Arizona-inspired immigration bills lose momentum in other states

As state legislatures convene this month, lawmakers across thecountry who had vowed to copy Arizona's strict measure cracking downon illegal immigrants are facing a new reality.

State budget deficits, coupled with the political backlashtriggered by Arizona's law and potentially expensive legalchallenges from the federal government, have made passage of suchstatutes uncertain.

In the nine months since the Arizona measure was signed into law,a number of similar bills have stalled or died or are beingreworked. Some have faced resistance from law enforcement officialswho question how states or communities could afford the added costof enforcing the laws.

And some state legislators have backed away from the mostcontroversial parts of the Arizona law, which have been challengedin court by the federal government and others. A federal judge hasput on hold some of its provisions, including those that would allowpolice to check immigration status if they stop someone whileenforcing other laws, allow for warrantless arrests of suspectedillegal immigrants and criminalize the failure of immigrants tocarry registration papers. The case is awaiting a ruling before theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

"Obviously most places were not going to pass Arizona bills,"said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center forImmigration Studies, which advocates tighter immigration laws."There's always an initial flush of enthusiasm and then the realityof politics sets in. . . . These states are bankrupt - they need todecide what battles they want to fight."

But Krikorian also said that the Arizona bill has "done what itwas supposed to do" by creating a national discussion on immigrationreform in the absence of federal legislation.

"I won't be surprised to see more state task forces looking morefully at this issue," said Ann Morse, program director with theImmigrant Policy Project at the National Conference of StateLegislatures. "The interest level is still there, but states arelooking at the implications."

Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, Nebraska, Kentucky, Utah,Pennsylvania, Texas and South Carolina are among the states whereArizona copycat bills have been drafted.

In Florida, an Arizona-style bill that appeared headed forpassage a few months ago appears to be on life support. Even itsprimary Senate sponsor has expressed concern that the provisionallowing police to check a person's immigration status during atraffic stop could amount to racial profiling.

In Utah, a state dominated by conservative Republicans, a coupleof bills similar to Arizona's statute are in the legislativepipeline. But in November, state leaders from business, lawenforcement, education and the Mormon Church urged moderation - andwith some success. They drew up the "Utah Compact," which declaresimmigration a federal issue and urges legislators to focus resourceson local crime.

Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinkley Institute of Politics at theUniversity of Utah, said the compact already "has had a big impacton a number of legislators. . . . Some aren't backing down, butthere are other bills floating around that are far more moderate."

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American ImmigrationReform, which supports tougher immigration restrictions, said stateswill probably bite off the small pieces of the Arizona bill that fittheir constituencies.

"There is tremendous interest . . . in emulating portions of theArizona model," he said. "But no one size fits all."

One area in which many states are finding consensus is with "E-Verify" legislation, which requires businesses to use an Internet-based system to check the legal status of prospective employees.

But when it comes to more restrictive laws, there is lessagreement.

In Texas, business leaders have publicly expressed concern thatthe more than three dozen strict immigration bills before thelegislature will discourage business development. Among them is ameasure that would allow public elementary schools to demand proofof citizenship from children.

In Mississippi, the Republican-controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled House are headed for a showdown over provisions in theirtwo bills. The Senate passed an Arizona-style bill this month, butthe House version deletes a provision that would allow citizens tosue law enforcement officials who fail to enforce restrictions.

Law enforcement officials there have questioned how practicallythey would be able to uphold all the provisions of the measure,which would require local police to become much more involved withthe federal government in enforcing immigration laws.

"Many states are facing dire fiscal situations, trying to solvestate budgets and create jobs," said Vivek Malhotra, advocacy andpolicy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which seesthe Arizona law and others like it as unfair and unconstitutional."Enforcing a restrictive immigration measure is expensive."

South Carolina might be on the fastest track, buoyed by newRepublican Gov. Nikki Haley, who has said she is committed tocracking down on illegal immigrants. Among the four bills beingcirculated is one that, as in Arizona's measure, would requireimmigrants to carry immigration documents with them at all times.Police could demand the documents during traffic stops.

Legislative leaders in South Carolina are being pressed toexplain how the state will come up with the resources to pay forenforcement, but advocates say they are determined to push for newlaws.

"Illegals are ruining our state. They take away our resources,"said local activist Roan Garcia-Quintana, a Cuban American andexecutive director of the Americans Have Had Enough Coalition. "Wedon't care what other states do."

Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,considered the nation's toughest anti-illegal-immigration measure,was signed into law in April. It sparked street protests, ignited anational debate over immigration issues and triggered a legalchallenge from the Obama administration's Justice Department, whichis arguing that federal law should preempt state immigration laws.

The controversy has also cost Arizona, which has seen conventionscanceled and overall tourism decline. One study, by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, reported that boycotts couldend up costing Arizona upwards of $250 million in tax revenue, wagesand visitor expenditures, a figure some state and business leadershave disputed as high.

Virtually every state is considering some form of legislationaffecting immigration, and last year state legislatures enacted anunprecedented number of immigration laws and resolutions, accordingto the National Conference of State Legislatures. In some cases,lawmakers are advocating legislation that includes a path tocitizenship and amnesty provisions for those already here, whileconservatives favor more restrictive policies, includingdeportation.

There could be a political downside to enacting tougher lawsheaded into the 2012 presidential election.

At a recent conference organized by the new Hispanic LeadershipNetwork, former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), who has criticizedthe Arizona law, noted the importance of Latino voters.

"Hispanics will be the swing voters as they are today in theswing states." Bush said. "If you want to elect a center-rightpresident of the United States, it seems to me you should beconcerned about places like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Florida,Texas, places where but for the Hispanic vote, elections are won andlost."

romanol@washpost.com