State Immigration Policies: Innovation,
Cooperation or Conflict?
Lina Newton*, and Brian E. Adamsy
This article considers the recent expansion of state immigration policy, focusing on how states
have chosen to enter a field where federal dominance has been the norm. Using state immigration
legislation in 2006 and 2007, we find that states exercise their authority in two ways. First, federal
immigration laws often delegate tasks to state and local agencies or are structured to grant
options for state participation. Second, states frequently create immigration policy by legislating
in areas that are not directly about, but are related to immigration, thereby allowing them to
develop de facto immigration policies without overstepping their restricted authority in this
sphere. Even though states’activity may be spurred by frustration with the failure of Congress to
reform immigration laws, cooperationçnot conflictçis the norm.
This significant legislation will protect the safety of Missouri families and the
security of our jobs from the threat of illegal immigration, and I am pleased
that Missouri’s legislators responded to my call for action where Washington
has failed to act . . .
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt upon signing HB 15491
The federal government has been dragging their feet for too long and this
coalition of state legislators will send a message to Washington that enough is
enough.
Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Ellis (R-11th Dist.)2
Since the 1990s, state laws related to immigration and immigrants have
proliferated, with state and local elected officials (like the ones quoted above)
claiming that these laws are a necessary response to the deadlock in federal reform
efforts. The position states take vis-à-vis federal policy has important ramifications
for our understanding of the operation of the federal system. Unlike many other
issues where the trend has been increasing federal involvement in policies
traditionally dominated by states (Posner 2007), immigration has historically been
*Hunter College CUNY, [email protected]
y
San Diego State University, [email protected]
Publius:The Journal of Federalism volume 39 number 3, pp. 408^431
doi:10.1093/publius/pjp005
Advance Access publication 2 April 2009
ß The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CSF Associates: Publius, Inc.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
State Immigration Policies
409
a federal prerogative, with courts applying the principle of federal exclusivity
(Rodriguez 2008: 613). Yet in recent years there has been a steep uptick in state
and local immigration legislation.
In this article, we undertake a comprehensive analysis of state immigration
activity in 2006–2007 to answer two research questions regarding states’ strategies
for inserting themselves into this policy area. First, is the surge of state immigration
laws merely evidence of ‘‘signaling’’ frustration in the face of Washington inaction,
as Krane (2007: 465–6) has suggested, or are states dealing with immigration issues
in substantive ways? Second, insofar as recent state laws address immigration in
a substantive manner, should they be seen as conflicting with federal law (as is
assumed in most journalistic accounts), or are they better viewed as cooperating
with federal law or innovating in areas of traditional state responsibility?
To preview our conclusions, we find that state immigration activity in 2006 and
2007 was primarily substantive, with only occasional symbolic flourishes. Moreover,
we conclude that although some state legislation conflicts with or challenges federal
law, for the most part states support federal efforts or attempt to influence
immigration policy by regulating policy areas that are traditionally the prerogative
of state governments. Even though elected officials and the popular press have
characterized state immigration laws as efforts to pick up the slack created by
federal failures, our analysis reveals that this characterization is a political fiction.
Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and Oklahoma have garnered the lion’s share of media
attention by adopting ‘‘get tough’’ laws that challenge the boundaries of what is
allowable by federal law, but these states are not typical.
Even though much of the discussion and analysis of contemporary immigration
policy making focuses on the federal level, states have long been active in
attempting to manage foreign populations settling in their territories (Neuman
1993; Skerry 1995; Filindra and Tichenor 2008). Tensions between the states and
the national government have periodically flared as each tier of the federal system
has faced the reality of absorbing the costs of settling successive groups of
immigrants (Suro 1994; Skerry 1995: 71–6). To address these conflicts, the Supreme
Court established a precedent of Congressional authority over immigration matters
through a succession of cases appearing in the late nineteenth century.3 More
recently, California’s Proposition 187, which would have denied services to
unauthorized immigrants, was overturned for preempting federal law. The courts
have also struck down local ordinances that regulate immigrant employment,
housing and other areas for the same reason (Campbell 2007; Parlow 2007).
A debate over the merits of state involvement in immigration policy persists in
the scholarly literature. Spiro (1994, 2001) has argued that state immigration
initiatives are valuable because they allow states to deal with problems they face
without recourse to a national policy that may not be desired by other states.
In this scenario, state activity serves as a ‘‘steam-valve,’’ allowing for incremental
410
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
policy change at the state level and avoiding political confrontations nationally.
Others have posited additional benefits from state and local activity, such as
states acting as laboratories of policy innovation and greater capacity to address
immigration issues (Skerry 1995). According to this perspective, a more statefriendly interpretation of the constitutional bases of federal exclusivity is not only
in order, but overdue (Parlow 2007; Schuck 2007; Rodriguez 2008). Critics of state
and local involvement argue that a multi-tiered complex of immigration regulation
and enforcement is a threat to the maintenance of social, political and economic
rights that have been nationalized, and that current laws may devolve into discriminatory practices if left to the varying whims of the states and municipalities
(see for example Wishnie 2001; Olivas 2007).
Our analysis contributes to this debate by illuminating the manner in which
state and federal immigration policy interacts. Federal immigration laws often
delegate tasks to state and local agencies or are structured to grant options for state
participation. Even if there are no explicit grants of authority, federal policy may
still leave avenues open to states desiring a role. By bringing the federal policy
context to the forefront in analyzing state policies, we can see that states are
legislating within a federal policy context that encourages, facilitates, and in some
cases, funds state efforts. Despite the courts’ tendency to view most immigration
matters as an exclusive federal prerogative, the reality on the ground is that the
federal policy structure allows for extensive state action.
STATE IMMIGRATION BILLS, 2006^2007: AN OVERVIEW
Both research questions require that we review the content of state laws and
consider their provisions against federal policy. Our primary data come from
a compilation of state legislation produced by the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) in 2006 and 2007. The NCSL reports include all bills and
resolutions passed by state legislatures and indicates whether bills were signed
or vetoed by the governor. For each bill, a brief description is also provided.
Bills range from sweeping omnibus legislation addressing multiple aspects of
immigration to ‘‘housekeeping’’ bills that make minor changes to state policy.
In all, there were 347 bills and resolutions passed during this two-year time period.
Of these, sixty-two were resolutions and 285 were statutes. Seventeen of the statutes
were vetoed (in whole or part) by governors.
The NCSL also assigned each bill to a category according to the area of
immigration it addressed, such as public benefits, law enforcement, or education.
