STATE BATTLES OVER IMMIGRATION: THE FORECAST FOR 2012 By: Anita Sinha & Richael Faithful For more information contact: 1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 / (202) 728-9557 www.advancementproject.org Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization that tackles inequity with innovative strategies and strong community alliances. We combine law, communications, policy and technology to create workable solutions and achieve systemic change. We aim to inspire and strengthen movements that expand opportunity for all.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2011 was one of the most active years for state legislative initiatives on immigration. The number of immigration bills introduced across the country in January 2011 set a record, with more than 600 bills most of them anti-immigrant measures filed in all 50 states. The overall findings from the Issue Brief include: The unprecedented pace of introduced bills continued throughout the year to set an all-time record with over 1600 immigration bills introduced. Only eight states did not enact any anti-immigrant laws in 2011. There were 53 anti-immigrant omnibus bills (i.e. bills that include a number of related proposals into one proposed law, also colloquially called Arizona copycat laws ) introduced in 30 states. These bills were defeated in 25 states. The states that passed anti-immigrant laws, including all five states that enacted omnibus laws (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah), had the highest increase in their foreign-born population over the past 10 years, but still have significantly small immigrant populations relative to the overall population of the state. In 2012, the threat perhaps greater than anti-immigrant omnibus laws are passive enforcement bills, such as mandating that state and local government agencies verify legal status before rendering services. Some of the watch states for anti-immigrant legislation in 2012, most which are in the Midwest and Southeast, include Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia. Multi-racial and multi-issue coalition building has been an important way on-the-ground advocates have stopped or limited anti-immigrant legislation. *** This Issue Brief provides 4 areas of analysis: A 2011 legislative overview; 2012 predictions; brief case studies of on-the-ground state organizing against anti-immigrant laws; and tips for state-based immigrant rights organizing. There were four dominant trends among bills introduced in 2011: The proliferation of immigration enforcement bills. These bills generally fall into two categories: active and passive ways to identify and criminalize undocumented immigrants. The active enforcement laws, which include involving state and local police in immigration enforcement, have gained more attention by the media and the
public than passive measures. Twenty-four states passed active enforcement laws in 2011. Significantly, the number of passive enforcement proposals considered by state legislatures rose in 2011. These bills generally relate to identification requirements, access to public assistance, and government agency status verification. The rise of anti-immigrant omnibus bills. Fifty-three anti-immigrant omnibus bills were introduced in 30 states. Five states Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah enacted anti-immigrant omnibus laws. The entanglement of anti-immigrant measures with state budget battles in 2011. Predictably, state budget crises fueled the blaming of lowincome people of color, with the target in many states being immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants. The introduction and/or enactment of legislation related to undocumented students. In 2011, at least 17 bills were introduced in 13 states relating to legal status requirements for in-state tuition. Three states California, Connecticut, and Maryland enacted progressive laws permitting in-state tuition for or extending financial aid to undocumented students. A fourth state Rhode Island provided this same access through an action by the state s Board of Governors for Higher Education. On the other side of the spectrum, five states enacted laws rendering undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition or state scholarships: Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Predictions for state anti-immigrant battles in 2012 include: Some of last year s trends will continue into this year s state legislative battles, namely anti-immigrant omnibus bills and the rise of passive enforcement bills. The five omnibus bills that passed in 2011 were all in states with recent high percentage increases in the immigrant population. Six states with similar demographic changes have carryover anti-immigrant omnibus bills under consideration in the 2012 session: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Virginia s state law does not permit omnibus bills, but is another state that merits close attention in 2012. Additionally, Maine has a carryover anti-immigrant omnibus bill for consideration this year. The introduction of other xenophobic legislation can be an indicator of a favorable climate for anti-immigrant laws. Last year, 13 states
introduced anti-sharia, i.e. anti-islamic law, bills, including four of the five states that passed anti-immigrant omnibus bills (Alabama did not introduce an anti-sharia law in 2011, but has introduced one this year). To lift up the incredible work of the on-the-ground organizing against state assaults on immigrant rights, this Issue Brief provides four brief case studies to highlight the strategies and tactics used by advocates in Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia. Finally, this Issue Brief offers tips to advocates based on national trends and case study findings. Among the suggestions are: Grassroots multi-racial and multi-issue coalitions are essential. In 2011, multi-racial and multi-issue coalition building was an important part of on-the-ground immigrant rights fights, including in Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia. These coalitions were built on a common set of values and experiences the belief that people should be treated humanely, criminalization destroys communities, and harsh immigration enforcement is bad policy for everyone. Develop a communication strategy based on statewide political strengths and issues. Communications was a key strategic element to 2011 legislative battles. Immigrant rights advocates crafted state-specific messages which were vital parts to their advocacy efforts. In each case, advocates identified the political pressure points