From the Dispatch

Fremont, NE Considers Steep Property Tax Hike to Defend its Anti-Immigrant Law

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:28 -0400

Outlining just how costly it is for states and municipalities to be anti-immigrant, the City Council of Fremont, Nebraska is weighing a hefty 18% property tax hike to bankroll defending its controversial anti-immigrant local ordinance in court. The law was set to go into effect on July 31, but had been put on hold pending a lawsuit in federal court.

In June 2010, Fremont voters approved a local law that bars local landlords from renting to undocumented residents and also prohibits employers from hiring undocumented workers. The ordinance, the first and so far only successful anti-immigrant proposal to be approved in the wake of Arizona's infamous SB 1070, met with swift legal challenges from the ACLU of Nebraska and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and is currently being debated in federal court. In preparation, the town of 25,000 residents is aiming to raise roughly $750,000 to cover the legal fees to defend Fremont's anti-immigrant law - which have reportedly already been lowered by attorney and Kansas Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach, who is the author of many state and local anti-immigrant bills and is affiliated with the controversial Immigration Reform Law Institute and its parent organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

As PSN has discussed in previous Dispatches, anti-immigrant laws at the state and local level have largely been struck down by the federal courts, which generally find these proposals to be unconstitutional. Arizona's SB 1070, by far the most sweeping and draconian anti-immigrant state law, made it a state crime to be undocumented; required all state and local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they believed were undocumented, ; prohibited individuals from seeking work on the street; and made it a crime to aid or transport undocumented immigrants in the state. Most of SB 1070's most troubling components, which effectively pre-empt the federal government's authority over immigration laws, were struck down in a federal court decision in late July. Many other similar local ordinances in relatively small towns were also struck down by the courts after protracted and costly legal battles. Hazelton, Pennsylvania's ordinance cost its taxpayers $2.4 million; the legal fees to defend Farmers Branch, Texas's anti-immigrant law cost its taxpayers $4 million; and Valley Park, Missouri's ordinance cost its taxpayers $270,000.

New Resource on How to Respond to Arizona Copycat Bills

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:28 -0400

To date, legislators in up to 22 states have expressed interest in introducing legislation based upon Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, despite a current federal court injunction barring implementation of many of its most draconian provisions.

Many anti-immigrant proposals have already failed this year in states across the nation including in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arkansas, and Kansas. Arizona's law is currently barred after a federal court decision. Yet even as the US Department of Justice continues to investigate SB 1070 for preempting federal immigration law and legal experts underline the law's unconstitutionality, anti-immigrant legislators and advocacy groups continue to attempt to bring similarly mean-spirited and regressive laws to other states.

A new briefing document, Fighting Back Against Copycat Immigration Laws Like Arizona's, prepared by Henry Fernandez of the Center for American Progress in close consultation with Progressive States Network; Immigration Policy Center; National Immigration Forum; Media Matters Action Network; and the Southern Poverty Law Center, provides a useful set of talking points and facts that outline how anti-immigrant proposals such as Arizona’s are misguided, unconstitutional, based upon fake data, and extremely expensive for states and localities. In addition to highlighting how advocates and state legislators can shift the immigration debate by introducing and advancing positive, pro-immigrant legislation, the briefing document is also designed to provide you with effective and well-researched arguments and talking points should an Arizona ‘copycat’ proposal come to your state.

Some additional resources to bolster the talking points, facts, and arguments outlined in the Center for American Progress memo include more on Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's anti-immigrant crusad e; how lawsuits against SB 1070 seek to maintain clear federal responsibility over immigration law; and more from PSN on how many anti-immigrant legislators falsely claimed crime rates in Arizona were soaring as the state's number of immigrant residents increased - thereby justifying the need for laws such as SB 1070.

States and legislators can provide a powerful counterpoint to anti-immigrant legislation by introducing legislation that provides solutions and expands opportunity for all residents, immigrant and native-born alike. Legislators can also join forces with other progressive elected officials to stand up against anti-immigrant politics and divisive rhetoric. Coalitions such as State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, a dynamic and growing set of progressive elected officials from 32 states (affiliated with Progressive States Network), are calling for common-sense approaches to immigration policy via media briefings and introducing pro-immigrant legislation in states nationwide.

Progressive States Network encourages state legislators to support pro-immigrant policies and to join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy (SLPIP) by signing on to our principles for Progressive Immigration Policy here.