We generally maintained the NCSL scheme, but made some modifications to
reconcile coding differences in the 2006 and 2007 reports, as well as to correct
errors. Table 1 shows that state immigration laws passed in 2006 and 2007 covered
eleven policy areas and included five omnibus bills. The top three categories of
State Immigration Policies
411
Table 1 Bill frequencies by policy area, 2006–2007
Policy area
Number of bills
ID/driver’s licenses/other licenses
Employment
Public benefits
Human trafficking
Education
Law enforcement
Health
Voting/elections
Border control
Legal services/assistance
Omnibus/comprehensive measures
Other
Total
62
52
40
34
34
28
23
9
9
8
5
43
347
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
state bills were identification and drivers licenses (sixty-two), laws concerning
employment of immigrant workers (fifty-two) and laws establishing guidelines on
immigrant access to public benefits (forty). States were also active in the areas of
human trafficking and education of immigrants (thirty-four laws in each area),
while law enforcement and health bills ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. The
number of bills passed in the categories of voting and election, border control,
and legal services for immigrants drop rather steeply from the top four areas,
but nonetheless illustrate the range of topics that legislatures addressed during this
period. The ‘‘miscellaneous’’ category includes policies on everything from
resolutions urging Congress to take action on immigration reform (Illinois and
Louisiana), English-only statutes (Kansas), state income taxes (California, Idaho,
and Oklahoma), hunting (Maine), bedding standards for migrant housing (North
Carolina), and identification needed to rent a keg (Wyoming).
Since the NCSL reports provided only brief descriptions of state laws, we
collected additional information from online state legislative archives and
LexisNexis news and legal searches. The National Immigration Law Center
(NILC) and American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) are two immigrant
advocacy groups that we relied upon to provide detailed legislative updates where
press coverage was thin. To answer questions such as whether the states sought
confrontational, cooperative, or innovative approaches in contrast with federal
laws, we gathered information on federal bills and initiatives through LexisNexis
Congressional database, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and
the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
412
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
Table 2 provides a regional overview with a state-by-state breakdown of
legislative activity. Western states lead in immigration legislation (passing a total
of 141 laws in the two years under review), and the South—with states that are new
destination points for immigrants—passed eighty-eight immigration bills in this
period. Midwestern states have been more active than have those in the Northeast,
which passed the fewest. Also notable is that, with the exception of the Northeast
where all states show the same modest level of immigration lawmaking, certain
states in the West (Arizona, Colorado, and Hawaii), Midwest (Michigan) and
South (Virginia) are responsible for most of the activity.
STATE LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY
The first observation concerning the 347 policies under study is that they
are primarily substantive policies addressing significant immigration issues. Nonbinding resolutions, however, did appear the vehicle of choice for legislatures
desiring to ‘‘send a message’’ to Washington, DC about their concerns.4 Of the
347 pieces of legislation included in this study, sixty-two were resolutions, and
their subject matter varied widely. The largest single category (nine in total) was
comprised of resolutions urging Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act (discussed
further below). Thirty-two of the remaining resolutions were also geared towards
encouraging action on the part of Congress or federal agencies. Some were general,
such as SR 523 in Illinois, which encouraged Congress to enact immigration
reform, while others were specific, such as Arizona’s HCR 2007 that favored placing
Poland on the Visa Waiver Program list. And, as we might expect, there were some
resolutions asking the federal government to provide more money for states to deal
with the costs of immigration. Resolutions were mixed in terms of whether they
were pro- or anti-immigrant, with some encouraging more federal support for legal
immigrants and others asking for a crackdown on illegal immigration.
Some of the statutes passed by state legislatures were not ‘‘substantive’’ in that
they did not actually have an impact on policy outputs. These include statutes
creating task forces, or legislative position-taking on ‘‘hot button’’ social issues that
would have minimal impact on immigrants, or laws likely to be struck down by the
federal courts. However, only twenty statutes fell into these categories. In sum, only
about twenty five percent of state immigration legislation could be considered
symbolic. Although many substantive bills have symbolic elements, the absence of
purely symbolic laws is noteworthy. Since immigration is a controversial issue
that is connected to larger moral, ethical and cultural questions, it is reasonable
to expect states would draw on the highly emotional context of immigration to
make political statements or score political points. Our analysis of state laws,
however, indicates that for the most part states pursued curative policies and not
symbolic ones.
State Immigration Policies
413
Table 2 Immigration bills by region and state
Northeast
Midwest
Number of
bills
Maine
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Subtotal
9
9
4
4
4
1
1
1
33
Percentage
(N ¼ 347)
2.59
2.59
1.15
1.15
1.15
0.29
0.29
0.29
9.50
South
Virginia
Louisiana
Texas
Tennessee
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Arkansas
Delaware
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
West Virginia
Subtotal
Number of
bills
Illinois
Michigan
Kansas
Indiana
Missouri
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Subtotal
26
12
8
6
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
76
Percentage
(N ¼ 347)
7.49
3.46
2.31
1.73
1.73
1.15
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.58
0.58
0.29
21.90
West
Number of
bills
Percentage
(N ¼ 347)
13
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
95
3.75
2.59
2.59
2.31
2.02
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.15
1.15
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
27.39
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
California
Colorado
Arizona
Hawaii
Oregon
New Mexico
Washington
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Nevada
Wyoming
Alaska
Subtotal
Number of
bills
Percentage
(N ¼ 347)
27
24
23
23
9
8
7
5
5
5
4
3
0
143
7.78
6.92
6.63
6.63
2.59
2.31
2.02
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.15
0.86
0.00
41.21
414
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
Keeping in mind the wide-ranging nature of laws passed in 2006–2007, the next
sections explore the manner of state involvement against the federal policy context.
Within each policy area states have options in terms of how they approach federal
law. In some instances states may choose to take a confrontational approach,
attempting to circumvent federal requirements or pushing the boundaries of
allowable state action. On the other hand, they may select cooperation by implementing federal law or working with federal officials to accomplish common goals.
A third approach is for states to strike out on their own, developing innovative
ways to address the issue of immigration that are different from the federal
approach but not necessarily contradictory. To better understand which tier is
directing intergovernmental relations as well as the nature of these relations,
we consider state legislation in areas typically understood to belong to the federal
domain of immigration policy, such as law enforcement, employment, and human
trafficking, as well as laws in policy areas where states exercise broad or partial
jurisdiction, such as licensing, health and welfare benefits, K-12 education, and
college tuition requirements.
