violations. “The parents . . . did know what they were doing,” he says. The bill needs to be changed, he says, “to en- sure that no parent would ever be able to benefit” under family-reunification rules.

Gingrich and some GOP lawmak- ers favor a narrower version of the DREAM Act that would extend legal status for serving in the military but not for going to college. Supporters oppose the narrower version. “If you read the bill carefully, it would actu- ally allow a fewer number of immi- grants to enlist in the military than the

original,” Noorani says. Krikorian also dismisses the alternative. He calls it “phony,” adding that it would help “only a few thousand people a year.”

The White House pushed hard for the bill in the Democratic-controlled Con- gress’s lame-duck session in December 2010 but fell short in the Senate. Obama continues to speak out for the bill, most prominently in his State of the Union address. “[I]f election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a compre- hensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new busi- nesses, defend this country,” Obama said near the end of the Jan. 24 speech. “Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.” 21

BACKGROUND Constant Ambivalence

T he United States is a nation of im-migrants that has been ambivalent toward immigration through most of its history. Immigrants are alternately cele- brated as the source of diversity and criticized as agents of disunity. Immi- grants were recruited to till the soil, build the cities and labor in the facto- ries, but often criticized for taking jobs from and lowering wages for the citi- zen workforce. The federal government reflected popular sentiment in restrict- ing immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century, only to draw later criticism for exclusionary policies. Today, the government is drawing criticism for liberalized policies adopted in the 1960s and for ineffective border enforcement from the 1980s on. 22

African slaves were the first source of immigrant labor in America, but Congress banned importation of slaves

Continued on p. 240

March 9, 2012 239www.cqresearcher.com

Chronology Before 1960 Congress establishes immigra- tion quotas.

1920s Quota Act (1921), Johnson-Reed Act (1924) establish national-origins quota system, favoring Northern European immigrants over those from Southern Europe, elsewhere.

1952 McCarran-Walter Act retains national- origins system but adds small quotas for some Asian countries.

•

1960sCongress opens door to immigration from out- side Europe.

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolishes national-origins quota system dating from 1920s; allows dramatic increase in immigration from Central and South America, Asia.

•

1980s-1990s Illegal immigration increases, becomes major public issue.

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act allows amnesty for many unlawful aliens, prohibits employers from employing undocumented workers; enforcement proves elusive.

1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act seeks to strengthen border security, streamline deportation proceedings; creates optional E-Verify system for employers to electronically check

immigration status of workers and job applicants.

•

2000-Present Illegal immigration increases; immigration reform falters in Congress; state laws to crack down on illegal immigration challenged in court.

2001 Al Qaeda 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil underscore national security threat from failure to track potential terror- ists entering United States (Sept. 11); USA Patriot Act gives immigration authorities more power to exclude suspected terrorists (Oct. 26).

2005-2006 Immigration reform measures fail in GOP-controlled Congress de- spite support from Republican President George W. Bush; Con- gress approves Secure Fence Act, to require double-layer fence on U.S.-Mexico border.

2007 Immigration reform measure dies in Senate; three motions to cut off debate fail (June 7). . . . Arizona legislature passes employer-sanc- tions law; companies threatened with loss of operating license for knowingly hiring undocumented aliens, required to use federal E- Verify system; signed into law by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano (July 2). . . . Unauthorized immi- grant population in United States peaks near 12 million.

2008 Democrat Barack Obama elected president after campaign with little attention to immigration issues (Nov. 4); Obama carries Hispanic vote by 2-1 margin.

2009 Obama endorses immigration re- form, but without specifics; issue takes back seat to economic re- covery, health care.

2010 Arizona enacts law (S.B. 1070) to crack down on illegal immigrants; measure requires police to check immigration status if suspect or detainee is reasonably believed to be unlawful alien; makes it a crime to fail to carry alien registra- tion papers; signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer (April 23); federal judge blocks parts of law (July 28). . . . DREAM Act to allow legal status for unlawful aliens who en- tered U.S. as minors approved by House of Representatives (Dec. 8) but fails in Senate: 55-41 vote is short of supermajority needed for passage (Dec. 18).

2011 Utah, Indiana, Georgia follow Arizona’s lead in giving state, local police immigration-enforcement powers (March, May). . . . Federal appeals court upholds injunction against parts of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 (April 11). . . . Supreme Court up- holds Arizona’s employer-sanctions law 5-3 (May 21). . . . Alabama enacts nation’s toughest state law on illegal immigrants, HB 56 (June 9). . . . Federal judge blocks some parts of HB 56, allows others to take effect (Sept. 28).

2012 Immigration is flashpoint for Repub- lican presidential candidates. . . . Obama urges passage of DREAM Act (Jan. 24). . . . Alabama, Georgia laws argued before U.S. appeals court (March 1). . . . Supreme Court to hear arguments on Arizona’s S.B. 1070 (April 25); ruling due by end of June.

240 CQ Researcher

in 1808. Otherwise, the United States maintained an open-door policy on immigration until the late 19th centu- ry. Europe’s mid-century agricultural crisis drove waves of German and Irish peasants to the United States in the

1840s and ’50s. Many were met by ethnic and anti-Catholic hostility, em- bodied in the first nativist political movement: the American or so-called Know-Nothing Party. The party carried one state in the 1856 presidential elec- tion and then faded from history.

Significant Chinese immigration began with the California Gold Rush of 1849 and increased with the post-Civil War push to complete the transcontinental railroad. Stark warnings of the “Yellow Peril” led to a series of restrictions at the federal level — most notably, the

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

Continued from p. 238

W hen journalist-turned-immigration rights activist Jose Antonio Vargas traveled to Alabama with a documentary filmmaker, he found a Birmingham restaurant patron

who strongly supported the state law cracking down on un- documented aliens. “Get your papers or get out,” the patron said.

“What if I told you I didn’t [have papers]?” Vargas is heard asking off camera. “Then you need you get your ass home then,” the patron rejoined. 1

Vargas says he is home — in Amer- ica, where he has lived since his Filip- ina mother sent him, at age 12, to live in California with his grandparents in 1993. “I’m an American without pa- pers,” says Vargas, who came out as an undocumented immigrant in dra- matic fashion in a 4,300-word memoir in The New York Times Magazine in June 2011. 2

In the story, Vargas recounts how he learned at age 16 that he was car- rying a fake green card when he ap- plied for a driver’s license. The DMV clerk let him go. Back home, Vargas confronted his grandfather, who ac- knowledged the forgery and told Var- gas not to tell anyone else.

For the next 14 years, Vargas kept his non-status secret from all but a handful of enablers as he completed high school and college and advanced rapidly from entry-level newspaper jobs to national-impact journalism at The Washington Post, Huffington Post and glossy magazines. His one attempt at legal status ended in crushing disappointment in 2002 when an immigration lawyer told him he would have to return to the Philippines and wait for 10 years to apply to come back.

Vargas was inspired to write about his life by the example of four undocumented students who walked from Miami to Washington, D.C., in 2010 to lobby for the DREAM Act, the status-legalizing proposal for immigrants who came to the Unit-

ed States as minors. Vargas’s story, published by The Times after The Washington Post decided not to, quickly went viral in old and new media alike.

In the eight months since, Vargas has founded and become the public face for a Web-based campaign, Define American

(www.defineamerican.org). “Define Amer- ican brings new voices into the immigra- tion conversation, shining a light on a grow- ing 21st century Underground Railroad: American citizens who are forced to fill in where our broken immigration system fails,” the mission statement reads. “Together, we are going to fix a broken system.”

