Exploring Immigrant (In)Security: Arizona, California, New York, and Texas.

• Author: Pedron, Stephanie

Immigration has historically been an omnipresent subject within American politics, but it has seen a recent spike in saliency since the 2016 presidential election. There is an abundance of literature examining the application of immigration policies on the national level; in contrast, applications on the state level are often overlooked due to lack of information and sheer variance. Disparity among the states is both understandable and expected. States have different priorities, structures, and resources, which ultimately produces different policy outcomes and patterns of enforcement. This paper adds to the existing literature by examining this often overlooked aspect of U.S. immigration--the devolution of enforcement practices and policies to state and local authorities.

The first part of this paper considers past and present arrangements of the U.S. immigration system, emphasizing historic federal policies that have shaped the current field. The second part compiles some of the major immigration ordinances of four states--Arizona, California, New York, and Texas--with estimated unauthorized populations of over 200,000 to compare how they treat non-citizens in their communities. The author considers state immigration laws designed to deter or accommodate immigrants, such as laws associated with employment, health, and identification, to infer how the lives of undocumented immigrants vary based on where they live. In the third part, the author examines federal deportation statistics from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as local deportation and apprehension statistics from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to determine whether an unauthorized migrant has an increased chance of being deported based on which state they live in.

This paper focuses on state bills ratified between 2008 and 2018 because the Secure Communities Program (SCP)--the comprehensive deportation program expanded under the Obama Administration--was established in 2008. SCP relies on cooperation between federal and state enforcement agencies to identify and remove deportable immigrants in U.S. jails. (1) SCP was temporarily suspended in 2014 in favor of the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)--which focused resources only on the most dangerous criminals and most recent unlawful border crossers--but SCP was restarted by an executive order under President Donald Trump in 2017. The author specifically covers state law enforcement legislation in the four aforementioned states during this time frame to determine whether they turned more stringent in order to compare the degree of federal-state cooperation among them. The paper concludes with a few remarks about the current landscape of the U.S. immigration system and recommendations for future research.

U.S. Immigration: Past and Present

Immigration has been a fiercely contested subject within the U.S. political sphere for decades. Unauthorized migration, in particular, is one aspect of immigration that has received overwhelming amounts of media attention since the 1980s (2) Immigration policy encompasses a range of matters, but unauthorized border crossings have been the dominant theme for years, even though the illegal immigration crisis does not stem from migrants crossing the border, but from individuals coming here legally, and then overstaying their visas. (3) Frankly, the current arrangement of the U.S. immigration system is unsuited to the shifting, interconnected global economy of today. It is a structure marked with restrictions, and its plethora of inadequacies have contributed to the mounting dilemma of illegal migration into the country; from extensive processing times and restricted opportunities for legal immigrants to the micromanagement of immigrants based on their demographics.

Public policies that affect society as profoundly as do immigration policies are rare; the vastness of the field makes it difficult to engage. While there is no shortage of possible solutions put forth by legislators and specialists alike, restructuring entrenched systems of practice can be challenging, especially considering how divisive people's views of immigrants--particularly undocumented immigrants or aliens (4)--are. For instance, in 2018, illegal immigration was considered the highest-ranked national problem for Republican voters, but for Democrats, it ranked far lower than other crucial issues such as climate change and gun violence. (5) This implies differences related to the priorities of members of Congress and the kind of legislation passed in a given timeframe. While both major parties agree that a functioning immigration system contributes to a stronger country overall, there is large-scale disagreement on what the best method to achieve that is. These differences affect national party agendas and state policy outcomes, on top of making it more challenging to enact piecemeal legislation that might remedy current issues. Owing to the lack of federal action, individual states have begun to take the initiative. Although unable to change existing federal statutes, states can pass policies that impact the lives of immigrants within their jurisdictions. They may pass supplementary laws that can, for instance, establish employee screening or identification requirements. In recent years, some states have even attempted to stem the flow of illegal immigration by enacting laws that deter immigrants from residing in their territory. (6) Currently, the treatment of undocumented immigrants varies by state. Some states like New Mexico, Illinois, and California allow them to get driver's licenses and even receive tuition benefits, while others like Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama give local police the authority to demand credentials from those that they suspect of illicit entry. (7)

There is no question that the U.S. was built on the backs of immigrants, but at the same time, it has always been a nation with robust nativist customs. According to Eric Foner, America was founded on the premise of liberty being "an entitlement to all mankind...[but] from the outset, [the U.S.] blatantly deprived many of its own people of freedom." (8) Contrary to popular belief, America has never had fully open borders, nor has it welcomed all potential immigrants. (9) This is due, in part, to lawmakers that have steadily argued that the nation's first responsibility is to its citizens. Michael Walzer, in his book, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, states, "Neighborhoods can be open only if countries are at least potentially closed." (10) The assertion that we can only fulfill our responsibilities to citizens if we exclude foreigners has been prevalent for years. Consequently, Americans have historically made it difficult for immigrants to receive legal citizenship status. Prior naturalization laws limited citizenship to white males with good moral character. Today, exclusion has become more indirect. Pathways to citizenship are bogged down by lengthy admission processes, nationality quotas, and expansions in immigration enforcement agencies that obstruct entrance into the U.S. for migrants that do not have the means to utilize a more formal channel.

While it might appear that U.S. immigration laws have become more stringent in recent years due to growing political sensitivity and enhancements in the government's administrative capacity, strict policies date as far back as 1790 with the passage of the first Naturalization Act, which set the criteria for naturalization to free, white men. A person's race and gender were, therefore, enough grounds to make an individual ineligible for citizenship. This stark divide between white and non-white shaped immigration policies for centuries; racial restrictions to citizenship were not officially removed until 1952, with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act, otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act. (11) The 1790 Naturalization Act also inevitably tied immigration with security because of the rights that come with the granting of citizenship, particularly who is and is not protected under the law or recognized by local authorities. Selective deployment of rights and narrow avenues for naturalization imposed a distinct kind of non-belonging to excepted groups.

The next major restrictive legislation passed by the federal government was the Page Act of 1875; this barred the migration of most Chinese laborers and Chinese women suspected of being prostitutes. (12) The Page Act laid the groundwork for the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which completely banned Chinese laborers from migrating for ten years. It was frequently built upon by subsequent statutes like the Scott Act of 1888, which prevented Chinese laborers that went abroad from returning. It was also extended after the initial decade outlined during the bill's passage was up by the 1892 Geary Act (an additional ten years) and the 1904 Chinese Exclusion Extension Act (an indefinite extension). According to the 1882 policy, Chinese migrants that had resided in the U.S. prior to 1880 could remain, but were forbidden from naturalizing. This ultimately limited avenues of integration. Naturalization is a critical step in the immigration process; preventing the right to apply for it inevitably marked the legal population as "separate and unequal." (13) While the ban was eventually lifted in 1943 by the Magnuson Act, a cap on the number of Chinese immigrants able to come to America was concurrently established--only 105 per year were permitted entry.

The 1882 Immigration Act imposed a tax on non-citizens and prevented mentally ill and disabled individuals from migrating. The Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1903 regulated immigrants based on their political beliefs. This law defines anarchists as, "persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all governments or all forms of law, or the...