State district judge Sarah Singleton issued a preliminary injunction against the program back on September 22. Two days ago, the governor’s office acknowledged that the frozen program has thus far cost the state $177,000.

A judge halted the program on the grounds of unconstitutionality after the program had the DMV send letters to 10,000 randomly selected foreign nationals. The letter ordered the receiver to make an appointment with the MVD and produce documents proving residency, and the program was criticized as a sting operation.

Despite the injunction, Judge Singleton has allowed that the Department of Taxation and Revenue may still follow up on letters returned as undeliverable and take action against drivers found to have obtained licenses under false pretenses.

So far, the state has spent $63,000 on temporary clerks employed to handle appointments, $49,000 on a contract with an Albuquerque-based call center to arrange the appointments, $29,000 for temporary clerks to handle questions over the phone and do data entry, $14,000 for phone and data lines, $11,000 on overtime and travel and another $11,000 on postage, office supplies, furniture and miscellaneous items.

Martinez had hoped the program would prove that the state had become a magnet for illegals. As of the end of September, 3,365 letters had been returned; and roughly 2,600 drivers had actually made appointments—roughly half of these had their licenses certified.

Albuquerque attorney David Urias, one of four lawyers who sued the MVD along with attorneys from MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, termed the program “a broad fishing expedition . . . that was not really warranted.”

“I know they arrived without documents, especially my father’s father,” she said. (Here’s the full TV report, in Spanish.) The Santa Fe New Mexican had already reported this back in July, but Martinez hadn’t spoken about it publicly. NPR summarized the interview:

In her interview with KLUZ, the reporter asked if her grandfather would be considered “a threat against public safety,” a charge that Martinez has made against undocumented immigrants in her state.

Martinez said that times were different when her grandparents entered the United States. Back, then, she said, people crossed the border freely. Now, she said, especially after Sept. 11, “we have to make sure people don’t get a license using fake papers.”

This comes during her high-profile push to end the practice of allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

“He thinks this happened for a reason,” said his wife, Martha. She is a U.S. citizen, but Diaz Chacon said that he gave up on attempts to get citizenship because it was too expensive. Diaz Chacon is from Chihuahua, Mexico, and has been living in Albuquerque for four years.

Diaz Chacon overheard a neighbor yelling at a man to let go of a six-year old girl on the night of August 15. He then saw the man push the girl into a van. As his wife called 911, he followed the van for about 15 minutes in his truck before the van crashed. The man, Philip Garcia, 29, ran off, while Diaz Chacon got the little girl.

Mayor Richard Barry of Albuquerque presented Diaz Chacon with a certificate Friday and declared the day in his honor.

From their op-ed:

We support extending driver’s license privileges only to residents of the state. We are in favor of allowing individuals without Social Security numbers to obtain licenses provided that they present other acceptable forms of identification, such as a valid passport, consular identification card, or other recognized government-issued documents, currently required by present law. The present law, when enforced, addresses the issue of fraudulent documents. We have in the past called for a compromise that can strengthen the law and yet issue driver s licenses. We continue to call on the Legislature and the governor to work diligently on a compromise. We believe that this is in the interest of all New Mexicans, and our rationale for this position is as follows:

Licenses for all drivers make our highways safer, since unlicensed drivers have not been tested and, therefore, present a potential danger to everyone using our roads. In addition, unlicensed drivers tend to raise everyone s insurance rates since the former cannot obtain auto insurance.

Licensed drivers make our communities safer because they are more easily identified and tracked. If a law enforcement officer stops an unlicensed driver, that individual might easily give a false name. Such names would not be found in the state’s database, thus undermining law enforcement s efforts to determine whether there are outstanding warrants or other matters related to the person in question.

Repeal of the current driver’s license law would detract from limited state resources at a time of economic crisis. We want our law enforcement and court resources focused on the apprehension of dangerous criminals, rather than on the detention of normally hard-working immigrants.

And, finally, without legal access to driver’s licenses, immigrant workers would not be able to travel to their places of employment, undermining the economic stability of their families as well as the many New Mexico businesses, farms, and ranches that depend on their labor.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Catholics make up about 26 percent of New Mexico’s population. Religious leaders in Alabama have criticized the state’s tough immigration law that makes it a crime to knowingly transport, rent property or harbor illegal immigrants, saying that it criminalizes parts of their Christian ministry.