Georgia's Draconian Voter Verification System Passes Federal Muster

Cristina Francisco-McGuire — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0400

Two years of courtroom battles ended on Monday as Georgia received a green light from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to go ahead with its controversial voter verification system, a major step backward for the state. "It came as something of a shock," said Laughlin McDonald, the voting rights project director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which joined a lawsuit against the voter ID system.

DOJ itself has blocked the program in the past, calling it “a flawed system” that subjects a disproportionate number of minority voters to “additional and, more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote.” However, DOJ backpedaled once Georgia revised the system last week to only include first-time voter registration applicants; initially, first time voters as well as voters making technical changes to their driver’s licenses were affected by the program.

A Burdensome ID System: Georgia’s voter verification system checks voter registration information against drivers' license and Social Security databases – databases that are, according to voting rights groups, error-ridden. Voter registration procedures further require birth certificates and other documents as proof of citizenship, which many people, especially students, minorities, and the elderly, cannot readily access.

The flawed procedures were brought to light before the 2008 presidential election, when thousands of US citizens were erroneously flagged as non-citizens. After a coalition of voting rights groups sued the state on behalf of Jose Morales, a naturalized Latino citizen incorrectly purged from the voter rolls, the voter verification system was blocked until a Section 5 review could be completed. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia and other states with a history of discrimination are required to submit any changes in voting procedures to the DOJ or the US District Court in Washington DC for pre-clearance prior to implementation.

Fear of a Rightwing Supreme Court: The scope of Georgia’s now approved system is actually much broader than a proposed version that was rejected by DOJ in 2009, which would have only applied voter verification to first-time applicants who registered by mail and did not provide proper identification. Though DOJ has not issued a formal statement explaining its actions, Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU speculated that DOJ pre-cleared the program because Georgia's lawsuit specified that if the court found its system constitutional under the Voting Rights Act, then it should also rule all of Section 5 unconstitutional – people “were concerned what this [Supreme Court] would do if it was given an opportunity to rehear a case like this."

Resources

Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Justice Department approves Georgia voter verification system
ACLU - ACLU Intervenes in Georgia Voting Rights Act Challenge
Morales v. Handel - Letter from Civil Rights Division Acting Assistant Attorney General to Georgia Attorney General
Georgia v. Holder
NAACP Legal Defense Fund - Case: Georgia v. Holder
US Department of Justice - About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Progressive States Network - Indiana Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Voter ID Law
Progressive States Network - The New Voter Suppression and the Progressive Response

As Deportations Soar to Historic Levels Nationwide, Federal Immigration Officials Are Quietly Halting Deportations of Students

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:04:24 -0400

Amid a tightening circle of immigration enforcement by the federal government, officials are quietly halting deportations of some student activists organizing in favor of the federal DREAM Act.

In a rare glimpse of internal immigration policy priorities, the Obama Administration and Department of Homeland Security officials acknowledged over the weekend they have avoided pursuing deportation orders against many undocumented students across the nation who have not committed crimes – an immigration term called 'deferred action'. The acknowledgment comes as the number of deportations continues to reach unprecedented levels under the Obama Administration – nearly 390,000 immigrants were deported in 2009, roughly 20,000 more than in the final year of the Bush administration.

Many undocumented youth have been at the forefront of increasingly public actions calling for comprehensive immigration reform as well as the federal DREAM Act, a bill that would grant eventual legal status to undocumented high school graduates who meet a series of requirements, including being longtime US residents, entering the country before the age of 16, and enrolling in community college, a university, or the armed forces.

Deportation Data Released: These statistics come in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, where the Department of Homeland Security released data this week on the roughly 47,000 immigrants deported over the past 18 months through a controversial federal immigration enforcement program, Secure Communities. Similar to 287(g) agreements and Arizona's now temporarily suspended SB 1070, the program seeks to empower state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws - an approach that PSN has detailed as ineffective, expensive, and one that erodes community trust in the police.

More specifically, Secure Communities seeks to establish agreements with state and local law enforcement authorities and departments to cross-reference all who are booked on suspicion of committing a crime through immigration databases in a search for undocumented residents. If it becomes clear through such a search that an individual apprehended by the police lacks valid immigration status, they are then transferred to federal immigration officials and often swiftly deported. Immigrant rights advocates have raised numerous concerns about due process violations of immigrants apprehended through the program. The effort, increasingly a focus of the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement priorities, has been touted by officials as a targeted effort to focus on undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes and single them out for deportation. Secure Communities is also rapidly expanding: the program now operates in 494 jurisdictions in 27 states - a major expansion compared to only 14 jurisdictions just 18 months ago. Federal immigration officials plan on extending the program to every law enforcement jurisdiction nationwide by 2013.