The DREAM Act fell just short of pas- sage in Congress in December 2010 and has gotten little traction since. Broader pro- posals to give legal status to some of the 11 million unlawful aliens are far off the political radar screen. Vargas is critical of Alabama’s law cracking down on illegal immigration but acknowledges the states’ frustration with federal policies. “At the end of the day, the federal government hasn’t done anything on this issue,” he says.

In the meantime, Vargas waits. “There’s nothing worse than being in limbo,” he says. In the story, he cited some of the hardships for the undocumented. As one example, he cannot risk traveling to the Philippines, so he has yet to meet his 14-year-old brother. But Vargas says he has no plan to “self- deport.” “I love this country,” he says.

— Kenneth Jost

1 “The Two Faces of Alabama,” http://isthisalabama.org/. The films by director Chris Weitz were prepared under the auspices of the Center for American Progress. Some comments from Vargas are from a Feb. 15, 2012, screening of the videos at the center. 2 Jose Antonio Vargas, “Outlaw,” The New York Times Magazine, June 26, 2011, p. 22. Disclosure: the author is a professional acquaintance and Facebook friend of Vargas.

Journalist Reveals His Immigration Secret “There’s nothing worse than being in limbo.”

Journalist Jose Antonio Vargas disclosed in The New York Times in June 2011 that he

was an undocumented immigrant.

G e tt y I m a g e s/ Ju st in S u ll iv a n

March 9, 2012 241www.cqresearcher.com

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which suspended immigration of Chinese la- borers and barred citizenship for those already in the United States. Significantly for present-day debates, efforts to de- port those in the country or to seal the borders against new Chinese immigrants were no more than partly successful. 23

Congress laid the basis for present- day immigration law and policy in a se- ries of increasingly restrictive enactments from the 1890s through the early 1920s that coincided with the great waves of immigration from Europe, including re- gions previously unrepresented in the American polity. The Immigration Act of 1891 established the Bureau of Immi- gration, then under the Treasury De- partment, and provided for border in- spections and deportation of unlawful aliens. Additional laws prescribed ad- mission procedures, created categories of inadmissible immigrants and tightened the exclusion of immigrants from Asia.

The restrictive policies drew support from nativists worried about assimilation, pro-labor groups concerned about the impact on jobs and wages and progres- sive leaders fearful of the impact on the urban environment. The restrictions cul- minated in the passage of the first and second Quota Acts in 1921 and 1924, which established the first quantitative limitation on immigration (350,000, low- ered to 150,000) and a national-origins system that favored immigrants from North- ern and Western Europe. In reporting the bill in 1924, a House committee stat- ed: “If the principle of liberty . . . is to endure, the basic strain of our popula- tion must be preserved.” 24

The Quota Acts’ exception for West- ern Hemisphere immigrants combined with the unrest associated with the Mexican Revolution (1910-1929) to pro- duce what Stanford historian Albert Camarillo calls “a tsunami” in immigra- tion across the United States’ Southern border. Camarillo says 1.5 million Mex- icans — one-tenth of the country’s pop- ulation — relocated to the United States by the end of the 1930s. 25 The

influx fueled ethnic prejudice embod- ied in the derogatory term “wetback” to refer to the Mexican immigrants, most of whom actually entered by crossing arid regions rather than ford- ing the Rio Grande River.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the federal and state govern- ments — concerned about the impact on jobs for Anglo workers — sent tens of thousands of Mexicans back to their home country, sometimes with force and little regard for due process. Dur- ing World War II, however, the gov- ernment worked with Mexico to es- tablish the so-called bracero program to use temporary immigrant labor for agricultural work. The “temporary” pro- gram continued into the 1960s.

Congress liberalized immigration law with a 1952 statute that included re- strictionist elements as well and then, dramatically, with a 1965 law that scrapped the Eurocentric national-origins system and opened the gate to increased im- migration from Latin America and Asia.

The 1952 law preserved the national- origins system but replaced the Chinese Exclusion Act with very small quotas for countries in the so-called Asia-Pacific Triangle. The act also eliminated dis- crimination between sexes. Over the next decade, immigration from Euro- pean countries declined, seemingly weak- ening the rationale for the national- origins system. Against the backdrop of the civil rights revolution, the national- origins system seemed to many also to be antithetical to American values. The result was the Immigration Act of 1965, which replaced the national-origins sys- tem with a system of preferences fa- voring family reunification or to lesser extents admissions of professionals or skilled or unskilled workers needed in the U.S. workforce.

Quickly, the demographics of immi- gration shifted — and dramatically. Im- migration increased overall under the new law, and the new immigrants came most- ly from Latin America and Asia. By 1978, the peak year of the decade, 44 percent

of legal immigration came from the Americas, 42 percent from Asia and only 12 percent from Europe. 26

Cracking Down?

I mmigration to the United States in-creased overall in the last decades of the 20th century, and illegal immi- gration in particular exploded to levels that fueled a public and political back- lash. Congress and the executive branch tried to stem the flow of undocument- ed aliens first in 1986 by combining employer sanctions with an amnesty for those in the country for several years and then a decade later by increasing enforcement and deportations.

Then, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress and President George W. Bush joined in further efforts to tight- en admission procedures and crack down on foreigners in the country without authorization.

Estimates of the number of immi- grants in the United States illegally are inherently imprecise, but the general up- ward trend from the 1980s until a plateau in the 2000s is undisputed. As Congress took up immigration bills in the mid-1980s, the Census Bureau esti- mated the number of those undocu- mented at 3 million to 5 million; many politicians used higher figures. The for- mer Immigration and Naturalization Ser- vice put the number at 3.5 million in 1990 and 7.0 million a decade later. Whatever the precise number, public opinion polls registered increasing con- cern about the overall level of immi- gration. By the mid-1990s, Gallup polls found roughly two-thirds of respondents in favor of decreasing the level of immi- gration, one-fourth in favor of maintain- ing the then-present level and fewer than 10 percent for an increase. 27

The congressional proposals lead- ing to the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 sought to stem il- legal immigration while recognizing the

242 CQ Researcher

reality of millions of undocumented im- migrants and the continuing need for immigrant labor, especially in U.S. agri- culture. The law allowed legal status for immigrants in the country continuously since 1982 but aimed to deter unau- thorized immigration in the future by forcing employers to verify the status of prospective hires and penalizing them for hiring anyone without legal status. Agricultural interests, however, won ap- proval of a new guest worker program. Some 3 million peo- ple gained legal sta- tus under the two provisions, but ille- gal immigration con- tinued to increase even as civil rights groups warned that the employer sanc- tions would result in discrimination against Latino citizens.

The backlash against illegal immi- gration produced a new strategy for re- ducing the inflows: state and federal laws cutting off benefits for aliens in the coun- try without autho- rization. California, home to an estimat- ed 1.3 million un- documented aliens at the time, blazed the path in 1994 with passage of a ballot measure, Proposi- tion 187, that barred any government benefits to illegal aliens, including health care and public schooling. The educa- tion provision was flatly unconstitution- al under a 1982 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that guaranteed K-12 ed- ucation for school-age alien children. 28

The measure mobilized Latino voters in the state. They contributed to the elec- tion of a Democratic governor in 1998, Gray Davis, who dropped the state’s de- fense of the measure in court in his first year in office. In the meantime, how-

ever, Congress in 1996 had approved provisions — reluctantly signed into law by President Bill Clinton — to deny unauthorized aliens most federal bene- fits, including food stamps, family assis- tance and Social Security. The law al- lows states to deny state-provided benefits as well; today, at least a dozen states have enacted such further restrictions.

