Docstoc

NALEO tax attorneys los angeles

Document Sample
NALEO tax attorneys los angeles Powered By Docstoc
					The NALEO Educational Fund wishes to thank the National Council of the La Raza and the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for providing much of the content included
in this tool kit. Together we bring you background on SB 1070 and tools to defeat similar legislation that
may arise in your state.




                                                                                                        1
                                                       ..................................................................................3
                                                         ................................................................................6
                                                .........................................................................................8
                                          .............................................................................................10
      .................................................................................................................................11
                   ....................................................................................................................12
       ................................................................................................................................13
       ................................................................................................................................15
                .......................................................................................................................17
                                                                    ...................................................................18
                                                                                 .....................................................20
                                                                     ..................................................................23
                                                                                                        ..............................25
........................................................................................................................................27




                                                                                                                                        2
There has been a significant national and international debate regarding Arizona‘s law—Senate Bill 1070
(SB 1070), the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act—which was signed into law
in April 2010. Much of the controversy surrounding this law focuses on how:
    1. The law requires local police departments to enforce federal immigration law, diverting much
       needed resources away from public safety.
    2. The law—and others like it—is a very costly approach at a time when states are going through
       tough economic times.
    3. The law essentially sanctions racial profiling as compulsory police practice.
    4. The law does not provide a real solution to our nation‘s broken immigration system.

What is SB 1070?
Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law SB 1070, legislation which essentially sanctions racial
profiling as law enforcement practice, infringes on the rights of all U.S. citizens, and has already been
challenged in the courts. It should be noted that under current law, law enforcement officials have the
ability to detain criminals; however, laws like SB 1070 go well beyond federal immigration law by
imposing new and often more severe penalties.

Timeline of SB 1070
An update on the developments surrounding SB 1070 is as follows:
       April 23, 2010. SB 1070 signed into law. The law‘s most controversial provision authorizes law
        enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone stopped if an officer has a ―reasonable
        suspicion‖ that an individual is an undocumented immigrant (see Appendix A for a detailed
        summary of the law).
       July 6, 2010. With several other lawsuits already filed against the state by civil rights
        organizations1 and police officers,2 the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona,
        challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070 on the grounds that the law interferes with the
        federal government‘s authority to set and enforce immigration policy.3
       July 28, 2010. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction that
        prevented several provisions of SB 1070 from being implemented.4
       November 1, 2010. Governor Brewer immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
        Appeals, where arguments were heard on November 1. A decision is pending, and Governor
        Brewer has stated that she will continue the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

The effect of legislation like Arizona’s on your state
Legislation like SB 1070 does nothing to fix the nation‘s broken immigration system. It puts public safety
and the civil rights of all Americans at risk while placing a burden on local coffers. The following pages
outline the most severe implications of adopting SB 1070-like legislation including:




                                                                                                          3
    1. The hidden costs of such legislation: The costs are astronomical at a time when states can least
       afford it.
    2. The detrimental effects of copycat legislation on public safety: This legislation undermines
       law enforcement and will not make our communities safer.
    3. The ways in which copycat legislation infringes on citizens’ civil rights: The Arizona law and
       copycat legislation violate the civil rights of all Americans and are an affront to our nation‘s
       commitment to equal treatment under the law.
Dozens of leaders throughout the country have discussed why this law is not the right approach and is
detrimental to America‘s free market values. These voices of opposition to SB 1070 or copycat
legislation come from all ends of the political spectrum and a variety of public sectors, including Florida
Senator Marco Rubio, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, St. Louis
Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols, and more (see Appendix B).
The American public and the residents of your state have every right to be frustrated with the federal
government‘s failure to fix our immigration system, but the passage of an Arizona copycat law does not
provide real solutions.

How do laws like SB 1070 expand racial profiling?
Under current law, state and local police are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws in certain
circumstances. Even so, law enforcement agencies in Arizona and throughout the country are already
being challenged by substantial evidence of wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and discrimination.5 SB
1070 and similar laws would dramatically exacerbate the problem by:
       Codifying racial profiling as standard practice for law enforcement statewide
       Increasing the ranks of those enforcing immigration laws from a few police departments to every
        single law enforcement officer in the entire state, regardless of access to proper training
       Requiring that all state officials ask everyone who is ―reasonably suspected‖ of being
        undocumented for proof of legal residency, yet failing to provide objective criteria for
        determining what might constitute ―reasonable suspicion‖
       Providing powerful incentives for wrongful arrest, racial profiling, and other abuse by creating a
        private right of action against any agency that fails to uphold the law‘s provisions, while at the
        same time indemnifying police officers from litigation brought by those who are wrongfully
        detained or racially profiled

Who is behind SB 1070 and copycat laws?
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce was the lead sponsor of SB 1070 in Arizona, the main author of the
bill was Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) counsel Kris Kobach, a law professor from Kansas
who was recently elected as the Kansas Secretary of State. Mr. Kobach has served as lead counsel to
defend a number of other laws that are currently suspended due to unconstitutionality, such as those in
Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Valley Park, Missouri; and Farmers Branch, Texas.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Federation for American Immigration
Reform (FAIR), the nation‘s leading anti-immigrant organization, was founded by White nationalist
John Tanton and has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a White supremacist




                                                                                                         4
foundation devoted to proving a connection between race and intelligence. In its legislative pursuits,
FAIR has been aided by its legal arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), which writes
much of the anti-immigrant legislative language for state and local ordinances and bills throughout the
country.
The National Public Radio (NPR) released a report in late October outlining the connections between the
private prison industry and SB 1070, showing how the industry‘s economic interests increase the pressure
for the criminalization and incarceration of undocumented immigrants.6 According to the report, the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose members include both legislators and private
business companies, including the Correction Corporation of America, took part in crafting SB 1070 as
a model for legislators in other states to follow. Of the 36 Arizona legislators who co-sponsored SB
1070, two-thirds are members of ALEC, and in the six-month period following their co-sponsorship of
SB 1070, 30 of them received donations from prison lobbyists or prison companies.

What is right for my state?
Only the federal government has the authority to secure our borders and create a national approach to
immigration. Creating a patchwork of 50 different immigration laws would be unworkable and
dangerous. As a policy maker you can encourage federal elected officials in your state to be part of the
solution and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Support of immigration reform would:
       Create a legal and orderly system that serves the needs of American families and the American
        economy
       Require those who are here without authorization to get right with the law, go through criminal
        background checks, learn English, pay taxes and fines, and earn their citizenship
       Secure our borders by eliminating arms, cash, and human smuggling networks
       Stop employers who manipulate the system, game honest employers, and cheat American
        workers
For a list of alternative, solutions-driven legislative measures, see Appendix C.