Yet the data revealed via the FOIA request shows the program is in reality a broad immigration dragnet, and one that overwhelmingly sweeps up undocumented immigrants who have committed no crime at all: 79% of those already deported through the program committed no crime or committed only minor offenses such as unpaid tickets or driving with a broken taillight. 28% of those deported through the program had no criminal record at all and were not convicted of any crime, yet were still deported. In addition, jurisdictions that have entered into Secure Communities agreements find it difficult to rescind their participation: San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey noted he is attempting to withdraw his jurisdiction from their agreement, and has not yet been able to do so.

Federal DREAM Act Gaining Support: In the midst of this troubling data on deportations, it appears immigration officials are increasingly recognizing that students seeking college education should not be targets. As federal immigration reform (including the bipartisan DREAM Act) has lagged, DREAM Act lead sponsor Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL and the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) called for a moratorium on deporting students. The Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Security declined to impose such a moratorium even as they continued to call for passage of the DREAM Act. In the meantime, it appears the Department of Homeland Security is granting 'stays' of students' deportations on a case-by-case basis – yet are generally avoiding deporting student activists.

Despite Missouri Vote, Nullification Continues to Fail Across the Country

Nathan Newman — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:55:41 -0400

Health care nullification forces scored a symbolic victory in Missouri Tuesday as voters supported a ballot initiative to block the individual mandate portion of the federal health care law. But it was a primary electorate dominated by GOP primary voters-- and the real story is how isolated this victory has been for the repeal forces.

Early in the year, groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) announced that dozens of states were introducing legislation intended to "stop Obamacare at the state line." Yet aside from a handful of states, these measures were defeated across the country, even in conservative regions. In total, 26 states and counting have rejected health care nullification legislation, while at the same time, even the most right-wing state governments are moving forward on implementing the new law for the benefit of their citizens, as documented at ALECFail.com.

While a mere handful of states (colored blue in the graphic) have actually enacted nullification measures, ALEC-style or proposed constitutional amendments similar to Missouri's have failed in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In Louisiana, Gov. Jindal signed into law an admittedly symbolic measure (HB 1474) that specifically stated that "no provision... shall be interpreted or held to supercede any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010... or any other federal law."

In Florida, the conservative-dominated legislature passed a health care nullification amendment earlier this year that was to be voted on in November, but that measure was recently thrown off the ballot by a judge who ruled that the ALEC-inspired language in the amendment was "manifestly misleading." Arizona and Oklahoma are also due to vote on ballot measures this fall.

At the same time the right wing is focused on grandstanding and political gamesmanship, legislators and officials in all 50 states are moving forward with the hard work of planning the effective implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the state level. Many of these efforts began well before the passing and signing of federal reform and will accelerate as responsible leaders in the states focus on delivering quality, affordable health care to their constituents. Even right-wing state governments in states with high opposition to the health care law -- from Utah to Texas -- are working on implementing the new law as they rhetorically oppose it.

ALEC and its allies claimed a goal of defeating Obamacare in the 26 states where they've since been defeated. If they are going to own victory in Missouri, they should own up to defeat in all the other states as well.

Wage Theft by Employers Surging in Wake of Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law, Even as Judge Blocks Implementation of Key Provisions

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:44:07 -0400

The Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice, a worker center in Phoenix, has seen a “huge spike” in wage theft -- violations of minimum wage laws -- since the passage of SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. "Employers are even more brazen in their mistreatment of workers," said Executive Director Trina Zelle in an interview with In These Times. "Increasingly, 'Go ahead, try and make me pay you' is the response workers hear when they confront their employers over unpaid wages."

Workers' rights organizers report that the law's passage in April has already begun to drive immigrant workers even further underground, effectively silencing them in the face of rampant workplace rights violations. The irony is that this makes undocumented immigrants an even more attractive workforce for unscrupulous employers, who know they can illegally underpay them without fear of those employees reporting them or taking them to court. “If we ever hope to bring immigrant workers out of the shadows in which they’ve been laboring,” says Kim Bobo, Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, “we need to forcefully oppose anti-immigrant legislation and stand up for both comprehensive immigration reform and vigorous enforcement of the nation’s labor laws.”

