September 24, 2007

A Patchwork of Immigration Ordinances Launched Across the Country

While Prince William and Loudoun counties in Virginia implemented legislation to deny illegal immigrants access to public benefits, including the use of public parks, New Haven, Connecticut chose to embrace immigrants by issuing special identification cards to its undocumented residents. New Haven is the first city in the country to take such action. Some officials in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in Florida expressed interest in issuing similar identification cards. According to the National Conference of State legislatures, more than 1,300 immigrant-related bills have been introduced in state capitals.

However calmer heads are prevailing in some places amidst the polarization in local immigration policy. A few states retracted laws passed aimed at controlling immigration. For example, Riverside, New Jersey recently rescinded its “Illegal Immigration Relief Act,” which carried fines, jail sentences and possible loss of business licenses of employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers. Riverside, a community of 8,000, faced mounting legal costs as several human rights and business groups sued the city. In rescinding the law it passed in 2006 but never enforced, Riverside officials took a cue from the Hazeltown, Pennsylvania case, where a judge ruled in July that a similar local anti-immigration ordinance was unconstitutional. Judge James Munley, in the 206-page ruling, cautioned that such laws tread on federal terrain and violate illegal immigrants’ constitutional right to due process.

Indeed, the Hazeltown, Pennsylvania case created a ripple effect as a string of recent judicial decisions have invalidated many tough ordinances. Laws enacted in Escondido, California and Farmers Branch, Texas cracking down on landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants and employers who hire them, were quashed or placed on hold. Cobb County, Georgia announced earlier this year that it was rescinding plans to try to limit the hiring of immigrant day laborers because such an ordinance might be rejected in court.

In spite of this trend, Prince William County, Virginia marches forward with its aggressive anti-immigration ordinance. With a projected cost of $14.2 million over the first five years, the ordinance would take effect in January 2008. The proposed policy would allow local police to check the immigration status if two requirements are met: there is probable cause to believe a person is in the country illegally, and a check of immigration status does not increase the time a person is detained. Still, county officials acknowledge immigration is a federal matter, which requires them to investigate a separate violation before checking a person’s immigration status.

Nevertheless, some immigration experts believe judgments such as Hazelton mean little for Virginia and Maryland, whose 4th Circuit appeals court has not yet weighed in on the issue. In the meantime, as local laws continue to spring up, so will the lawsuits. Perhaps the developing patchwork of conflicting immigration ordinances will finally induce Congress to implement comprehensive immigration reform. GT will continue to provide updates on this salient issue.