                                                                                                      5
         The costs of this law are astronomical at a time when our state can least afford it

SB 1070-like legislation creates unfunded mandates for law enforcement
Adding a new, expensive mandate to arrest and detain immigrants—which would require additional
training and supervision of law enforcement officers—will overburden local police departments and
divert resources away from solving other crimes.
       Local police agencies or departments do not enforce tax evasion laws and similar federal
        offenses, so requiring local law enforcement to implement federal immigration law would result
        in making trade-offs.
       The detention of immigrants would overwhelm current jail capacity. Federal laws require jails to
        meet certain standards before they are approved as holding facilities for immigrants, many
        municipalities do not meet these standards and would have to upgrade their facilities.
        “If the local police are doing federal law enforcement, other law enforcement responsibilities get
        a lower priority by default.”7 −Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and
        Naturalization Service

This law would invite costly legal challenges
State and local jurisdictions that have attempted to take over immigration enforcement from the federal
government have paid large legal bills in a losing effort to defend these types of laws. A copycat law will
invite costly litigation over its constitutionality and could take years to settle.
       The U.S. Department of Justice sued Arizona, resulting in a court ruling that blocked major parts
        of the law and cost Arizona $1.5 million in legal fees—and that‘s only through November 2010.
       Similar state laws and local ordinances have repeatedly lost expensive legal battles in federal
        courts. For example, taxpayers have felt the burden in several cities: $2.4 million in Hazleton,
        Pennsylvania; $4 million in Farmers Branch, Texas; and $270,000 in Valley Park, Missouri.
        Fremont, Nebraska recently had to raise property taxes by 18% to cover the first year of
        defending its local anti-immigration ordinance.8
       In addition to the costs of defending the law‘s constitutionality, the institutionalizing of racial
        profiling opens the state to additional potential litigation for violating U.S. citizens‘ civil rights.
        “Both of our city’s ordinances were written by [Kris] Kobach and both were ruled
        unconstitutional. I believe our city’s taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for the benefit of a
        national organization that is never mentioned in any discussion of the issue.”9 −Former city
        councilwoman Carol Dingman from Farmers Branch, Texas

An Arizona copycat law would taint our state’s image, leading to substantial business losses
Copycat laws do not offer solutions to the severe budget gaps and unemployment levels that our state
faces. In fact, it may reduce revenue coming into the state, as domestic and international tourists are
turned off by the unwelcoming environment.




                                                                                                             6
       Arizona will likely lose $253 million from conference cancellations and booking declines coupled
        with $17 million of lost tax revenue that accompanies the losses in tourism spending and
        employment.10
       In addition, the Arizona Tourism Alliance and Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association, noted that
        one of the biggest issues is ―tentative bookings‖ and new business—dozens of groups were in
        negotiations for hosting conferences in Arizona between 2011 and 2015 but have decided to go
        elsewhere and refuse to sign contracts. “We have an image and public-relations problem of what
        might be unprecedented proportions.” −Phoenix deputy city manager, David Krietor11
       Kovach, Inc. of Chandler, Arizona lost a $40 million contract bid at Los Angeles International
        Airport as a result of the SB 1070 controversy.12
       Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had to transfer $250,000 to the Office of Tourism for a marketing
        campaign that she hoped would address the state‘s negative image.13
       Immigrants are already part of the economic fabric of the state, and laws that send an unwelcoming
        message to the immigrant community will negatively impact our recovering economy. In fact, The
        Perryman Group found that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state
        would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and 140,324
        jobs—all while the state‘s 2011–2012 budget has a projected deficit of $1.4 billion.14

For a state-by-state breakdown of the losses that your state would face, visit:
www.americansforimmigrationreform.com/files/Impact_of_the_Undocumented_Workforce.pdf.

Additional fiscal losses
In addition to the calculated costs outlined above, many cities throughout the country passed divestment
resolutions boycotting Arizona and travel bans prohibiting city employees from traveling to the state (see
Appendix D for a full list).

A full list of conferences and events that have been cancelled in Arizona can be found at
www.boycottintolerance.org/updates/p/business.

A coalition of more than 400 musical and comedic artists called The Sound Strike, have pledged not to
perform in Arizona in protest of SB 1070. For information on the coalition‘s activity, visit
www.thesoundstrike.net.




                                                                                                         7
        This legislation undermines law enforcement and will not make our communities safer

A law like this diverts police attention from serious crimes
Rather than focusing on the criminal element responsible for murder, rape, and theft, police officers will
be forced to focus on the immigration status of everyone in the community. It will make local police
responsible for enforcing immigration laws, which diverts them from the important job of protecting our
neighborhoods. This unconstitutional legislation will jeopardize the public safety of everyone.
        A report by Arizona‘s East Valley Tribune found that deputies from the Maricopa County
         Sheriff‘s Office—an agency that has been actively participating in immigration enforcement—
         were failing to meet the county’s standard for life-threatening emergency response time.
         Over a period of two years, two-thirds of patrol cars arrived late to the most serious calls for
         police assistance.15
        In a survey of 54 police chiefs, deputies, and sheriffs conducted by the Police Foundation, only
         nine officers said that the 287(g) program, an immigration enforcement program similar to SB
         1070, helped fight crime, while the majority of law enforcement officials agreed that 287(g)
         agreements detract from more pressing and urgent police work, such as pursuing hardened
         criminals with arrest warrants.16
        SB 1070 and copycat laws put law enforcement between a rock and a hard place: If they enforce
         the law, they risk lawsuits for violation of civil rights; if they don‘t, they risk lawsuits from
         everyday citizens who feel that they are failing to enforce the law with sufficient vigor.