Progressive States Network's model legislation for wage law enforcement outlines how wage enforcement campaigns can counter anti-immigrant rhetoric by raising wage standards for all workers and uniting native and immigrant communities to oppose unscrupulous employers.

Judge Strikes Down Worst Provisions of SB 1070: Yesterday, a federal judge struck down key provisions of SB 1070 as likely violating federal law or being unconstitutional, reinvigorating hope among immigrant communities that state anti-immigrant laws will fail to gain traction. Key provisions that were blocked include:

Requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of individuals they stop who they suspect are undocumented;
Mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested if they cannot verify they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
Imposing state criminal penalties on non-citizens who fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
Warrantless arrests of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and,
State statutes that make it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The initial court injunction will be followed by a full hearing to determine whether these provisions, as well as the law's other troubling components, will be permanently struck down. The ruling echoes numerous other legal decisions that struck down broad state anti-immigrant laws - and should serve as a warning to other states that enacting copycat legislation similar to Arizona's will lead to costly legal proceedings and, as discussed above, only serve to empower unscrupulous employers to violate wage laws.

Resources:
Working In These Times - ‘Go Ahead, Try and Make Me Pay You’: Wage Theft and SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Promoting Wage Law Enforcement Policies in 2010
Interfaith Worker Justice - Thou Shalt Not Steal - A Toolkit on Wage Theft
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Court Blocks Implementation of Key Sections of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
National Employment Law Project (NELP) - Enforcement of Workplace Standards

Anti-immigrant Proposals Continue to Fail in Wake of Arizona’s Law

Suman Raghunathan — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:05:36 -0400

In the wake of the April 2010 passage of Arizona’s draconian and misguided anti-immigrant state law, SB 1070, which would give local governments responsibility to enforce federal immigration law, media coverage has focused on the many states, elected officials, and candidates who have voiced their support for similar anti-immigrant legislation. Despite the disturbing situation in Arizona, however, what is increasingly becoming clear is that anti-immigrant policies and initiatives are failing across the country in the wake of SB 1070’s passage, underlining Arizona’s anti-immigrant approach as an outlier.

As this Dispatch will detail, after considerable media hype about Arizona-style bills sweeping across the nation, the reality is that from from Nevada to Arkansas to Massachusetts to Kansas and Rhode Island, anti-immigrant bills and ballot initiatives largely didn't move or failed to make this fall's ballot. A key reason: most state leaders and police chiefs recognize that requiring local governments to assume immigration enforcement responsibilities from the federal government will distract them from fighting violent crime and undermine trust with local residents that are essential to successful community policing.

Table of Contents:

- A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

- Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

- Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

In the wake of AZ SB 1070’s passage in late April, a far right network of groups and legislators announced plans to move bills in state around the country. But the list of states rejecting those bills continues to grow and efforts to get anti-immigrant proposals on the ballot continue to fail.

Ballot Initiatives Fail in Nevada and Arkansas: The latest state to join this list is Nevada, where Assemblyman Chad Christensen’s effort to gather signatures for an anti-immigrant ballot initiative similar to Arizona’s recently faltered in the face of a lawsuit. Christensen’s effort was challenged by the Nevada Open For Business Coalition, a group that includes State Assemblymen Mo Denis and Ruben Kihuen as well as the Nevada Resort Association, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce, and the NAACP. The coalition is also working with the Las Vegas Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The delay caused by the Coalition's multiple legal challenges caused Christensen, who recently lost a June 8 US Senate Primary, to drop his petition rather than attempt to get his broad anti-immigrant proposal on the ballot.

In Arkansas, the anti-immigrant group Secure Arkansas also failed to get its anti-immigrant proposal (which simply re-iterated existing federal law by seeking to bar undocumented immigrants over the age of 14 from receiving public assistance) on the November 2010 ballot. Secretary of State Charlie Daniels rejected the group’s petition after finding they were nearly 10,000 signatures below the minimum required to appear on the ballot.

Anti-Immigrant Legislation Defeated or Blocked in Multiple States: In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, state leadership refused to allow anti-immigrant legislation to gain traction. In Massachusetts, twenty-seven pages of anti-immigrant budget amendments that resembled Arizona's SB1070 was shot down and ultimately approved as a final bill which simply restated existing federal bars on undocumented immigrants accessing public benefits, and included no new anti-immigrant provisions.