Immigration Law Enforcement5
Our review of state legislation passed in 2006 and 2007 shows a trend toward
states increasing coordination and cooperation with federal enforcement efforts. We
have summarized these laws according to the specific nature of state enforcement
efforts in Table 3. In total, sixteen states passed thirty laws related to immigration
enforcement, with Arizona alone passing five. Ten states passed laws issuing
directives to state and local enforcement agencies to check and formally consider
(for sentencing, detention, bail, and/or release) the immigration status of individuals who end up in police custody for non-immigration related reasons. Four states
passed laws specifying that they will surrender to federal authorities individuals in
state or local custody found to be in violation of immigration laws. Related to this
were the actions of five states to mandate full cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement efforts, including entry into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the U.S. Department of Justice.
This pattern of state cooperation in the area of immigration enforcement is
a direct result of a federal policy context that has stressed vertical integration
of immigration enforcement since the 1990s. Of particular significance is the 1996
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), which
included provisions for state and local police to assist federal agencies with
‘‘interior enforcement’’—the apprehension/detention of unauthorized or criminal
aliens found in areas beyond either the jurisdiction or practical reach of federal
immigration agencies.6 A key section of the IIRAIRA, known as 287g, allows local
law enforcement agencies or states to enter into Memorandums of Agreement
NY (AB 386) IL (HB 132) TX (SB 1470)
NC (SB 229)
OK (HB 1804) TN (SB 1604)
ME (LD 1183) OK (SB 242) TN (HB 600)
GA (SB 529)b IL (SB 2962 & 624)
OH (SB 9)c VA (HB 1046)
OH (SB 9 sec. 2909)
GA (SB 529) OH (SB 9)
CO (SB 90) GA (SB 529) OH (SB 9)
CO (HB 1014) SD (SB 63)
Directives for detaining, sentencing, or incarcerating criminal
suspects, defendants, or witnesses who are suspected/
discovered to be illegal aliens . . .a
Allow transfer of custody of illegal and/or criminal aliens to
federal authorities . . .d
Mandate checks on immigration status of individuals detained
for felony or drunk driving charges . . .
Mandate state agencies to cooperate with federal immigration
law enforcement . . .
Other miscellaneous . . .e
a
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
This category includes state laws with sections mandating background checks and information sharing between local/state and federal law enforcement
agencies concerning an individual’s immigration status.
b
Georgia’s SB 529 (2006) is an omnibus bill that covers several enforcement-related areas, which is why it appears more than once in this table.
c
Ohio’s SB 9 (2006) contained several sections covering various areas of immigration-related enforcement, which explains its multiple appearances in this
table.
d
Neither Arizona nor Virginia requires proof of illicit status, merely probable cause.
e
Colorado’s 2006 law requires the state attorney general to seek reimbursement for the state from the federal government for all immigration-related
costs. South Dakota’s 2006 law simply includes ICE officers as ‘‘federal enforcement officers.’’ Maine’s 2007 law authorizes federal officers ‘‘with
jurisdiction over immigration, customs and border security matters’’ who are operating in the state of Maine to carry firearms. Oklahoma’s policy
concerns verification of citizenship or legal permanent resident status for policy or peace officer certification.
AZ (HB 2181 & HB 2787)
MI (HB 4348) NY (SB 2100)
TN (HB 600 & SB 2334)
AZ (HB 2187 & 261) AZ (HB 1265) CO
(HB 1040)
NJ (SB 2007)
Appropriations
2007
2006
Type of enforcement bill
Table 3 Summary of state immigration law enforcement bills
State Immigration Policies
415
416
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
(MOAs) with the Attorney General’s Office, which includes training of local law
enforcement in immigrant apprehension and detention.7 The policing concerns
that followed the 2001 terror attacks only accelerated this demand for vertical
integration. In 2002 the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a controversial
opinion stating that local and state police have the ‘‘inherent authority’’ to enforce
both civil and criminal immigration laws. While implementation was stalled due
to debate over the Office’s interpretation of state and local authority, states
could follow statutory procedures to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Department of Justice (Gladstein et al. 2005).8
Even though states appear to be complying with federal efforts, campaigns to
reject or engage in federal requests for cooperation are multiplying at the county
and municipal levels. According to the National Immigration Law Center, by April
2008, seventy cities issued statements or policies of non-compliance with national
immigration enforcement efforts.9 At the same time, many other cities and counties
have opted to participate with DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement
efforts; as of July 2008, ICE lists fifty-five city and county agencies that cooperate
with its efforts.10 What this demonstrates is that while some states have mandated
some form of cooperation with federal enforcement, local and county agencies
are making their own decisions as to whether to take on immigration-related
responsibilities. Federal law facilitates these choices regardless of a states’ decision
to join in immigration law enforcement.
Human Trafficking
This policy area is a combination of law enforcement and assistance to victims of
trafficking. In 2006 and 2007, nineteen states passed laws related to human
trafficking, with Florida, North Carolina and Virginia each passing laws in both
years. Many of these laws made trafficking a felony offense. Otherwise, efforts either
directed state and local law enforcement to apply federal trafficking laws at the local
level (as illustrated in Delaware’s 2007 bill, HB 116), or set guidelines for fines
and imprisonment.11
In setting up guidelines for prosecuting trafficking crimes, some states simply
adopted the federal definition of trafficking. However, other states expanded
the range of behaviors to include activities commonly associated with trafficking.
For example, Rhode Islands’ SB 692 includes ‘‘intimidation, forced labor,
commercial sexual activity, knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating or possessing without that person’s consent any passport or other immigration
document’’ (National Conference of State Legislatures 2007: 15). By contrast,
Delaware’s HB 116 names ‘‘commercial sexual activity, exotic dancing, and menial
labor’’ in its definition of human trafficking (National Conference of State
Legislatures 2007: 14).
State Immigration Policies
417
Eight state bills established special task forces, divisions or research groups
devoted to combating trafficking (see, for example, two 2006 efforts: Hawaii’s HB
2051 and Colorado’s SB 225). The next most common category involved bills
with content addressing aid to victims. Whereas undocumented and unofficial
immigrants may not receive benefits in some states, such laws exempt victims of
trafficking, and allow them to access state benefits. North Carolina’s SB 1079 and
Florida’s HB 7181 (both passed in 2007) specifically make victims of trafficking
eligible for state-funded services. This approach contrasts with Iowa’s SB 2219
(passed in 2006) which simply reiterates that victims are eligible for federallyfunded benefits, services, and, in some cases, T visas.
Awareness of human trafficking and its victims gained national attention with
the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act in 2000
(Bumiller 1999; Crosette 1999). The VTVPA defined and criminalized the specific
activity of human trafficking and created strict sentencing guidelines for
prosecutors pursuing these cases.12 Congress reauthorized VTVPA in 2003 and
again in 2005, adding key amendments to grant benefits, support services and other
protections to victims and witnesses. Given the law enforcement emphasis in many
of the human trafficking bills, it is not surprising that these bills also reflect the
cooperative orientation that characterized the area of immigration enforcement.
