Articles on AZ Immigration Law and Maryland In-State Tuition to Children of Illegal Immigrants:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070
immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods
Purpose
Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply
with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys
subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing
by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and
transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.
Background
Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time
or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration
officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading
representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense,
the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined,
imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for
enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the
Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.
Current statute defines criminal trespass in the first degree as a person knowingly
entering or remaining unlawfully in areas related to residential structures, residential yards, real
property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease under certain circumstances, property if the
person defaces religious symbols or religious property, or critical public service facilities.
Depending on the circumstances, criminal trespass in the first degree provides penalties ranging
from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony (A.R.S. § 13-1504).
In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), prohibiting an
employer from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien and establishing
penalties for employers in violation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office
administers the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The SAVE
Program, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA), administers E-Verify, which
allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired
employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment
eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee
through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or
knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
The fiscal impact is unknown; however, there may be additional costs associated with
criminal prosecution and detention of persons who are accused and convicted of the crimes
established in this legislation. Additionally, the addition of new fines associated with this
measure may also have an impact.
Provisions
Enforcement
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person
during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city,
town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the
person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant
to federal law.
3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or
local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border
Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.
4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in
the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:
a) a federal facility in this state or
b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law
enforcement agency.
5.
Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has
probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the
person removable from the U.S.
6. Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or
restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual’s immigration status
information or exchanging that information with any other governmental entity for the
following official purposes:
a) determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal,
state, local or other political subdivision of this state;
b) verifying any claim of residence or domicile if that verification is required under state
law or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;
c) confirming a detainee’s identity; and
d) if the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with federal
alien registration laws.
7.
Disallows officials or agencies of the state or political subdivisions from adopting or
implementing policies that limit immigration enforcement to less than the full extent
permitted by federal law, and allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge
an official or agency that does so.
8. Requires the court, if there is a judicial finding that an entity has committed a violation, to
order any of the following:
a) that the plaintiff recover court costs and attorney fees;
b) that the defendant pay a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000
for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of the action.
9. Requires the court to collect and remit the civil penalty to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS), which must establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established
for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM)
appropriation.
10. Specifies that law enforcement officers are indemnified by their agencies against reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any
action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this statute to which the officer may be a party
by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency,
except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
Trespassing by Illegal Aliens
11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if
the person is:
a) present on any public or private land in the state and
b) is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.
12. Requires, in the enforcement of this statute, the final determination of an alien’s immigration
status to be determined by:
a) a law enforcement officer who is authorized to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration
status or
b) a law enforcement officer or agency communicating with ICE or the U.S. Border
Protection.
13. Stipulates that a person is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release
on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.
14. Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first
violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses.
15. Requires the court to collect and remit the assessments to DPS for the special GIITEM
subaccount.
16. Specifies that the trespassing statute does not apply to a person who maintains authorization
from the federal government to remain in the U.S.
17. Classifies the violation as follows:
a) a class 2 felony if the person commits the violation while in possession of a dangerous
drug, precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a deadly
weapon or dangerous instrument or property that is used for committing an act of
terrorism;
b) a class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense or if the person, within 60 months
before the violation, accepted a voluntary removal from the U.S. or has been deported;
c) a class 1 misdemeanor in all other cases.
Unlawful Stopping and Solicitation of Work
18. Specifies that it is unlawful, if a motor vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway or highway
and blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic:
a) for a motor vehicle occupant to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at
a different location;
b) for a person to enter the motor vehicle in order to be hired by a motor vehicle occupant
and to be transported to work at a different location.
19. Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is an
unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform
work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.
20. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors.
21. Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.
Unlawful Transporting
22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person
knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in
the U.S. in violation of law:
a) transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;
b) conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any
building or means of transportation.
23. Stipulates it is unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in Arizona if the
person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in
this state is or will be in violation of law.
24. Subjects a means of transportation used in the commission of a violation to mandatory
vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
25. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors and subjects offenders to fines of at least
$1,000, except that a violation that involves 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony with
a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien who is involved.
Investigations of Employers
26. Allows the county attorney, in investigations of employers who are alleged to have
knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens, to take evidence, administer oaths or
affirmations, issue subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and cause
depositions to be taken.
