Heineman: Arizona just the first

LINCOLN — Gov. Dave Heineman, whose tough stance on illegal immigration fueled his winning campaign four years ago, says he expects every state in the union to consider Arizona-type proposals next year.

But the governor admitted Monday that while states will discuss allowing local police to arrest undocumented immigrants, “This doesn’t mean (proposals) are going to pass.” Heineman spoke before an appearance Monday in Omaha.

Several hurdles face proposals like Arizona’s, said those who track the hot-button immigration issue nationally.

One is legal: Arizona’s law is tied up in court, a battle that could take two years and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another is financial: With states facing historic revenue shortfalls and the prospect of higher taxes or layoffs, they might be reluctant to pass legislation that would spark an expensive court battle and bring costly new job requirements for state troopers and local police.

Ann Morse, director of the immigration policy project for the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, said legislatures typically move slowly in enacting immigration laws, anyway — Arizona, for instance, debated for three years before adopting its controversial law this year.

“The issue, as it has for the last five years, will see lively debate in many state legislatures,” Morse said. “(But) I expect legislatures to pretty much wait for the fallout from the court rulings.”

In Nebraska, State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont said he doesn’t think Nebraska needs to wait.

He said he plans to introduce a Nebraska version of the Arizona law in January that will be drafted to try to avoid the legal pitfalls that have derailed Arizona’s law. While he declined to detail exactly what he’ll include, Janssen said he will take a “slow approach” that will have a good chance of passing.

“This isn’t certainly something I want to throw out to just make a political statement. It’s something that needs to be passed,” he said. “We’ve waited long enough.”

The legal issues bear watching, said State Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha. He is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which considers immigration proposals before the full Legislature debates them.

Ashford, a lawyer, said his reading of federal law is that while states might have some leeway to enact laws banning employment of illegal immigrants, the Constitution precludes local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal law.

In addition, he said, his committee’s study of immigration issues two summers ago found no local law enforcement officials in favor of taking on the costly job of enforcing immigration laws.

“I think you have to focus on areas where state action can occur,” Ashford said. “Certainly it’s not our role to pass bills that are unconstitutional.”

While an immigration crackdown remains a popular campaign issue, Morse, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said it’s hard to predict how many states might debate Arizona-like laws.

A preliminary court ruling is due next month in the Arizona case, but the issue is expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which typically takes two years, she said.

“That’s not to minimize the fact that everyone is interested in doing something. There are a lot of practical hurdles to passing Arizona-like legislation,” Morse said.

In Iowa, one state lawmaker said he doesn’t feel a “clamor” to adopt an Arizona style law because of concerns about cost, legality and racial profiling, although he expects something to be introduced.

“My guess is that Iowans are going to be pretty reluctant to act on that. Iowa has a tradition of being a very welcoming state,” said Sen. Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids, a Democrat who is vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Six other states considered Arizona-like laws this spring, including Minnesota, although none passed them, according to the national conference.

Last spring brought a flurry of discussion involving other immigration-related issues, the organization reported.

All 46 state legislatures holding sessions in 2010 considered laws related to immigrants, immigration or refugees, introducing a whopping 1,374 bills and resolutions.

A national group that favors Arizona-style legislation, Americans for Legal Immigration, says it has counted 22 states in which legislators are mulling the introduction of similar proposals.

That number should rise, said William Gheen, director of the Raleigh, N.C.-based group.

“Any elected official or candidate in America who wants to become an instantaneous hero with the American people can stand up behind Arizona,” Gheen said.

He said that the vast majority of Americans support get-tough policies on illegal immigrants and that federal inaction on the issue is part of a broader discontent with Congress.

“We see a full-fledged political revolt brewing across this country, and illegal immigration is a part of this,” Gheen said.

“Your governor rocks,” Gheen said of Heineman, whose history of supporting get-tough legislation on illegal immigration was detailed recently in the New York Times.

States might get a clearer signal soon on how much power they have on at least one aspect of the immigration issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in December about a 2007 Arizona law that provides for license suspension for businesses that “intentionally or knowingly” ignore work-eligibility verification requirements.

But when it comes to ordering local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws, as in Arizona, states likely will back off for now, said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal think tank.

Kelley said the same thing happened in 1994, when California voters approved a get-tough initiative on illegal immigration: Lots of states considered similar steps, but the costs and legal problems eventually turned them off.

“I think there will be a flirtation ... but I don’t think it’s going to be a long-lasting relationship,” she said.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20101005/NEWS01/710059914/0