The centerpieces of the 1996 immi- gration law, however, were measures to beef up enforcement and toughen de-

portation policy. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act authorized more money for the Border Patrol and INS, approved more funding for a 14-mile border fence already under construction and increased penalties for document fraud and alien smuggling. It sought to streamline deportation pro- ceedings, limit appeals and bar re-entry of any deportee for at least five years. And it established an Internet-based em- ployer verification system (E-Verify) aimed at making it easier and more reliable for employers to check legal status of prospec- tive hires. The law proved to be tougher

on paper, however, than in practice. The border fence remains incomplete, de- portation proceedings backlogged and E-Verify optional and — according to critics — unreliable. And illegal immi- gration continued to increase.

The 9/11 attacks added homeland security to the concerns raised by the nation’s porous immigration system. In post-mortems by immigration hawks, the Al Qaeda hijackers were seen as having gained entry into the United

States with minimal scrutiny of their visa ap- plications and in many cases having overstayed because of inadequate follow-up. 29 The so- called USA Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001 just 45 days after the attacks, gave the INS — later renamed the U.S. Citizenship and Immi- gration Service and trans- ferred to the new De- partment of Homeland Security — greater au- thority to exclude or de- tain foreigners suspect- ed of ties to terrorist organizations. The act also mandated information- sharing by the FBI to identify aliens with crim- inal records. Along with other counterterrorism

measures, the act is viewed by sup- porters today as having helped prevent any successful attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. Illegal immigration, however, con- tinued to increase — peaking at rough- ly 12 million in 2007.

Getting Tough

C ongress and the White Housemoved from post-9/11 security is- sues to broader questions of immi- gration policy during Bush’s second term, but bipartisan efforts to allow

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

A Maricopa County deputy arrests a woman following a sweep for illegal immigrants in Phoenix on July 29, 2010. The police operation

came after protesters against Arizona’s tough immigration law clashed with police hours after the law went into effect. Although the most

controversial parts of the law have been blocked, five other states — Utah, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina — last year

enacted similar laws.

A F P /G

e tt y I m a g e s/ M a rk R a ls to n

March 9, 2012 243www.cqresearcher.com

legal status for unlawful aliens fell vic- tim to Republican opposition in the Sen- ate. As a presidential candidate, Demo- crat Obama carried the Hispanic vote by a 2-1 margin over Republican John McCain after a campaign with limited attention to immigration issues. In the White House, Obama stepped up en- forcement in some respects even as he urged Congress to back broad reform measures. The reform proposals failed with Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate and hardly got started after Republicans regained con- trol of the House in the 2010 elections.

Bush lent support to bipartisan re- form efforts in the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 and 2006 and again in the Democratic-controlled Congress in his final two years in office. Con- gress in 2006 could agree only on au- thorizing a 700-mile border fence after reaching an impasse over a House- passed enforcement measure and a Senate-approved path-to-citizenship bill. Bush redoubled efforts in 2007 by back- ing a massive, bipartisan bill that would have allowed “earned citizen- ship” for aliens who had lived in the United States for at least eight years and met other requirements. As in the previous Congress, many Republicans rejected the proposal as an unaccept- able amnesty. The bill died on June 7 after the Senate rejected three cloture motions to cut off debate. 30

Immigration played only a minor role in the 2008 presidential campaign between Obama and McCain, Senate colleagues who had both supported reform proposals. Both campaigns re- sponded to growing public anger over illegal immigration by emphasizing en- forcement when discussing the issue, but the subject went unmentioned in the candidates’ three televised debates. McCain, once popular with Hispanics in his home state of Arizona, ap- peared to have paid at the polls for the GOP’s hard line on immigration. Exit polls indicated that Obama won 67 percent of a record-size Hispanic

vote; McCain got 31 percent — a sig- nificant drop from Bush’s 39 percent share of the vote in 2004. 31

With Obama in office, Congress remained gridlocked even as the pres- ident tried to smooth the way for reform measures by stepping up en- forcement. The congressional grid- lock had already invited state law- makers to step into the vacuum. State legislatures passed more than 200 immigration-related laws in 2007 and 2008, according to a compila- tion by the National Conference on State Legislatures; the number soared to more than 300 annually for the next three years. 32

The numbers included some reso- lutions praising the country’s multi- ethnic heritage, but most of the new state laws sought to tighten enforce- ment against undocumented aliens or to limit benefits to them. Among the earliest of the new laws was an Ari- zona measure — enacted in June 2007, two weeks after the Senate impasse in Washington — that provided for lifting the business licenses of com- panies that knowingly hired illegal aliens and mandated use of the fed- eral E-Verify program to ascertain sta- tus of prospective hires. Business and labor groups, supported by the Obama administration, challenged the law on federal preemption grounds. The Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision in May 2011 to uphold the law prompted sev- eral states to enact similar mandatory E-Verify provisions. 33

The interplay on immigration poli- cy between Washington and state cap- itals is continuing. In Obama’s first three years in office, the total number of removals increased to what ICE calls on its website “record levels.” Even so, Arizona lawmakers and officials criticized federal enforcement as in- adequate in the legislative debate lead- ing to SB 1070’s enactment in April 2010. Legal challenges followed quick- ly — first from a Latino organization; then from a broad coalition of civil

rights and civil liberties groups; and then, on July 6, from the Justice De- partment. The most controversial parts of the law have been blocked, first by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton’s injunction later that month and then by the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming her decision in April 2011. The legal chal- lenges did not stop five other states — Utah, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina — from enacting simi- lar laws in spring and early summer 2011. Civil rights groups and the Justice Department followed with similar suits challenging the new state enactments.

As the 2012 presidential campaign got under way, immigration emerged as an issue between Republican can- didates vying for the party’s nomina- tion. The issue posed difficulties for the GOP hopefuls as they sought to ap- peal to rank-and-file GOP voters upset about illegal immigration without for- feiting Latino votes in the primary sea- son and in the general election. Pre- sumed front-runner Mitt Romney took a hard stance against illegal immigra- tion in early contests but softened his message in advance of winning the pivotal Jan. 31 primary in Florida with its substantial Hispanic vote.

Despite differences in details and in rhetoric, the three leading GOP candidates — Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — all said they opposed the DREAM Act in its pre- sent form even as Obama called for Congress to pass the bill in his State of the Union speech.

CURRENT SITUATION

Obama’s Approach

T he Obama administration is claim-ing success in increasing border

244 CQ Researcher

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

enforcement and removing unlawful aliens while injecting more prosecu- torial discretion into deportation cases. But the mix of firm and flexible poli- cies is resulting in criticism from both sides of the issue.

U.S. Immigration and Customs En- forcement (ICE) counted a record 396,906 “removals” during fiscal 2011, including court-ordered deportations as well as administrative or voluntary removals or returns. The number in- cludes a record 216,698 aliens with criminal convictions. 34

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secre- tary Janet Napolitano says illegal border- crossing attempts have decreased by more than half in the last three years. In a Jan. 30 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, Napolitano linked the decline to an increase in the num- ber of Border Patrol agents to 21,000, which she said was more than double the number in 2004.

“The Obama administration has un- dertaken the most serious and sus- tained actions to secure our borders in our nation’s history,” Napolitano told journalists. “And it is clear from every measure we currently have that this approach is working.” 35

Immigration hawk Krikorian with the Center for Immigration Studies gives the administration some, but only some, credit for the removal statistics. “They’re not making up the numbers,” Krikorian says. But he notes that immigration removals increased during the Bush administration and that the rate of in- crease has slowed under Obama.

In addition, Krikorian notes that new figures compiled by a government in- formation tracking service indicate the pace of new immigration cases and of court-processed deportations slowed in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 (Octo- ber, November and December 2011). A report in early February by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Ac- cess Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows 34,362 court-ordered removals or “voluntary departures” in the period, compared to

35,771 in the previous three months — about a 4 percent drop.