Here again the Department of Justice deemed state and local police to be necessary partners in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers, and the
G.W. Bush administration, which made human trafficking a top priority, provided
financial incentives for participation through Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
programs (Eggen and Solomon 2007; Hegen 2007: United States Department of
Justice, 2007).
Available financial support partly explains the high level of state activity in
this subfield of immigration policy, along with the fact that these policies
benefit from the political support easily summoned for a valence issue. However,
there is also the practical imperative and pressure for state action: unless states
criminalize human trafficking, there is little incentive for state and local law
enforcement to target small or individually-run operations (Londono 2005;
Mead 2006; Hakim and Confessore 2007). All told, this area of lawmaking reveals
that federal policy can marshal state cooperation, particularly when financial
incentives exist for cooperation. The place where we do see some variation in
the level of state commitment to national initiatives related to trafficking is in
the area of assistance to victims: the federal VTVPA has excluded victims of
trafficking from the class of unauthorized immigrants ineligible for federal services
and benefits available to them. Some state laws merely reiterate what federal
assistance exists for designated victims, but other states like North Carolina
and Florida have opted to make some state-funded benefits available to these
victims.13
418
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
Identification/Licensing
The most contentious issue in the area of identification and licensing over the
last few years has been implementation of the REAL ID Act. Passed by Congress
in 2005, this legislation creates standards for the issuance and security of state
drivers’ licenses. Even though the primary motivation behind REAL ID is to assist
in apprehending terrorists, the law requires that all non-citizen applicants for an
identification card (such as a driver’s license) provide documentation showing
they are present in the United States lawfully. It also requires states to use the
Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification of
Entitlement) system to verify the authenticity of those documents. These provisions
would prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers’ licenses.14 REAL
ID has engendered significant opposition from states because of the cost of
implementing the law, which could exceed $11 billion (National Governors’
Association et al. 2006). Since its passage, states have been lobbying the federal
government to either provide funding to cover implementation costs or revise
provisions to reduce costs (Regan 2008). During 2006 and 2007, 14 states passed
resolutions or statutes expressing opposition to REAL ID, urging Congress to repeal
it, or instructing state agencies not to comply. Despite all of this opposition, 10
states passed laws that changed their driver’s license requirements to be in line with
those mandated by REAL ID. For example, the new federal guidelines require that
licenses issued to immigrants on temporary visas expire at the same time as their
visa, with five states (Delaware, North Dakota, Louisiana, Maine, and Indiana)
making this change. Other states passed laws that require proof of legal residence
to obtain a driver’s license, also required by REAL ID. No state, however, has
implemented the changes needed to comply fully with REAL ID.
Other legislation in this area dealt with a hodgepodge of issues. A few states,
most notably Colorado, toughened their laws regarding the use of fraudulent
documents and identity theft in an effort to crack down on illegal immigrants. This
is a backdoor way to enforce immigration laws, as it provides a means for states
to detain and prosecute undocumented aliens who use false identification. Many
states passed laws that required holders of various licenses to be citizens or legal
permanent residents. These laws covered a wide array of licenses, from firearms
(California, Oregon, Georgia, Hawaii, and Virginia) and alcoholic beverage sales
(Arkansas and Arizona), to occupational licenses for armed private investigators
(Oklahoma), pharmacists (Illinois), mortgage brokers (Texas), nurses (Nebraska),
and social workers (Missouri). There were only one or two examples where states
waived legal residency requirements to obtain a license. Examining licensing/
identification activity generally, we find that many states used these laws as a means
to crack down on illegal immigrants. Putting aside the opposition to REAL ID
(which has more to do with unfunded mandates than with immigration per se),
State Immigration Policies
419
most of the policies in this area were designed to inhibit the ability of undocumented
immigrants to function in society, such as by restricting their ability to get a driver’s
license, acquire a professional license, or use fraudulent documents to obtain
employment. There were few examples of pro-immigrant policies.
Employment
Of the policies passing in 2006 and 2007, fifty-two dealt with immigrant
employment. Five were resolutions, three of which (Arizona, New Mexico and
Vermont) voiced state support for guest worker programs proposed by the Senate
as part of a federal reform bill in April 2006. However, the vast majority of these
laws were designed to alter behaviors among employers and/or immigrant workers.
Most laws were concerned with enforcement of employment eligibility, with several
designed to link states into federal efforts to enforce employment eligibility laws
that were passed as part of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).
Federal law requires that employers verify documents indicating work eligibility
among new hires, and employers found to be in violation of this law can incur
fines, or even face jail time for repeat offenses. By all accounts, however, federal
employer sanctions have failed to deter the hiring of undocumented workers, in
part due to minimal enforcement and in part because alternative practices (such as
use of fraudulent documents and hiring through labor contractors) allowed both
workers and employers to skirt enforcement efforts (Fix 1991). IIRIRA tried
to improve employer self-regulation by creating an electronic worker verification
program, or ‘‘Basic Pilot,’’ which would allow employers to check the accuracy of a
prospective employee’s I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) form.15 California,
New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois served as the testing grounds, and although
the program is available, employer participation in Basic Pilot is voluntary: the
incentive to participate lies in the program’s promise to streamline the verification
process and minimize the likelihood that an employer would be sanctioned for
violations.
When the Department of Homeland Security took over all immigration
enforcement functions in 2002, the name of the program was changed to
‘‘E-Verify,’’ and it was made available for use in all fifty states (United States
Department of Homeland Security 2007). Even though all employers (with some
exemptions) are required to file an I-9 form and verify work eligibility by asking
prospective hires to provide documentation of legal work status, the Basic Pilot/
E-Verify system is minimally used, with less than four percent of new hires
processed in 2007 (Westat 2007: 53).
States are actively passing laws concerning immigrant employment, but whether
these laws complement, duplicate, or extend federal law varies. For example,
Arizona’s ‘‘Legal Arizona Workers Act,’’ (2007, HB 2779) is the most stringent: it
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
420
Table 4 Summary of state employment laws, 2006–2007
Type of employment law
2006
2007
Mandate Basic Pilot/E-Verify
Regulate hiring for companies contracting
with state
Verification of work eligibility (without mandate for
Basic Pilot/E-Verify)
Workplace regulation, employment taxes, civil rights
protections
Residency (state or federal) required to collect
unemployment insurance or workman’s
compensation
Penalties for violations of state employment laws
Issuing work-related licenses and permits to
immigrants lawfully present
Refusal to participate in Basic Pilot/E-Verify
CO
CO, PA, TN, GA
AZ, CO, GA, OK
AZ, CO, GA, IA,
MI, TN, TX
HI, IA, PA, TN, WV
ID, WA, GA
AR, AZ, GA, IL
ID, KS, WA
HI, CO, IL, KS, LA,
MN, MS, MT,
NM, OR, UT, ME
AZ, TN, WV
LA, GA, CO
CO, NY
IL
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
prohibits all employers from hiring undocumented workers and requires employers
making new hires to use Basic Pilot/E-Verify. Colorado’s HB 1343 (2006),
Georgia’s SB 529 (2006), and Oklahoma’s HB 1804 (2007) are omnibus legislation
that prohibit companies contracting with the state from hiring unauthorized
workers, and mandates that businesses with state contracts use Basic Pilot/E-Verify.