that would have broadest statewide appeal, consistent with the coalition s beliefs. Monitor the SAVE Program. Immigrant rights advocates should familiarize themselves with the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program, described by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as an intergovernmental initiative designed to aid benefit-granting agencies in determining an applicant's immigration status, and thereby ensure that only entitled applicants receive federal, state, or local public benefits and licenses. Assume nuanced attitudes and positions on immigration. Immigration is purportedly a polarizing issue, but this characterization is not supported by data. Recent polling in particular shows that people across the political and demographic spectrum favor fair immigration reform. There is an opportunity for immigrant rights advocates to continue informing the public and humanizing the issue of immigration through these state legislative battles. The state-level immigration battles have already begun, and are expected to be a significant, if not the exclusive, site of the immigrant rights fight in 2012. The immigrant rights advocacy community, however, were able to stop a significant portion of antiimmigrant state measures last year, and in turn is stronger for the 2012 state battles.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.. 1 Page OVERVIEW OF 2011: TRENDS AMONGST RECORD NUMBER OF STATE IMMIGRATION BILLS INTRODUCED. 1 PREDICTIONS FOR 2012: STATES AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR.. 5 ON-THE-GROUND ORGANIZING AGAINST ANTI- IMMIGRANT STATE LEGISLATION: MISSISSIPPI, COLORADO, FLORIDA, AND GEORGIA. 9 TIPS FOR DEFEATING STATE ANTI-IMMIGRANT STATE LEGISLATION IN 2012. 12 CONCLUSION. 14 ENDNOTES. 15
INTRODUCTION With the lack of congressional action around affirmative immigration reform, states have taken the matter of immigration into their own hands with unprecedented fervor. The Obama administration has taken a strong and often draconian stance on immigration enforcement, which seems to have further emboldened states to propose their own immigration enforcement measures. The controversial passage in 2010 of Arizona s broad-sweeping anti-immigration law provided momentum for antiimmigrant state legislative initiatives in 2011. Not surprisingly, the issue of immigration has been entangled in the current economic climate in the U.S amidst the ongoing recession and state budget crises. The socio-political trend of blaming low-income people of color in such a climate took full effect, with the target being immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants. Immigration was among the most legislated issues of 2011, and this trend promises to continue into 2012. This Issue Brief maps the trends among state immigration bills introduced and/or enacted in 2011. The analysis uses these trends as well as the legislative details of bills defeated in or carried over from 2011 and recent state demographic trends regarding immigration to predict the toughest or most insidious state battles around immigration in 2012. Finally, this brief highlights case studies of effective organizing that defeated or significantly weakened anti-immigration state proposals, and provides tips for immigrant rights organizations preparing for this year s state legislative battles. Overview of 2011: Trends Amongst Record Number of State Immigration Bills Introduced 2011 was one of the most active years for state legislative initiatives on immigration. As Congress put comprehensive immigration reform on the legislative backburner, states took matters into their own hands. With congressional inaction, many state legislators seemed emboldened to introduce harsher enforcement proposals in light of unprecedented federal immigration enforcement initiatives, and after the 2010 passage of Arizona s broad-sweeping anti-immigration law. 1 States broke a record for the number of immigration bills introduced in January 2011 with more than 600 filed in all 50 states, 2 most of which were anti-immigrant bills. 3 The pace continued throughout the year to set an all-time record with over 1600 immigration bills introduced. 4 Only eight states did not enact any antiimmigrant legislation in 2011: Alaska, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Delaware. 5-1-
There were four noteworthy national trends amongst state immigration bills in 2011. Immigration Enforcement The first noteworthy trend was the proliferation of immigration enforcement bills. These bills generally fall into two categories: active and passive ways to identify and criminalize undocumented immigrants. Active proposals authorize state and local police to question people they stop about immigration status, mandate participation in federal enforcement programs (i.e. Secure Communities, 287(g) agreements, and the Criminal Alien Program), and require employers to use identity verification programs for workers (namely E-Verify). Passive proposals mandate mechanisms to identify immigration status during governmental points of contact, including with Departments of Motor Vehicles and public benefits offices. In 2011, states introduced and enacted an unprecedented number of both active and passive enforcement laws. Part of the reason for this is that the Obama Administration expanded and promoted active enforcement, leading to more than 1 million deportations over the past three years. This seems to have emboldened state legislators to test the limits of their enforcement powers. The country s most aggressive active enforcement laws, involving state and local police determining immigration status upon lawful stops, were rolled into omnibus bills (multi-issue bills discussed further in this report) passed last year in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina. 6 Twenty additional states passed 39 active enforcement laws in 2011. 7 Significantly, there was a rise in passive enforcement proposals considered by state legislatures in 2011. These proposals generally related to: identification requirements, public benefits access, and governmental agency status verification. Identification requirements require certain state agencies to verify legal status before providing a driver s license, ID card, or other license (e.g. firearm). A total of 27 identification bills were passed last year in 18 states. In Montana, for example, a new law requires the DMV to use the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify applicants lawful presence. 8 Public assistance-related bills mandate that state benefits offices verify legal status. Fifteen such bills were enacted in 11 states. Michigan, for example, passed a law requiring immigration status verification for its family independence assistance program through the SAVE program. 9 Finally, other bills enacted in 2011 require virtually all governmental agencies to verify legal presence before rendering services. Perhaps the most notorious example is Alabama s omnibus law, HB56, which required K-12 public school officials to ask about their students immigration status. 10 Omnibus Bills The second noteworthy and perhaps most visible trend of 2011 was the rise of antiimmigrant omnibus bills. An anti-immigrant omnibus bill rolls a large number of related proposals, including active and passive enforcement measures, into a single bill. Last year, 53 omnibus bills were introduced in 30 states. 11-2-