A separate TRAC report later in the month showed what the service called a “sharp decline” in new ICE filings. ICE initiated 39,331 new deportation proceedings in the nation’s 50 immi- gration courts during the first quarter of fiscal 2012, according to the report, a 33 percent decline from the 58,639 new filings in the previous quarter. 36

“The people in this administration would like to pull the plug on en- forcement altogether,” Krikorian com- plains. “They refuse to ask for more money for detention beds and then plead poverty that they can’t do more.”

From the opposite perspective, some Latino officials and organizations have been critical of the pace of de- portations. When Obama delivered a speech in favor of immigration reform in El Paso, Texas, in May 2011, the president of the National Council of La Raza tempered praise for the pres- ident’s position with criticism of the deportation policy.

“As record levels of detention and deportation continue to soar, families are torn apart, innocent youth are being deported and children are left behind without the protection of their parents,” Janet Murguía said in a May 10 press release. “Such policies do not reflect American values and do little to solve the problem. We can do better.” 37

Latinos disapprove of the Obama administration’s handling of deporta- tions by roughly a 2-1 margin, according to a poll by the Pew Hispanic Center in December 2011. Overall, the poll found 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the administration’s policy while 27 percent approved. Disapproval was higher among foreign-born Latinos (70 percent) than those born in the United States (46 percent). 38

Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton are both claiming credit for focusing the agency’s enforcement on the most serious cases, including criminal aliens, repeat violators and

recent border crossers. Morton an- nounced the new “prosecutorial dis- cretion” policy in an agency-wide di- rective in June 2011. 39

TRAC, however, questions the claimed emphasis on criminal aliens. The 39,331 new deportation filings in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 includ- ed only 1,300 against aliens with con- victions for “aggravated felonies,” as defined in immigration law. “Even this small share was down from previous quarters,” the Feb. 21 report states. Aliens with aggravated felony convic- tions accounted for 3.3 percent of de- portations in the period, compared to 3.8 percent in the previous quarter. 40

The administration is also being questioned on its claim — in Obama’s El Paso speech and elsewhere — to have virtually completed the border fence that Congress ordered con- structed in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. 41 The act called for the 652- mile barrier to be constructed of two layers of reinforced fencing but was amended the next year — with Bush still in office — to give the adminis- tration more discretion in what type of barriers to use.

As of May 2011, the barrier included only 36 miles of double-layer fencing, according to PolitiFact, the fact-checking service of the Tampa Bay Times. The rest is single-layer fencing or vehicle barriers that critic Krikorian says are so low that a pedestrian can step over them. PolitiFact calls Obama’s claim “mostly false.” 42

Meanwhile, the administration is preparing to extend nationwide its con- troversial “Secure Communities” program, which tries to spot immigration law vi- olators by matching fingerprints of local arrestees with the database of the De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS). A match allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to issue a so-called detainer against violators, sending their cases into the immigration enforcement system. The administration

Continued on p. 246

no

March 9, 2012 245www.cqresearcher.com

At Issue: Should Congress pass the DREAM Act?yes

yes WALTER A. EWING SENIOR RESEARCHER, IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, MARCH 2012

t he Development, Relief and Education for Alien MinorsAct is rooted in common sense. To begin with, it wouldbenefit a group of unauthorized young people who, in most cases, did not come to this country of their own accord. Rather, they were brought here by their parents. The DREAM Act would also enable its beneficiaries to achieve higher levels of education and obtain better, higher-paying jobs, which would increase their contributions to the U.S. economy and American society. In short, the DREAM Act represents basic fairness and enlightened self-interest.

More than 2 million young people would benefit from the DREAM Act, and their numbers grow by roughly 65,000 per year. They came to the United States before age 18, many as young children. They tend to be culturally American and flu- ent in English. Their primary ties are to this country, not the countries of their birth. And the majority had no say in the decision to come to this country without authorization — that decision was made by the adult members of their families. Punishing these young people for the actions of their parents runs counter to American social values and legal norms. Yet, without the DREAM Act, these young people will be forced to live on the margins of U.S. society or will be deported to countries they may not even know.

Assuming they aren’t deported, the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act face enormous barriers to higher education and professional jobs because of their unau- thorized status. They are ineligible for most forms of college financial aid and cannot work legally in this country. The DREAM Act would remove these barriers, which would benefit the U.S. economy.

The College Board estimates that over the course of a working lifetime, a college graduate earns 60 percent more than a high school graduate. This higher income translates into extra tax revenue flowing to federal, state and local gov- ernments.

The DREAM Act is in the best interest of the United States both socially and economically. It would resolve the legal sta- tus of millions of unauthorized young people in a way that is consistent with core American values. And it would empower these young people to become better-educated, higher-earning workers and taxpayers. Every day that goes by without pas- sage of the DREAM Act is another day of wasted talent and potential.no

MARK KRIKORIAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, MARCH 2012

t he appeal of the DREAM Act is obvious. People broughthere illegally at a very young age and who have grownup in the United States are the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. Much of the public is open to the idea of amnesty for them.

But the actual DREAM Act before Congress is a deeply flawed measure in at least four ways:

• Rather than limiting amnesty to those brought here as infants and toddlers, it applies to illegal immigrants who ar- rived before their 16th birthday. But if the argument is that their very identity was formed here, age 7 would be a more sensible cutoff. That is recognized as a turning point in a child’s psychological development (called the “age of reason” by the Catholic Church, hence the traditional age for First Communion). Such a lower-age cutoff, combined with a re- quirement of at least 10 years’ residence here, would make a hypothetical DREAM Act 2.0 much more defensible.

• All amnesties are vulnerable to fraud, even more than other immigration benefits. About one-fourth of the beneficia- ries of the amnesty granted by Congress in 1986 were liars, including one of the leaders of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. But the DREAM Act specifically prohibits the prose- cution of anyone who lies on an amnesty application. So you can make any false claim you like about your arrival or schooling in America without fear of punishment. A DREAM Act 2.0 would make clear that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.

• All amnesties send a signal to prospective illegal immi- grants that, if you get in and keep your head down, you might benefit from the next amnesty. But the bill contains no enforcement provisions to limit the need for another DREAM Act a decade from now. That’s why a serious proposal would include measures such as electronic verification of the legal status of all new hires, plus explicit authorization for state and local enforcement of immigration law.

• Finally, all amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case including the adults who brought their children here ille- gally. A credible DREAM Act 2.0 would bar the adult relatives of the beneficiaries from ever receiving any immigration status or even a right to visit the United States. If those who came as children are not responsible, then those who are responsible must pay the price for their lawbreaking.

246 CQ Researcher

touts the program as “a simple and com- mon sense” enforcement tool. Critics note, however, that it has resulted in wrongful detention of U.S. citizens in a considerable but unknown number of cases. One reason for the mistakes: The DHS database includes all immigration transactions, not just violations, and thus could show a match for an immigrant with legal status. 43

Supreme Court Action

A ll eyes are on the Supreme Courtas the justices prepare for argu- ments on April 25 in Arizona’s effort to reinstate major parts of its trend-setting law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

The Arizona case is the furthest advanced of suits challenging the six recently enacted state laws that give state and local police responsibility for enforcing federal immigration laws. After winning an injunction blocking major parts of the Arizona law, the Obama administration filed similar suits against Alabama’s HB 56 as well as the Georgia and South Carolina measures.