This type of law will not make our communities safer
This law will send a chilling effect through the community, serving as a deterrent for both victims and
witnesses to report crimes to the police. Evidence shows that laws that entangle police in immigration
enforcement are likely to make communities less safe by decreasing the ability of local police to rely on
the community to report dangerous criminal activity.
        A 2008 survey of law enforcement executives indicated that aggressive enforcement of
         immigration law by local law enforcement would have a negative impact on community
         relationships by decreasing both the reporting of crime victimization (85%) and the reporting of
         criminal activity (83%).17
        In its recommendations to local law enforcement agencies for enforcement of immigration law,
         made in June 2006, the Major Cities Chiefs Association states: “Immigration enforcement by
         local police would likely negatively [affect] and undermine the level of trust and cooperation
         between local police and immigrant communities…Such a divide between the local police and
         immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader
         community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from
         immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”18
        Sergeant Brian Soller, President of the Mesa Fraternal Order of Police, said that one of the
         consequences of SB 1070 is that immigrants are “going to shy away from us instead of coming
         forward with information” about serious crimes such as homicide or rape.19



                                                                                                         8
      According to Kendra Leiby of the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, ―the enactment
       of SB 1070 is absolutely going to prevent immigrant women from seeking domestic-violence
       services.”20

The Arizona bill was founded on myths and lies about the immigrant community
Numerous studies by independent researchers and government entities consistently show that immigrants
are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than the native-born population.
      In fact, although the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. doubled to about 11 million
       between 1994 and 2005, the U.S. violent crime rate declined by 34.2% and the property crime
       rate fell by 26.4%.21
      Proponents of SB 1070 falsely cited an increase in crime when, in fact, crime in Arizona has
       declined over the past ten years.22




                                                                                                    9
    The Arizona law violates the civil rights of all Americans and is an affront to our nation’s
                         commitment to equal treatment under the law

An Arizona copycat law would violate the civil rights of millions of Americans by:
    1. Codifying racial profiling as standard practice for law enforcement statewide
    2. Increasing the ranks of those enforcing federal immigration laws to every single local law
       enforcement officer in the state, regardless of access to proper training
    3. Requiring that all state officials ask everyone who is ―reasonably suspected‖ of being
       undocumented for proof of legal residency, yet failing to provide objective criteria for
       determining what might constitute “reasonable suspicion”
    4. Providing powerful incentives for wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and other abuse by creating a
       private right of action against any agency that fails to uphold the law‘s provisions, while at the
       same time indemnifying police officers from litigation brought by those who are wrongfully
       detained or racially profiled

Racial profiling is a widespread problem
Local immigration enforcement has already led to the widespread racial profiling of U.S. citizens and
Latino legal residents; laws like SB 1070 will only exacerbate an existing problem.
       In an April–May 2010 New York Times/ABC poll, 82% of Americans said that they thought the
        new Arizona law would lead to police officers detaining people of certain racial or ethnic groups
        more frequently than other racial or ethnic groups.23
       According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 10% of Latinos are stopped and asked for immigration
        papers every year. Thus, of the nearly 50 million U.S. Latinos, 80% of whom are U.S. Citizens
        or legal immigrants, five million are ensnared in immigration enforcement annually.24

Racial profiling erodes public trust in law enforcement
       In 1998, the U.S. Customs Service eliminated the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in deciding
        which individuals to search and began focusing solely on suspect behavior. As a result, there was
        a 300% increase in searches that resulted in the discovery of illegal contraband or activity.25
       A 2002 U.S. Department of Justice national survey found that Blacks and Hispanics were two to
        three times more likely to be stopped and searched than Whites but were less likely to be found in
        possession of contraband.26
       A 2006 Vera Institute of Justice study found that Arab Americans were significantly fearful and
        suspicious of federal law enforcement due to post-9/11 government policies that target their
        communities.27
       A May 2003 Gallup poll found that 69% of Black Americans feel that they are treated less fairly
        by law enforcement than Whites.28
       A May statewide survey of registered Latino voters in Arizona found the 72% agreed that when
        deciding who to stop and question, the police will primarily choose people because they are
        Latino.29



                                                                                                        10
SB 1070-like legislation creates unfunded mandates for law enforcement
Adding a new, expensive mandate to arrest and detain immigrants—which would require additional
training and supervision of law enforcement officers—will overburden local police departments and
divert resources away from solving other crimes.

This law would invite costly legal challenges
State and local jurisdictions that have attempted to take over immigration enforcement from the federal
government have paid large legal bills in a losing effort to defend these types of laws. A copycat law will
invite costly litigation—as much as $1.5 million in Arizona‘s case—over its constitutionality and could
take years to settle.

An Arizona copycat law would inflict incalculable damage to the state’s image
Our state is proud of its reputation of being inclusive of newcomers. We value the contributions that
immigrations make but the passage of SB 1070-like threatens to taint our reputation.

This law would results in lost revenue for local businesses
Copycat laws don‘t offer solutions to the severe budget gaps and unemployment levels that our state
faces. In fact, it may reduce revenue coming into the state, as tourists are turned off by the unwelcoming
environment.

A law like this diverts police attention from serious crimes
Rather than focusing on the criminal element responsible for murder, rape, and theft, police officers will
be forced to focus on the immigration status of everyone in the community. It will make local police
responsible for enforcing immigration laws, which diverts them from the important job of protecting our
neighborhoods. This unconstitutional legislation will jeopardize the public safety of everyone.

This type of law will not make our communities safer
This law will send a chilling effect through the community, serving as a deterrent for both victims and
witnesses to report crimes to the police. Evidence shows that laws that entangle police in immigration
enforcement are likely to make communities less safe by decreasing the ability of local police to rely on
the community to report dangerous criminal activity.

An Arizona copycat law would violate the civil rights of millions of Americans
 This legislation codifies racial profiling as standard practice for law enforcement statewide. It requires
that all state officials ask everyone who is ―reasonably suspected‖ of being undocumented for proof of
legal residency, yet failing to provide objective criteria for determining what might constitute ―reasonable
suspicion.‖




                                                                                                         11
Legislación semejante a la ley SB 1070 crearía para agencias policiacas un mandato sin
fondos
Añadir un mandato nuevo y costoso para detener inmigrantes—el cual requeriría capacitación
especializada y la supervisión de agentes del orden público—crearía dificultades para agencias locales de
policía y desviaría recursos de otras prioridades.

Esta ley incita una costosa impugnación legal
Jurisdicciones estatales que han intentado tomar del gobierno federal la responsabilidad por reforzar leyes
federales de inmigración han pagado cuentas legales altas en un intento infructuoso para defender este
tipo de leyes. Una ley semejante a la de Arizona invita un largo y costoso litigio además de presentar un
reto constitucional.