Tennessee’s SB 202 (2007) makes knowing employment or recruitment for
employment of an undocumented immigrant a criminal offense unless the
employer used Basic Pilot/E-Verify to document qualifications for a new hire
(Gonzalez 2007; Rico 2007; Chishti and Bergeron 2008).
To give a sense of the range of action pursued by states, Table 4 presents state
employment laws according to their principal focus. It shows that the primary
activity of states has been to restrict eligibility for collecting unemployment benefits
to immigrants authorized to work in the United States. The exception to this trend
is Illinois, which passed a law (HB 928) asserting that ‘‘an alien who contracts
a disease as a result of employment in Illinois’’ may receive the same workers’
compensation benefits available to citizens (National Conference of State
Legislatures 2007). States have also moved to regulate the hiring activities of
private firms receiving state contracts and grants. Thus, by mandating employer
participation in Basic Pilot/E-Verify, states are exceeding the voluntary nature of
the federal program; in cases in which states are pursuing their own penalties
against companies found to be in violation of state laws, states are essentially
State Immigration Policies
421
adding to IRCA’s employment provisions that call for sanctions against businesses.
IRCA in fact established that federal law preempted state and local efforts to
regulate hiring, which, in turn served as the basis for legal challenges to the
‘‘Legal Arizona Workers Act’’ (Small 2008).16
Education, Health Care, and Welfare
State legislative activity regarding education, health care, and welfare illustrates
the many choices that states have in either ‘‘cracking down’’ on illegal immigration
or supporting immigrants. In the area of higher education, some states have
stepped in to assist undocumented aliens acquire a college education after Congress
failed to pass the DREAM Act, legislation that would have provided conditional
citizenship to high school graduates so they could attend college. Under the
DREAM Act, high school graduates who migrated to the United States prior to
reaching the age of fifteen would have been able to qualify for federal financial aid
as well as achieve permanent legal status upon completion of two years of college.
States is unable to grant citizenship, but they can allow undocumented aliens to
attend public universities paying the in-state tuition rate. Nebraska became
the tenth state to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition in April 2006 by
passing LB 239 (overriding a gubernatorial veto). Whether Nebraska’s actions
contradict federal law is unclear. IIRIRA prohibits states from providing a
postsecondary education to individuals who are not legally present in the United
States, but states can circumvent this provision by granting in-state tuition as
a result of obtaining a high school diploma in the state. Legal challenges to this
approach have so far been decided in the states’ favor despite the fact that the
intent of the state laws is clearly opposed to IIRIRA, which attempted to restrict
undocumented aliens’ access to higher education. Thus, the ten states that allow
undocumented aliens to receive in-state tuition are working at cross purposes to
federal law. That said, most state higher education legislative activity in 2006 and
2007 was in sympathy with federal law, with six states (Louisiana, Indiana, Nevada,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming) passing legislation that would hinder
the ability of illegal immigrants from receiving state financial aid or tuition
assistance.
Legislation in the area of K-12 education dealt with a variety of different issues,
mostly of a ‘‘housekeeping’’ nature. Six states provided funding for programs that
help immigrant children learn English or otherwise assimilate. A few other states,
however, moved to restrict enrollment in adult education classes (such as those that
teach English) to individuals legally present in the United States. One resolution,
adopted by the Hawaii legislature in 2007, called on Congress to alter the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) by deferring mandatory testing of immigrant children, but
this was the only legislation that addressed federal education policy directly.
422
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
Notably absent were efforts to restrict educational opportunities for undocumented
children. The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982) ruled that all children
regardless of citizenship status have a right to attend school which, combined with
the politically unpopular position of targeting children with punitive measures,
has led states to de-emphasize K-12 education as a means to address immigration issues. Even though some states, such as Oklahoma and Colorado, are
pushing the boundaries of state authority in the areas of employment and law
enforcement, they have largely stayed away from challenging the status quo in K-12
education.
Federal health care policy is decidedly hostile to immigrants. Undocumented
aliens cannot qualify for either Full-Scope Medicaid or the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), although in some circumstances they can qualify for
Emergency Medicaid and prenatal care. Even some legal immigrants cannot qualify
for Medicaid or SCHIP: the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) requires legal immigrants to wait five years after
receiving permanent resident status before they can apply for Medicaid or SCHIP.17
Despite these restrictions, federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency
medical care to all individuals regardless of immigration status. In general, states
have little leeway in terms of using federal funds to provide health care to
undocumented aliens.
None of the state laws passed in 2006 and 2007 employed a ‘get tough’ approach
to health care for undocumented immigrants; given the stringency of existing
federal laws, there is little states can do to make the situation more restrictive.18
Three of the twenty-three immigrant-related health policies passed by state legislatures during this time period restricted benefits to certain classes of immigrants,
but in none of these cases were the restrictions more stringent than the federal
rules. Of the remaining policies, eight were of a ‘‘housekeeping’’ nature, such as
specifying licensing rules that did not have much of an impact on the ability of
immigrants to acquire health care. An additional seven bills provided for funding
or authorization for health clinics, community health centers, or other programs
that provide health care (or could potentially provide health care) to immigrants.
The remaining statutes used state funding to increase health coverage for
immigrants beyond federal requirements. For example, Hawaii created a pilot
program in 2007 to extend coverage to children not currently eligible under
Medicaid and SCHIP, which includes certain categories of immigrant children.