At a Wednesday press conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised that the bill would get a vote on the floor of the Senate, but it’s hard to imagine how he’ll pull that off. The Senate fell five votes short of killing a filibuster on the bill during the lame duck session in December and the Democrats now have a smaller majority than they did at the time.

Immigration officials announced Thursday that they are ramping up their existing crackdowns on employers who hire illegal workers by creating an audit office that will work to further verify employment documents. The new office, which will specifically scrutinize I-9 employee data from employers selected for audits, is the latest in a trend of actions by the Obama administration to shift away from work site enforcement actions (a politically correct term for plant raids) and put a higher onus on the companies that employ undocumented workers.

As a part of this effort, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. announced during a press conference Thursday that it would join a voluntary nationwide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program called IMAGE, which stands for ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers. The program was designed to encourage collaboration between federal authorities and employers.

“ICE’s collabortion with Tyson Foods illustrates this administration’s commitment to working with industry to encourage a culture of compliance with U.S. employment laws,” said John T. Morton, ICE director. “Tyson Foods is setting the gold standard for Fortune 500 companies everywhere, and ICE is proud to be partnering with the company in this significant effort to protect our nation’s lawful workforce.”

Tyson Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer Ken Kimbro noted that by joining the program the company will be able to “use all available tools provided by the U.S. government to verify the documents of the people we hire.”

“We’ve also gone beyond government tools, spending millions of dollars over the years on such things as training, computer systems and help from outside consultants to make sure we’re employing people who are authorized to work in our country,” Kimbro said.

To become certified, Tyson was subject to an I-9 audit and other check by federal authorities. The company met other requirements of the program through existing internal policies and programs such as regular self-assessments or internal audits of hiring practices, voluntary participation in E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service and personnel training on hiring and employment document fraud detection.

It was during the formal signing ceremony with Tyson that Morton announced the creation of an employment compliance inspection center in Virginia. The center is expected to be home to 15 additional auditors who will support the agency’s immigration enforcement strategy by expedition of I-9 field audits. According to ICE officials, such audits are “one of the most powerful tools the federal government has to ensure that businesses are complying” with the law. From fiscal year 2009 to date, ICE has initiated I-9 inspections against 3,769 businesses across the nation.

“This center will allow us to ensure the capacity to do a lot of large-scale audits,” Morton said.

The creation of the inspection office also allows Morton and the Obama administration to make good on a 2009 promise that it would move away from the Bush administration’s practice of conducting massive work site enforcement actions that resulted in thousands of worker arrests and subsequent deportations. Such actions, including two notable ones that took place in the Iowa towns of Marshalltown and Postville, were vehemently criticized by immigrant rights groups who believed the government was placing too much scrutiny and punishment on individual workers and not on the companies that employed them.

During the past fiscal year, ICE conducted audits of more than 2,740 companies — nearly twice as many as it completed the fiscal year before, according to the Wall Street Journal, which was given details in advance of the official announcement. Immigration officials also handed companies a record-breaking $7 million in civil fines.

Although ICE began its IMAGE program in 2006, only about 100 companies have joined thus far — many unwilling to open their records to government auditors and/or uninterested in the financial outlay required for new systems and training. Federal officials are hopeful that the agreement with Tyson will help bolster the program.

Tyson Foods is one of the world’s largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef and pork, and the second-largest food production company in the Fortune 500. According to the company’s 2009 Fact Book, it operates in eight Iowa locations — Cherokee, Council Bluffs, Denison, Independence, Perry Storm Lake, Waterloo and Louisa County — and employs roughly 9,000 in the state. Tyson employs approximately 115,000 people at more than 400 facilities throughout the nation.

“It was eye-opening to realize that people think it’s normal to be passionate about something like college basketball, but odd to be passionate about your state’s politics,” she said to the Houston Chronicle.

After spending two nights on the lobby floor, she filed the bills on November 8, getting the first two bill numbers available, 16 and 17. Similar passion for SB 1070-like legislation exists throughout the country.

Arizona’s new law

The passage of SB 1070 in Arizona in April combined the potent mix of conservative popular anger over immigration, crime, the Obama administration and the federal government. Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer — who quietly succeeded Janet Napolitano after she became Secretary of the U.S. Deparment of Homeland Security — became an instant firebrand with a national profile sought after by GOP candidates as far away as Georgia. The measure polled consistently well; however, it also sparked a national backlash, as protesters called for boycotts of the state and picketed in cities across the country.