Five states Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah passed antiimmigrant omnibus bills, compared to one state, Arizona, in 2010. 12 These measures are commonly called Arizona copycat laws, referring to the omnibus bill passed in Arizona in 2010, known as SB1070, although the laws differ considerably in each state. Broadly speaking, however, these laws are the most far-reaching of state anti-immigrant legislative actions. Specifically, five omnibus laws enacted in 2011 all but Utah require immigrants to carry documentation verifying their immigration status, authorize law enforcement to inquire about immigration status during a lawful stop, mandate employers to administer E-Verify for new workers, and permit state residents to sue state and local agencies for non-compliance of these laws. 13 Utah s law is unique because it significantly extends the state s role in immigration, yet is less enforcement-oriented. The provisions of Utah s enacted omnibus bill include the state s own temporary guest worker program, civil and criminal state sanctions for immigrants who lack valid documentation, and a requirement for permit holders under the worker programs to become proficient in English. 14 The rise of anti-immigrant omnibus bills across the country is not coincidental. The vast majority of bills introduced in 2011 had almost identical titles, format, and content. They were based on model legislation provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). 15 ALEC is the same right-wing organization that engineered voter photo identification restriction legislation that swept the nation in 2011, designed to make ballot access much more difficult for people of color, low-income people, students, people with disabilities, and seniors, under the guise of the unsupported claim of voter fraud. 16 In the same way, ALEC has influenced the state public policy debate on immigration by feeding model legislation to lawmakers nationwide. Budget Battles The third noteworthy trend was the entanglement of anti-immigrant measures with state budget battles in 2011. As state revenues are likely to decrease or remain at current crisis levels, most state legislatures will continue making choices about raising taxes or slashing programs. As history reveals, immigrants are among the prime scapegoats during tough economic times; therefore, programs that serve immigrant populations are likely targets for projected cuts. Though generally in 2011 lawmakers did not strike programs that serve immigrants from appropriations, there is a real threat that this might occur in 2012. A high profile example is Tennessee s passage of the Absorptive Capacity Act, which allows local governments to request a non-binding moratorium on future resettlement activities if they find that refugees displace US-born workers. 17 Tennessee immigrant rights advocates express concern that this new power granted to cities and towns to turn away refugees is dangerous and unprecedented. 18-3-
Bills related to undocumented students access to education both for and against were also debated in the context of state budget crises. The overarching message from 2011 about immigration and budget battles is that legislators were reluctant to spend limited state dollars on immigrants, and probably will be even less inclined to do so in the foreseeable future. Access to Higher Education The fourth noteworthy trend was the introduction and/or enactment of legislation related to undocumented students. Again, congressional inaction is a factor: 2011 was the tenth year in a row that Congress failed to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, 19 which would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented young adults. In 2011, at least 17 bills were introduced in 13 states related to legal status requirements for in-state tuition. 20 In particular, three states California, Connecticut, and Maryland 21 enacted laws that are loosely referred to as state DREAM Act laws, but more accurately provide for in-state tuition or extend financial aid to undocumented students (i.e. they do not create state power to provide a path to citizenship). In addition, Rhode Island s Board of Governors for Higher Education in 2011 approved a policy to allow students without legal presence to pay in-state tuition rates. 22 The total number of states now that allow students without legal status to become eligible for instate tuition under certain conditions is 13: California, Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island joined Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, which passed their in-state tuition laws in previous years. 23 On the other side of the spectrum, a number of states have affirmatively barred in-state tuition or financial aid to students without legal status, including Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, and Indiana. Oklahoma, in 2008, ended its in-state tuition benefit to undocumented students. Five states in 2011 enacted laws rendering undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition or state scholarships: Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. 24 The legislation in these five states deeming undocumented students ineligible varied significantly. Indiana passed a stand-alone bill aimed at denying in-state tuition to students without legal presence, even though the fiscal impact reports showed minimal cost savings. 25 Georgia s law cut the Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally (HOPE) scholarship across the board, establishing legal status requirements. The North Carolina and Virginia bills revised general residency and documentation requirements for instate tuition impacting undocumented students. Finally, West Virginia restricted eligibility by adding legal status requirements for a Medical Student Loan Program during the legislature s budget cut measures. The issue of education is consistent with the national trends that were identified before: immigration is entangled in budget battles and these laws are another version of passive enforcement. -4-
