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.”

Judge Susan Bolton blocked the provision of the law that would have required police to verify immigration status on people they could reasonably suspect to be illegal immigrants. But a number of provisions did go into effect, the Republic reports:

- Require government officials and agencies to enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent permitted by federal law and allow Arizona residents to sue if the official or agency adopts a policy that violates this requirement.

- Allow law enforcement to pull anybody over for any traffic violation if the driver is suspected of engaging in the “smuggling” of human beings for profit or commercial purposes. This could include stopping a driver for a secondary offense such as not wearing a seat belt, which in every other circumstance can be cited only if the driver is stopped for a separate primary violation such as speeding.

- Make it a crime to pick up or be picked up as a day laborer if the vehicle is stopped on a road and impeding traffic.

- Make it a crime to encourage an illegal immigrant to come to Arizona or transport, conceal, harbor or shield an immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact the immigrant is in the country illegally. This offense has to be during the commission of another criminal offense.

Rights groups and law enforcement agencies reported no change in policing of those provisions. Perhaps for that reason, some immigrant rights advocates said the law has not met its goal of “attrition through enforcement,” or driving out undocumented immigrants through harsh crackdowns. This, too, is hard to measure: While there are many reports of illegal immigrants fleeing the state out of fear of SB 1070, there are so far no hard numbers, and only anecdotal evidence that the law is more to blame than the economy.

Latino and immigrant rights groups have fervently opposed the bill, which would mimic Arizona’s SB 1070 by requiring police to check legal status on anyone they “reasonable suspicions” of being in the country illegally if the police have already stopped them. The provision would allow them to assume legal status if the person had a Canadian passport or a “passport from any ‘visa waiver country’” — which are primarily located in Western Europe. “That language makes it clear that police are targeting only a specific minority,” Susana Barciela, policy director at the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, told the Miami New Times.

Snyder said the language was meant to avoid deterring tourism from Canada. “What we’re doing there is trying to be sensitive to Canadians,” he said in a radio interview. “We have an enormous amount of … Canadians wintering here in Florida. … That language is comfort language.”

The bill has caused some tension between Florida politicians, particularly the three Latino Republican members of Congress from Miami who oppose the anti-immigration legislation. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen tepidly endorsed Scott for governor earlier this month despite his support for the bill.

The program, which was created in 1996, allows the Department of Homeland Security to train local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. It has been criticized by immigrant rights groups and a 2009 Government Accountability Office report for leading to deportation of low-level criminal offenders — minor violations of traffic and open-container laws — instead of focusing on serious crime by illegal immigrants.

Critics also argue it leads to racial profiling, particularly among Latinos, and creates a fear of police in immigrant communities. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., has been accused of abusing the 287 (g) program to carry out controversial sweeps of immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Arpaio’s office was limited to using the program only in jails — not to make arrests — in 2009.

In Georgia, the program has been used to identify more than 14,690 illegal immigrants for deportation in its four years in the state, ICE officials told the Associated Press. Four counties in the state, and its Department for Public Safety, have signed agreements to participate in the program.

The AP has more on the lawsuit:

The lawsuit alleges ICE has failed to train, supervise and otherwise oversee sheriff’s deputies in Cobb County, where the three plaintiffs live. It also claims ICE has improperly delegated its power to local authorities.

“This is a bad thing, and it tears apart families,” said attorney Erik Meder, who filed the lawsuit. “While these people are certainly in the country illegally, they aren’t criminals and don’t deserve to be locked up and separated from their families.”

Immigration officials have broad discretionary power and should not be issuing a notice to appear — which initiates deportation proceedings — for illegal immigrants who are arrested and discovered to be in the country illegally after initially having been stopped for relatively minor offenses, the lawsuit says.

A Mason-Dixon poll released yesterday shows McCollum overtook Rick Scott, his opponent in the Republican primary, in the past week. He is only leading by a small margin — four percentage points — but trailed Scott by 6 percentage points last week, according to the poll. The findings are corroborated by a Tarrance Group survey out today that found 44 of Republican primary voters said they would vote for McCollum, versus 40 percent who said they would vote for Scott.

Of course, it’s impossible to know what exactly changed the tide for McCollum. But his tougher immigration stance has won him media attention in the past few days. Frum Forum reported McCollum’s push to the right on immigration could harm the GOP’s image in Florida:

To virtually anyone following the race, McCollum’s move will be seen through a political prism. Dan Smith, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, told FrumForum that the timing of McCollum’s announcement “smacks of political opportunism.”

