Immigration Policies in American States

Introduction 

Undocumented migrants are a universal matter in the public media, in national security discussions, and in election campaigns on federal, state, and local levels. Anti-immigrant oratory strikes a triad with individuals who fear a future or present association between immigration and delinquency, thus defending restrictionist policy advancement which unduly impacts Latino immigrants in America, together with immigrants from across the world. The deficiency in policy reaction from the central government lingers in spite of numerous surveys which show immigration policy is among the most significant matters to the United States public. Consequently, numerous states have passed their individual immigration policies. Indeed, in the year 2009 only, forty-six states recommended one-thousand five hundred pieces of the immigration-connected bill, of which three-hundred and thirty-three became law (Toomey et al., 2014). This is an intense upsurge from the year 2005 when three-hundred legislations dealing with immigration were presented and fifty became law. However, little is recognized regarding how such decentralized and localized immigration rules affect social work practice. Even though certain writers study state immigration policies, hardly any assume a comparative tactic to the latest procedures and laws or investigate how the policies affect undocumented Latino migrants as well as the social workers who attend to them. An insight into immigration policy would provide students and social work practitioners with the info required to help lessen the practical and moral dilemmas which come appear thanks to restrictionist immigration rules. The current paper seeks to compare immigration policies in 3 American states: that is Indiana, Arizona, and Alabama. 

The individual state has different Latino immigration rates; each state has its individual multifaceted set of socioeconomic influences in addition to historical trends of immigration. The states selected for exploration each criminalize and restrict undocumented immigrants. For instance, between 2008 and 2012 acts, Arizona ratified twelve relaxing immigration acts and twenty-seven limiting immigration. On the other hand, Alabama approved twenty restricting and three liberalizing immigration acts, whereas Indiana approved five restrictive and seven liberalizing laws (Toomey et al., 2014). Throughout the unchanged period, California approved the biggest sum of liberalizing rules whereas Arizona approved the biggest sum of restrictive rules. Generally speaking, states differ in their policy advancement to undocumented immigrants. 

Migration of Unregistered Latinos in the U.S. 

Because of high immigration rates, fertility rates, and age, Latinos are the biggest and most rapidly increasing minority community in the U.S. Consistent with the year 2010 Census, persons of Latino or Hispanic origin represent about 16.3 percent of America’s population, paralleled to around 13 percent in the year 2000 (Martinez, 2014). Individuals of Mexican origin make up seventy-five percent of the increase of the Hispanic people between 2000 and 2010. Persons of Mexican origin remain the biggest proportional and numeric Hispanic community in America. Up until the 1980s, a huge majority of Latinos, largely Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, dwelled in California as well as the southwest with some Cubans, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, residing in the eastern coastline. Fresh patterns of immigration reveal a substantial spread of Latinos in states that formerly had a small number of, thus shifting the sociocultural scenery of the U.S. 

In spite of their mounting presence, Latino migrants and immigration patterns are usually misunderstood. Prevalent debate decontextualizes Latino migration encounters and the Latinos’ history in the U.S. Also, it decontextualizes the role of American economic, social, as well as global economic policies that have affected conditions and forces resulting in immigration. A survey of the past history to Latino immigration shows that the U.S. is not simply an inert, impartial host but functions as the main determinant for Latino migrants and their nations of origin. The United States economy has traditionally been reliant on migrant workforces. For example, between 1942 and 1964, America established a controversial contract with Mexico, called the Bracero Program, which imported Central American and Mexican citizens to take up provisional agrarian work in the U.S. In the course of its twenty-two-year duration, over 4.5 million Mexican residents were employed for farming work (Barranco, 2013). Furthermore, between the 1950s and the 1980s, the U.S. actively sponsored the development and training of revolutionary sets in Central America as a way of fighting the radical movements’ ascend to supremacy (Martinez, 2014). The “scorched earth” rules of El Salvador’s, Nicaragua’s, and Guatemala’s administrations resulted in major waves of immigrants running away from repression. The rise of adolescence gangs, for example, in both El Salvador and Los Angeles throughout this period could be traced partially to United States transnational policies. 