The ACLU’s Immigrants Rights Pro- ject, along with Hispanic and other civil rights groups, has filed separate challenges on broader grounds against all six laws. Federal district courts have blocked parts of all the laws, though some contentious parts of Alabama’s law were allowed to take effect.

District court judges in the Indiana, South Carolina and Utah cases put the litigation on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case. Alabama and Georgia asked the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to postpone the scheduled March 1 arguments in their cases, but the court declined.

Judge Charles R. Wilson opened the Atlanta-based court’s March 1 session, however, by announcing that the three- judge panel had decided to withhold

its opinion until after the Supreme Court decides the Arizona case. “Hopefully, that information will help you in fram- ing your arguments today,” Wilson told the assembled lawyers. 44

Wilson and fellow Democratic- appointed Circuit Judge Beverly B. Mar- tin dominated the questioning during the three hours of arguments in the cases. Both judges pressed lawyers de- fending Alabama and Georgia on the effects of their laws on the education of children, the ability of illegal aliens to carry on with their lives while im- migration courts decided their cases and what would happen if every state adopted their approach to dealing with immigration violations. The third member of the panel, Richard Voorhees, a Republican-appointed federal district court judge, asked only three ques- tions on technical issues.

Opening the government’s argu- ment in the Alabama case, Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Beth Brinkmann said the state’s law attempts to usurp exclusive federal authority over immigration. “The regulation of immigration is a matter vested exclu- sively in the national government,” Brinkman said. “Alabama’s state-specific regulation scheme violates that au- thority. It attacks every aspect of an alien’s life and makes it impossible for the alien to live.”

Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman Jr. drew sharp challenges from Wilson and Martin even before he began his argument. Wilson focused on the law’s Section 10, which makes it a crim- inal misdemeanor for an alien unlaw- fully present in the United States to fail to carry alien registration papers.

“You could be convicted and sent to jail in Alabama even though the Department of Homeland Security says, ‘You’re an illegal alien, but we’ve de- cided you’re going to remain here in the United States?’ ” Wilson asked.

Neiman conceded the point. “If the deportation hearing occurred after the violation of Section 10, then yes,”

Neiman said. “Someone could be held to be in violation of Section 10 and then later be held not removable.”

Wilson also pressed Neiman on the potential effects on the federal gov- ernment’s ability to control immigra- tion policy if states enacted laws with different levels of severity. “These laws could certainly have the effect of mak- ing certain states places where illegal aliens would be likely to go,” the state’s attorney acknowledged.

Representing the ACLU in the sepa- rate challenge, Immigrants Rights Project director Wang sharply attacked the mo- tive behind the Alabama law. The law, she said, was written to carry out the legislature’s stated objective “to attack every aspect of an illegal immigrant’s life so that they will deport themselves.” *

In Washington, lawyers for Arizona filed their brief with the Supreme Court defending its law, SB 1070, in early February. Among 20 amicus briefs filed in support of Arizona’s case is one drafted by the Michigan attorney general’s office on behalf of 16 states similarly defending the states’ right to help enforce federal immigration law. A similar brief was filed by nine states in the Eleventh Circuit in support of the Alabama law.

The government’s brief in the Arizona case is due March 19. Following the April 25 arguments, the Supreme Court is expected to decide the case before the current term ends in late June.

Meanwhile, legal challenges to other parts of the state’s law are continuing in federal court in Arizona. In a Feb. 29 ruling, Bolton blocked on First Amendment grounds a provision pro- hibiting people from blocking traffic when they offer day labor services on the street. 45

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

Continued from p. 244

* The appeals court on March 8 issued a tem- porary injunction blocking enforcement of two provisions, those prohibiting unlawful aliens from enforcing contracts in court or entering into business transactions with state or local government agencies.

March 9, 2012 247www.cqresearcher.com

OUTLOOK A Broken System

T he immigration system is broken.On that much, the pro- and low- immigration groups agree. But they disagree sharply on how to fix it. And the divide defeats any attempts to fix it even if it can be fixed.

Pro-immigration groups like to talk about the “three-legged stool” of immi- gration reform: legal channels for fam- ily- and job-based immigration; a path to citizenship for unlawful aliens already in the United States; and better border security. Low-immigration groups agree on the need for better border controls but want to make it harder, not easier, for would-be immigrants and generally oppose legal status for the near-record number of unlawful aliens.

Public opinion is ambivalent and conflicted on immigration issues even as immigration, legal and illegal, has reached record levels. The nearly 14 mil- lion new immigrants, legal and illegal, who came to the United States from 2000 to 2010 made that decade the highest ever in U.S. history, according to the low-immigration Center for Im- migration Studies. The foreign-born population reached 40 million, the cen- ter says, also a record. 46

Some public opinion polls find sup- port for legal status for illegal immi- grants, especially if the survey questions specify conditions to meet: 66 percent supported it, for example, in a Fox News poll in early December 2011. Three weeks earlier, however, a CNN poll found majority support (55 percent) for con- centrating on “stopping the flow of il- legal immigrants and deporting those already here” instead of developing a plan for legal residency (42 percent). 47

Other polls appear consistently to find support for the laws in Arizona and other states to crack down on illegal immi-

grants — most recently by a 2-1 mar- gin in a poll by Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. 48 “Popular sentiment is always against immigration,” says Muzaf- far Chishti, director of the Migration Pol- icy Institute’s office at New York Uni- versity School of Law and himself a naturalized U.S. citizen who emigrated from his native India in 1974.

Pro-immigration groups say the pub- lic is ahead of the politicians in Wash- ington and state capitals who are pushing for stricter laws. State legisla- tors “have chosen to scapegoat immi- gration instead of solving tough eco- nomic challenges,” says Noorani with the National Immigration Forum. “There are politicians who would rather treat this as a political hot potato,” he adds, instead of offering “practical solutions.”

From the opposite side, the Feder- ation for American Immigration Reform’s Stein says he is “pessimistic, disap- pointed and puzzled” by what he calls “the short-sighted views” of political leaders. Earlier, Stein says, “politicians all over the country were touting the virtues of engagement in immigration policy.” But now he complains that even Republicans are talking about “amnesty and the DREAM Act,” instead of criticizing what he calls the Obama administration’s “elimination of any im- migration enforcement.”

Enforcement, however, is one com- ponent of the system that, if not bro- ken, is at least completely overwhelmed. In explaining the new prosecutorial dis- cretion policy, ICE director Morton frankly acknowledged the agency “has limited resources to remove those ille- gally in the United States.” 49 The na- tion’s immigrant courts have a current backlog of 300,225 cases, according to a TRAC compilation, double the num- ber in 2001. 50

Employers’ groups say the system’s rules for hiring immigrants are prob- lematic at best. In Alabama, Reed with the contractors’ group says employers do their best to comply with the status- verification requirements but find the pro-

cedures and paperwork difficult. The farm federation’s Helms says the same for the rules for temporary guest work- ers. “We’re working at the national level to have a more effective way to hire legal migrant workers to do those jobs that it’s hard to find local workers to do,” he says.

The rulings by the Supreme Court on the Arizona law will clarify the lines between federal and state enforcement responsibilities, but the Center for Im- migration Studies’ Krikorian says the de- cision is likely to increase the politi- cization of the issue. A ruling to uphold the law will encourage other states to follow Arizona’s lead, he says, but would also “energize the anti-enforcement groups.” A ruling to find the state laws pre-empted, on the other hand, will mo- bilize pro-enforcement groups, he says.

The political and legal debates will be conducted against the backdrop of the nation’s rapidly growing Hispanic population, attributable more to birth rates than to immigration. 51 “Whoever the next president is, whoever the next Congress is, will have to address this issue,” says Giovagnoli with the Amer- ican Immigration Council. “The demo- graphics are not going to allow people to ignore this issue.

