![]() |
Real Estate News and Advice |
December 4, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
Tougher State, Local Laws Against Illegals Could Alter Patterns Of Immigration
by Blanche Evans
A growing number of protesters are insisting that the U.S. government isn't doing enough to protect the nation's borders from illegal Hispanic immigration. State and local governments are taking charge of protecting their own communities from the financial and social burdens of a rapidly growing illegal immigrant population that is threatening to overwhelm the resources of schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and social services. Texas is especially hard-hit, according to data compiled by the Federation of American Immigration Reform, (FAIR) a Washington, D.C. lobbying group. Texas, which has the second-highest immigration numbers in the country after California, pays more than $520 million in taxpayer funded healthcare annually for illegals, and more than $4 billion annually educating illegals and their children. Other states are reacting to increasing demands on their social services traceable to illegal immigration. In May, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry signed HB 1804, also known as The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, into law. The law, which will take effect on Nov. 1, makes it a felony to "knowingly transport, move, conceal, shelter or harbor" an illegal immigrant. That means hiring an illegal over a resident in Oklahoma. In Tulsa, the city council is attempting to enact a law which overturns so-called "sanctuary laws" which prevent authorities from inquiring about an individual's immigration status, such as those practiced in Los Angeles by law enforcement personnel. Tulsa wants to empower law enforcement officers to inquire into the residency status of anyone detained in the ordinary pursuit of law enforcement. In 1996, Homeland Security empowered state and local authorities to help it enforce immigration laws, yet some municipalities are finding themselves embroiled in federal lawsuits when they attempt to do just that. New laws attempted by Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Farmers Branch, Texas, Escondido, California and others range from imposing fines on landlords who rent to illegals to denying business permits to companies that employ illegals. All have bogged down in federal or state courts, as advocates on both sides of the issue thrash out where federal VS state and local responsibilities to citizens and legal residents lay. The issue has become so contentious that the White House attempted to solve the problem by encouraging legislation that provides amnesty to current illegals and stepping up border enforcement. The bill known as The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 or S. 1639, would have provided approximately 12 to 26 million illegals with Z visas that would allow them to stay as long as they were gainfully employed, paying taxes, and obeying the law. The defeat of S. 1639 in June 2007, suggests how deep the divide is regarding the amnesty and treatment of illegals is on both sides. For example, the National Immigration Law Center(NILC) objected to S. 1639 because it would "ensure the impoverishment of legalizing immigrants by imposing unreasonable fees and fines, raising their taxes, and reducing their Social Security benefits." Opponents say illegals who are not paying taxes shouldn't be entitled to U.S. social benefits such as Medicaid and Social Security. FAIR President called the bill benefiting illegals "weak, impractical and unfair in the extreme." According to the NILC in 2004, there were numerous cities that had initiated "sanctuary laws" by preventing local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws. But the tide has turned. In 2007, the number of state legislatures proposing immigration reform laws doubled to 1200 from 570 in 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, covering health, employment, education, law enforcement and social benefits reforms. Several states, such as Georgia, Colorado and Oklahoma are requiring that businesses that receive state contracts must use Homeland Security's Basic Pilot program, an electronic system that checks workers' Social Security numbers against federal databases. Missouri and South Carolina have introduced similar legislation this year. Georgia is also insisting that anyone receiving social benefits over the age of 18 be verified for eligibility, including legal resident status. While local Hispanic groups attempt to overturn these laws, the numbers are startling. It's estimated that between 300,000 and one million illegal immigrants enter the U.S. annually, which will increase the current national population of 300 million to approximately 420 million by 2050. The majority of immigrants, or 62 percent of foreign-born populations, reside in just five states -- in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia and Arizona, says the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. One-quarter of the nation's immigrants lived in California in 2005. One out of every five people in the 25 to 34 age group, which are the peak years for household formation, are foreign-born. With the Secure Borders Act defeated, some states will be bolder about initiating illegal immigrant-unfriendly legislation, possibly impacting patterns of migration to states and municipalities with less stringent laws against illegals. Since January 2006, the Immigration Reform Law Institute IRLI says it has responded to requests for assistance in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and other states. Published: July 10, 2007 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws. Related Articles:
|
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Spotlight
Today's Headlines
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
|
||||||||||||||||||