The three restrictive state acts, i.e., Arizona SB 1070, Indiana SB 590 and Alabama HB 56 

Arizona’s Case 

Arizona’s SB 1070, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, is regarded as the earliest of the more restraining rules. The act gives law enforcement officers power to decide immigration status. Traditionally, law enforcement staffs have been restrained to explore legitimate status because of jurisdiction matters. Nevertheless, that has not hindered Arizona from reshaping and redefining the state’s opinion and reaction to immigration. Arizona has an ancient past of Latino peoples which dates back to its roots. Mexico lost about fifty percent of its area to the U.S. through two laws: the year 1853 Gadsden Purchase, in addition to the year 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The lost area took in Arizona, which was home to numerous Native peoples. In the early twentieth century, native populations represented 1.5 percent of the aggregate American population. Arizona has the 3rd biggest Native American populace (about 234,891) (Anderson & Finch, 2014). Arizona saw a change in demographics following the California Gold Rush of the year 1849 after fifty-thousand Whites immigrated and represented eighty percent of Arizona’s people. The White people were the “migrants” while the Mexicans were the “natives”; however, the native Mexicans turned into the “other” (Magaña & Lee, 2013). Ever since the Latino populace has been acquiring ground and increasing in digits. Arizona State has been regarded as the historic battlefield on the matter of unregistered immigration. In the year 2004, Arizona approved Proposition 200, which obliged public workers to examine the individuals’ legal status before the receiving of civic benefits. Proposition 200 heralded for imminent anti-immigration determinations all over the U.S. and signifies extensive racism. SB 1070 is a distinctive proof of xenophobia. 

The Policy 

In the year 2012, the Arizona Parliament passed SB 1070. In the year 2010, Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, signed into law the SB 1070. Russell Pearce, a Republican Senator, was the key supporter of the bill. The act covered 6 areas. Firstly, the law extended the implementation of immigration matters from federal-alone authorities, Immigration and Customs Implementation, to local and state authorities. Police played a bigger role in inspecting migration status, reporting it to the national government, capturing noncitizens and easing the abstraction of non-citizens into the federal authorities’ hands. Regional law enforcement officers were issued with the authority to define the status of a person who is legitimately arrested, stopped, or imprisoned. Secondly, SB 1070 necessitated that every state resident eighteen plus years old convey a specific kind of identification. The kinds of identification there were considered valid were: a legal Arizona non-operational identification license; a legal Arizona driver license; an ethnic registration card; as well as a legal local, state or federal government-granted identification which necessitated evidence of legal status prior to being granted. Failure to obey could lead to imprisonment and/or fines. 

Third, SB 1070 outlawed the action of collecting passengers for work. The section pursued punishments for both individuals transporting and hiring an employee. The law criminalized impeding traffic because of applying for or securing work; also it criminalized impeding traffic to employ a person for work. An undocumented laborer who utilized a civic space to pursue hire was defiling the SB 1070 act. Illicitly transportation of or harboring illegal foreigners was the 4th element of SB 1070. Boss authorizations were a 5th area tackled by the law. Lastly, the authority to capture without a warrant that was formerly allowable for police was stretched to Peace Officers. No state had been capable of passing a rule punishing immigrants for inflowing a state border until SB 1070 act. Some states—Texas in the year 2009, Colorado in the year 2008, and California in the year 2007— had tried to outlaw state intruding, however, no measures approved. 

In the year 2012, the United States Supreme Court settled Arizona v. the United States. Filed by the United States Department of Justice, the court trial claimed that federal act preempts state to act in 4 requirements of SB 1070. The initial provision was Section 2B, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The 2 nd decision that makes the failure to request or carry centrally granted foreign registration documents a state offense, was hit down. Third, the section that criminalizes the unapproved immigrant to “apply for, solicit, or execute work” was similarly struck down (Anderson & Finch, 2014). Last of all, Section six, “Approving the arrest of an individual without a warrant where there exists plausible cause to trust the individual to have committed a civic crime which makes the being deportable from America” was struck down. 

Judge Susan Bolton settled in 2012 that it was lawful for authorities to validate the status of persons they legally stop and suspicious that are within the state unlawfully. The ruling was as per the June 2012 decision by the Supreme Court (Magaña & Lee, 2013). Susan Bolton progressed to order the state to discontinue implementing an additional requirement of SB 1070 that criminalized transporting, harboring, or shielding an unauthorized immigrant. 