Professor Smith observed that immigration generally falls behind issues like jobs and the economy in terms of importance to voters, and by picking a fight with Scott on immigration, McCollum may be ensuring that whichever candidate emerges from the primary the nominee will come out as damaged goods. “The Republican Party in Florida’s elder statesman, former Governor Jeb Bush, has consistently asserted that the Republican party cannot be a big tent party in Florida while being perceived as hostile to the Hispanic community and that is precisely the sort of perception that McCollum’s proposal will promote… this could very well hurt the Republican party in Florida come the general election” said Smith.

At least one other Republican candidate in Florida, state legislature primary candidate Marg Baker, is also seeking to win voters by speaking out against illegal immigration. Baker told Salon yesterday illegal immigrants should be arrested and sent to internment-style “camps.”

For his part, Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio declined to give a firm opinion on McCollum’s proposed law, his spokesman told Politico:

“He believes the best approach is for the federal government to deal with border security and immigration, and he hopes state efforts like Arizona are a wake-up call for Congress to get its act together,” Burgos said of Rubio. “He thinks it’s a step in the right direction for Congress to return to address border security in the upcoming vote.”

But that case might be harder to win, according to an op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Law professors Gabriel J. Chin and Kevin R. Johnson explain how a 1975 Supreme Court decision allows law enforcement to use “Hispanic appearance,” if combined with other factors, to make immigration stops:

Supporters and opponents of S.B. 1070 assume that racial profiling is unconstitutional, largely because many Americans believe that it ought to be. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the racial profiling permitted — indeed encouraged — by S.B. 1070.

In a 1975 case regarding the Border Patrol’s power to stop vehicles near the U.S.-Mexico border and question the occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the high court ruled that the “likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” In 1982 the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, ruling in State v. Graciano that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” …

Brignoni-Ponce has resulted in immigration enforcement that many contend is race-based and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In case after case, in states including Florida, Iowa and New York, defendants arguing that Border Patrol stops constituted unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment have encountered claims by the U.S. government — including the current administration — that “Mexican” or “Hispanic” appearance, along with other factors, justified an immigration stop. Border enforcement officers regularly admit in court that “Hispanic appearance” is one reason for an immigration stop.

Here’s the statement that Campbell just released:

When you look at the history of Mr. King’s statements, it reflects a pattern.  Instead of focusing on moving America forward, King is busy making polarizing statements. Comments such as these are why I’m running against Steve King for new leadership in Iowa’s 5th District.

We have seen that members of the GOP have distanced themselves from his remarks — notably by Republican House candidate Gardner’s move to cancel a fundraiser in which King was to speak and the Northern Colorado Tea Party leader saying King’s comments do not reflect tea party values. This shows that individuals on both sides of the aisle take issue with King’s comments.

King’s polarizing statements and failure to lead is preventing the people he represents here in Iowa’s fifth district from having their needs met.

King, for his part, maintains he has no regrets over the comment.

“I stand by what I said because what I said is accurate,” he told an Iowa radio station. “What I said was accurate and it was objective.”

The congressman has even taken to using the latest kerfuffle as a badge of honor. Said King to a local conservative blogger:

The fact that liberals have risen to attack me and call me names without rebutting my assertions concedes my point. … When they start calling you names you know they’ve lost the argument.

King’s comment about Obama and race are just the latest in a string of controversial statements. In recent months, the incumbent has argued for aggressive racial profiling using ESP and stated that the murder of Matthew Shepard had nothing to do with homophobia. Just yesterday, King made news for saying that President Obama’s aunt should be forced to testify before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, regarding her asylum status.

Even with King’s help, Campbell has his work cut out for him in the messaging wars for Iowa’s 5th. The district covers 32 counties and features a patchwork of media micro-markets. As a former Democratic candidate explained to the Sioux City Journal, “[In] Iowa’s Fifth there’s Sioux City, Council Bluffs/Omaha, Sioux Falls and even Des Moines (which technically is outside the district, but with reach into the Fifth) and then a whole bunch of towns with radio and newspapers with circulations of maybe 5,000.”

Update: Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) has also responded to King’s remarks, calling them “deplorable and an embarrassment to the state of Iowa.”