Una ley semejante a la de Arizona impondría daños incalculables para el estado
(Insertar nombre de su estado) está orgulloso de su reputación como un estado que le da la bienvenida a
los recién llegados. En (insertar nombre de su estado) valoramos las contribuciones que aportan los
inmigrantes. La aprobación de legislación semejante a SB 1070 amenaza con dañar la buena reputación
de nuestro estado.

Una ley como ésta provocaría una pérdida de ingresos para empresas locales
Leyes como la de Arizona ni ofrecen soluciones para el hueco presupuestal ni para el alto nivel de
desempleo que sufre nuestro estado. De hecho, una ley así podría reducir los ingresos estatales y
provocar una baja de turismo debido al ambiente hostil que provocaría la aprobación de este tipo de ley.

Una ley como ésta desvía la atención de la policía
En vez de proteger nuestra comunidad y enfocarse en los responsables por crímenes serios, los agentes
policiales tendrían que desviar sus esfuerzos para entonces indagar sobre el estatus migratorio de la clase
obrera. Además de ser inconstitucional, esta ley pone en peligro la seguridad pública. Obligaría a la
policía tomar responsabilidad por hacer cumplir leyes federales.

Esta ley no ayudará a mejorar la seguridad de nuestra comunidad
Esta ley crearía miedo en nuestra comunidad, y resultaría en menos cooperación entre la comunidad y la
policía. La evidencia demuestra que conceder autoridad de aplicar leyes federales de inmigración a la
policía local afecta la habilidad de la policía de contar con la cooperación de la comunidad para reportar
actividades criminales.

La ley de Arizona fue escrita en base de mitos falsos sobre la comunidad migratoria
Numerosos estudios realizados por investigadores independientes y agencias gubernamentales muestran
una menor probabilidad que inmigrantes cometan crímenes, comparado con la población natal. De hecho,
aunque la población indocumentada se duplicó entre 1994 y 2005, el índice de crímenes violentos
disminuyó por un 34.2%, y crímenes de propiedad bajaron por más de 26.4%. Es más no hay evidencia
que la población indocumentada haya cometido estos crímenes.



                                                                                                        12
This sample opinion piece is intended to serve as a starting point to help you craft a more personalized
opinion piece for your local media outlets. Please feel free to make changes that reflect the social,
political, and economic conditions in your local community.

We should all be strongly opposed to [Insert bill number]. Why? Because it is an unconstitutional and
costly measure which jeopardizes the public safety of everyone in the state, even those who are just
visiting. It violates the civil rights of all <insert community>, regardless of their immigration status.
Instead of promoting effective and fair approaches to enforcement of our nation‘s immigration laws, it
perpetuates a climate of fear and hatred against Latinos and newcomers.

Many of the provisions of [insert bill number] require local police to enforce federal immigration laws,
which will divert them from the important job of fighting crime and protecting our neighborhoods. The
bill provides local police officers with the authority to conduct arrests – without warrants -- if the officer
has ―probable cause‖ to suspect the person is in the country illegally. Even more disturbing, it allows
police to check the immigration status of a person whenever there is a ―reasonable suspicion‖ that the
person is in the country illegally. This sounds eerily like guilty until proven innocent, the complete
opposite of one of our country‘s most fundamental beliefs. It opens up the floodgates for discrimination
and racial profiling gone unchecked and unabated. It allows police to check the immigration status of
individuals under the pretext that they have violated minor local ordinances, such as not cutting the grass
or failing to maintain the family car in good working order. Do we want the police to go down that path
reminiscent of Big Brother?

[Insert bill number] also opens up the possibility of costly litigation when states like [insert state] and
others can least afford it, because it is being challenged in court. Proponents claim the legislation is
needed to curb crime, but this is simply not true. Data from the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice
find that the crime rate in ALL the states along the U.S.-Mexico border has actually gone down in the last
several years. In [insert state], [insert crime description for example, crime is at its lowest in decades.]

This type of legislation also disintegrates the hard work that community groups, elected officials and
police have done to ensure that immigrant communities trust local law enforcement authorities. This
should be of grave concern to all of us across the country, particularly those of us living in communities
with emerging Latino populations not familiar with local authorities. We should also be concerned that it
attempts to take over what is by law a federal government responsibility – enforcing our nation‘s
immigration laws.

Additionally, during these trying economic times, requiring localities to spend scarce resources on
immigration enforcement when the funds are desperately needed for critical community services is not a
smart move. This legislation also puts police between a rock and a hard place. If the police don‘t check an
individual‘s status, private groups can sue. Yet, if police do that, they might be sued for racial profiling
and discrimination. There is a reason Arizona‘s police chiefs oppose this version of the law when it
passed Arizona and is why [insert state] should denounce this law.




                                                                                                           13
Finally, the enactment of SB 1070 clearly highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform,
which includes ensuring that law- abiding, tax-paying immigrant workers and their families have an
opportunity to pursue U.S. citizenship. Comprehensive immigration reform also requires effective
approaches to enforcing our federal immigration law. However, a deeply flawed piece of legislation is not
the way to go about accomplishing what we all want: fair and humane treatment of ALL individuals,
regardless of race or immigration status.




                                                                                                      14
Deberíamos todos estar fuertemente en contra de la ley a la ley [número o nombre de ley estatal]. ¿Por
qué? Porque esta es una medida costosa e inconstitucional que pone en peligro la seguridad pública de
cada uno en el estado, incluso aquellos que solo están de visita. Esta ley viola los derechos civiles de
todos en nuestra comunidad, sin tener en cuenta su estatus migratorio y conduce a la legalización del
perfil racial. En lugar de promover métodos eficaces y equitativos para la implementación de las leyes de
inmigración de nuestra nación, esta ley crea un clima de miedo y odio contra los latinos y los recién
llegados.

Muchas de las provisiones de la ley [número o nombre de ley estatal] requieren que la policía local
implemente las leyes federales de inmigración. Este hecho distrae la primordial responsabilidad de la
policía que es proteger a nuestras comunidades y detectar y solucionar graves crímenes. El proyecto de
ley faculta a los agentes de la policía local a detener a presuntos infractores sin tener una orden judicial.
Aun más inquietante es que esta ley requiere que los policías verifiquen el estatus migratorio de una
persona cada vez que haya una ―sospecha razonable‖ que la persona está ilegalmente en este país. Esto
es completamente lo opuesto a uno de los principios jurídicos clave de nuestra democracia: toda persona
es inocente hasta que se compruebe lo contrario. La inobserbancia de esa norma jurídica abre las puertas
a la discriminación y al perfil racial; dos hechos que la policía lleva a cabo de cualquier manera y sin
ninguna justificación legal. ¿Queremos vivir en un lugar donde siempre estaremos bajo la vigilancia y el
escrutinio de la policía?