27. Exempts proceedings held during the course of a confidential investigation from open
meeting laws.
28. Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped in an investigation if the employer was
predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement
officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so.
29. States that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a
ruse or to conceal their identities.
30. Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees’ work eligibility through
E-Verify.
31. Establishes a class 3 felony for failing to:
a) verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or
b) keep records of verifications.
Miscellaneous
32. Specifies that monies in the special GIITEM subaccount are subject to legislative
appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail
reimbursement costs relating to immigration.
33. Stipulates that the terms of the act regarding immigration have the meanings given to them
under federal immigration law.
34. Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating
immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and
immunities of U.S. citizens.
35. Contains intent and severability clauses.
36. Titles the legislation the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
37. Makes conforming changes.
38. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 15, 2010
AO/ly
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
Summary of Arizona SB 1070 as Enacted
April 27, 2010
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law on April 23, 2010. The legislative intent
of the bill, set forth in Section 1, states that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative
enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona, and declares that the intent
of the law is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of the law are intended to work together to
discourage and deter “the unlawful entry and presence of illegal aliens and economic activity by
illegal aliens in the United States.” The following is a summary of the main provisions of the bill.
Arizona SB 1070
Declares attrition through enforcement to be the official policy of state and local
government agencies in Arizona. (§ 1, page 1).
Prohibits local police agencies from adopting sanctuary-type policies that limit or restrict
enforcement of federal immigration laws. (§ 2(A), page 1).
During a lawful stop, directs law enforcement officers to determine immigration status of
individuals who they reasonably suspect to be illegal aliens, and for all persons who are
arrested. (§ 2(B), page 1).
Provides that persons who present any federal, state or local identification documents
that require verification of lawful status (e.g., an Arizona driver’s license) when issued
are presumed to be lawfully present. (§ 2(B), page 1).

Authorizes law enforcement agencies to securely transfer verified illegal aliens into
federal custody. (§ 2(D), page 2).
Prohibits state officials and agencies from imposing bans or restrictions on sending,
receiving, or maintaining information relating to an individual’s immigration status, or
exchanging it with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity for these
purposes (§ 2(E), page 2):
o Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service, or license provided by the
state.
o Verifying a claim of residence or domicile if such determination is mandated by
law or judicial order.
o Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.
o Determining whether an alien is in compliance with federal registration laws
under the INA (Title II, Chapter 7).
Allows legal residents of Arizona to sue if they feel a government agency adopts a policy
that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws. (§ 2(G), page 2).
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM • WWW.FAIRUS.ORG
Summary of Arizona SB 1070 as Enacted
Page 2
Mirrors federal alien registration laws; provides that illegal aliens who violate federal
alien registration laws (8 U.S.C. 1304(e) and 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), which require aliens to
register and carry their documents with them at all times) are now subject to arrest and
penalties under the Arizona criminal code. (§ 3, page 3 – 4).
Prohibits people who are hiring and/or picking up day laborers, and day laborers
soliciting work, from impeding traffic. (§ 5, page 5 – 6).
Prohibits illegal aliens without work authorization from applying for work, soliciting work
in a public place, or performing work in the state. (§ 5(C), page 5).
Makes it illegal to transport, harbor, or encourage illegal aliens to remain in the United
States if the driver knows or recklessly disregards that they are illegal (as under federal
law). Provides exemptions for child care providers and first responders. (§ 5, page 6).
Authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest an individual without a warrant if they have
probable cause to believe the individual has committed any public offense that makes
him/her removable from the U.S. (§ 6(A), page 6 – 7).
Requires employers to maintain a record of an employee’s E-Verify eligibility verification
for either (a) the duration of employment or (b) at least three years. (§ 9(A), page 15).

Authorizes the impoundment or forfeiture of vehicles driven by illegal aliens, or used to
unlawfully transport them. (§ 10, page 16).
Establishes the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund to
use fines and penalties for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail
reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration. (§ 11, page 17).
Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: April 23, 2010
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal
immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal
immigrants.
The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration
reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama
strongly criticized it.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose
Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders
signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”
The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we
cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so
crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration
measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime
and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against
Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the
law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the
immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing
arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.
Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its
citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the
authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor,
speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our
state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has
refused to fix.”
The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August.
Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing
voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor
Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear,
community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public
places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that
immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their
presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police
have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s
sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a
leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated,
adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made
worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of
weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms.
Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National
Guard troops at the border.
President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own
party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right,
including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to
support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070.
Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came
out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon.
Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she
would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused
to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization,
Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet
Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the
state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.
The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the
governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a
Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues,
has several provisions.
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are
in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless
doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In
addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state
immigration law is not being enforced.
States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing
immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed.
Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48
states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked
about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid,
Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate
floor after Memorial Day.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political
benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could
also energize conservative voters.
It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue.
Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy
measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority
leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the
Senate produces a bill first.
Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: April 23, 2010
A earlier version of this article misspelled the last name of the Arizona state senator who
sponsored several provisions of the bill. He is Russell Pearce, not Pierce.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 24, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why Arizona Drew a Line
Christophe Vorlet
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Published: April 28, 2010
Kansas City, Kan.
Related
Room for Debate: Will Arizona's Immigration Law Survive?
Times Topics: Jan Brewer
ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that
prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an
alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police
officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action,
come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the
person’s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws,
including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less
predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice
Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law,
something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard
against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As
someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms
individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with
them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien
to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your
papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the
right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail
to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply
adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as
anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar
documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit
police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have
issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law
didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to
reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of
circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime
has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic
stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers
are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known aliensmuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to
create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country
legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually,
Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider
race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining
immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections
against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually
reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police
officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when
they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make
arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license.
Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s
license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his
immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful
residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who
produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration,
which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds
primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has
recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration
without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t
expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict
with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the
field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to
knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured,
reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come
into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration.
Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of
America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise
that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of
Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken
care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and
a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration
laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of
them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we
already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site
enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to
be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line
of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas
City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration
law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on April
29, 2010, on page A31 of the New York edition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/twenty-other-states-consi_n_626095.html
Twenty Other States Considering Copying Arizona Immigration
Law
JOHN MILLER | 06/25/10 06:13 PM |
BOISE, Idaho — Arizona's sweeping new immigration law doesn't even take effect until next
month, but lawmakers in nearly 20 other states are already clamoring to follow in its footsteps.
Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Minnesota are singing the law's praises, as are some
lawmakers in other states far from the Mexico border such as Idaho and Nebraska. But states
also are watching legal challenges to the new law, and whether boycotts over it will harm
Arizona's economy.
The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they
think is in the country illegally. Violators face up to six months in jail and $2,500 in fines, in
addition to federal deportation.
Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when
their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Arizona-style legislation may have the best
chance of passing in Oklahoma, which in 2007 gave police more power to check the immigration
status of people they arrest.
Bills similar to the law Arizona's legislature approved in April have already been introduced in
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan, but none will advance
this year.
Business, agriculture and civil rights groups oppose such legislation, saying legal residents who
are Hispanic would be unjustly harassed and that immigration is a federal rather than a state
responsibility. Supporters say police will not stop people solely on the basis of skin color and
argue that illegal immigrants are draining state coffers by taking jobs, using public services,
fueling gang violence and filling prisons.
"If the feds won't do it, states are saying, 'We're going to have to do it,'" said Idaho state Sen.
Monty Pearce. Pearce's second cousin is the author of the Arizona law, Arizona state Sen.
Russell Pearce, who like Monty Pearce is a Republican.
The debate is putting pressure on Congress and the Obama administration to act. In 2007, when
states like Idaho and Kansas were making English their official languages as part of an
immigration-related push, then-President George W. Bush failed to persuade even many
Republican allies in the U.S. Senate to agree to combine increased border enforcement with a
path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
President Barack Obama has called Arizona's law irresponsible, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
says it helped prompt him to send 1,200 National Guard members to the U.S.-Mexican border,
mostly to her state. She and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., say that's not enough.
McCain, Obama's one-time presidential rival, says the border needs a force approaching the
6,000 soldiers sent by President Bush until 2008.
