Arizona’s HB 2779 (nicknamed the “business death penalty”), requiring businesses to use E-Verify to check the immigration status of employees, went into effect on January 1st after a Federal District Court Judge refused to block its implementation. Its implementation has some  Arizona businesses scrambling to comply and others laying off workers or even moving some operations overseas in order to avoid losing their business licenses.

Tennessee, too, has a new sanction’s law in effect as of January 1st. The law allows a complaint from a city, county, or state official with good reason to believe a company is hiring undocumented immigrants to spark an investigation by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Companies in violation could be forced out of business.

Meanwhile, politicians in other states are ignoring the negative economic effects of business sanction laws and lining up to thump their chests against undocumented immigrants in the workplace (see our December 17th State Immigration Project Update for more on the negative economic results). 

In Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt announced that he is promoting an employer sanction policy.  Not to be outdone, the next day, Attorney General Jay Nixon announced his own sanction policies.  (No surprise here, Nixon is running against the Blunt in the fall's gubernatorial race.)

Anti-immigrant legislation is all abuzz in South Carolina with several state lawmakers touting proposals. Among them, newly-elected State Senator Shane Massey wants to follow Georgia’s lead and require businesses with state contracts to verify employees’ documentation; legislation to do this was submitted last year and carries over to this session. State Senator Jim Ritchie Richie has proposed a bill to address businesses that fire legal workers for undocumented immigrants and hold those employers liable for damages. These lawmakers should consider local media’s warning that Beaufort County's now-enacted business license ordinance will lead to a slower real estate market and result in fewer jobs.

Not all South Carolina legislators are taking the anti-immigrant route; at least one, Senator Brad Hutto, stated that the state's top industry - tourism - would shut down if all undocumented workers returned to their native country.  Also, the State Supreme Court recently gave a decision declaring that undocumented immigrants are entitled to workers' compensation.

Kansas State Senator Peggy Palmer announced that she will introduce legislation to mandate employer use of the E-Verify system. Sen. Palmer had help in drafting the measure from Kris Kobach, head of the Kansas Republican Party, former counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and one-time attorney for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In Wisconsin as well, State Representative Frank Lasee of Bellevue is proposing legislation to fine employers $5,000 for each illegal worker they hire.

Immigration Policy Trend: Restricting Identification

In both Michigan and Oregon issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants is the hot issue.

In the beginning of December, Michigan’s Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land submitted a package of bills that would require the state’s motorists and those with state ID cards to get “upgraded” that would comply with REAL ID.  Though Land announced the initiative with talk of public safety and homeland security, her spokeswoman was a bit blunter when asked why the proposal was being made, responding, "because the Secretary of State's office does not condone giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.”

Then, at the end of the December, State Attorney General Mike Cox issued an opinion saying that undocumented immigrations should not be eligible to receive a driver’s license. The opinion overrules the opinion of a previous attorney general issued in 1995, which suggested that denying a driver's license to an undocumented immigrant might violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. Cox’s decision was requested by State Rep. Rick Jones and is legally binding on state agencies and officers unless reversed by the courts.  

The Department of Human Services Office of Migrant Affairs’ director, Martha Gonzalez-Cortes, warned that people will keep on driving anyway, and that state employees have received no training on how to evaluate the myriad of complicated immigration documents.  Juanita Estrada, chairwoman of the West Michigan Migrant Resource Council, also issued warnings saying, "They've tried this in other states, like Georgia, and the farmers couldn't find anyone to pick their crops."  An estimated 80,000 migrant farm workers come to Michigan each year to pick crops and work in canning factories, thousands of which are believed to be undocumented.

The Detroit Free Press editorial board also lambasted the opinion, arguing that “withholding driver's licenses from people who can't prove they're legally in this country won't make Michigan safer” and “it won't stem the tide of immigration, or keep terrorists from abusing the borders, or make it easier to identify and deport those who are breaking the law.” 

To the West, in Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski signed an executive order last November instructing the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) to draft rules to require applicants for new or renewal driver licenses or ID cards to provide a valid Social Security number if they have one – which will be verified by the DMV. 

The new rule will not go into effect until after the DMV drafts and submits them to the Oregon Transportation Commission and receives its approval.  The Commission is set to meet on Jan. 17 to consider the new rules. If approved, they would be emergency rules that would take effect Feb. 4 and could remain in effect for up to 180 days. The regular, longer rule-making process would be needed to put rules in place permanently.

Because the DMV doesn’t have the authority to condition the issuance of a driver license (only the authority to determine what documents can be used as proof of identity), the Oregon legislature is expected to take up the question of codifying the Governor’s executive order in their one-month special session set for February. Only the Legislature has the authority to condition the issuance of a license to a person’s legal presence in the U.S.

At an Oregon DMV public hearing held on December 19th, state officials got an earful about the plan from the public, most of whom were in opposition to the new rules noting that they would make the roads more dangerous and keep illegal immigrants from getting car insurance.  Also, even DMV officials admit that the change will have adverse affects on lawful U.S. citizens, noting that “there will be between 1 to 4 percent of Oregon citizens who won't have the required documentation."

On December 31^st, Hispanic leaders organized as the Oregon Coalition for Public Safety turned in over 5,000 petition signatures to the DMV asking for a one-year delay in implementation of the new rules, arguing that it was not enough time for us to inform tens of thousands of people about the changes in the executive order. After all, the DMV has yet to send out brochures or make public service announcements about the changes. Days later the Governor rejected the request.

Though the governor has said he issued the order after DMV officials advised him that a growing number of businesses outside of Oregon were advertising to noncitizens in other parts of the nation about how easily an Oregon driver's license can be obtained, no evidence of this has been offered by either the DMV or the Governor’s office.  (In a Q & A document about the Executive Order, the Governor’s office states that they cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.)

Cited Resources

Executive Order No. 07-22: Standards for Issuance of Oregon Driver Licenses and Identification Cards

Governor Signs Executive Order Securing Oregon Driver Licenses and Identification Cards – Office of the Governor, Oregon – November 16, 2007

Questions and Answers About Executive Order 07-22 – Office of the Governor, Oregon

Are there state immigration developments in your state?  Do you know about new immigration research?  Let us know by emailing us at immigration@progressivestates.org.