SB 1070 was one of the strongest immigration-enforcement measures in decades. Local law officials are required to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine one’s legal status if “reasonable suspicion” exists. Any illegal alien in Arizona is “trespassing” in the state if they are not carrying their alien registration card. It makes it unlawful for illegal immigrants to solicit work or perform any job. It also contains powers to investigate employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

Other states follow suit

State legislators in 25 states (see list below) planned to introduce SB 1070 clones in upcoming legislative sessions, according to Immigration Impact. Of course, not all — or even most — of these laws will pass. However, Republicans picked up the most seats in the modern era of state legislatures in 2010 — more than Republicans did in 1994 or Democrats in the post-Watergate wave of 1974. Republicans hold both houses and the governorship in fifteen states (sixteen including Nebraska’s unicameral legislature).

Florida elected Republican Rick Scott — who ran ads against his primary opponent for his opposition to Arizona’s law — for governor along with Republican supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature. Scott supports “measures like the Arizona law.”  When asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN whether he would push the legislature to bring a bill to him, he said, “I don’t have to, the legislature’s already focused on it.”

Both House and Senate versions of immigration enforcement bills in Florida require aliens to carry documentation with them or risk being incarcerated and fined. Both bills state that nothing may prohibit local officials from “sending, receiving, or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of an individual.” If local officials do not comply, then the state attorney general may sue those officials. The Florida legislative session begins in March.

Legislators in Tennessee — which now has a Republican governor, House and Senate — plan to introduce a SB 1070-like bill in the upcoming session. The Tennessean reported that State Sen. Bill Ketron is drafting a bill that would criminalize illegal immigration, but attorneys are working to make sure the bill conforms with the state constitution. Ketron — like Arizona legislators — received help in drafting the bill from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that writes conservative “model legislation” for states.

Colorado is a good example of a state where a SB 1070-like bill stands no chance of passing. State Senator-elect Ken Lambert (R) said he would introduce a bill into the legislature next session. “I don’t care if it is litigated,” he said. “It is clearly something the people want. The will of the people has been ignored by Democrats for too long.” However, the Democratic governor-elect, John Hickenlooper, opposes the measure; incidentally, he defeated Tom Tancredo — who gained a national profile for his vehement opposition to illegal immigration — in the general election.

Litigation gives pause

Another problem for a state passing a SB 1070 bill is litigation. Arizona has spent over $1 million defending its law in court only as of July. The Obama administration won an injunction against most of the SB 1070 law, except for the employer provisions, and Supreme Court arguments in November made it likely that the injunction would be sustained. Donations have poured in to the Arizona legal expense fund, but legal action still gives some lawmakers pause. Ohio Republican legislators had planned to file an SB 1070 bill in the legislature, but retooled parts of it because they would be a “waste of taxpayer money,” according to the legislator who filed the bill.

Even in Biddle’s Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, who sympathized with Arizona’s immigration law in his book Fed Up, said immediately after SB 1070 passed that he had “concerns” with portions of the law and said it “would not be the right direction for Texas.”

If states don’t take up SB 1070-like bills, in-state tuition — or even admission to public universities — for illegal immigrants is likely to be a big issue, especially after the failure of the DREAM Act during the recent lame-duck session of the U.S. Congress.

But if the DREAM Act — allowing a path to citizenship for children brought to the U.S. illegally with their parents after completing two years of college or military service — cannot pass, it remains highly unlikely that Congress will pass any immigration reform in the near future. Which means many Republican-controlled states, unburdened by divided government, may fill in the gap.

—–

States with SB 1070-like legislation in the works: (PDF)

Most likely to pass: Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina
Maybe: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia
Less Likely: Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island

Perhaps unsurprisingly, both sides seem to think the study confirms their beliefs: Advocates of the policy said the study showed it was successful in driving out immigrants, while critics pointed to findings that crime and spending were mostly unchanged by the policy.

The study, which was a three-year project by the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey Research, looked at a variety of factors to determine the impact of a policy meant to drive out illegal immigrants. Since it was modified in 2008, the policy has required police officers to check the immigration status when they make arrests. Originally, the policy required checks only if the officer suspected the person was an illegal immigrant — much like Arizona’s SB 1070 — prompting fear of racial profiling and backlash against Latinos.