[Nombre de ley estatal] también conlleva a altos costos legales en un momento que nuestro estado se
encuentra en las peores condiciones económicas para solventar esos gastos. El Departamento de Justicia
ha entablado una demanda en contra de la ley de Arizona que ya le ha costado $1.5 millón de dólares.
Una ley con las características de esa legislación de Arizona conduce a un largo y costoso litigio, además
de presentar un reto constitucional. Sus defensores sostienen que la legislación es necesaria para frenar la
delincuencia, pero esa aseveración simplemente no es cierta. Los datos del FBI y del Departamento
federal de Justicia encuentran que la tasa de criminalidad en todos los estados a lo largo de la frontera
México-Estados Unidos en realidad ha disminuido durante los últimos años. Tan solo en Arizona, la tasa
de criminalidad está en su nivel más bajo en comparación con los datos arrojados en décadas anteriores.
[Si es posible, introduzca datos de su estado].

Este tipo de legislación también destruye el trabajo que los grupos comunitarios, funcionarios electos y la
policía han hecho para asegurar que las comunidades de inmigrantes confíen en la policía local. Esto
debería ser motivo de gran preocupación para todos nosotros, en particular para aquellas personas que
viven en comunidades con poblaciones latinas emergentes que no están familiarizadas aún con las
autoridades locales. También debemos estar preocupados por el intento de apoderarse de lo que es por
ley una responsabilidad del gobierno federal: hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración de nuestra
nación.

Al final del día, el problema de la inmigración indocumentada no se puede solucionar a nivel estatal.
Leyes como la de Arizona no nos darán las soluciones que nuestro estado y nuestro país necesitan. En
lugar de buscar promesas falsas por medio de leyes estatales, deberíamos trabajar para lograr una reforma



                                                                                                          15
migratoria integral a nivel federal que además ofrezca la oportunidad de obtener la ciudadanía
estadounidense a los que la merecen. Asimismo, se requiere que se establezcan métodos eficaces para
hacer cumplir nuestras leyes federales de inmigración de una manera responsable, no resulten demasiados
costosos, no perjudiquen las relaciones de las comunidades para cooperar con los agentes de policía y no
violen nuestros derechos constitucionales como lo hace [nombre de ley estatal].




                                                                                                     16
Background on SB 1070 and General Information
      Text of SB 1070 from the Arizona legislature:
       http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070
      Analysis of Judge Bolton‘s ruling on SB 1070 by Phoenix lawyers Timothy Berg and Mark
       Bolton of Fennemore Craig for the Arizona Republic: http://azdatapages.com/sb1070.html
      American Civil Liberties Union summary of SB 1070:
       http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/frequently-asked-questions-about-arizona-
       racial-profiling-law
      The National Council of La Raza‘s (NCLR) website on SB 1070 and copycat legislation:
       http://www.boycottintolerance.org
      National Immigration Forum report, Deficits, Lawsuits, Diminished Public Safety: Your State
       Can’t Afford SB 1070, December 2010:
       http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2010/SB1070Report.pdf
      Immigration Policy Center report, Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws, January 2011:
       http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/qa-guide-state-immigration-laws
      Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board training information on SB 1070:
       http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm

Economic Impact of Copycat Legislation
      Center for American Progress report, Stop the Conference: The Economic and Fiscal
       Consequences of Conference Cancellations Due to Arizona’s S.B. 1070, October 2010:
       http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/pdf/az_tourism.pdf

Copycat Legislation Impact on Community Safety
      Police Foundation executive summary, The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance between
       Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties, April 2009:
       http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/strikingabalance/Executive%20Summary.pdf

National and Local Contacts
      American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Visit http://www.aclu.org/affiliates to find state-
       specific ACLU affiliate offices
      The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: Catherine Montoya, Senior Field
       Program Manager, montoya@civilrights.org
      NCLR: Elena Lacayo, Immigration Field Coordinator, elacayo@nclr.org
      National Immigration Forum: Dawn Mabery, Manager, State and Local Elected Official
       Outreach, dmabery@immigrationforum.org
      National Immigration Law Center: Jon Blazer, Policy Attorney, blazer@nilc.org
      Progressive States Network: Suman Raghunathan, Immigration Policy Specialist,
       sraghunathan@progressivestates.org



                                                                                                    17
The following is a detailed explanation from the National Conference of State Legislatures of what the
original text of SB 1070 contained. Further information may be found at:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=20263#Summary_of_SB1070_and_HB2162.

Enforcement of Immigration Law
       Prohibits state and local law enforcement from restricting enforcement of federal immigration
        laws.
       Requires state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration
        status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention, or arrest in the enforcement of any other
        local or state law or ordinance where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is
        unlawfully present, except if it may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
       Requires the immigration status to be verified with the federal government for anyone who is
        arrested.
       Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin when
        implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
       Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona‘s driver license or ID; tribal
        enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuing
        entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.
       Stipulates that these provisions do not implement or authorize REAL ID.
       Allows legal residents to sue state or localities that restrict enforcement of federal law.
        Indemnifies officers unless they acted in bad faith. Violating entities must pay a civil penalty of
        at least $500 for each day the policy is in effect.

Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document
Creates a state violation comparable to federal law in 8 USC 1304(e) or 1306(a) and creates state
penalties of jail costs and $100 for a first offense. Stipulates immigration status may be determined by a
law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to verify an alien‘s immigration status; or
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. NOTE: The
federal provisions mentioned in the Arizona law are included here for easy reference.
       8 USC 1304(e): Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties. Every alien,
        eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal
        possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him
        pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of
        this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be
        fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
       8 USC 1306 (a): Willful failure to register. Any alien required to apply for registration and to be
        fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be
        fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien
        who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of




                                                                                                             18
       a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be
       imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Unlawfully Picking Up Passengers for Work
      Makes it a class one misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle to hire on a street, roadway,
       or highway if the vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic; or to enter a vehicle
       to be hired and transported; or for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit
       work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.
      Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin in the enforcement
       when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

Unlawful Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens
      Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to transport an
       alien; conceal, harbor, or shield an alien; or encourage an alien to come to this state, if the person
       recklessly disregards the fact that the person is here unlawfully. The vehicle may be immobilized
       or impounded. Provides exceptions for child protective services, first responders, ambulance, or
       emergency medical technicians. Violators are guilty of a class one misdemeanor and subject to a
       fine of at least $1,000.
      Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color, or national origin in the enforcement
       when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

Employer Sanctions
      Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must admit
       the substantial elements of the violation. The employer has the burden of proof to show that the
       law enforcement officer induced the violation.
      Requires employers to keep a record of employment verification for the duration of the
       employee‘s employment or three years, whichever is longer.