Illinois created a program to provide prescription drugs to individuals who do not
qualify for Medicare Part D, specifically identifying those who do not qualify due to
immigration status as eligible. The California Legislature passed a bill that would
have provided health care to children ineligible for Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid
program) or SCHIP, regardless of immigration status. The bill passed both houses
State Immigration Policies
423
of the legislature, but was pulled by its sponsors in the wake of a more ambitious universal health care plan championed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The
governor’s bill died in committee, and the bill that passed has little chance of
resurrection given the current budget crisis. Despite this failure, the California
legislation, as with the efforts in Hawaii and Illinois, was a clear attempt to extend
coverage beyond federal requirements. Even though it is a minority of states, there
were some efforts to soften the restrictive provisions of federal health care policy,
especially as regards to children and the elderly.19
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), and other federal welfare programs follow similar eligibility
requirements to Medicaid and SCHIP, taking a hard line against providing benefits
to undocumented aliens and some classes of legal immigrants. Within this federal
framework (largely created in 1996’s PRWORA), state activity fell into three broad
areas. The first involves enforcement of the federal guidelines. States and localities administer many federal welfare programs and are responsible for verifying
eligibility. The federal government has not, however, clarified the steps states need
to take to enforce the immigration status requirements, leading to confusing on the
part of both states and applicants (Broder 2007). Some states have created their
own rules to enforce these provisions. For example Colorado in 2006 required a
valid ID to be shown before receiving public benefits, and in 2007 required proof
of lawful residence using forms recognized by the federal government (a vetoed bill
in Wisconsin would have enacted similar provisions). Oklahoma and Georgia, in
their comprehensive immigration reform bills, required state and local governments
to use the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement) system to
verify benefit eligibility. A few other states, including Idaho, Indiana, West Virginia,
and Kansas, also passed laws that spelled out verification processes.
A second area of state activity involved limiting the eligibility of certain classes
of non-citizens in regards to state-funded public benefits. Arizona was on the
leading edge of these efforts when voters passed Proposition 200 in 2004. This
initiative required recipients of ‘‘state and local public benefits that are not federally
mandated’’ to provide documentation to verify their immigration status.20
Colorado passed a similarly sweeping law in 2006 (HB 1023) that required proof of
legal residence to receive any state funded public benefits, including welfare, nonemergency health care, in-state tuition, college financial aid, and any type of public
grant.21 Other states requiring proof of lawful residence to receive some or all state
or local public benefits include Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, and Michigan.
There were some states that made efforts to extend benefits to certain groups of
immigrants despite the strict federal guidelines. PRWORA allows states to extend
public benefits (using state funds) to otherwise ineligible immigrants if a state
enacts legislation that explicitly provides for it. California took this route in 2006,
424
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
passing SB 1534, a bill that allows (but does not mandate) cities, counties, and
hospitals to provide benefits to individuals who would be eligible for public
benefits if not for their immigration status. California was active in extending
benefits to immigrants in other ways. For example, SB 1569, passed in 2006,
provides benefits for victims of human trafficking or domestic violence while they
are being processed by federal authorities (once processed, these individuals
typically can receive federal services, but this bill allows for state-funded services in
the interval). California also extended cash assistance to individuals who were
in the process of naturalization and thus did not qualify for federal SSI benefits.
Other states extending benefits to certain classes of immigrants beyond the
federal minimum include Vermont and Maryland. There were also some states
(e.g. California, Illinois, Michigan, and Washington) that appropriated funds for
programs specifically targeted towards assisting immigrants, such as the creation of
migrant health centers or migrant farm worker housing.
In general, states have employed different legislative approaches in the areas
of health, education, and welfare. Some states have taken a tough line, passing
legislation that puts teeth into federal restrictions on immigrants or extending those
restrictions to state benefits. However, other states have opted to selectively extend
benefits to some immigrants, especially those granted to children, students, or the
elderly.
A ROLE FOR THE STATES
Since the federal government creates the basic framework regulating entry into
the country and enforcement of immigration laws, state activity is sometimes
dismissed as gestures designed to get Washington’s attention, or to chastise the
national government for failing to produce comprehensive immigration policy
reforms. The symbolic weight that immigration carries should not be underestimated, and there are plenty of examples of state legislators grandstanding on
immigration for symbolic purposes. But it is incorrect to view state immigration
bills as hollow pursuits. Our analysis demonstrated two ways states assert authority
in a policy context that has tended to privilege congressional lawmaking. First,
national law frequently creates spaces for state activity by allowing but not
mandating state action. Examples are the voluntary state participation in E-Verify,
the option for states to enter into human trafficking enforcement MOAs, and the
latitude granted states in enforcing the citizenship provisions of PRWORA.
Contrary to some popular press accounts, the federal government invites state
activity in the area of immigration enforcement, creating spaces for states to
complement and participate in federal efforts. In the past, most states have chosen
to limit their involvement, but as described above some states are taking steps to
State Immigration Policies
425
take a more proactive role. This role is not only allowable under federal law,
but encouraged.
States are also exercising authority in areas that are not directly about
immigration but that are associated with immigration. For example, states can
decide who receives in-state tuition, using this power to deny (or allow)
undocumented immigrants the ability to attend state universities. Similarly, even
though the federal government has strict rules regarding federal health and welfare
benefits, states can spend their own funds as they see fit, and can provide or deny
funds to different classes of immigrants. In the area of law enforcement, states
cannot pass their own immigration laws, but they can pass other laws, such as
those regarding identity fraud, that enhance the capacity of law enforcement to find
and prosecute undocumented aliens. Many of the 347 ‘‘immigration’’ bills passed
in 2006 and 2007 were not directly about immigration at all, but rather dealt with
other matters. The ability to pass de facto immigration legislation is a key source
of power for states, as it allows them to address it without overstepping their
restricted constitutional role.
There remain, of course, constitutional limits on how far states and localities
may go in their pursuit of immigration regulation. For example, Plyler v. Doe, the
Supreme Court case that requires states and localities to educate children regardless of immigration status, ruled that efforts to deny children K-12 education was
a violation of the equal protection clause (Plyler v. Doe 1982). Hazelton
Pennsylvania’s 2006 ‘‘Illegal Immigration Relief Act’’ was struck down in 2007 for
violating first amendment, privacy and equal protection safeguards. In other areas
like employment, a uniform doctrine has yet to emerge, and the question of
preemption is unsettled. For example, while a federal district court blocked the
enforcement of E-Verify provisions in Oklahoma’s broad H.B. 1804 in June 2008,
the ninth circuit upheld similar provisions in the Legal Arizona Workers Act in
October 2008, and, an ordinance in Valley Park, Missouri that sanctions employers,
also survived a preemption challenge in February 2008.22
The efforts by states to insert themselves into the immigration policy arena
recalls Grodzins’ (1966) point about the federal system having multiple ‘‘cracks,’’
allowing groups and individuals ample opportunities to influence policy. The
decentralized nature of policy making creates opportunities for those unhappy with
federal immigration policy to lobby their state governments for action, or to use
states as a vehicle to pressure the federal government to change course. The
‘‘multiple cracks’’ idea is also illustrated by states’ capacity to exploit various
avenues of influencing federal immigration policy. Even though certain avenues of
access are cut off by court cases granting the federal government preemptive
powers, plenty of other access points exist. Failure to recognize the multiple access
points in the system leads to an unduly restricted conception of state influence
over immigration policy.
