On Immigration, States Draft Their Own Laws

Monday, July 05, 2010

We've all heard a lot about Arizona's controversial and stringent immigration law, SB 1070, which allows Arizona police to question anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally. But 44 other states have introduced immigration legislation of their own since the beginning of 2010. Some worry that the U.S. may soon be facing a patchwork of different laws for different states.

Yale law professor Peter Schuck says that states are trying to make their own laws because federal efforts aren't moving quickly enough. He also says that while the fiscal burden of illegal immigration falls on states, the benefits of immigrant communities — like increased tax revenue and economic expansion — mostly go to the federal government. Schuck is the author of several books on immigration including "Understanding America: the Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation."


Peter Schuck

Produced by:

Noel King

Comments [7]


There are alway talks about the illegal immigration, but no one ever mentions the struggle the legal immigrants have to go through. Sometimes it takes over 5 years of waiting and uncertainty until we achieve our goal, the greencard.
I am sure that there are lots of stories out there.

Aug. 12 2010 04:10 PM
g.e. Taylor from Brooklyn Heights

I find this line of discussion to be dishonestly mislabeled.
Arizona's recent law (SB 1070) is not designed to address Immigration Policies (e.g., procedures for lawful immigration, long time residency, or citizenship), it is designed to enforce Federally determined legal immigration. More accurately - it is designed to establish effective lawful sanction of illegal immigration as that "illegality" is defined by federal law.
If Obama and his "progressive" supporters are interested in preventing lawful enforcement of these Federally defined and enacted, let them honestly proclaim that position and present it for the appropriate lawful ratification.
Illegal aliens in this country, as well as citizens of other countries and their governments have almost no standing in the matter. If, for example, Mexican nationals feel a calling to be engaged in a project which involves them in immigration justice, let them take some notice of the draconian policies that their country pursues towards the impoverished Central Americans who are seeking refuge in Mexico.
Lastly, it is patently irrational, unjust and dangerous for the same "progressive" "humanists" who just a few years ago were championing what amounted to succession from, and nullification of, lawful, Federally enacted Immigration Law by way of "sanctuary city" policies and other measures designed to prevent the enforcement of such national immigration measures.
Please don't be offended if rational people do not accept your disingenuous invitation for what you claim is merely "comprehensive" reform, but is in reality a "come-one-come-all", "open-and-undefended-borders" policy.
Tenga un buen dia.

Jul. 05 2010 10:23 AM

Ah ... I also expressed an opinion that NPR's obsession with Israel seems to be as natural as "Juan Lazaro"s obsession with Israel.
Sure, what other concerns could a Latino professor find (yes, sarcasm)?

Jul. 05 2010 09:13 AM

In the removed comment I stated that it's unprofessional to start any conversation, including the conversation about a Holocaust denier (yes, Celeste) "Washington labels." I am not a journalist, but as historian (among several other things) I know propaganda, manipulation and bigotry when I see one.
Yes, I have a problem with the station and its employees which in a country of wage slavery, lack of universal health care etc. chat about fruits and vegetables and ... are concerned about ... the Palestinians and the Palentinians only. As I mention earlier I understand bigotry quite well.
dr anna

Jul. 05 2010 09:01 AM

I meant of course:
Washington DIDN'T label ...

Jul. 05 2010 08:02 AM

[This comment was removed for its offensive nature. Please keep your comments civil.]

Jul. 05 2010 07:50 AM
Dave from Brooklyn

Just what part of Illegal does your guest not understand? This euphemism of persecution of people who broke the law is more than outrageous. It takes chutzpah to argue that lawbreakers need protection.

People who break the law should be aware of the consequences of their behavior. It is their problem and not the problem of the government.

Jul. 05 2010 07:37 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.