Social and Economic Costs 

The economic, social, psychological and political, effects of SB 1070 act are substantial. Soon after the passing of the bill, an alliance of civil rights groups, counting labor unions along with several entertainers and performers, planned the state boycott. The union demanded the boycott of conventions, conferences, and exceptional proceedings. It was anticipated that towards that the conclusion the year 2011, Arizona could lose more than 750 million USD in direct income and more over 17 million USD in taxes. Furthermore, law enforcement departments feared that the expenses of training and execution of the act would cost millions of monies. Whereas it could be presumed that legal costs could put the sizeable burden on taxpayers, this hasn’t been the situation. The majority of the in excess of two million USD expended in legal expenses to protect the act from numerous legal trials has been donated by private inhabitants to the state account created by Governor Jan Brewer. 

The SB 1070 act’s key implication could be the histrionic consequences of taking out the unauthorized people in Arizona. In case all unauthorized immigrants were taken out, aggregate employment could decline by about 17.2 percent (more than five-hundred jobs); the economy of Arizona could decline by about 48.8 billion USD, and state tax returns could drop by about 10.1 percent. Getting rid of unauthorized migrants from Arizona could have terrible consequences for everyone. 

Alabama’s Case 

Equated to Arizona, the background for immigration policy in Alabama is much different. In Alabama, the account of racial discrimination and the aggressive reactions of white inhabitants against civic rights campaigners is an indication of an elongated history of oppression and racism. Traditionally, Alabama has had an extremely low fraction of Latinos living in the state. A majority of the unregistered immigrants pursued employment in agriculture, construction, and meatpacking. This influx of Latinos in Alabama has implied the presentation and ratification of what several people term as the severest anti-immigrant act, HB 56. 

The Policy 

Along with allowing police officers to define an individual’s immigration status, HB 56 forbids property-owners from letting to unauthorized immigrants, efficiently necessitating property-owners to function as de facto migration officers. Section 30 criminalizes a “foreigner not legitimately present in America to go into or try to enter into a commercial deal with the state” (Mohl, 2016). The law lists certain dealings but ignores others. For example, business dealings might or might not encompass services like the utilization of the parking meter or the community leisure facility. This segment of the rule makes existing in America, which was a governmental violation, an offense. Outlawing the exact procedure of engaging with the organizations which are usually deemed necessary for welfare and health has resulted in numerous persons being deprived of many crucial services. For example, Alabama necessitates citizens to exhibit lawful residency for sustained utilization of water facility. The act makes it a crime to live in a person’s home for certain immigrants. Migrants who possess mobile homes could be doing a Class C crime through payment of their registration charges to a state, considering that even this height of interaction could amount to a criminal act. 

Furthermore, HB 56 act criminalizes an employer hiring unauthorized people. The act maintains that it is an unfair practice to deny a job to legitimate citizens because of the hire of undocumented workforces. Other requirements criminalize the transportation of unregistered immigrants or application for work by undocumented immigrants. Under the act, the unregistered immigrants can’t get public benefits at the local or state level, including joining public universities and colleges(Mohl, 2016). 

The broad and vague nature of some requirements of HB 56 significantly threatens access to social work in addition to other human provisions. For example, section 28 necessitates secondary and elementary schools to file the migration status of arriving learners and their families and to deliver this data to the state. Even though advocates of the act claim the intention is not to discourage or limit school attendance by unregistered learners or kids of unregistered parents, the outcomes have confirmed otherwise. On the initial day, the new act was effected, about two-thousand Latino kids, or seven percent of Latino learners in the state failed to attend school. Whereas school administrators assured that migration information will be utilized for “statistics” and simply shared collectively, the policy has generated fear and anxiety. What's more, the deficiency in the specificity of several of the requirements makes enforcement challenging and has caused several government officers and business leaders to demand an amendment of the act. For example, Madison and Huntsville County attorneys have ordered their county representatives to resist inspecting the migration status in government commercial dealings. 