426
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
CONCLUSION: COOPERATION OR CONFLICT?
We began this inquiry because we were curious as to whether the surge in state
immigration laws might also indicate a deepening battle line in state-national
relations. Much of the press coverage of these activities indicated that states were
acting in the absence of leadership from Washington DC, and Krane (2007)
characterized state-national relations as generally adversarial in the mid-2000s.
As Gormley (2006) points out, scholars disagree over whether the relationship
between the federal government and states is one of conflict or cooperation. The
disagreements, Gormley continues, stem from the fluctuations in the relationship
over time, different behavior across branches of the federal government, as well as
variation across policy issues.
Our conclusion is that the relationship regarding immigration policy is
characterized more by cooperation than conflict. Even states that have taken the
hardest line on immigration—Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and Oklahoma—all
have passed laws that attempt to increase cooperation with federal authorities. Even
though a few states have taken action that could be seen as contrary to federal law,
such as granting in-state tuition to undocumented aliens, such efforts are perhaps
best characterized as working at cross-purposes.
Where conflict exists, it revolves around fiscal matters. Indeed, as many scholars
have noted, unfunded mandates are a key point of contention between states and
the federal government (Kincaid 1990; Conlan 2006). The notable instance here
is REAL ID, where states are refusing to comply because of the high cost of
implementation (Regan 2008). Another fiscal issue creating tension is that many
states argue that they should be reimbursed for the costs of immigration, such as
incarcerating criminal undocumented immigrants and providing K-12 education to
undocumented children. However, states have done little to force this issue, largely
because there is not much they can do.
States may be frustrated with federal inaction, but their policy response has not
been to challenge federal authority. In some respects, our findings are counterintuitive: we would expect that state involvement in a policy area traditionally
reserved for the federal government would lead to greater conflict as governments
butt heads over how to address the issue. Another way to think about this issue is
that we should not consider states taking advantage of ‘‘cracks’’ in the federal
system as necessarily being confrontational. Just because states are finding creative
ways to assert some authority in the area of immigration policy does not mean that
they are spoiling for a fight with the federal government.
Unlike many other issues where federal legislation dictates the nature of state/
federal relations, in the area of immigration states are taking the lead in defining
the relationship. This is a result of the dynamics discussed above where changes
in federal law particularly during the 1990s and early 2000s created wide latitude
State Immigration Policies
427
for state action. Rather than simply responding to federal mandates, states have
options as to whether to cooperate with federal officials or to carve out their own
legislative agenda. This has allowed some states to take a tougher line than federal
law requires and others to soften some of the rough edges in federal policy. Even
though this dynamic is not unique, it does differ from many other policies (such as
health care and education) where states have less opportunity to be proactive,
and instead spend most of their time and effort reacting to federal initiatives.
NOTES
1. ‘‘Gov. Blunt Signs Legislation Protecting Missouri Families, Tax Dollars from Illegal
Immigration,’’ States News Service, July 8, 2007.
2. ‘‘State Rep. Ellis Joins Nationwide Effort to Address Illegal Immigration,’’ US States
News, May 31, 2007.
3. See Henderson v. Mayor of New York which held that state efforts to collect head taxes on
immigrants passing through their ports violated exclusive congressional power to
regulate commerce. See also the ‘‘Chinese Exclusion Cases,’’ (Chae Chan Ping and Fong
Yue Ting v. United States) which nullified state efforts to regulate entry of Chinese
immigrants.
4. Since it is easy to introduce legislation in most states, and the rate of drop-off after bill
introduction was high, we chose to focus our attention on bills that passed. That said,
we recognize that bill introduction alone can serve important symbolic purposes even if
these bills languish shortly after their introduction or expire in a legislative body
(for tracking and analysis of immigration legislation both introduced and passed in 2008
(See Laglagaron 2008).
5. Immigration law enforcement targets those who violate civil or criminal provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). To clarify: overstaying a visa is a civil
violation. By contrast, entering the United States without inspection at an official port of
entry, and committing immigration fraud (i.e., producing false documentation, marriage
fraud, or trafficking/smuggling of individuals into the United States), are criminal
violations of immigration law.
6. In addition to the IIRAIRA, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
first authorized collection of information on immigrant felons for inclusion in the FBI’s
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.
7. Florida and Alabama were the first to enter into MOAs.
8. In 2002, the DHS also called for the addition of names of individuals charged with
violating civil and criminal immigration laws to the NCIC database.
9. The National Immigration Law Center maintains a list of ‘‘Laws, Resolutions and
Policies Instituted Across the U.S. Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws by State
and Local Authorities,’’ available from http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/.
428
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
10. US Department of Homeland Security, Division of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
homepage.
http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/section287_g.htm?search
string ¼ 287g. To participate in the program, local law enforcement must have their
agents undergo special training with ICE, thus ICE issues an official date indicating that
the department is authorized to work with the federal agency.
11. Examples are Nevada (AB 383, 2007), Oregon (SB 578, 2007), Michigan (HB 5747,
2006) and Mississippi (HB381, 2006).
12. Pub.L.106-386.
13. Florida refers to ‘‘state funded support services’’ and North Carolina states victims shall
be eligible for ‘‘state benefits.’’
14. All states currently require a Social Security number to obtain a drivers license, which in
principle would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving a license. However,
lax enforcement and document fraud are methods by which they manage to secure
licenses. The REAL ID Act is designed to create a more effective means by which to
enforce proper documentation.
15. Pub. L. 104-208, Basic Pilot crosschecks identifiers such as social security and date of
birth against databases maintained by the Social Security Administration.
16. Thus far, the law has survived legal challenges, with the most recent being a refusal
of the ninth District Court of Appeals refusing to overturn the Arizona state law in
September 2008.
17. The five-year waiting period can be modified depending on arrival date, refugee status,
and work credits.
18. One of the few options states have is to lengthen the five-year bar on receiving Medicaid
for legal immigrants, but no states enacted such a policy during the time period of
this study.
19. The bills described here were not the first ones that extended coverage beyond the
federal minimum: as of late 2006, twenty-one states provided some health care coverage
to immigrant children or pregnant women using state-only funds.
20. In 2007, the Arizona Legislature passed HB 2467, which implemented Proposition 200.
21. HB 1314, passed in 2007, modified the original bill due to minor problems with
implementation.