Predictions for 2012: States and Trends To Watch For 2012 promises to be another heated year for state legislative battles on immigration. Two important events the Supreme Court review of Arizona s law and presidential election will have an impact on how these battles play out. Some of last year s trends, including omnibus bill and passive enforcement proposals, will continue into 2012, particularly in states experiencing significant immigrant percentage growth, where fewer immigrants resided before. More Omnibus Bills We can expect more omnibus bills introduced and debated in 2012, even given that the Supreme Court will not issue a decision on the constitutionality of Arizona s antiimmigrant law until later in the year. There were several legal challenges in the state and federal courts to the omnibus bills that were passed in 2011, and the courts generally struck down some portions of these bills, allowing other provisions to take effect. On the legislative front, omnibus bills seem more susceptible to defeat than a year ago. First, only five out of the 3o states that introduced omnibus bills passed in such bills 2011, and the case studies presented in the next section highlight the various reasons for their defeat. Second, there has been significant negative media attention to the human and economic costs of such broad-sweeping anti-immigrant measures, the starkest example being the stories reported from Alabama. Lastly, as discussed below, passive enforcement measures may be the more politically expedient option in this presidential election year. Anti-immigrant omnibus laws in 2011 were not constrained to particular regions in the U.S. (e.g. the South). Instead, the consistent thread across these states was that they experienced the largest recent percentage growth of immigrants in the past 10 years. The foreign-born percentage increase in the states that passed antiimmigrant omnibus laws in 2011, ranged from about 38% to about 58%. This means that compared to the past, states that passed anti-immigrant omnibus laws experienced especially high increases in the immigrant population. While these percentage growth statistics indicate a change in a state s demographics, the manner in which the growth was used to fuel antiimmigrant sentiments is misleading. First, the percentage increase includes both undocumented and naturalized foreign-born residents, i.e. the percentage increase is not an indicator of the number of undocumented residents in a state. Moreover, the percentage of growth is significantly put into perspective when it is considered against the entire state population. For example, although Alabama experienced a 51% increase of foreign-born people living in the state from 2002 to 2010, only 3.5% of entire state population is foreign-born, which is a mere.9% relative percentage increase. In other words, among the 4.7 million people who live in Alabama, 4.6 million are U.S. natives, and only 168, 596 people are foreign-born. -5-
Indiana s data tells a similar story. Of the approximately 6.4 million residents, 6.1 million are native-born, and 300,789 are foreign-born, making immigrants only 4.6% of the population. Though the percentage increase between 2002 and 2010 was 46.4%, it only increased 1.2% overall. These figures are consistent among states that experienced high immigration percentage growth, particularly in the South and Midwest. Antiimmigrant rhetoric claiming that undocumented immigrants are flooding the state and taking over is misleading there are simply more immigrants than before, and they are not all undocumented. 26 There are two reasons why these data are strong indicators of susceptibility to antiimmigrant laws, including omnibus bills. The first is that resentment toward immigrants is stronger in states where there is relatively new growth in the immigrant population states like the 2011 omnibus states as opposed to older immigration growth states. This is particularly true in regions, like the South, where immigrants have not historically resided. The second reason contributing to anti-immigrant bills passing in certain states is that new immigrant populations are not established enough to have sufficient support from elected officials, and in general are still developing political power in the state. States with High Percentage Increases of Immigrants, 2002-2010* State Absolute Percentage Increase Kansas 68.8% 2.3% South Carolina 57.8% 1.2% Tennessee 55.4% 1.3% Alabama 51.0% 1.0% Nebraska 50.6% 1.7% North Carolina 49.7% 1.6% Georgia 47.3% 2.0% Indiana 46.4% 1.2% Virginia 46.4% 2.5% Oklahoma 46.1% 1.3% Iowa 42.6% 1.1% Utah 37.6%.9% Relative Percentage Increase *Source: American Community Survey Comparison of 2002 and 2010. Absolute percentage is the total increase within the 8-year timeframe; relative percentage is the increase compared to the entire state population within the 8-year timeframe. The five states that passed omnibus bills in 2011 Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah are among the states listed above. Of the remaining seven states, six on this list have carryover omnibus bills at play, i.e. they were introduced in 2011 and have been procedurally rolled over for consideration in the 2012 session. These states are: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. -6-
Virginia state law does not permit omnibus bills, but for the reasons stated below is as another state that merits close attention in 2012. Additionally, Maine has a carryover anti-immigrant omnibus bill for consideration in 2012. In 2011, Tennessee arguably slipped under national scrutiny as anti-immigrant measures in other states such as Georgia and Alabama received considerable national attention. Tennessee passed five immigration-related bills in 2011, including an employment omnibus bill that requires employer enrollment in E-Verify and the notorious Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act. 27 Two omnibus bills have been carried over into 2012 (neither came to a vote last year). 28 Oklahoma s legislature in 2011 introduced three omnibus bills and passed four individual anti-immigrant bills. 