Rhode Island’s anti-immigrant bill, introduced by conservative Democrat State Representative Peter Palumbo, did not even receive a public hearing earlier this summer: the bill was ‘killed’ by House Speaker Gordon Fox, who voiced his opposition to the bill and reiterated that enforcing immigration laws remains the responsibility of the federal government.

And in Kansas, when a conservative legislator sought to attach an Arizona-style anti-immigrant amendment to the state budget, Kansas Representative Delia Garcia challenged its late introduction on procedural grounds and the Republican chair of the chamber's Rules Committee ruled the amendment out of order.

Most High-Immigration States Have Taken a Positive Approach to Integrate New Immigrants: As PSN detailed in a 2008 report, only 11% of undocumented immigrants live in states that have enacted comprehensive punitive anti-immigrant policies. Far more states promote positive integration policies and believe leaving immigration enforcement policy to the federal government is the best approach.

Resources
Colorlines - The Far-Right Movement Behind Arizona Copycat Bill
Progressive States Network - The Anti-Immigrant Movement that Failed: Positive Integration Policies by States Still Far Outweigh Punitive Policies
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change

Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

One reason many leaders are rejecting Arizona-style anti-immigrant policies is the clear evidence that they undermine public safety. Police chiefs nationwide, including the chiefs of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, New York, Phoenix, and Tucson, have consistently underlined their opposition to local enforcement of federal immigration law, citing the dramatic and negative impact these approaches have on community members’ willingness to cooperate with the police -- and predicted they will increase crime. Law enforcement leaders such as Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris Burbank have voiced concerns that burdening them with enforcing federal immigration law will actually make communities less safe: witnesses will be less likely to assist police investigations for fear of disclosing their immigration status; women will fear reporting instances of domestic violence, and crimes will go unreported, affecting all residents' safety.

Recent evidence highlights this problem with anti-immigrant legislation.

More Immigrants Means Less Crime, Not More: Overall, states with high immigration levels have actually seen their crime levels decrease; updated FBI and law enforcement data debunk any connection between higher levels of immigration resulting in more crime. The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that violent crime declined by 35% from 1994 to 2001 -- a period when the nation saw its undocumented population double. This precipitous drop in crime is part of a national trend, one echoed along the U.S.-Mexico border and in immigrant-heavy cities such as San Diego, El Paso, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami. In fact, even conservative groups found states with the steepest growth among their immigrant residents also report the lowest crime rates. In these 19 states, the total crime rate declined nearly 14% from 1999 to 2006.

Arizona Itself Shows Failure of Anti-Immigrant Approach: Evidence from Arizona highlights why local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to fighting crime. The FBI reports that violent crime has been falling in Arizona for years -- even as the state’s number of undocumented residents rose.

The glaring exception to this trend in Arizona is Maricopa County, which falls under the jurisdiction of its notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio has devoted considerable (and often-scarce) law enforcement resources to apprehending undocumented residents county-wide. Arpaio’s insistence on apprehending otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents in high-profile (often televised) raids and routine stops of Latino drivers for immigration checks means the Sheriff’s Department has less time to focus on violent criminals and pursue felony warrants. The East Valley Tribune, an Arizona newspaper, won a 2008 Pulitzer Prize for their multi-part series on the evolution and impact of Arpaio’s anti-immigrant pursuits.

Despite his ‘law and order’ rhetoric, Arpaio’s approach is a failed law enforcement strategy, and one that has apparently served to increase crime in his jurisdiction-contrary to state crime trends. Recent data from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and compiled by America’s Voice found the Maricopa County crime rate increased by 58% from 2002 to 2009, while the state as a whole saw an average 12% decrease in crime rates. Other Arizona localities that did not engage in broad raids and traffic stops saw their crime rates plunge during the same period: Phoenix enjoyed a 14% decrease in crime; Tempe saw a 26% decrease; and Mesa (Senator Pearce’s district) experienced a 31% decrease.

Misinformation from the Anti-Immigrant Right: Many anti-immigrant legislators and candidates have issued a steady drumbeat of misinformation that attempts to draw a connection between immigrants and crime. AZ Governor Jan Brewer, State Sen Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and national anti-immigrant groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have attempted to justify and explain their efforts toward draconian state immigration legislation by claiming their proposals will make communities safer.

