Will Pennsylvania Become the Next Arizona?

“As Jews, how can we stand idly by with a broken system that hurts those most vulnerable?  More and more we are being asked to break the foundational law of Judaism, ‘To love your neighbor as yourself.’  We are being asked to see our neighbor as a criminal alien because they fled from poverty and danger and wish to work and support their families.  Did our relatives, generations back, not do the same for us?" --Rabbi Rebecca Gould, HIAS Pennsylvania Social Justice Intern (2010-11) 

There has been an explosion in the number of state and local level immigration laws—estimated to be more than 1500 in 2011—aimed at immigrants.   Immigration has traditionally been an area almost exclusively reserved for federal regulation. However, in The Chamber of Congress v. Whiting, decided May 26, 2011 U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision (Justice Kagan did not participate) gave Arizona permission to mandate that employers use E-verify, a database that supposedly confirms the legal status of workers, as a condition of doing business in that state.  Several days later, the Lozado v. Hazleton case was remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to re-consider the Hazleton ordinance, which makes both employers, and landlords check immigration status.  Both the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit had ruled the ordinance was pre-empted by federal law—that is—only the federal government could regulate immigration, not localities.

This effort—to create separate state enforcement of immigration--is not limited to “undocumented or unauthorized immigrants.”   There are currently 2 million “mixed status families” where at least one parent or a child is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, but another parent is undocumented. Immigration law requires that the unauthorized immigrant return home and face a 10 year separation from their families.[i]  Families often chose to separate, and the broken family remaining in the U.S. loses a worker, often plunging them into abject poverty.

Increasingly, the debate on immigration has taken on aspects of extremism and xenophobia.  While most reliable economic studies show immigrants improve the economy,[ii]  restrictionists claim immigrants take away jobs and harm the economy. Immigrants work in niche occupations, including many areas U.S. workers don’t chose to work in. One recent study showed there was NO correlation between high unemployment rates and counties with large numbers of immigrants. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded 41% of Fortune 500 companies. Such notions as “the immigrant invasion[iii]” or “third world conquest[iv]” are promoted in anti-immigrant position papers and articles.  Under the misnamed rubric, “National Security Begins at Home,” Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R, Butler County) has introduced a package of bills in the Pennsylvania state legislature promoting local enforcement of immigration laws and more.  Many of the bills are duplicative. The idea appears to use a “shock and awe” approach aimed at driving immigrants-legal or otherwise—and their families from Pennsylvania. The state of Georgia, which has passed some of these restrictionist laws had its intended effect— immigrants left the state and now farmers are frantic, as crops are rotting in the fields because of lack of farm labor. There is a proposal to use inmates from prisons to fill the gap.

In Pennsylvania, the bills can be broken down into four general categories:

(1)Heightened screening and identification requirements. SB 637 (companion bill HB 379, HB), passed by the Senate on May 24, 2011, mandates all public works contractors screen new employees by checking their status using the E-verify system.  This system is currently optional on a national scale and has a high error rate, leading to concerns that legal immigrants and citizens will be fired because of an incorrect mismatch.  HB 858 is pending and would extend the mandatory use of E-verify to all Pennsylvania employers and permit localities like Hazleton, to have their own ordinances. Failure to use it could result in the loss of a Pennsylvania business license. 

(2)Access to Public Benefits. SB 9, also passed in the Senate, requires the use of specific forms of government issued identification to qualify for benefits.  Passed under the premise that this will stop undocumented immigrants from accessing benefits, those likely to suffer are poor minority U.S. citizens who are born in rural areas. No evidence of abuse or fraud by undocumented immigrants was ever documented or presented.  Before it was amended, elderly immigrants such as holocaust survivors who no longer have their original passports or don’t know their status, would be denied benefits.  A number of amendments exempting senior citizens, victims of domestic violence and homeless veterans were passed in the Senate bill. The companion bill HB 41, without most of the amendments is before the State Government Committee, chaired by Rep. Metcalfe. Yet, at a time when the state budget cuts benefits, the cost of more than $1,000,000 to implement SB 9 is now added to the state budget. 

(3)Turning police and local law enforcement into immigration agents. These bills include an Arizona look alike bill (HB 738), which requires that police officers investigate the immigration status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they are in the country unlawfully. Equally troubling, the bill makes it a state criminal offense to fail to carry immigration documents, a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant if the person believes the person is committing an offense that makes them removable (deportable) from the U.S.  Employees can make anonymous complaints about employers and co-workers and the local district attorney must investigate these.  Much of the language of HB 738 is the same language used in the Arizona 1070 bill—including provisions that have been enjoined by the Ninth Circuit in a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice. Other Pennsylvania law enforcement bills include HB 355, HB 798, HB 526, HB 801, SB 515. There is also a bill to create a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws. (HB 799).

(4)Discriminatory and Restrictionist Bills.  The reality that the intent of these bills is to make it uncomfortable for the foreign-born to live in the state is illustrated by bills making English the official language or Pennsylvania (HB 361, HB 888, HB 659).  Two additional bills provide that children born to unauthorized immigrants receive separate Pennsylvania birth certificates in anticipation of federal challenges to “birthright” citizenship. (HB 474, HB 857).  This later effort is reminiscent of the “fifth line” used on former internal passports in the Soviet Union to single out Jews, often resulting in employment discrimination.

To counter these developments, on the federal level, Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) and six democrats introduced a bill for comprehensive immigration reform, while Sen. Durbin re-introduced and held hearings on the Dream Act.   There is growing support for immigration reform among faith communities and broad support for the Dream Act.  However, advocates have seen that the bi-partisan support both efforts once enjoyed slip away as former Republican supporters such as John McCain, once a co-sponsor of the Dream Act and immigration reform now actively oppose any federal legislation.

While many immigrant advocates hope for federal action, the need to work on a statewide level to prevent harsh and discriminatory measures is now paramount.  Will we become an “enforcement state” where everyone who looks foreign born or speaks with an accent will be looked upon with suspicion?  Will we become a state where instead of “love thy neighbor” we will turn and report on our neighbor so no one trusts anyone?  The rise of state and local enforcement laws raise the fundamental issue of whether we are one nation, or whether each state or city will develop their own immigration policies, causing conflict and eroding national security.  

 Action Steps

There are many opportunities for JSPAN members to participate in the immigration policy area.  On the positive side, Rep. Payton (HB 1695) has introduced a Pennsylvania Dream Act, which allows eligible immigrant residents of Pennsylvania, regardless of their status, to pay in-state tuition. This bill needs more co-sponsors in the House and sponsorship in the Pennsylvania Senate.  Members can contact the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (PICC) for more information at www.paimmigrant.org.

Community education concerning immigration policy and immigrants is important.  JSPAN members who wish to have a speaker at their synagogue or professional groups can contact HIAS Pennsylvania at jbernsteinbaker@hiaspa.org.  In the fall, HIAS Pennsylvania will host a social justice rabbinical student who will work with congregations on setting up a variety of presentations.