The American Council of Immigration does not approve or oppose candidates for elected offices. We aim to provide an analysis of the impact of elections on the US immigration system.
The Trump administration’s highly visible immigration enforcement efforts have impacted immigrants across the country through the arrest and detention of immigrants, or through the calm impact that these operations have on immigrant communities.
While it is only natural that federal government rhetoric and behavior are at the forefront of immigrant minds, state governments can also play a major role in shaping the daily experiences and well-being of immigrants in their communities.
While state policymakers play an increasing role in shaping immigration policies, the increase in disparities between the types of policies enacted by proposals or anti-immigrant state governments has resulted in a completely different experience, depending on the state in which the person lives.
Understanding who these policies affect will affect policy supporters that increase immigration enforcement at the state level. However, growing evidence shows that immigration enforcement affects all those who intersect with immigration. According to a survey by the American Immigration Council, 8%, or nearly 23 million U.S. citizens live with immigrant parents. Among children in US citizens, 7.4%, or more than 5 million, live with undocumented families. These children can be severely affected by local immigration enforcement. Research shows that mixed status families, especially when children from US citizens have undocumented parents, are susceptible to the negative effects of local immigration enforcement.
Overall, immigration-friendly policies tend to recognize that immigration contributes to the community, focusing on the success of newcomers’ integration regardless of the migrant situation, and provide opportunities for full community participation. These policies can shape the lives of immigrants in a variety of ways.
State lawmakers have worked to expand immigration protection through bills relating to data privacy, immigration legal services and restrictions on immigration enforcement in sensitive places. Others have increased access to economic opportunities for immigrants through work licences and workforce development. State leaders such as Illinois Gov. JB Pretzker have vowed to protect immigrants from the aggressive enforcement of the Trump administration.
In an environment where the administration is destroying trust between immigrants and government agencies, these bills could strengthen relations between immigrant communities and local governments.
Many recent policy changes at the federal level deliberately and disproportionally limit due processes, limit access to education and healthcare, limit mobility, or systematically make it difficult for immigrants to live and work safely in their communities.
States such as Idaho and Montana have passed laws that attempt to criminalize the existence or reentry of states’ undocumented immigrants. Many other state policies, such as those that track the status of immigrants for certain migrants, restricting access to immigrant education and revoking legal driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, contribute to the erosion of trust between immigrant communities and state and local businesses, and reduce community safety for Alley citizens.
The outcome of these policies is total marginalization for immigration. Laws that systematically limit barriers based on labor, education and immigration situations prevent immigrants from pursuing upwardly mobile economic opportunities and overall well-being at the same level as their more welcoming state counterparts.
It’s easy to attribute the dramatic differences in state-level immigration policies to partisan divisions, but this is not always the case as individual issues gain bipartisan support. Some GOP-led states have worked to maintain the contribution of the immigrant population.
For example, get a K-12 education. In Utah, the state passed the law, making it easier for newly arrived families to register their children at schools and fund language access. There are also some advanced policies that increase the opportunities for migrant workforce in critical areas that are needed, such as Indiana HB 1555, such as expanding licenses to foreign trained physicians. Viriginia SB 1475 creates a working group to propose recommendations to promote the licensing of foreign trained dentists.
These examples show that despite some states leaning towards harmful policies, another path is possible. Lawmakers can defy partisan tendencies and lean towards the bipartisan solutions they demonstrated, which can protect the economic well-being of their communities.
As shown in the previous example, the daily lives of immigrants are greatly influenced by the policies their home states have chosen to pursue in the short and long term.
State lawmakers should also be tired of economic fallouts from policies they have chosen to implement. For example, data from the council shows that if Texas eliminates undocumented students’ tuition access within the state, it would lose $244.4 million in wage revenue and $226.9 million in spending forces.
This intensified moment of federal immigration will likely pass. But the outcome of this era – chronic stress and fear will continue to live in the minds of immigrants and their relatives of American citizens – will endure for a long time.
Federal immigration law and enforcement are not within the scope of state legislators, but they have the power to mitigate the negative impacts of harmful federal policies and ensure equal protection, equity, legitimacy, and opportunities for success that benefit all community members.
Submitted below: State Immigration Act