Miscellaneous
      Authorizes peace officers in the enforcement of human smuggling laws to lawfully stop a person
       if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and
       to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has
       committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
      Penalties and fines under this bill are to be deposited to the Department of Public Safety for the
       Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund.




                                                                                                          19
The following are quotes from a variety of stakeholders who oppose SB 1070; a full list can be found at
http://www.boycottintolerance.org/updates/p/saying, the Boycott Intolerance website, which monitors SB
1070 and copycats developments. In addition, a diverse set of national and local organizations have also
issued statements opposing SB 1070, available at http://altoarizona.com/documents/SB1070.pdf.

Elected and Appointed Officials
   Marco Rubio, current Florida Republican Senator (translated text from an Univision interview),
   January 9, 2011: ―I don‘t think states should follow what Arizona did. I understand why Arizona did
   what they did. But I don't think what happened in Arizona should serve as a model for the rest of the
   states…The federal government has to deal with this matter on the national level. I don't think this
   really corresponds to the states.‖

   Jeb Bush, former Florida Republican Governor, December 5, 2010: ―It‘s the wrong approach. The
   net result is [that] not much has been done.‖

   Rick Perry, Texas Republican Governor, November 10, 2010: ―I fully recognize and support a
   state‘s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed
   in Arizona.‖

   United States Conference of Mayors, June 14, 2010: ―Now, therefore, be it resolved that the United
   States Conference of Mayors register its strong opposition to Arizona Law SB 1070; and be it further
   resolved that the Conference of Mayors oppose the enactment of laws similar to Arizona Law SB
   1070 in others states…‖

   Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Republican then-Governor, May 11, 2010: ―I was also going to
   give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to
   deport me.‖

   Karl Rove, political strategist, April 28, 2010: ―I think there is going to be some constitutional
   problems with the bill. I wished they hadn‘t passed it, in a way.‖

Business Leaders

   Bill Hammond, Texas Association of Business Executive Director, January 11, 2010: ―It‘s our hope
   they [the Texas legislature] will ... slow down, take a hard look at the long-term impact on Texas
   before they enact this [type of] legislation.‖

   Alex Nowrasteh, Competitive Enterprise Institute Policy Analyst, November 18, 2010: ―Does Texas
   want to drive away entrepreneurs in a rough economy? If it copies Arizona, that is exactly what will




                                                                                                         20
   happen…HB 17 [Texas‘s Arizona copycat bill] will harm businesses and blot Texas‘s otherwise wise
   policy choices. It would cast a wide net that will punish undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants
   and hardworking American entrepreneurs trying to survive in precarious economic times.‖

   Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation Chairman and CEO, September 30, 2010: ―As an immigrant, I
   feel an obligation to speak up for immigration that will keep America the most economically robust,
   creative, and freedom-loving nation in the world. America‘s future prosperity and security depends
   on getting our immigration policy right and doing it quickly.‖

Law Enforcement

   Jack Harris, Phoenix Police Chief, June 25, 2010: ―I believe SB 1070 will have a negative effect on
   our community policing efforts…Deterring, investigating, and solving serious and violent crimes are
   the department‘s top priorities, and it would be impossible for us to do our job without the
   collaboration and support of community members, including those who may be in the country
   unlawfully…The new SB 1070 may also adversely impact the department‘s ability to fulfill its
   investigative priorities because its implementation will require the department to reassign officers
   from critical areas.‖
   Roberto Villasenor, Tucson Police Chief, June 25, 2010: ―The impact of illegal immigration on
   Arizona‘s well-being cannot be denied. But to require local police to act as immigration agents when
   a lack of local resources already makes enforcing criminal laws and ordinances a challenging
   proposition is not realistic.‖
   Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff, April 28, 2010: ―If I tell my people to go out and look for
   A, B, and C, they‘re going to do it. They‘ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that‘s not
   working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.‖

Civil Rights Leaders

   Herman “Skip” Mason, Jr., Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity President, July 28, 2010: ―The provisions
   U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton specifically enjoined were those that required police officers to
   check a person‘s immigration status…and the requirement (like in apartheid-era South Africa or
   WWII-era Germany) that people ‗carry papers‘ that prove their residential status…The injunction is a
   step in the right direction, and for this we are pleased. However, so much more work needs to be
   done.‖
   Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin, April 30, 2010: ―The NAACP is
   outraged that in 2010, a sitting Governor would sign a law that empowers local law enforcement to
   legally use racial profiling to target entire communities. It is a violation of the respect for human
   rights that is the moral standard of our nation…‖
   Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO, April 22, 2010: ―This bill throws the door wide open to
   the racial profiling of Arizona‘s Latinos, the vast majority of whom are native-born U.S. citizens and
   legal residents, without doing a single thing to protect the people of Arizona.‖
   Wade Henderson, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights President and CEO, April
   22, 2010: ―The passage of SB 1070 is a catastrophe in the making that would institutionalize racial



                                                                                                      21
   profiling in a misguided attempt to fix our broken immigration system…While immigration policy
   has often proved a challenge to our country, it should never be used to tarnish the fundamental ideal
   of equal justice.‖
   Deborah Lauter, Anti-Defamation League Civil Rights Director, April 22, 2010: ―We in the Jewish
   community recall the ugly anti-immigrant backlash against our parents and grandparents. We do not
   want to see that history repeated for anyone, and we cannot let the task of fighting it fall on the
   shoulders of its victims alone.‖

