A new survey released this month shows that states that pushed legislation to expand immigrant rights have a much higher rate of success in passing legislation than states that to crackdown on undocumented legislation, The Congressional Quarterly reports. The study, conducted by nonpartisan immigration think tank Migration Policy Institute, with research assistance from New York University Law School, was conducted using the states’ legislative data for 2007, a record year for these types of bills. Of the bills that sought to impose regulations on stopping undocumented immigration, approximately 20% of these bills ended up being rejected or expired; contrast this with the bills introduced to assimilate and expand immigrants’ rights—their failure rate was only around 8%. The results also showed that out of the 1,059 immigration-related state bills introduced, only 167 (16%) were enacted.
The findings by MPI also revealed that states which had prior experience with immigration legislation had a significant impact on what types of future immigration bills would be introduced. “It’s interesting that politicians in traditional immigrant-receiving states—those that account for two-thirds of the foreign-born population in the US—were more interested in introducing bills that dealt with immigrant assimilation issues than other types of measures,” said the report’s author, Laureen Laglagaron. The study also concluded that states with a long history of immigration also had a more diverse docket on both sides of the immigration issue, and were more likely to include legislation related to assimilation, language services and curbing of human trafficking.
The MPI database on state legislation is available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/statelaws_home.cfm.
*****
Despite assurances made earlier this year by the Bush Administration to hastily introduce a law to reverse a 15-year-old law banning HIV-positive foreigners from entering the US, nearly two months have passed with the administration not taking the steps needed to put the new law into practice, The Associated Press reports. In an effort to expedite the law, fifty-eight members of the US House sent Bush a letter urging him to take “swift action” on the issue.
This is the second such appeal from Congress for the Bush administration to take action. Last month Senators John Kerry [D-MA] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], co-sponsors of the measure, wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, urging that the administration must act now.
The enactment rests on Leavitt, who as HHS Secretary, has yet to write the new rule, submit it for public comment and finalize it. According to HHS spokeswoman Holly Babin, the department is “working hard to revise the regulation and it’s our goal to have it completed during this administration,” but warned that it was “a time-consuming process.”
The letter follows off the heels of the UN international AIDS conference in Mexico City, where current UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, said these types of restrictions “should fill us with shame” but praised the US for ending the ban, adding that its decision could set a precedent for other countries that exclude people with HIV. Currently, only about a dozen countries around the world, including Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Ki-moon’s own South Korea, still ban travel and immigration for people with HIV.
“Congress has sent a clear signal that we can’t fight discrimination and stigma abroad until we end them at home said Victoria Neilson, legal director for Immigration Equality. “Congress has done its part—now it’s time for HHS to act.”
*****
Earlier this month, the Alabama State Board of Education passed a new policy denying undocumented immigrants admissions to any of the state’s two-year colleges, The Associated Press reports. The policy, which takes effect next spring, was passed on a 4-0 vote, with one member, Ethel Hall, abstaining. From the policy, applicants to any of Alabama’s community colleges will be required to show an Alabama driver’s license, state ID card, an unexpired US passport, or an unexpired US permanent resident card. All international applicants must additionally provide a US Visa and an official translated copy of their transcripts, as long as proof of adequate financial support.
Hall said she was hesitant in voting because there was too brief a discussion for such a sweeping bill, which was introduced in less than two weeks before it was voted on. “I don’t think we’ve done the kind of research we need to do in order to approve the policy,” Hall said, describing her own personal brushes with discrimination, such as being denied admission to the University of Alabama despite extensive qualifications, as a point of concern. “It’s been very, very, dear to me because I have been one of those who have been excluded and I was certainly capable and an American-born citizen,” Hall said. “So I cannot support this policy until I am given additional information.
Given the depth of the policy, there was considerable outcry from immigration advocates, with many present during the board’s public comment period. Shay Farley, spokeswoman and attorney fro the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, questioned the policy’s necessity and warned that it could produce unintended consequences. “We are bound by federal law to provide education to any student, K-12, regardless of legal status,” she said. “A lot of children are brought by their parents; they did not choose to come here. If we deny them a two-year college education, where will they go for education?”
Raul Gonzales, director of Legislative Affairs for the National Council of La Raza warns that while most state and local prohibitive measures like this usually don’t succeed, he finds the Alabama ruling troubling. “They need to make sure in their zeal to deny public higher education to undocumented immigrants that they may deny those services to US citizens who don’t have documentation,” he said.