Obama is asking Congress for $600 million in emergency funds for 1,000 more Border Patrol
agents, 160 new federal immigration officers and two unmanned aircraft, but immigration is not
at the top of his priorities this year. An Associated Press-GfK poll this month found that 85
percent of people now rank immigration as an important issue, and about half disapprove of how
Obama has handled it.
In Florida, Arizona's law is a campaign issue in the GOP gubernatorial primary, with millionaire
Rick Scott trumpeting its merits and Attorney General Bill McCollum saying he backs the law
but that it's not needed in his state. Meanwhile, Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer,
the presumptive Republican nominee, called Arizona's bill "a wonderful first step."
Even lawmakers in states far from the U.S.-Mexico border say illegal immigration is hurting
their constituents.
In Idaho, Monty Pearce cites one county that paid more than $100,000 for medical services for
an indigent illegal immigrant. Supporters of a citizen initiative in Nevada say they're motivated
by the state budget crisis and record unemployment.
In South Carolina, state law enforcement officials say Mexican drug gangs are moving north
from Atlanta – a problem expected to intensify given that budget cuts have left fewer resources
to go toe-to-toe with armed criminal groups.
And in Nebraska, where many Hispanics have found work at meatpacking plants, some blame
illegal immigrants for draining community resources. Last week, the town of Fremont approved
a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants.
State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont plans to introduce a bill in 2011 based at least in part on
Arizona's law. He said foes of illegal immigration must gird themselves for a fight from groups
like the American Civil Liberties Union, which has vowed to sue over Fremont's measure.
"They shout 'racism' and try to bring down people who are trying to enforce our laws," said
Janssen, a Republican in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan legislature. "It's their scare tactic."
William Gheen, president of the North Carolina-based Americans for Legal Immigration
Political Action Committee, said the more states that sign on, the more likely Congress will be to
act. Gheen has led a grassroots campaign to get legislatures to take up Arizona's bill and believes
the topic could become the litmus test in an election year when people are already slamming
Washington.
"Any candidate that wants to survive the bloodbath that's approaching this November needs to
come out in support" of Arizona's law, Gheen said. He sends regular e-mail messages urging
about 30,000 recipients to contact their legislators to support similar bills.
Gheen claims that at least 18 states may pass Arizona-style reforms, but the National Conference
of State Legislature calls this more a "wish list" than a reflection of likely success. In
Pennsylvania, for instance, the issue is being pushed mostly by a single lawmaker.
There has been little sign that the other three states that border Mexico will follow Arizona's
lead. California, New Mexico and Texas have long-established, politically powerful Hispanic
communities, and have seen less illegal immigration than Arizona since the 1990s, when the U.S.
government added fences, stadium lights and more agents to the border in California and Texas.
Arizona, a state of 6.6 million with an estimated 486,000 illegal immigrants, has been affected
by the issue more than other states, said Ann Morse, who heads the National Conference of State
Legislature's Immigrant Policy Project.
In three years, U.S. Border Patrol agents in Arizona arrested nearly 1 million illegal immigrants,
about half of all arrests on U.S. borders. More slipped past, fueling a smuggling industry that has
been blamed for a steady rise in kidnappings and immigrant safehouses.
Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, said she thinks the threat of
Arizona-style legislation will continue to be a rallying cry into 2011, but believes many states
ultimately won't follow through for fear of repercussions.
City councils in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Calif., and Bloomington, Ind., are among the
governments that have boycotted Arizona, refusing to do business with companies based there.
Lawmakers in California are considering a plan for their state to follow suit.
"Nobody wants to see their state perceived as unwelcoming," said Malhotra, whose group is
suing Arizona over its law.
Also lining up against state-by-state legislation are business and agriculture groups. Brent
Olmstead, lobbyist for Idaho's $2 billion dairy industry, pledged to work to kill Arizona-style
reforms in Idaho in 2011 just as he did to block past bills seeking to punish companies that hire
illegal workers.
"The issue just gets more convoluted," Olmstead said. "It sends a message that the Latino and
Hispanic population isn't wanted."
___
Contributing to this story were AP writers Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pa.; Tim Talley in
Oklahoma City; Nate Jenkins in Lincoln, Neb.; Seanna Adcox in Columbia, S.C.; Sandra Chereb
in Carson City, Nev.; Bill Kaczor in Tallahassee, Fla.; and Martiga Lohn in St. Paul, Minn.
Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill
newsletter! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/29/national/main6723996.shtml
AZ Immigration Ruling Deals Blow to other States
Judgment Blocking Controversial Parts of New Law Will Likely Give Pause
to States Hoping to Follow Similar Blueprint

Community members from the Puente Movement petitioned the city to not enforce
Arizona's immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most
controversial parts of the law from taking effect. (AP Photo)
(CBS/ AP) States that had been watching Arizona's immigration law in hopes of copying it
received a rude awakening when a judge put most of the measure on hold and agreed with the
Obama administration's core argument that immigration enforcement is the role of the federal
government.
The ruling marked a repudiation of the Arizona law as U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton indicated
that the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration
law trumps state law. It was an important first-round victory for the government in a fight that
may not be settled until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.
But opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to
replicate the law. "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting
legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for
Arizona, told The Associated Press. "The proponents of this went into court saying there was no
question that this was constitutional, and now you have a federal judge who's said 'hold on,
there's major issues with this bill."'
He added: "So this idea that this is going to be a blueprint for other states is seriously in doubt.
The blueprint is constitutionally flawed."
Even with the court ruling, more demonstrations are expected Thursday against the new
immigration law. Opponents know there will be an appeal and that their battle is not over,
reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.
Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday's decision "a bump in the road" and vowed such an appeal.
The key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and
predicted that the state would ultimately win the case.
One of the biggest supporters of the law, Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he'll continue to arrest illegal
immigrants and issued a sharp warning to those threatening a sit-in at his jail today, reports
Blackstone.
"I am not going to have my jails held hostage," he said.
In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law,
including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing
other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and
banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places - a move aimed at day
laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked
officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status
of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be
restricted while their status is checked," said Bolton, a Clinton appointee who was assigned the
seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.
Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday morning,
including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.
The 11th-hour ruling came just as police were preparing to begin enforcement of a law that has
drawn international attention and revived the national immigration debate in a year when
Democrats are struggling to hold on to seats in Congress.
The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond. About 100 protesters in Mexico City
who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the
ruling. They had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-yearold from Zacatecas, Mexico who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard the news
live on a Spanish-language news program.
"I was waiting to hear because we're all very worried about everything that's happening," said
Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don't go out
at night at certain times there's so much fear (of police). You can't just sit back and relax."
Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when
their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Some lawmakers pushing the legislation said
they would not be daunted by the ruling and plan to push ahead in response to what they
believe is a scourge that needs to be tackled.
Arizona is the nation's epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented
residents. The state's border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel
narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and the influx of illegal migrants drains vast
sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.
"We're going to have to look and see," said Idaho state Sen. Monty Pearce, a second cousin of
Russell Pearce and a supporter of immigration reform in his state. "Nobody had dreamed up,
two years ago, the Arizona law, and so everybody is looking for that crack where we can get
something done, where we can turn the clock back a little bit and get our country back."
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and
train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of
Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a
federal appeals court decides the case.
"It's a temporary setback," Kobach said. "The bottom line is that every lawyer in Judge Bolton's
court knows this is just the first pitch in a very long baseball game."
In the meantime, other states like Utah will likely take up similar laws, possibly redesigned to
get around Bolton's objections.
"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl
Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to
Arizona's next year and wasn't surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered
in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."
The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law - an issue
known as "pre-emption" in legal circles and one that dates to the founding of America. In her
ruling, Bolton pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government
would likely succeed on its claims.
The Justice Department argued in court that the law was unconstitutional and that allowing
states to push their own measures would lead to a patchwork of immigration laws across the
nation and disrupt a carefully balanced approach crafted by Congress.
Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to secure the border, and that it has a
right to take matters into its own hands.
For now, the federal government has the upper-hand in the dispute, by virtue of the strength of
its arguments and the precedent on the pre-emption issue. The Bush administration
successfully used the pre-emption argument to win consumer product cases, and judges in
other jurisdictions have looked favorably on the argument in immigration disputes.
"This is clearly a significant victory for the Justice Department and a defeat for the sponsors of
this law," said Peter Spiro, a constitutional law professor at Temple University who has studied
immigration law extensively. "They will not win on this round of appeals. They'll get a shot after
a trial and a final ruling by Judge Bolton."
© MMX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.