22. The latest developments in the Oklahoma case, Chamber of Commerce of the United States
et al. v. Henry and the Arizona case, Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., et al. v. Criss
Candelaria, et al. (in which the ninth circuit upheld the federal district court’s decision) as
well as full texts of the decisions can be accessed via the National Immigration Law Center
website, under ‘‘Immigrants and Employment/State and Local:Legislation, Litigation &
Resources’’ http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/state_local/index.htm.
References
Arizona Contractors Associations, Inc. v. Candelaria. 2d F. Supp 534 (2008).
State Immigration Policies
429
Broder, Tanya. 2007. State and Local Policies on Immigrant Access to Services:
Promoting Integration or Isolation? Los Angeles/Washington DC: National Immigration
Law Center.
Bumiller, Elisabeth. 1999. A first lady’s plea for women’s rights. The New York Times
March 5: 1999.
Campbell, Kristina M. 2007. Local illegal immigration relief act ordinances: A legal, policy,
and litigation analysis. Denver University Law Review 84: 1041–60.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581 (1889).
Chishti, Muzaffar, and Clare Bergeron. 2008. Arizona employer sanctions law takes effect.
(Report published by the Migration Policy Institute (Washington, DC) on January 16,
2008. www.migrationpolicy.org (accessed July 15 2008).
Conlan, Timothy. 2006. From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: reflections on the
half-century anniversary of the commission on intergovernmental relations. Public
Administration Review 66: 663–76.
Crosette, Barbara. 1999. Albright gathers top women to address women’s issues. The
New York Times, September 26.
Eggen, Dan, and John Solomon. 2007. Justice dept.’s focus has shifted; terror, immigration
are current priorities. The Washington Post, October 17.
Filindra, Alexandra, and Daniel J. Tichenor. 2008. Beyond myths of federal exclusivity:
Regulating immigration and noncitizens in the states. Paper read at American Political
Science Association, August 28–31, at Boston, MA.
Fix, Michael, ed. 1991. The Paper Curtain: Employer Sanctions’ Implementation, Impact, and
Reform. Santa Monica, CA/Washington, DC: RAND Corporation and The Urban Institute.
Fong Yue Ting v. United States 149 U.S. 698 (1893).
Gladstein, Hannah, Annie Lai, Jennifer Wagner, and Michael Wishnie. 2005. Blurring the
Lines: A Profile of State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Law using the National
Crime Information Center Database, 2002–2004. Migration Policy Institute & New York
University School of Law.
Gonzalez, Daniel. 2007. Sanctions law begins Tuesday: Many Ariz. businesses are still
unprepared. The Arizona Republic, December 30.
Gormley, William T. 2006. Money and mandates: The politics of intergovernmental conflict.
Publius 36: 523–40.
Grodzins, Morton. 1966. The American System: A New View of Government in the United
States. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hakim, Danny, and Nicholas Confessore. 2007. Albany agrees on law against sexual and
labor trafficking. The New York Times, May 17.
Hegen, Dirk. 2007. In 2007 Enacted State Legislation Related to Immigrants and
Immigration. ed. A. Morse and S. Steisel, Washington, DC: National Conference of
State Legislatures.
Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York 92 U.S. 259 (1875).
430
L. Newton and B. E. Adams
Iowa Covering Kids and Families. (n.d.). Lawfully residing immigrant children and health
care coverage. Available online at http://www.idph.state.ia.us/default.asp.
Kincaid, John. 1990. From cooperative to coercive federalism. Annals of the American
Academy of Political Science 509: 139–52.
Krane, Dale M. 2007. The middle tier in american federalism: State government policy
activism during the Bush presidency. Publius 37: 453–77.
Laglagaron, Laureen, Cristina Rodriguez, Alexa Silver, and Sirithon Tanasombat. 2008.
Regulating Immigration at the State Level: Highlights from the Database of 2007
State Immigration Legislation and the Methodology. Washington, DC: Migration Policy
Institute.
Londono, Ernesto. 2005. Police raise awareness of human trafficking. The Washington Post,
December 1.
Mead, Julia. 2006. A slow war on human trafficking. The New York Times, May 28.
National Conference of State Legislatures, Immigrant Policy Project. 2007. 2007 Enacted State
Legislation Related to Immigrants and Immigration. Washington, DC.
National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and American
Association of Motorvehicle Administrators. 2006. The REAL ID Act: National Impact
Analysis. Washington, DC.
Neuman, Gerald L. 1993. The lost century of American Immigration Law (1776–1875).
Columbia Law Review 93: 1833–901.
Olivas, Michael A. 2007. Immigration-related state and local ordinances: Preemption,
prejudice, and the proper role for enforcement. University of Chicago Legal Forum: 27–56.
Parlow, Matthew. 2007. A localist’s case for decentralizing immigration policy. Denver
University Law Review 84: 1061–73.
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Posner, Paul. 2007. The Politics of Coercive Federalism in the Bush Era. Publius 37 (3):
390–412.
Regan, Pricilla M. 2008. Opposition to the REAL ID Act at the state level: Privacy,
immigration, or unfunded mandates? Paper read at American Political Science
Association, August 28–31, at Boston, MA.
Rico, Raymond. 2007. Most state bills mandating use of the employment eligibility
verification basic pilot fail in 2007. Migrants Rights Update 21 (8). Available online at
http://www.nilc.org/immsemlymnt/state_local/ess1003.htm (accessed July 2, 2008).
Rodriguez, Cristina M. 2008. The significance of the local in immigration regulation.
Michigan Law Review 106: 567–642.
Schuck, Peter H. 2007. Taking immigration federalism seriously. The University of Chicago
Legal Forum: 57–92.
Skerry, Peter. 1995. Many borders to cross: Is immigration the exclusive responsibility of the
federal government? Publius 25: 71–85.
State Immigration Policies
431
Small, Jim. 2008. Arizona’s sanctions law upheld by federal court. Arizona Capital Times,
February 8, 2008.
Spiro, Peter J. 1994. The states and immigration in an era of demi-sovereignties. Virginia
Journal of International Law 121: 121–78.
———. 2001. Federalism and Immigration: models and trends. International Social Science
Journal 53: 67–73.
Suro, Roberto. 1994. States take immigration woes to capitol with pleas for relief; lawmakers
offer governors everything but money. The Washington Post, June 25, A3.
Times, New York. 2007. Getting serious about sex trafficking. New York Times, April 1.
United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2008. Handbook for Employers: Instructions for Completing the Form I-9 (Employment
Eligibility Verification Form) [USCIS website] 2007 [cited July 2 2008]. Available from
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-247.pdf.
Westat. 2007. Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Program Evaluation. Rockville, MD.
Wishnie, Michael J. 2001. Laboratories of bigotry? Devolution of the immigration power,
equal protection, and federalism. New York University Law Review 76: 493.