Celebrities and Artists

   Eva Longoria, Jessica Alba, and Rosario Dawson all spoke out against SB 1070 on August 7,
   2010. Longoria: ―I haven‘t made it a secret that I‘m strongly opposed to the Arizona law, and I‘ve
   been pretty vocal about it.‖
   Shakira on May 29, 2010: ―I‘m not an expert on the [U.S.] Constitution. But I know that the
   Constitution exists for a reason. It exists to protect human beings. To protect the rights of people
   living in a nation, with or without documents.‖
   Zach de la Rocha, Sound Strike Founder and Rage Against the Machine frontman, May 25, 2010:
   ―Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law takes it to a whole new low. If other
   states follow the direction of the Arizona government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights
   era reality.‖

Inside Baseball

   Scott Miller, CBS Sports Columnist, August 12, 2010: ―There very well may be some seriously
   uncomfortable moments to come regarding the 2011 All-Star Game.‖
   Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals First Baseman, July 12, 2010: ―I‘m opposed to it [SB 1070].
   How are you going to tell me that, me being Hispanic, if you stop me and I don‘t have my ID, you‘re
   going to arrest me? That can‘t be.‖
   Michael Young, Texas Rangers Third Baseman, May 12, 2010:                ―You can quote me. It‘s a
   ridiculous law. And it‘s an embarrassment for American citizens.‖
   Major League Baseball Players Association on April 30, 2010: ―The recent passage by Arizona of
   a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players…All of
   these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the
   United States is legal. The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written.‖




                                                                                                        22
Proactive Approaches to State Legislation
Laws like SB 1070 will not fix this country‘s broken immigration system, but neither will inaction.
Bringing forward one or several of the affirmative measures listed below can show that you, as a policy
maker, are willing to:
     Stand for real solutions and meaningful action
     Present facts and figures that accurately reflect the reality and complexities of the issue
     Enact policy change that will positively impact the community, as well as immigrant and
        minority communities

Menu of Affirmative Ideas
The following is a menu of affirmative measures that represent solutions-driven approaches to consider as
alternatives to SB 1070-like legislation.30
    Commission a study on the economic contributions of immigrants.
    Before moving forward on a law of questionable constitutionality and high cost, commission a study
    that presents research on all aspects of the economic contributions of immigrants (e.g., workforce
    participation, business or jobs generated, buying power, revitalization of neighborhoods, full range of
    income, payroll, sales, property taxes paid).
    Enforce and enhance labor and employment law protection.
    Pass legislation that enforces wage and hour laws and increase penalties for employers that game the
    system. This will demonstrate a commitment to strengthen and protect the entire state‘s workforce
    rather than just immigrant workers.
    Promote English-language instruction.
    Immigrants are interested in learning English.31 Legislation that increases funding for affordable and
    accessible adult English-language instruction would accommodate the high demand for these
    programs and promote English as a gateway for integrating into the community.
    Promote community involvement and civic participation.
    Many immigrant citizens are ready to take the next step in fully participating in American democracy,
    but they do not have information on the process. You can organize a naturalization workshop in your
    community for those legal permanent residents that are eligible to apply for citizenship32. Legislation
    that increases funding for community organizations that help with U.S. citizenship test and
    application preparation and voter registration are greatly needed.
    Signal support for immigrants and humane immigration reform through resolutions.
    Urge Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform by passing a state or local resolution. Put
    pressure on the federal government and your local federal representatives to support and pass
    immigration reform, so that states do not feel the need to create their own solution. Public opinion
    research shows support across most communities for a federal solution that includes securing our
    borders, punishing unscrupulous employers, requiring immigrants to learn English and pay fines
    before gaining citizenship, and fixing the immigration system for future immigrant flow.33




                                                                                                        23
Sample resolutions
   New Haven, Connecticut
   http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/aldermen_to_arizona_your_law_stinks
   New York State Senate
    http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/resolution-presented-senator-serrano-re-immigration-
   reformarizona-law-0
   Seattle, Washington
   http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nphbrs.exe?s1=&s3=31214&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect
   2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=%2F~public%
   2Fresny.htm&r=1&f=G)




                                                                                                 24
The following is a list of the more than 60 city and state government entities and national institutions that
have passed boycott resolutions, divestment resolutions, travel bans, and/or resolutions opposing SB
1070 and calling for comprehensive immigration reform. A full list of the resolutions, with links to their
text, can be found at http://www.boycottintolerance.org/updates/p/country.

National                                                  Colorado
Cherokee Nation Tribal Council                            Boulder City Manager (travel ban)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints           Denver City Council
General Assembly, Presbyterian Church                     Denver County Public Schools (travel ban)
National Congress of American Indians
National League of Cities                                 Connecticut
Navajo Nation Council                                     New Haven Board of Aldermen
U. S. Conference of Mayors                                Florida
                                                          Lake Worth Commission
Arizona
Bisbee City Council                                       Illinois
Flagstaff City Council                                    Cook County Board of Commissioners
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona                           Chicago City Council
Tohono O‘odham Nation                                     Illinois House of Representatives
Tucson City Council
                                                          Indiana
California                                                Bloomington City Council
Berkeley City Council
Calexico City Council                                     Maryland
California Latino Legislative Caucus                      Baltimore City Council
Carson City Council
Chula Vista City Council                                  Massachusetts
Coachella City Council                                    Amherst City Council
Los Angeles City Council                                  Boston City Council
Los Angeles County Council
Monterey County                                           Michigan
Oakland City Council                                      Ann Arbor City Council
Pasadena City Council
Sacramento City Council                                   Minnesota
San Diego City Council                                    Minneapolis Mayor (travel ban)
San Francisco Board of Supervisors                        St. Paul Mayor (travel ban)
Santa Ana City Council
Selma City Council                                        Missouri
West Hollywood City Council                               Kansas City Council
                                                          St. Louis Board of Aldermen



                                                                                                          25
New York                             Texas
New York City Council                Austin City Council
New York State Senate                Brownsville City Commission
                                     El Paso City Council
Ohio                                 El Paso County Commission
Cleveland City Council               Laredo City Council
Columbus City Council (travel ban)   San Antonio City Council

Oregon                               Vermont
Portland City Council                Burlington City Council

Pennsylvania                         Washington
Philadelphia City Council            Port of Seattle Commission
                                     Seattle City Council
                                     Tacoma City Council