29 Like other Midwestern states, Oklahoma has experienced a recent growth in the immigrant population, even though Whites are still the vast majority. In the last couple of years, lawmakers have painted a picture of the state being taken over by outsiders, including Muslims. Most notably, in 2010 voters passed a state ballot, called Save Our State, to amend Oklahoma s constitution barring courts from using Sharia, or Islamic, law. 30 Thirteen states followed suit and in 2011 introduced anti-sharia bills, 31 including four of the five states last year that passed anti-immigrant omnibus bills (Alabama did not introduce an anti-sharia law in 2011, but has introduced one this year). Courts have blocked Oklahoma s law from taking effect, 32 but anti-sharia bills should be carefully monitored in 2012 as a potential indicator of a climate of xenophobia in a state that could ultimately lead to the passage of immigrant enforcement laws. Virginia enacted 27 anti-immigrant laws in 2011, and generally the state legislature has forcefully pushed through immigration enforcement proposals during the last two sessions. As noted above, Virginia law does not allow omnibus bills and so lawmakers have introduced individual anti-immigrant bills instead, which has created a tough environment to defeat anti-immigrant legislation. At the beginning of the 2012 session, legislators introduced at least 11 immigration enforcement bills. 33 These bills include requiring the reporting of the immigration status of K-12 students, 34 and the authorization of state and local police to inquire into immigration status. 35 Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Virginia, along with Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Maine are high on the list of watch states for anti-immigrant bills, in particular omnibus bills, in 2012. More Passive Enforcement Proposals Immigration enforcement is likely to continue as a significant agenda for state legislatures in 2012. Active enforcement proposals, including those within omnibus bills, remain a serious threat. But in this presidential election year, state legislators may see passive enforcement measures through piecemeal legislation as the more politically safe option. -7-
Passive strategies are advantageous for legislators in several ways. Public opinion toward immigration is fairly nuanced. For example, according to a November 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center, the public favors stronger enforcement measures (29%) but also favors a path for citizenship for people without legal status (24%). 36 Most significantly, 43% believed that these priorities should be treated with equal importance. 37 In other words, heavy-handed enforcement including home raids, suspicious traffic stops, families torn apart by ramped-up deportation, and violent border encounters is not widely supported. This may make passive enforcement easier to enact. Additionally, it does not appear that any Supreme Court decision on the Arizona law will give much guidance on passive enforcement strategies, which gives anti-immigrant legislators continued opportunities to test these kinds of proposals. Immigrant rights organizers can therefore expect passive enforcement proposals to be on the rise in many states. Here, advocates are vulnerable to two justifications for such proposals: that they are fair because they simply enforce the law; and that the proposals are necessary because they mediate budget strains. Advocates seeking to defeat passive immigration enforcement measures should get ahead of the curve and frame the debate to show that these proposals are just as unjust and harmful as active immigration enforcement measures. States Increasingly Legislating Immigration Enforcement to Counties, Cities, and Towns There are significant legal questions surrounding whether the state can legislate on immigration matters, which historically is a power belonging to the federal government. There is, however, little legal dispute that states can control the actions of counties, cities, and towns through legislation either directly or indirectly depending on the government structure. As a result, some states pushed immigration politics to the local level in 2011. It is a trend likely to continue, especially as courts remain tied up on the states roles in immigration. The primary approach for states to control local immigration policies relates to mandates to participate in federal programs. Many of these laws mandate participation in federal immigration enforcement programs, such as the Criminal Alien Program (a correctional facility database that crosschecks federal immigration databases), which prevent localities from opting out. 38 This issue came to a head in 2010 and 2011 when localities tried to opt out of the Secure Communities program but learned that the program was not voluntary due to state agreements. 39 A less direct mandate is tied to appropriations. This practice is common between federal and state governments, and state and local governments, and it is now being used to dictate local immigration policy. An example is Montana s bill, H492, passed by both chambers but ultimately vetoed by the Governor, which would have given the state power to withhold funding to sanctuary cities (prohibiting public employees from helping with immigration enforcement unless mandated by federal/state law or warrant). 40 Though this proposal did not become law, it may signal a trend to come for states to control localities on this issue. -8-
On-the-Ground Organizing Against Anti-Immigrant State Legislation: Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia During 2011, immigrant rights organizers faced tremendous legislative challenges at the state level, fighting against an unprecedented number of anti-immigrant measures. Despite the onslaught, advocates successfully defeated anti-immigrant measures. The following case studies are examples of the refined strategies and creative tactics used by advocates to defeat or mitigate the effects of anti-immigrant legislation. *** Mississippi Mississippi lawmakers proposed an onslaught of harsh omnibus bills a total of five during the 2011 legislative session, very similar to the model laws drafted by the conservative lobbying group, ALEC. 41 Poised to join the ranks of Georgia and Alabama, many of the proposals sought to adopt aggressive enforcement tactics as well as create state criminal penalties for immigration violations. 42 This anti-immigrant push had the vocal support of Governor Haley Barbour despite his past support of immigrant rights. 