Evolving immigration law

CNN.com yesterday morning asked whether, "Now that Arizona lawmakers have passed what's considered some of the toughest immigration legislation in the country, were other states watching to see whether they should follow in the state's footsteps or stand back," noting that Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute who helped draft the language of the Arizona bill, had said he'd been approached by lawmakers from four other states, which he declined to identify, who have asked for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live.

Hethmon was quoted as saying that "Historically, not only in the U.S. but in virtually all industrialized nations, when the unemployment rates go up ... the public becomes much less sympathetic toward programs which bring in large numbers of foreigners as workers and economic players….Arizona was meant to be the leading edge," he said. "If you are going to work on developing a state-based response to this enormous problem -- the lack of a national immigration policy -- Arizona is the place to do it."

The article relates that "Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them."

This morning, an article on ArizonaCentral.com began, "The nation's toughest immigration effort has yet to be signed into Arizona law, but public-safety and legal experts from across the nation already are debating its ramifications.

"Supporters say it would give police officers more freedom to do their jobs and would require little additional training. They say the bill has just enough teeth to keep departments from continuing to ignore immigration laws; on the flip side, it expressly forbids officers from racial profiling. Opponents say it would require departments to make immigration enforcement a priority over violent crimes, drain already strained financial and manpower resources, force officers to target individuals based on their accent or dress, and result in costly lawsuits against municipalities for participating in racial profiling as well as failing to adequately enforce the law."

Their pursuit of answers has, no doubt, already been given some markers.

To be sure, the Southern Ohio District Court's $100,000-settlement this week is noteworthy. Cincinnati.com last Monday reported that a suit, brought in May 2008, "filed on behalf of Luis Roberto Rodriguez Trevino, alleged Butler County, Ohio deputies violated his constitutional rights when they "seized" him at a West Chester construction site in 2007. The suit also said the sheriff's office lacked the legal authority to enforce federal laws that make it a civil violation - not a crime - for immigrants to be in the United States without proper documentation."