ILNews

Editorial - SB 590: An Arizona-style invitation for litigation

March 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

By Angela D. Adams

angela adams Adams

The past weeks have brought heated debate about immigration policy to our state. The Indiana General Assembly is currently considering various anti-immigrant bills. Among them is Senate Bill 590, modeled after Arizona’s immigration law. Currently being challenged in Federal District Court on constitutional grounds, Arizona’s law has invited much criticism and proved costly to the state’s economy. Indiana should not be next in line.

Pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, regulation of immigration is a power exclusively granted to the federal government. Allowing states to set their own immigration policies violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Immigration laws and ordinances passed by states and municipalities have led to costly litigation battles. Most have been enjoined or invalidated, or they are currently pending in court. Arizona’s 2007 employer sanctions law, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Ordinances penalizing renting to or employing undocumented immigrants were struck down as unconstitutional in Hazelton, Pa., repealed in Riverside, N.J., and suspended in Fremont, Neb. A housing ordinance ruled unconstitutional in Farmers Branch, Texas, is currently under appeal. In Valley Park, Mo., a housing ordinance was blocked and an employment ordinance was upheld, but the forthcoming decision in Arizona 2007 calls this ordinance into question. Taxpayers bear the burden of these exorbitant litigation costs.

States are frustrated because the federal government has failed to fix our broken immigration system. Often overlooked are the reasons why the immigration system is broken. Why can’t undocumented immigrants just get legal?

Most undocumented immigrants would prefer to have lawful status. However, for the vast majority of those who have come to the U.S. without inspection or overstayed their visas, this is not an option. Backlogs for family-based permanent immigration preference categories can be anywhere from five to 20 years. Employment-based permanent immigration categories often take five to seven years. These backlogs are the result of a quota system that is outdated and does not reflect the current demand for labor.

Those who entered without inspection or overstayed their visas are ineligible for adjustment of status in the U.S. and must apply at the consulate abroad. Upon departure from the U.S., they face additional obstacles depending on how long they have been in the U.S. unlawfully. Accumulation of 180 days of unlawful presence in the U.S. triggers a three-year bar; one year of unlawful presence triggers a 10-year bar. The three- or 10-year bar can only be waived by demonstrating that a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent would suffer “extreme hardship” if the applicant could not return to the U.S. Those without a qualifying family relative are ineligible for the waiver of the three- and 10-year bars, and thus are effectively foreclosed from obtaining any lawful immigration status abroad. In plain terms, they can’t stay and they can’t go.

Others may be in administrative removal (deportation) proceedings awaiting a hearing for many months or even years. Only an immigration judge can decide whether someone is removable, and in many cases the respondent may be eligible for certain types of relief which can only be sought in removal proceedings. Even if local police arrest every undocumented person in the state, it is still ultimately up to the federal government to charge them, put them in proceedings, and, if necessary, deport them.

The decision to stay or go is often a personal and difficult one. Many immigrants are part of mixed-status families where some members have lawful status and others do not. For children brought to the U.S. at a young age through no fault of their own, Indiana may be the only home they have ever known. Our current immigration laws often lead to family separation and do not allow for families to be reunified in a timely manner.

State anti-immigrant proposals like Indiana’s SB 590 will not solve the problems of our federal immigration system. However, there is a way that we can contribute positively to the immigration debate. Many government officials, attorneys, businesses, social service providers, faith-based leaders, and other concerned Hoosiers have signed on to the Indiana Compact, a statement of five principles to guide rational debate on immigration policy in Indiana. The Indiana Compact declares that immigration is a federal issue; that law enforcement should focus on crimes; that strong families are the foundation of successful communities; that Indiana should be a welcoming state; and that the way we treat immigrants says more about us than it does about them. See www.indianacompact.com.

As attorneys, we have a duty to challenge the status quo, urge our government officials to lead efforts to strengthen and reform federal laws, and uphold the U.S. Constitution. I invite you to join in the discussion.•

__________

Angela D. Adams is an attorney with the law firm of Lewis & Kappes concentrating on immigration matters. She is board president of the Immigrant Welcome Center, chapter secretary for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and on the steering committee for the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • CuteAnjeli
    Really appreciate this post. It’s hard to sort the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it. send flower lebanon || send flowers ireland
  • ...
    know nothing indeed..
  • Know nothing
    Its always a safe position for lawyers to advocate the pro immigration position. Its American as apple pie since the days when Mr Lincoln press ganged Irish immigrants into his Civil War right off the boat. Does anybody care about the natives? Well some representatives get it and they will win votes while a lot of hand wringing happens in the meantime.
    • Good Article
      Good job Angela! That's an excellent article. Very informative, realistic point of views and good reasoning. I compliment you for that.
      Renny

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

    2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

    3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

    4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

    5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

    ADVERTISEMENT