Yet even as Pearce and Brewer have, in fact, predicted that their state’s anti-immigrant measures will result in lower levels of crime throughout Arizona, evidence from Maricopa County shows that exporting Sheriff Joe Arpaio's brand of anti-immigrant policing will likely reverse the progress made in other parts of the state, imposing Maricopa's failed model on the the whole state.

Resources:
Immigration Policy Center - Arizona's Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime: Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates Over Time
Immigration Policy Center - New FBI data Confirms Falling Crime Rates in Arizona: Violent Crimes Are Down in the State's Three Largest Cities
America's Voice - Arizona Immigration Law Could Lead to Surge in Violent Crime
America's Voice - Fact Sheet: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Notorious Record
East Valley Tribune - Reasonable Doubt Series
Washington Post - US Police Chiefs Say Arizona Immigration Law Will Increase Crime
Americas Majority Foundation - Immigration and Wealth of States

Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

As the evidence increasingly points to how local police and sheriffs enforcing immigration law undermines community policing and increases crime rates, it becomes even clearer why the nation has traditionally kept responsibility for enforcing immigration law in the hands of federal officials. But as PSN has detailed before, Arizona’s law, unprecedented in its scope if it is implemented, would land immigration enforcement (a federal responsibility) squarely in the hands of state government.

This blurring of immigration enforcement roles between federal and state officials has already been legally challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least seven prominent national civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and these civil rights groups have filed lawsuits against Arizona’s law which is scheduled to take effect on July 29 if a federal court does not impose an injunction.

Arizona's Law Undermines Federalism and Threatens Racial Profiling: SB 1070’s scope is unprecedented, misguided, and likely unconstitutional: the law not only makes it a crime to lack immigration status, but also allows state and local law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship or immigration status from anyone they believe has ‘reasonable suspicion’ of being undocumented. Apart from greenlighting racial profiling, Arizona’s approach is widely perceived by legal experts as unconstitutional because it requires the state to take on enforcing federal immigration law.

A federal judge heard arguments outlining seven civil rights groups’ opposition to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law on July 22. These groups are asking for a preliminary injunction to freeze implementation of the law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29^th.

The lawsuit’s central legal argument (one echoed by the US Department of Justice’s own lawsuit challenging SB 1070) is the law seeks to pre-empt the federal government’s jurisdiction over enforcing federal immigration law, and that it allows the state too much power to enforce immigration law. Finally, the groups’ lawsuit states that implementing the law would cause considerable harm to Arizona residents as a whole. State legislators, immigrant rights advocates, and responsible law enforcement professionals will be hoping the federal courts agree.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failed State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration
Progressive States Network - Arizona Jeopardizes its Economic Future As it Contemplates Passing Anti-Immigrant Law
National Immigration Law Center - NILC and Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Implementation of Arizona Law
American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant Rights Project - Friendly House et.al vs. Halliday et. al: Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
Immigration Policy Center - The Impact of SB 1070: Usurping the Federal Government's Ability to Set Clear Enforcement Priorities
Immigration Policy Center - The Legal Challenges and Economic Realities of Arizona's SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Polling, The Arizona Law, and Majority Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Progressive States Network - Press Call: State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy

New Health Insurance Plans Required to Provide Free Preventive Health Care

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:09:10 -0400

New federal regulations were issued that will guarantee affordable preventive care services for millions of Americans. The new interim final regulations specify that new health insurance policies beginning on or after September 23, 2010, must include preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, as well as preventive services recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in their coverage plans. In addition, health plans will be prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles for these services when they are delivered by network providers.

These new rules supplement other provisions in the Affordable Care Act that support prevention, such as the creation of a National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy and a Prevention and Public Health Fund to invest in prevention initiatives. Another policy in the federal law will increase the number of primary care professionals in order to increase access to preventive services. The elimination of cost-sharing for preventive care will make it easier and more affordable for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to access critical preventive screenings and services.

Plans covered by these rules must offer coverage of a comprehensive range of preventive services that are recommended by physicians and other experts. The covered services will include: mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations as well as screenings for diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, breast cancer, depression, HIV and obesity. Children would qualify for more than two dozen services, including vaccinations for influenza, diphtheria and tetanus and screenings for autism, hearing and vision impairments. A full list of the covered services is available at HealthCare.gov.

It is estimated that by next year, 41 million people in employer and individual plans will benefit from the new prevention provisions under the Affordable Care Act. By 2013, the total number of Americans who will benefit from the improved prevention coverage will increase to 88 million.