“I do believe we’re going to reform the immigration system,” Giovagnoli adds “It’s going to be a lot of work. Even under the best of circumstances, it’s a lot of work.”

Notes 1 Quoted in Kim Chandler, “Alabama House passes Arizona-style immigration bill,” The Birmingham News, April 6, 2011, p. 1A. 2 The case is Arizona v. United States, 11-182. Background and legal filings compiled on SCOTUSblog, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ cases/arizona-v-united-states/?wpmp_switch- er=desktop.- 3 See Human Rights Watch, “No Way to Live: Alabama’s Immigration Law,” December 2011, www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/13/usalabama-no- way-live-under-immigrant-law.

248 CQ Researcher

4 Quoted in David White, “Hundreds rally at State House seeking immigration law repeal,” The Birmingham News, Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1A. 5 See “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: State and National Trends, 2010,” Pew Hispanic Center, Feb. 1, 2011, pp. 23, 24, www.pew hispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf. The U.S. De- partment of Homeland Security estimates differ slightly; for 2010, it estimates nationwide unau- thorized immigrant population at 10.8 million. 6 For previous CQ Researcher coverage, see: Alan Greenblatt, “Immigration Debate,” pp. 97- 120, updated Dec. 10, 2011; Reed Karaim, “Amer- ica’s Border Fence,” Sept. 19, 2008, pp. 745-768; Peter Katel, “Illegal Immigration,” May 6, 2005, pp. 393-420; David Masci, “Debate Over Immi- gration,” July 14, 2000, pp. 569-592; Kenneth Jost, “Cracking Down on Immigration,” Feb. 3, 1995. 7 Quoted in David White, “Illegal immigration bill passes,” The Birmingham News, June 3, 2011, p. 1A. 8 See Dana Beyerle, “Study says immigration law has economic costs,” Tuscaloosa News, Jan. 31, 2012, www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/ 20120131/news/120139966. For Beason’s state- ment, see http://scottbeason.com/2012/ 01/26/beason-statement-on-the-impact-of-hb- 56-on-alabama-unemployment-rate/. 9 Samuel Addy, “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Alabama Immigration Law,” Center for Business and Economic Research, Cul- verhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Alabama, Janu- ary 2012, http://cber.cba.ua.edu/New%20AL%20 Immigration%20Law%20-%20Costs%20and%20 Benefits.pdf; Hammon quoted in Brian Lyman, “Studies, surveys examine immigration law’s im- pact,” The Montgomery Advertiser, Feb. 1, 2012. 10 See Alan Gomez, “Immigrants return to Alabama,” USA Today, Feb. 22, 2012, p. 3A; Jay Reeves, “Immigrants trickling back to Ala despite crackdown,” The Associated Press, Feb. 19, 2012.

11 The decision in United States v. Alabama, 2:11-CV-2746-SLB, U.S.D.C.-N.D.Ala. (Sept. 28, 2011), is available via The New York Times: http:// graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/ 112746memopnentered.pdf. For coverage, see Brian Lyman, “Judge allows key part of immi- gration law to go into effect,” The Montgomery Advertiser, Sept. 29, 2011; Brian Lawson, “Judge halts part of immigration law,” The Birming- ham News, Sept. 29, 2011, p. 1A. The Alaba- ma Office of the Attorney General has a chronology of the legal proceedings: www.ago. state.al.us/Page-Immigration-Litigation-Federal. 12 Quoted in Eric Velasco, “Immigration law draws praise, scorn,” The Birmingham News, June 10, 2011, p. 1A. 13 Steven A. Camarota, “A Need for More Im- migrant Workers?,” Center for Immigration Studies, June 2011, http://cis.org/no-need-for- more-immigrant-workers-q1-2011. 14 “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments,” Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 6, 2007, p. 3, /www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftp docs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf. 15 David Gerber, American Immigration: A Very Short Introduction (2011). 16 Quoted in Velasco, op. cit. 17 Quoted in White, op. cit. Hammon’s of- fice did not respond to several CQ Researcher requests for an interview. 18 “Alabama’s Illegal Immigration Law Gets Hollywood’s Attention,” WAKA/CBS8, Mont- gomery, Feb. 21, 2012, www.waka.com/home/ top-stories/Alabamas-Illegal-Immigration- Law-Gets-Attention-From-Hollywood-139937 153.html. The four separate videos by Chris Weitz, collectively titled “Is This Alabama?” are on an eponymous website: http://isthis alabama.org/. 19 See “Delegation of Immigration Authority 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act,” www. ice.gov/287g/ (visited February 2012).

20 See Sandhya Somashekhar and Amy Gard- ner, “Immigration is flash point in Fla. Primary,” The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2012, p. A6. 21 Text available on the White House website: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/ 24/remarks-president-state-union-address. 22 General background drawn from Gerber, op. cit.; Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis (2004). Some country-by-country background drawn from Mary C. Waters and Reed Ueda (eds.), The New Americans: A Guide to Immi- gration Since 1965 (2007). 23 Roger Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882 (2004), pp. 19-22. 24 Quoted in Graham, op. cit., p. 51. 25 Albert M. Camarillo, “Mexico,” in Waters and Ueda, op. cit., p. 506. 26 Figures from INS Statistical Yearbook, 1978, cited in Daniels, op. cit., p 138. 27 Polls cited in Daniels, op. cit., p. 233. 28 See Plyler v. Doe, 452 U.S. 202 (1982). 29 See Graham, op. cit., Chap. 17, and sources cited therein. 30 “Immigration Rewrite Dies in Senate,” CQ Almanac 2007, pp. 15-9 — 15-11, http://library. cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal07-1006-44907-20 47763. 31 See Julia Preston, “Immigration Cools as Campaign Issue,” The New York Times, Oct. 29, 2008, p. A20, www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/ us/politics/29immig.html; Mark Hugo Lopez, “How Hispanics Voted in the 2008 Election,” Pew Hispanic Research Center, Nov. 5, 2008, updated Nov. 7, 2008, http://pewresearch. org/pubs/1024/exit-poll-analysis-hispanics. 32 “Immigration Policy Report: 2011 Immigration- Related Laws and Resolutions in the States (Jan. 1- Dec. 7, 2011),” National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org/issues-research/ immigration/state-immigration-legislation- report-dec-2011.aspx. 33 The decision is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. — (2011). For coverage, see Kenneth Jost, Supreme Court Yearbook 2010-2011, http://library.cqpress.com/scyb/ document.php?id=scyb10-1270-72832-2397001 &type=hitlist&num=0. 34 See “ICE Removals, Fiscal Years 2007-2011,” in Mark Hugo Lopez, et al., “As Deportations Rise to Record Levels, Most Latinos Oppose Obama’s Policy,” Pew Hispanic Center, Dec. 28, 2011, p. 33, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/21 58/latinos-hispanics-immigration-policy-depor tations-george-bush-barack-obama-administration- democrats-republicans. The report notes that

IMMIGRATION CONFLICT

About the Author Associate Editor Kenneth Jost graduated from Harvard College and Georgetown University Law Center. He is the author of the Supreme Court Yearbook and editor of The Supreme Court from A to Z (both CQ Press). He was a mem- ber of the CQ Researcher team that won the American Bar Association’s 2002 Silver Gavel Award. His previous reports include “States and Federalism” and “Bilingual Education vs. English Immersion.” He is also author of the blog Jost on Justice (http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com).