Although the Latino population dropped following the policy’s implementation, experts cautioned there could be a number of other reasons for the change, such as a sluggish economy and few jobs in sectors like construction:

“I think the policy had an effect on the ground in the direction it was intended, but it also came at a time of a very sharp economic downtown, which also contributed to changes in population … and migration behaviors,” said Brookings Institution demographer Audrey Singer, who focuses on race and U.S. immigration policy. “I think the researchers are being very careful with what they say because they can’t get a very hard estimate.”

The policy was intended to reduce crime and lower spending on social services to illegal immigrants. But the University of Virginia study found that overall crime has been on the decline in Prince William County for the past 10 years — including the years when many undocumented immigrants moved to the country.

Undocumented immigrants only made up a small number — about 6 percent — of those arrested for serious crimes in the county in 2009. The study’s authors said there was no noticeable impact on crime from the immigration enforcement policy and that social service spending remained about the same. Implementing and maintaining the policy cost the county about $3 million.

Although the study found few reports of racial profiling, some Latino residents said fears of profiling still may have led some Latinos to leave the area and harmed the county’s reputation.

What does the study mean for other counties and states that might want to replicate the Prince William County policy? It depends on who is asked. Prince William Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R) said he hopes the study’s findings will help with his push to expand it statewide. But the study’s authors said the lessons from Prince William County should be applied with “great caution” elsewhere.

“This is not a free policy; the board allocated substantial amounts of money” for this, Thomas Guterbock, director of Center for Survey Research, told the Washington Post. “Don’t try this if you don’t want to spend some money.”

In total, he promised to implement 131 recommendations that were made in an administrative report last year on how legal and illegal immigrants could be better integrated into the state. But for some of the changes, including driver’s licenses and in-state tuition, Patrick said he would need Congress to pass immigration reform legislation — something that seems unlikely in the next couple of years.

The full story is worth a read for some of the intricacies of parental rights laws and the arguments on both sides. But it’s also worth considering the broader impact of immigrant detention and deportation on families, particularly in cases where U.S.-born children are allowed to stay in the country but their parents are not. (Romero is slated for deportation, but her son, an American citizen, is for now still in the custody of his adoptive parents.)

It’s difficult to say exactly how many parents of American children have been deported. A 2009 Department of Homeland Security study estimated that at least 108,434 parents of U.S.-born children were deported between 1998 and 2007. The actual number could be higher, due to incomplete ICE records on parental status.

Deportation of a parent is a risk for a large number of children. A Pew Hispanic Center report released in August found that of the 5.5. million children of illegal immigrants residing in the country in 2009, about four million were American-born. Eight percent of the 4.3 million babies born in the country in 2008 — 340,000 in total — were born to one undocumented parent.

What happens to the U.S.-born children of deported undocumented immigrants varies. Some children of undocumented parents have another parent who is a citizen or legal resident. (Having a spouse or child who is an American citizen does not necessarily prevent deportation orders. The Guzman family, which I wrote about in October, is an example of an American-born woman and her son facing her husband’s deportation.)

In other cases, children of deported parents live with family members or are placed in foster care. Some move with their parents to their parents’ country of origin, where they may not speak the language or be allowed to work legally when they grow older.

None of the options is fair to children who are American citizens, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) said in 2009. “If, in fact, some [children] were left behind here, then you have the sad tragedy of breaking up families,” he said. “If they were taken back, I would argue the direct result of our actions is the deportation of our citizens. How do you deport a U.S. citizen?”

A parent’s immigration detention or removal poses risks to a child’s safety, economic security and long-term well-being, according to a study of 190 children whose parents were arrested, detained or deported. The Urban Institute found a majority of children experienced behavioral changes, such as different eating or sleeping habits, aggression and crying, after a parent was arrested. Three out of five families in the study reported difficulty “sometimes” or “frequently” after the arrest of a parent. One in four of the families studied moved in with others to save housing costs.

How could the system better protect these children? The Urban Institute says that immigration laws should take parental status into account and argue hardship to American-born children before immigration judges. It also says parents in immigration detention be considered for supervised release — with ankle bracelets, for instance — so they would not be separated from their families.