These rules will not apply to grandfathered health plans, which are group or individual plans that existed at the time the federal law was enacted and are therefore not subject to a large majority of the new insurance reforms. However, HHS officials expect the number of grandfathered plans to decrease over time.

Resources:
HealthCare.gov - Background: The Affordable Care Act's New Rules on Preventive Care
HealthCare.gov - Implementation Center
HHS.gov - Press Release - Administration Announces Regulations Requiring New Health Insurance Plans to Provide Free Preventive Care
LA Times - New Healthcare Rules Issued for Preventive Services

Project to Get Veterans VA Benefits Expands Access, Saves Millions of State Medicaid Dollars

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:51:19 -0400

Based on an innovative model from Washington state, states have the opportunity to help veterans improve their benefits and save millions of dollars for their own budgets.

Using a US Department of Health and Human Services national database called PARIS, Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services has launched a program that identifies veterans on Medicaid. If those veterans are found eligible for health coverage, long-term care benefits or pensions through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or Department of Defense, they can be taken off the state’s Medicaid rolls. Since 2003, Washington state has shaved $18 million from their Medicaid budget by qualifying over 5,600 veterans and their families for VA or Defense Department coverage. The program in Washington is designed to ensure that until clients qualify for a VA monthly cash benefit that makes them financially ineligible for state public assistance, they maintain existing state benefits.

The Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) was originally designed to weed out people who were cheating state benefit systems by receiving benefits from more than one state. But in realizing how effective the database can be in not only providing veterans with more comprehensive health and related benefits and trimming state spending in the process, no less than 20 other states have expressed interest in following Washington's example.

For example, Montana implemented the system in 2007 and has saved almost $900,000 in Medicaid costs. Since last November, Colorado has identified about 1,600 potentially eligible individuals or families that could save the state up to $8 million a year. California began a 2009 pilot program of the system in three counties. According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could save $25 million per year if only 10% of its veteran population switched from enrollment in Medicaid to health coverage through the VA.

The program of course doesn't reduce medical costs overall, but by shifting spending from the states to the federal government, it both eases state budget deficits and ensures that veterans, who have earned the right to access the full range of VA benefits, are informed of their eligibility so they can exercise that right.

Resources
CMS letter to State Medicaid Directors: Background of PARIS (June 21, 2010)
Washington State Department of Social & Health Services - Interface between PARIS and the Veteran Benefit Enhancement Project
Washington State Department of Social & Health Services - DSHS Veterans Project
CA Legislative Analyst Office - Analysis of Veterans’ Benefits
USA Today - States try to link up vets with federal government benefits
The Bellingham Herald - Benefits Program Helps Veterans and State Taxpayers.

Bills on Single-Payer and Health Reform Implementation Move Forward in California

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:50:04 -0400

California lawmakers worked feverishly at the end of June to move forward significant health reform legislation, including implementing new Medicaid rules for the next five years, setting a framework for establishing health insurance exchanges, and moving the state towards a single-payer health care system.

The challenge of getting the bills through the Assembly Health Committee was daunting because it was deadline week in the state legislature, the final days for policy committees to act on bills. But in the end, all three bills prevailed and now move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. All three bills previously passed the Senate.

The three major bills approved by the Assembly Health Committee include:

Medi-Cal Waiver: As one of two vehicles for renewing and implementing a new Medicaid waiver, SB 208 sets rules for the state's Medi-Cal program for the next five years. The new waiver is presented as a bridge between the existing Medi-Cal program and the full access expansion that will happen in 2014 as a result of federal health reform.

Health Insurance Exchange: SB 900 would establish the state insurance exchange pursuant to provisions in the federal health reform law. Passage of this bill in this session will allow the state the time necessary to plan how their exchange will operate beginning in 2014. Ideally, the exchange will provide expanded access for health consumers by eliminating adverse selection, creating a seamless process for enrollment and subsidies and providing an array of standardized plans and products for informed decision making. This bill also moves on to the Appropriations Committee. Its Assembly companion bill, AB 1602, was also passed this week by the Senate Health Committee.

Single-Payer Health Reform: SB 810 would create a single-payer health care system that would cover all California residents. The legislation is a policy bill that would allow a single-payer system to be established. It does not address how the system would be financed.

Resources
Health Access - Health Reform 3 Month Status Report: Californians Begin to See the Benefits; Much More to Do to Fulfill Its Promise