Local immigration regulation: a problematic trend in public policy.

Introduction

A looming issue for Latinos across the country is the proliferation of new local ordinances targeting undocumented immigrants. Such ordinances usually seek to impose harsh sanctions on landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants and/or employers who hire them. In many of the debates around such ordinances there is a fusion of undocumented immigrants and Latinos. This blurring of distinct (but overlapping) populations is dangerous, as such debates have heightened anti-Latino sentiment and such ordinances are likely to cause discrimination against Latinos through landlord and employer efforts to avoid possible violations. These ordinances are, therefore, of particular concern for those interested in public policy that affects Latinos.

Between May 2006 and September 2007, 131 cities and counties in thirty states considered ordinances targeting undocumented immigrants. (1) These ordinances contain five major aspects: rental provisions, employer sanctions, English as the official language, day labor prohibitions, and police enforcement of immigration law. The first three often come as a package and are sometimes called the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, or IIRA. Other locales have considered a wide variety of other measures. For instance, Prince William County, VA, adopted an ordinance (07-894) denying undocumented immigrants county services such as elder care, drug abuse prevention, and aid to the disabled. (2) According to the 9 July 2006 San Francisco Chronicle, the town of Milford, MA, amended their city regulations to prohibit any check cashing businesses, which often cater to immigrants. (3) Forty-four percent of localities have passed at least one prohibition. While this article focuses exclusively on the local level, it should be noted that there are also an unprecedented number of bills being considered and passed at the state level (NCSL 2007).

This article seeks to lay out the contours of the local ordinance phenomenon and also the principal arguments against such regulation. The article is based on over sixty interviews with members of communities where such ordinances have been considered. The members of the community are mainly representatives of nongovernmental organizations, landlords, business owners, public officials, and police officers. Half of the interviews were conducted in a case study of Escondido, CA, and the others via telephone in fifteen cities in fourteen states. We also reviewed news articles from across the country, legal documents, proposed and passed ordinances, and videos of city council debates. Finally, we analyzed census data for the 131 localities. It is clear from the data collected that there has been a general lack of accurate information in the consideration of these ordinances. We will conclude by reviewing some of the common faulty assumptions on which the ordinance movement relies and the demographic shifts that have driven the perceived crisis.

Background of Ordinances

There is no doubt that undocumented immigration has increased significantly in recent years. The leading demographer in the field, Jeffrey Passel, estimates that the unauthorized population nearly tripled between 1990 and 2004. Perhaps more significant to the proliferation of ordinances is the dispersal of undocumented immigrants to states that had previously seen any unauthorized and in many cases any immigrants and Latinos in general. In 1990, six states accounted for 80 percent of the undocumented population. By 2004, these six states were home to only 59 percent of undocumented immigrants (Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 2007, 45). While still housing the majority of undocumented immigrants, the six states account for fewer than 20 percent of the ordinances. Although the diffusion certainly contributed to rising concern across much of the country, we have not found a direct correlation between the number of proposed ordinances and the rise in the undocumented population in a particular state. By far the largest number of proposed ordinances is in Pennsylvania, with thirty-two locales (24 percent of the total number of ordinances). Pennsylvania saw the number of undocumented persons quintuple between 1990 and 2004, although the undocumented only make up 1 percent of the state's population--less than a third of the national average. On the other hand, an estimated 5 percent of the population of Oregon is undocumented and the state has seen a seven-fold increase (Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 2007, 34-37), but appears to have no locales considering ordinances. The rise in the number of undocumented persons has provided a basis for concern, but it has often required the media and politicians to raise the level to one of alarm.

The National Election Poll conducted in Iowa at the opening of the 2008 presidential election season showed that "illegal immigration" was the number-one concern among Republican caucus-goers, according to a Los Angeles Times article on 4 January 2008. While the centrality of the issue varies by poll and by group, it is clear that politicians are capitalizing on a growing nativist sentiment. This is particularly true among Republican politicians. Political scientists Karthick Ramakrishnan and Tom Wong's (2007) analysis of demographic, labor market, and political factors in relation to proposed local ordinances shows the strongest correlation with political factors. They found, after controlling for demographic factors, that a locale in a Republican majority area was twice as likely as a Democratic area to propose, and even more likely to pass, an ordinance targeting the undocumented.