43 Immigrant rights advocates in Mississippi created a strong, multi-racial coalition to combat the attack of anti-immigrant legislation. The Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA) created a coalition that included the NAACP and leaders across the faith community (Catholic, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, and United Methodist churches). The size and depth of the coalition was a crucial aspect. African-Americans, which make up 40% of the state population, were vocal in their disapproval of the anti-immigrant laws, which was crucial because immigrants such as Latin@s did not have any representation in the state legislature. MIRA s ability to build an inter-faith, Black-Brown coalition created sufficient political power to make a serious challenge to the proposed bills. Another key tactic used by advocates was their ability to gain support of local elected officials. Prentiss Mayor Charley Dumas, President of the Mississippi Municipal League, and Hernando Mayor Chip Johnson expressed their opposition to the most extreme proposals requiring local police to check immigration status during lawful stops. The opportunity to build relationships between advocates and mayors arose when it became clear that lawmakers were more interested in pushing through anti-immigrant laws than including local officials in the discussion. Mayors were able to point out that there were too many unanswered questions generated by the proposals, including how local law enforcement was going to be trained in immigration enforcement, and the overall cost of the proposals to taxpayers. In the end, four bills died in committee and one died in concurrence after passing both chambers. -9-
Colorado Colorado lawmakers introduced one omnibus measure, based again on one of ALEC s model bills entitled, Illegal Immigration Enforcement. Four additional measures were proposed: a requirement for state employers to enroll in E-Verify; an expansion of state criminal identity theft laws to capture immigration violations; a mandate for pre-trial services to report allegedly undocumented immigrants to the District Attorney s office; and a proposed denial of state funding to localities which opted out of the federal Secure Communities program. The anti-immigrant legislative agenda in Colorado for 2011 was a full slate. Colorado advocates, like in Mississippi, formed a strong multi-racial coalition, under the leadership of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (CIRC). Equally important to the defeat of these bills were two elements: CIRC s strategic communications frame emphasized the high cost of these laws during tight economic times; and a division within the Republican Party between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives over the bills costs. CIRC played the statewide politic landscape to their advantage. Specifically, advocates placed a spotlight on the layer of costs brought on by enacting aggressive immigration enforcement. CIRC, for example, created a video 44 explaining how Arizona s omnibus law cost its residents in legal fees, tax revenues, and billions in the state s gross domestic product when immigrants leave. By highlighting the loss to the state, these advocates gained the support of employers and businesses, even persuading the state s major newspaper, the Denver Post, to oppose the bill. This pressure, likely combined with independent political calculations and principled fiscal values, pushed the influential Republican Senator Steve Schuck to oppose the antiimmigrant omnibus bill. He argued that any new bills introduced need to focus on improving the economy in the state, and suggested that supporting any enforcement measures with high costs during these economic times was tone deaf. The schism within the Republican Party, paired with opposition from the Democratic Majority in the Senate s relevant committee, led to the bill s committee defeat. Eventually, the 3 other anti-immigrant proposals that passed the House died in the same Senate committee. Florida Florida is another state where lawmakers piled on anti-immigrant legislation, introducing a total of six omnibus bills in 2011. Unlike Mississippi and Colorado, however, Florida is home to a sizeable and politically engaged immigrant community, which joined forces to hold lawmakers publicly accountable. We Are Florida! is a diverse coalition formed to challenge these proposals, led by the Florida Immigrant Coalition. Advocates formed relationships with allies in the business and law enforcement communities, and cultivated vital relationships within the -10-
deeply-rooted immigrant communities and faith-based groups. Because of the racial and cultural diversity within the state, the coalition s primary messages centered on how aggressive immigration enforcement laws depend on racial profiling. Importantly, the coalition chose an action-based strategy that relied on their political strength. At the beginning of April 2011, for example, the coalition hosted a Week of Action, illustrating the human and economic costs of an Arizona-like law to Florida. Other actions included silent theatre and a public response to an anti-immigrant group threat to tip off Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the status of two immigrant rights advocates. Florida advocates, using mobilization as one of their main tactics, were able to reflect a wide consensus that omnibus laws were out-of-step with the state s political mood. 45 A similar tactic effectively used by Florida advocates was exposing the double-speak of lawmakers that opposed racial profiling but supported immigration enforcement measures. By keeping communities informed and bringing transparency to the legislative process, advocates minimized lawmakers ability to play back-room politics, so that if they tried to slip through an Arizona-like bill, they would have to do so in the bright Florida light of day. Rather than develop a purely economic or policy-based strategy, immigrant rights advocates were able to speak candidly and forcefully about immigration enforcement, based upon their intimate political knowledge and history within the state. It worked to defeat a hostile anti-immigrant legislative wave in Florida. Georgia While immigrant rights organizers were not able to defeat an omnibus bill passed in Georgia last year, their groundwork is nonetheless a model, in particular for broad coalition building. The coalition that eventually became the We Are Georgia! campaign was led not only by Black and Brown communities, but also by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) identified people within these communities. The We Are Georgia! campaign was intentionally formed as an LGBTQ-Left coalition by Southerners on New Ground (SONG), the Georgia Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR), and the National Day Laborers Organizing Network (NDLON) to fight HB87 another abrasive immigration enforcement bill fashioned after the ALEC model legislation. The coalition emerged from a polarizing moment within a liberal coalition coming together to oppose HB87. SONG, a queer liberationist group which focuses on community-building across lines of race, class, abilities age, and culture in the South, decided to strike out on their own with GLAHR, the state s largest grassroots immigrant rights group. Importantly, the groups realized that the needed space to candidly speak about the role of race, racism, criminalization 46 and black-brown solidarity in the growing anti-immigrant political environment. -11-