                                                                   26
1
  American Civil Liberties Union, ―ACLU And Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge To Arizona Racial
Profiling Law,‖ May 17, 2010, http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-
file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr (accessed January 4, 2011).
2
  Associated Press, ―Tucson Joins Officer‘s Suit Over Immigration Law,‖ The Arizona Republic, June 1, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/01/20100601tucson-immigration-law-lawsuit.html (accessed
January 4, 2011).
3
  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, ―Citing Conflicts with Federal Law, Department of Justice
Challenges Arizona Immigration Law,‖ July 6, 2010, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html
(accessed August 20, 2010).
4
  Alia Beard Rau, Ginger Rough, and JJ Hensley, ―Arizona immigration law: State to appeal injunction,‖ The
Arizona Republic, July 28, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-immigration-law-court-
ruling-brk28-ON.html (accessed August 20, 2010).
5
  Casey Newton and JJ Hensley, ―Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for FBI investigation of Arpaio,‖ The Arizona
Republic, April 13, 2008, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/20080413gordonarpaio0413.html
(accessed January 6, 2011).
6
  Laura Sullivan, ―Prison Economies Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law,‖ National Public Radio, October 28,
2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741 (accessed January 9, 2011).
7
  Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin, ―REASONABLE DOUBT: At what cost?‖ East Valley Tribune, July 9, 2008,
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8370 (accessed July 22, 2010).
8
  Melinda Warner, ―Meet Kris Kobach: Lawyer For The Anti-Immigrant Movement,‖ Political Correction, July 15,
2010, http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007150011 (accessed January 4, 2011).
9
  ―Kobach In Farmers Branch, Texas,‖ Political Correction, July 15, 2010,
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201007150004 (accessed January 10, 2011).
10
   Marshall Fitz and Angela Kelley, Stop the Conference: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Conference
Cancellations Due to Arizona’s S.B. 1070 (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010),
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/pdf/az_tourism.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
11
   Jahna Berry, ―$90 Million At Risk In Boycott of Arizona,‖ The Arizona Republic, May 11, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/11/20100511phoenix-convention-center-
boycott.html (accessed June 14, 2010).
12
   Luci Scott, ―Chandler Company: Immigration Law Cost $40 Million Contract,‖ The Arizona Republic, June 24,
2010, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/24/20100624chandler-arizona-immigration-california.html
(accessed January 10, 2011).
13
   Stephanie Condon, ―Arizona to Spend $250K on PR yo Combat Negative Immigration Image,‖ CBS News.com,
July 2, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009593-503544.html (accessed August 20, 2010).
14
   The Perryman Group, An Essential Resource: An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Works on
Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry (Waco, TX: The Perryman Group, 2008),
http://www.americansforimmigrationreform.com/files/Impact_of_the_Undocumented_Workforce.pdf (accessed
January 4, 2011).
15
   Ibid.
16
   Anita Khashu, The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance between Immigration Enforcement and Civil
Liberties (Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 2009),
http://policefoundation.org/pdf/strikingabalance/Role%20of%20Local%20Police.pdf (accessed July 10, 2010).
17
   The Role of Local Police.




                                                                                                               27
18
   Major Cities Chiefs Association, M.C.C Immigration Committee Recommendations: For Enforcement of
Immigration Laws by Local Police Agencies (Sun Valley, ID: Major Cities Chiefs Association, 2006),
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf (accessed January 6, 2011).
19
   KPNX-TV, ―Unfunded mandate?‖ video, televised April 18, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/video/#/Unfunded+mandate%3F/78968786001 (accessed December 14, 2010).
20
   E. J. Montini, ―Will SB 1070 Hinder Help for Abuse Victims?‖ The Arizona Republic, June 27, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/06/27/20100627montini-arizona-immigration-
law.html#ixzz174MU64Ym (accessed December 14, 2010).
21
   Immigration Policy Center, ―Immigrants and Crime: Are They Connected?‖
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigrants-and-crime-are-they-connected-century-research-finds-
crime-rates-immigrants-are (accessed December 9, 2010).
22
   Randal Archibold, ―On Border Violence,‖ The New York Times, June 19, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all (accessed
December 14, 2010).
23
   Randal C. Archibold and Megan Thee-Brenan, ―Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Laws,‖
The New York Times, May 3, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04poll.html (accessed January 4, 2011).
24
   Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanics and Arizona’s New Immigration Law (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center,
2010), http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/68.pdf (accessed January 6, 2011).
25
   Lamberth Consulting, ―Racial Profiling Doesn‘t Work,‖ http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/about-racial-
profiling/racial-profiling-doesnt-work.asp (accessed January 4, 2011).
26
   Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt, Patrick A. Langan, Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from
the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC, 2005,
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf (accessed September 1, 2010).
27
   Nicole J. Henderson et al., Law Enforcement and Arab-American Community Relations After September 11, 2001:
Engagement in a Time of Uncertainty (Washington, DC: Vera Institute of Justice, 2006),
http://www.vera.org/download?file=147/Arab%2BAmerican%2Bcommunity%2Brelations.pdf (accessed December
1, 2010).
28
   Jack Ludwig, ―Blacks and Whites Still Perceive Local Treatment of Blacks Differently,‖ Gallup, May 27, 2003,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8476/Blacks-Whites-Still-Perceive-Local-Treatment-Blacks-Differently.aspx (accessed
December 3, 2010).
29
   Latino Decisions, ―Political Implications of Immigration in 2010: Latino Voters in Arizona.‖ (presentation, May
11, 2010), http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38665576/Survey-of-Arizona-Latino-Voters-Post-SB-1070 (accessed
January 10, 2011).
30
   Adapted from National Immigration Law Center, Pro-Immigrant Measure Available to State or Local
Governments: A Quick Menu of Affirmative Ideas (Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2007),
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/misc/affirmstatelocalmenu_2005-09-13.pdf (accessed December 13, 2010).
31
   Shirin Hakimzadeh and D‘Vera Cohn, English Usage Among Hispanics in the United States (Washington DC:
Pew Hispanic Center, 2007), http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/82.pdf (accessed January 10, 2011).
32
   Organizations such as the ya es hora ¡CIUDADANIA! can help with create a naturalization workshop in your
community. http://ciudadania.yaeshora.info/english (accessed February 23, 2011).
3333
     Memorandum, ―Voter Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,‖ November 9, 2010, Lake Research
Partners, Washington, DC,
http://americasvoiceonline.org/index.php/polling/entry/voter_support_for_comprehensive_
immigration_reform (accessed September 1, 2010).




                                                                                                               28

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:6/28/2011
language:English
pages:29
liaoguiguo liaoguiguo http://
About