Social and Economic Costs 

About 7 months after the passing of HB 56, the state parliament recognized that the act had unpremeditated adverse consequences. For instance, in their keenness to capture and take away unregistered immigrants, lawmakers wrote into the act a requirement which permitted residents to file a lawsuit against specific officials who were not gratifying their enforcement obligations of capturing unregistered immigrants (Mohl, 2016). Furthermore, Alabama state highly depends on agriculture; and following the ratification of HB 56, Latinos flew the state or were just scared to leave their personal homes. In the view of the farmers, the act is denying them steady, experienced labor—and risking to deal with a deadly setback to crops all over the state. 

Concurrently with state lawmaking actions which destabilized the act, the Obama government, together with the churches, Justice Department, in addition to civil rights associations, pursued a legal remedy to stop either entire or a portion of the act from being executed. In a fruitful action of surrender, Alabama resolved its numerous court cases in 2013 and paid 350,000 USD to settle their challengers’ legal bills. A decision which compelled their hand-formed standards which will prevent similar acts even sooner should they emerge. In spite of certain provisions persisting, counting employer confirmation of worker legitimate status and law officers authenticating legal status on a legal stop, the departure of Latinos from the Alabama state was transitory. Alienation and fear amongst Latinos in Alabama carries on. 

Indiana’s Case 

Just as its sister-states, Alabama and Arizona, Indiana approved copycat anti-immigrant law in an effort to liberate the state from unregistered immigrants. Signed into law in the year 2011, SB 590 was originally intended to copycat Arizona SB 1070, nonetheless, eventually was less restraining than either HB 56 or SB 1070. Nevertheless, SB 590 was an outcome of both the deficiency in federal omission in migration issues as well as the racialization of the state. Republican legislators said that a tougher migration law was crucial. Republican Sen. Mike Delph, a benefactor of SB 590 act, claimed that the act was merely intended to target unregistered immigrants; nevertheless, through the lawmaking procedure, most of the provisions planned to tackle the implementation of illicit migration at the state and federal level was exposed (Elias, 2013). The bill underwent major revisions before it was signed into law in the year 2011. 

Social and Economic Costs 

Indiana could lose more than 1.3 billion USD in gross national product, 2.8 billion USD in economic activity, and more than sixteen- thousand employments with the elimination of all unregistered immigrants in Indiana. Moreover, in the year 2007 immigrants all over the state coughed up about 2.1 billion USD in local, state, and federal taxes, 902 million USD of which was from unregistered immigrants. Although SB 590 act does not seem to be as severe as the acts in Alabama or Arizona, inhabitants of Indiana still fear the possible consequences of its enforced. 

Conclusion 

In a nutshell, the latest explosion of enforcement-only, “self-deportation” immigration rule has had an intense effect on social work norms with immigrant clienteles in the U.S. The strategies harshly restrict and limit social work practices with the susceptible clients and could complicate even further already contradictory opinions certain social workers have regarding the moral dilemmas faced while attending to undocumented immigrants. Whereas policy affects the lives, psychosocial health and experiences of documented, as well as undocumented immigrants, the unwillingness of the United States federal government to define an intelligible nationwide immigration policy, has left the states to turn into the principal policy influence on the immigrants’ lives. This has demonstrated to be unfavorable to a lot of immigrants’ lives, and particularly difficult for undocumented Latinos. 

References 

Anderson, K. F., & Finch, J. K. (2014). Racially charged legislation and Latino health disparities: the case of Arizona's SB 1070. Sociological Spectrum , 34 (6), 526-548. 

Barranco, R. E. (2013). Latino immigration, interaction, and homicide victimization. Sociological Spectrum , 33 (6), 534-553. 

Elias, S. B. (2013). The New Immigration Federalism. Ohio St. LJ , 74 , 703. 

Magaña, L., & Lee, E. (2013). Latino politics and Arizona's immigration law SB 1070 . Nueva York: Springer. 

Martinez Jr, R. (2014). Latino homicide: Immigration, violence, and community . Routledge. 

Mohl, R. A. (2016). The Politics of Expulsion: A Short History of Alabama's Anti-Immigrant Law, HB 56. Journal of American Ethnic History , 35 (3), 42-67. 

Toomey, R. B., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Williams, D. R., Harvey-Mendoza, E., Jahromi, L. B., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Impact of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law on utilization of health care and public assistance among Mexican-origin adolescent mothers and their mother figures. American journal of public health , 104 (S1), S28-S34.