There were as many challenges in building this unique coalition as there were successes. As HB87 moved quickly through the legislature, the campaign s initial demand was directed at Governor Nathan Deal to veto the bill. After it was enacted into law, the campaign intensified its work by demanding repeal and organizing mass mobilization actions, including a statewide boycott. Within the coalition, tensions grew over political tactics, particularly the boycott. The coalition had to separate itself from an organization that broke a pledge not to publicly criticize other coalition members over internal disagreements. Through such tense moments, the campaign members learned how to build political trust amongst people that had not historically worked together, and learned to how to stretch themselves while in coalition-spaces. The We Are Georgia! campaign learned several valuable lessons. First, they were able to see the fruits of slow community-building in their mass mobilization efforts a single action brought out 30,000 in Atlanta demonstrating the power in investing years into relationships amongst people with common values and visions, rather than bringing together strangers for one event. Second, the coalition work deepened their understanding of solidarity. In a specific mass mobilization action, for example, SONG and others provided security for people taking part in the action, in anticipation of Tea Party activists who showed up to intimidate and harass protestors. Here, concrete solidarity meant that documented people showed up for undocumented people Black and Brown, gender non-conforming/trans and gender conforming, weakappearing and strong-appearing the security team literally stood in solidarity with every person who participated to ensure their safety. And finally, organizers had to work through how to strategically and consistently discuss race, because doing so was the only way to transcend different identities and interpretations to effectively unite what was an anti-racist campaign. The We Are Georgia! Campaign is a great example of how coalitions can be built on shared values and experiences, beyond temporary political alliances. In some cases, community resistance can mitigate legislative outcomes; it can also build true political power for future fights ahead. *** These case studies offer hope and concrete examples that organizing and advocacy at the state-level makes a real difference. They are reminders that because immigration is such a nuanced issue, it is possible to build broad-based support and gain enough consensus to defeat anti-immigrant measures. As the immigration fight is likely to stay predominately at the state and local levels in 2012, advocates have an opportunity to shape the politics on the issue with an effective set of strategies and relationships. Tips for Defeating State Anti-Immigrant State Legislation in 2012 The 2012 state legislative fight around immigration will likely prove as challenging as 2011. State immigrant rights advocates know their political landscape best, and have important experience with defeating harmful laws. To enhance this on-the-ground expertise, the following tips are offered based on national trends and case studies of successful organizing by other advocates discussed in this report. -12-
Grassroots multi-racial and multi-issue coalitions are essential. It is clear that in 2011 that multi-racial and multi-issue coalition building was the key to legislative success in Mississippi, Colorado, Florida and Georgia. These coalitions were built on a common set of values and experiences the belief that people should be treated humanely, criminalization destroys communities, and harsh immigration enforcement is just plain bad policy for everyone. Also, the role of faith leaders, in many instances, can bridge gaps between communities that historically have not engaged in political work together. Immigrant rights legislative victory in 2012 will depend on grassroots-centered strategy led by a diverse coalition of people of color in which all participants experiences are equally valued and whose voices are lifted up. Develop a communication strategy based on statewide political strengths and issues. Communications was a key strategic element to 2011 legislative battles. Immigrant rights advocates crafted state-specific messages which were vital parts to their advocacy efforts. These messages varied in their emphasis from exceeding costs in Colorado to racial profiling in Florida. In each case, advocates identified the political pressure points that would have broadest statewide appeal, consistent with the coalition s beliefs. In 2011 it was important for advocates to directly shape the immigration rhetoric at the state-level, and it will likely be the same for 2012. Given the political expediency draw of passive immigration enforcement proposals, advocates should also be prepared to highlight how these measures present the same concerns as active immigration enforcement (e.g. racial profiling, additional costs, etc). Prepare for an intensive legislative fight that will happen in a short timeframe. Most of the legislative wrangling on immigration bills occurred in the first month to six weeks, with their fates determined by the appropriate state legislature committees. A large number of bills simply died in committee or in one chamber without any further action after initial consideration. If advocates have limited resources and a small window to mobilize advocates, it may be strategic to focus on the early part of the session. Although some state battles, including Colorado, lasted after a bill moved to a second chamber, the bill s momentum was already weakened, as advocates had already won the messaging on the bill s absorbent costs. Make sure that efforts and strategic plans include the Governor and other elected officials. Fifteen anti-immigrant bills were vetoed by governors in 2011. 47 Minnesota Governor, Mark Dayton, vetoed several pro-immigrant bills, while other Governors were the last line of defense against anti-immigrant bills. In the few state legislative battles that will involve controversial omnibus bills pushed through both legislative chambers, it may prove important to educate the Governor on the issue, before s/he has the bill arrive at her or his desk. In -13-