March 9, 2012 249www.cqresearcher.com

ICE’s statistics differ somewhat from those re- leased by DHS, its parent department. 35 “Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s 2nd Annual Address on the State of America’s Homeland Security: Homeland Security and Economic Security,” Jan. 30, 2012, www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/napolitano-state- of-america-homeland-security.shtm. 36 “Share of Immigration Cases Ending in De- portation Orders Hits Record Low,” TRAC Re- ports, Feb. 7, 2012, http://trac.syr.edu/immi gration/reports/272/; “Sharp Decline in ICE Deportation Filings,” Feb. 21, 2012, http://trac. syr.edu/immigration/reports/274/. For coverage, see Paloma Esquivel, “Number of deportation cases down by a third,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 24, 2012, p. AA2, http://articles.latimes. com/2012/feb/24/local/la-me-deportation- drop-20120224. 37 Text of La Raza statement, www.nclr.org/ index.php/about_us/news/news_releases/janet_ murgua_president_and_ceo_of_nclr_responds_ to_president_obamas_speech_in_el_paso_texas/. For coverage of the president’s speech, see Milan Simonich, “In El Paso, President Obama renews national immigration debate, argues humane policy would aid national economy,” El Paso Times, May 11, 2011. 38 Lopez, op. cit., p. 16. 39 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Memorandum, June 17, 2011, www.ice.gov/doc lib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial- discretion-memo.pdf. For coverage, see Susan Carroll, “ICE memo urges more discretion in immigration changes,” Houston Chronicle, June 21, 2011, p. A3. 40 “Sharp Decline,” op. cit. 41 For background, see Reed Karaim, “Amer- ica’s Border Fence,” CQ Researcher, Sept. 19, 2008, pp. 745-768. 42 “Obama says the border fence is ‘now ba- sically complete,’ ” PolitiFact, www.politifact. com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/ barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now- basically-complete/. The original rating of “partly true” was changed to “mostly false” on July 27, 2011. 43 See “Secure Communities,” on the ICE web- site: www.ice.gov/secure_communities/; Julia Preston, “Immigration Crackdown Snares Amer- icans,” The New York Times, Dec. 14, 2011, p. A20, www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/mea sures-to-capture-illegal-aliens-nab-citizens.html? pagewanted=all. 44 Coverage of the hearing by contributing writer Don Plummer. For additional coverage, see Brian Lawson, “11th Circuit won’t rule on

Alabama/Georgia laws until after Supreme Court rules on Arizona,” The Huntsville Times, March 2, 2012; Jeremy Redmon, “Court to rule later on Georgia, Alabama anti-illegal immigrant laws,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 2, 2012. 45 See Jacques Billeaud, “Judge blocks day labor rules in AZ immigration law,” The As- sociated Press, March 1, 2012. 46 Steven A. Camarota, “A Record-Setting Decade of Immigration, 2000-2010,” Center for Immi- gration Studies, October 2011, www.cis.org/ articles/2011/record-setting-decade.pdf. 47 Fox News poll, Dec. 5-7, 2011, and CNN/ ORC International poll, Nov. 18-20, 2011, cited at www.PollingReport.com/immigration.htm. 48 Quinnipiac University poll, Feb. 14-20, 2011, cited ibid.

49 ICE memo, op. cit. 50 “Immigration Court Backlog Tool,” Trans- actional Records Access Clearinghouse, http:// trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_back log/ (visited March 2012). 51 “The Mexican-American Boom: Births Overtake Immigration,” Pew Hispanic Center, July 24, 2011, www.pewhispanic.org/files/ reports/144.pdf. The report depicts the phe- nomenon as “especially evident” among Mexican- Americans; it notes that Mexican-Americans are on average younger than other racial or ethnic groups and that Mexican-American women have more children than their coun- terparts in other groups. For background, see David Masci, “Latinos’ Future,” CQ Researcher, Oct. 17, 2003, pp. 869-892.

FOR MORE INFORMATION American Civil Liberties Union, Immigrant Rights Project, 125 Broad St., 18th floor, New York, NY 10004; 212-549-2500; www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights. Seeks to expand and enforce civil liberties and civil rights of immigrants.

American Immigration Council, 1331 G St., N.W., 2nd floor, Washington, DC 20005; 202-507-7500; www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org. Supports sensible and humane immigration policies.

America’s Voice, 1050 17th St., N.W., Suite 490, Washington, DC 20036; 202-463- 8602; http://americasvoiceonline.org/. Supports “real, comprehensive immigration reform,” including reform of immigration enforcement practices.

Center for Immigration Studies, 1522 K St., N.W., Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-1202; 202-466-8185; www.cis.org. An independent, nonpartisan research organization that supports what it calls low-immigration, pro-immigrant policies.

Define American, www.defineamerican.com/. Founded by journalist and undocu- mented immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas, the web-based organization seeks to fix what it calls a “broken” immigration system.

Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20001; 202-328-7004; www.fairus.org. Seeks “significantly lower” immigration levels.

Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036; 202-266-1940; www.migrationpolicy.org. A nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank dedi- cated to analysis of the movement of people worldwide.

National Council of La Raza, 1126 16th St., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036-4845; 202-785-1670; www.nclr.org. The country’s largest national Hispanic advocacy and civil rights organization.

National Immigration Forum, 50 F St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001; 202-347-0040; www.immigrationforum.org. Advocates for the values of immigration and immigrants to the nation.

Pew Hispanic Center, 1615 L St., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036; 202-419-4300; www.pewhispanic.org/. Seeks to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos’ growing impact on the nation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

250 CQ Researcher

Selected Sources

Bibliography Books

Coates, David, and Peter M. Siavelis (eds.), Getting Im- migration Right: What Every American Needs to Know, Potomac, 2009. Essays by 15 contributors representing a range of back-

grounds and views examine, among other issues, the eco- nomic impact of immigration and proposed reforms to address illegal immigration. Includes notes, two-page list of further read- ings. Coates holds a professorship in Anglo-American studies at Wake Forest University; Siavelis is an associate professor of political science there.

Daniels, Roger, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882, Hill and Wang, 2004. A professor of history emeritus at the University of Cincin-

nati gives a generally well-balanced account of developments and trends in U.S. immigration policies from the Chinese Ex- clusion Act of 1882 through the immediate post-9/11 period. Includes detailed notes, 16-page bibliography.

Gerber, David, American Immigration: A Very Short In- troduction, Oxford University Press, 2011. A professor of history at the University of Buffalo gives a

compact, generally positive overview of the history of im- migration from colonial America to the present. Includes two- page list of further readings.

Graham, Otis L. Jr., Unguarded Gates: A History of Amer- ica’s Immigration Crisis, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. A professor emeritus at the University of California-Santa

Barbara provides a critical account of the United States’ tran- sition from an open-border policy with relatively small-scale immigration to a system of managed immigration that he views today as overwhelmed by both legal and illegal im- migration. Includes notes.

Reimers, David M., Other Immigrants: The Global Origins of the American People, New York University Press, 2005. A New York University professor of history emeritus

brings together new information and research about the non-European immigration to the United States, emphasiz- ing the emergence of “a new multicultural society” since 1940. Individual chapters cover Central and South America, East and South Asia, the Middle East, “new black” immi- grants and refugees and asylees. Includes extensive notes, six-page list of suggested readings.

Waters, Mary C., and Reed Ueda (eds.), The New Amer- icans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007. The book includes essays by more than 50 contributors,

some covering broad immigration-related topics and others

providing individual portraits of immigrant populations by country or region of origin. Includes detailed notes for each essay, comprehensive listing of immigration and naturaliza- tion legislation from 1790 through 2002. Waters is a profes- sor of sociology at Harvard University, Ueda a professor of history at Tufts University.