other instances, it has proven pivotal to reach out to elected officials such as mayors, who may be excluded from the ramming through of anti-immigrant measures, the burdens of which will fall on them. Monitor the SAVE Program. Immigrant rights advocates should familiarize themselves with the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program described by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as an intergovernmental initiative designed to aid benefit-granting agencies in determining an applicant's immigration status, and thereby ensure that only entitled applicants receive federal, state, or local public benefits and licenses. 48 SAVE is comparable to the E-Verify program, which, while does not determine eligibility itself, identifies the immigration status of individuals, and thus, allows officials to use applicable law to determine eligibility. This is largely an academic distinction for undocumented people, however. Depending on the direction of passive enforcement, advocates may turn toward direct attacks on the programs themselves an anti-save and anti-e-verify campaign similar to state and local campaigns against Secure Communities participation. 49 Assume nuanced attitudes and positions on immigration. Immigration is purportedly a polarizing issue, but this characterization is not supported by data. Recent polling in particular shows that people across the political and demographic spectrum favor fair immigration reform. There is an opportunity for immigrant rights advocates to continue informing the public and humanizing the issue of immigration through these state legislative battles. CONCLUSION The state-level immigration battles have already begun, and are expected to be a significant, if not the exclusive, site of the immigrant rights fight in 2012. In 2011, there was a proliferation of immigration enforcement bills, with a significant number of active immigration enforcement bills enacted and a rise in passive immigration measures introduced. Thirty states introduced anti-immigrant omnibus bills, with five states ultimately passing such laws. The state budget crises of 2011 brought immigration into budget battles. Access to higher education for undocumented students was a significant issue for states; ultimately four states passed measures extending in-state tuition for undocumented students, while five denied such access. In 2012, advocates may see more anti-immigrant omnibus bills. Carryover omnibus bills in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee should be closely watched, as well as the piecemeal anti-immigrant measures that have been introduced in Virginia. Advocates should also be prepared for the introduction of more passive enforcement proposals, and should watch for proposed anti-sharia laws as an indicator of a climate of xenophobia in a state that could ultimately lead to the passage of other anti-immigrant laws. The immigrant rights advocacy community, however, were able to stop a significant portion of anti-immigrant state measures last year, and in turn is stronger for the 2012 state battles. -14-
Endnotes 1 Randal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, N.Y. TIMES, April 23, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html. 2 David Montero, Immigration bills have flooded state capitols, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, June 7, 2011, available at http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51869054-90/bills-bill-state-states.html.csp. 3 Julianne Hing, States Raise Record Number of Immigration Bills in 2011, COLORLINES.COM, January 31, 2011, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/01/states_raise_record_number_immigration_bills_in_2011.html. 4 Press Release, Nat l Conf. of State Legs., States introduced a record 1,607 immigration related bills in 2011 (Dec. 13, 2011) available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=23964. 5 See NAT L CONF. OF STATE LEGS., 2011 IMMIGRATION-RELATED LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS IN STATES (JAN. 1 DEC., 2011) (2011) available at http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immigration/state-immigrationlegislation-report-dec-2011.aspx [hereinafter 2011 NCSL REPORT]. ( As of Dec. 7, 2011, 42 states and Puerto Rico had enacted 197 new laws and 109 new resolutions, for a total of 306. ) 6 See NAT L CONF. OF STATE LEGS., STATE OMNIBUS IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION AND LEGAL CHALLENGES (2011) available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=22529 [hereinafter STATE OMNIBUS REPORT]. 7 See 2011 NCSL REPORT, at Table 1, available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=23960#table1. 8 Montana HB178. See Nat l Conf. of State Legs., 2011 State Immigration Legislation, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/2011enactedbystate.pdf. 9 Michigan HB 4409; see id. 10 Julianne Hing, The Legal Case Against Alabama s Worst-in-the-Country Immigration Law, COLORLINES.COM, June 21, 2011, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/06/whats_so_wrong_with_alabamas_hb_56.html. 11 See Nat l Conf. of State Legs., State Omnibus Immigration Legislation and Legal Challenges Chart (2011), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statefed/immigration_bills_2011.pdf. 12 See 2011 NCSL REPORT, at Table 1, supra note 7. 13 See STATE OMNIBUS REPORT, supra note 6. 14 Id. 15 E.g., Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC Exposed: Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, http://alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f6/7k12-taxpayer_and_citizen_protection_act_exposed.pdf. 16 See, e.g., Politics Nation with Al Sharpton, MSNBC.com, available at http://video.msnbc.msn.com/politicsnation/45575378#45575378 (last visited Jan. 24, 2012). 17 Tennessee General Assembly, S.B. 1670, available at http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/default.aspx?billnumber=sb1670. 18 Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, 2011 Legislative Wrap-Up, Unprecedented attack on refugees, at http://www.tnimmigrant.org/policy/. 19 Karoun Demirjian, Harry Reid reintroduces the DREAM Act, Las Vegas Sun, May 11, 2011, available at http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/11/harry-reid-reintroduces-dream-act/. -15-