Articles

“Reap What You Sow,” This American Life, Jan. 27, 2012, www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/456/ reap-what-you-sow. The segment by reporter Jack Hitt on the popular public

radio program found that Alabama’s law to encourage un- documented immigrants to self-deport was having unintended consequences.

Kemper, Bob, “Immigration Reform: Is It Feasible?,” Washington Lawyer, October 2011, p. 22, www.dcbar. org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/ october_2011/immigration_reform.cfm. The article gives a good overview of recent and current

immigration debates, concluding with the prediction that any “permanent resolution” will likely prove to be “elusive.”

Reports and Studies

“No Way to Live: Alabama’s Immigrant Law,” Human Rights Watch, December 2011, www.hrw.org/reports/2011/ 12/14/no-way-live-0. The highly critical report finds that Alabama’s law crack-

ing down on illegal immigrants has “severely affected” the state’s unlawful aliens and their children, many of them U.S. citizens, as well as “the broader community linked to this population.”

Baxter, Tom, “Alabama’s Immigration Disaster: The Harsh- est Law in the Land Harms the State’s Economy and Society,” Center for American Progress, February 2012, www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/alaba ma_immigration_disaster.pdf. The critical account by journalist Baxter under the auspices

of the progressive Center for American Progress finds that Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law has had “particularly harsh” social and economic costs and effects.

Passel, Jeffrey S., and D’Vera Cohn, “Unauthorized Im- migrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010,” Pew Hispanic Center, Feb. 1, 2011, www.pewhispanic. org/files/reports/133.pdf. The 32-page report by the Washington-based center pro-

vides national and state-by-state estimates of the unautho- rized immigrant population and the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce.

March 9, 2012 251www.cqresearcher.com

Arizona and Alabama Laws

Rawls, Phillip, “Ala. Split Over Immigration Law’s Fairness,” The Associated Press, Dec. 15, 2011, www.chron.com/news/ article/Poll-Ala-split-over-immigration-law-s-fairness-240 5167.php. Alabama residents are sharply divided over the fairness of

the state’s new immigration law, according to a survey.

Richey, Warren, “Supreme Court Takes Arizona Immigra- tion Law Case in Key Test of Federal Power,” The Chris- tian Science Monitor, Dec. 12, 2011, www.csmonitor.com/ USA/Justice/2011/1212/Supreme-Court-takes-Arizona- immigration-law-case-in-key-test-of-federal-power. The Supreme Court’s decision to review Arizona’s immi-

gration law could determine whether states have rights to set immigration policy.

Williams, Roy L., “Construction Job Drop Linked to State Law on Immigration,” Birmingham (Ala.) News, Nov. 30, 2011, p. D1, blog.al.com/businessnews/2011/11/alabama_ immigration_law_blamed.html. Some analysts say job losses in Alabama’s construction in-

dustry are partly due to the state’s new immigration law.

Citizenship

Gonzalez, Daniel, and Dan Nowicki, “A Change to Citi- zenship Would Have Wide Effects,” The Arizona Republic, March 20, 2011, www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/ 03/20/20110320birthright-citizenship-illegal-immigration. html. Supporters of amended birthright citizenship rules say illegal

immigrants would be less likely to come to the United States if children born to them in the future didn’t automatically become citizens.

Ho, James C., “Ban on Birthright Citizenship Unconstitu- tional,”The Washington Times, April 11, 2011, p. B1, www. washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/8/ban-on-birthright- citizenship-unconstitutional/?page=all. Efforts to repeal birthright citizenship for children born to

undocumented persons are unconstitutional, says the former Texas solicitor general.

Economic Impact

Lawson, Brian, “Study: Law Will Cost State Billions,” Huntsville (Ala.) Times, Feb. 1, 2012, p. A1, blog.al.com/ breaking/2012/02/immigration_law_sponsor_disagr.html. Alabama’s immigration law will cost the state billions of

dollars in lost production and state sales and income taxes, according to a study by the University of Alabama’s Center for Business and Economic Research.

Smith, Lamar, “Give Immigration Enforcement a Try,” The Washington Times, April 14, 2011, p. B3, www.washing tontimes.com/news/2011/apr/13/give-immigration-enforce ment-a-try/. Jobs open up for Americans when immigration laws are ad-

ministered, says the Republican House member from Texas.

Tures, John A., “Farming and Immigration: Foreigners Will Pick Our Food — But Where?”Columbus (Ga.) Ledger- Enquirer, Dec. 11, 2011. A Georgia immigration law has cost farmers $140 million.

Enforcement

Arpaio, Joe, “We’re Enforcing the Law,” USA Today, Dec. 28, 2011, p. A8, www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/ story/2011-12-27/Joe-Arpaio-illegal-immigration/52245 530/1. The top law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, Ariz.,

says he is obliged to enforce his state’s immigration laws.

Couch, Aaron, “State Illegal Immigration Laws: What Have They Accomplished?” The Christian Science Monitor, March 23, 2011, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/ 0323/State-illegal-immigration-laws-What-have-they-accomp lished. State immigration laws have yielded few arrests while cre-

ating a populist backlash, says the Migration Policy Institute.

Stein, Dan, “State Enforcement Policies Work,” USA Today, July 15, 2011, p. A10. The failure to enforce immigration laws imposes fiscal and

social burdens on states, says the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The Next Step: Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING CQ RESEARCHER Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLE Jost, Kenneth. “Remembering 9/11,” CQ Researcher 2 Sept.

2011: 701-732.

APA STYLE Jost, K. (2011, September 2). Remembering 9/11. CQ Re-

searcher, 9, 701-732.

CHICAGO STYLE Jost, Kenneth. “Remembering 9/11.” CQ Researcher, September

2, 2011, 701-732.

ACCESS CQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access, visit your library or www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENT For notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports or to learn more about CQ Researcher products, subscribe to the free e-mail newsletters, CQ Re- searcher Alert! and CQ Researcher News: http://cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASE To purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronic format (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights licensing are also available.

SUBSCRIBE Annual full-service CQ Researcher subscriptions—including 44 reports a year, monthly index updates, and a bound volume—start at $1,054. Add $25 for domestic postage.

CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and a number of tools to simplify research. For pricing information, call 800-834-9020, or e-mail [email protected].

Upcoming Reports Arts Education, 3/16/12 U.S.-Europe Relations, 3/23/12 Police Misconduct, 4/6/12

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

?Are you writing a paper?Need backup for a debate?Want to become an expert on an issue? For more than 80 years, students have turned to CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting on issues in the news. Reports on a full range of political and social issues are now available. Following is a selection of recent reports:

Civil Liberties Remembering 9/11, 9/11 Government Secrecy, 2/11 Cybersecurity, 2/10 Press Freedom, 2/10

Crime/Law Financial Misconduct, 1/12 Eyewitness Testimony, 10/11 Legal-Aid Crisis, 10/11 Computer Hacking, 9/11 Cameras in the Courtroom, 1/11 Death Penalty Debates, 11/10

Education Youth Volunteerism, 1/12 Digital Education, 12/11 College Football, 11/11 Student Debt, 10/11 School Reform, 4/11 Crime on Campus, 2/11

Environment/Society Space Program, 2/12 Invasive Species, 2/12 Fracking Controversy, 12/11 Water Crisis in the West, 12/11

Health/Safety Patient Safety, 2/12 Military Suicides, 9/11 Teen Drug Use, 6/11 Organ Donations, 4/11 Genes and Health, 1/11 Food Safety, 12/10 Preventing Bullying, 12/10

Politics/Economy Attracting Jobs, 3/12 Presidential Election, 2/12 ‘Occupy’ Movement, 1/12