“It’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying that people are violating the law,” King said on the House floor, calling for “common sense indicators” to be used in the process.

“Those common sense indicators,” he explained, “are all kinds of things, from what kind of clothes people wear — my suit, in my case — what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accent they have, um, the, the type of grooming they might have, there are all kinds of indicators there and sometimes it’s just a sixth sense and they can’t put their finger on it.”

King said he was once a victim of profiling when a cab driver stopped for him without request because he was wearing a suit. Watch the video from Media Matters:

The remarks came the same day King alleged that President Obama has a “default mechanism in him” that “favors the black person.”

The Los Angeles Times reported last night:

For years Arizona’s government has tried to deter unlawful immigration with a consistent approach — make life for illegal immigrants so uncomfortable and uncertain that they will leave, or never come in the first place.

So this week, when the House of Representatives passed what’s viewed as the toughest state law against illegal immigration in the nation, it was the continuation of a pattern that has been widely popular in the state.

“When you make life difficult,” said state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the current bill and earlier hard-line measures, “most will leave on their own.”

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit organization that advocates stronger border security and and end to illegal immigration, rejoiced over Arizona’s bill in a press release yesterday, citing “self-deportation” as an effective means of reducing the number of immigrants in the country:

“SB1070 embodies the concept of ‘attrition through enforcement,’” continued Stein, “Making it tough for illegal aliens to live and work in Arizona means that those illegal aliens already living in the state are more likely to self-deport, and it certainly reduces the incentive to come. Arizona will soon have a law that both represents the interests of legal Arizonians and serves as model legislation for other states.”

Civil rights groups have already brought up the possibility of challenging the law’s constitutionality, even if it’s passed (The Washington Times reported that the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona has vowed to challenge it in court). What seems to concern groups the most is the portion of the bill that allows officers to ask about a person’s immigration status and authorizes them to act on this if they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is illegal — many critics say this is racial profiling.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy organization, released this statement in a press release today:

If the bill survives substantial legal challenges, it will invite the racial profiling of Arizona residents who give police “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Pressure to engage in racial profiling will be even more intense because police will be operating under the threat of law suits from citizens who feel they are not sufficiently enforcing the law.

If it is enacted, it will be bad news for Arizona. Under this law, Police will not be able to count on Arizona’s large Latino and immigrant community to report crimes or serve as witnesses to crimes…

Activist groups aren’t the only ones worried about profiling and alienation of non-white populations. Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said on Wednesday’s Doug Wright Show (via ksl.com) that the legislation allows for racial profiling and has raised concerns over the effect on legal immigrants and foreign-born citizens. “Because in order to get to those people, you have to ask anybody of color who looks like they might not be from this country,” he explained. “This sets law enforcement back 30 to 40 years.”

Vocal immigration opponent Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona probably doesn’t agree. He tweeted yesterday that his office will be ready to enforce new immigration laws, referring to a new program that provides nearly 900 deputies with training in detection and arrest of illegal immigrants. If and when the bill becomes law, no doubt Maricopa County will continue to arrest increasingly high numbers of immigrants.

Update: During a conference call this afternoon, several pro-immigrant rights organizations and religious groups discussed what they referred to as “disturbing developments” — Arizona’s Senate bill 1070 and today’s anti-smuggling initiatives in Phoenix and Tucson.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who voted against the bill, said it does nothing to target criminal and violent immigrants, instead jeopardizing the safety of Arizona communities. She brought up an interesting point: If an undocumented immigrant who is being assaulted or mistreated (think domestic violence, mistreatment of working immigrants) were to call the police to report an incident, that immigrant would be forced into custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and would be deported for merely reporting abuse. In fact, the abuser could sue a law enforcement office for failing to check the legal status of the victim. Sinema said this creates fear among immigrant communities and limits the ability of officers to catch real criminals.

The call focused on what this would mean for all Arizona communities. According to Pablo Alvarez, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, “SB 1070 is quite literally intended to terrorize immigrant communities.” He said his organization’s lawyers are prepared to file a lawsuit if this bill becomes law.

Bishop Minerva Carcano of the United Methodist Church said this kind of anti-immigration legislation “encourages the same kind of attitude in other places.” It could encourage a “ripple effect.”

But Sinema reminded listeners that the bill has not passed yet. She said it is expected to be on the governor’s desk by early next week. The governor then has five days to either sign or veto the bill — she’s expected to sign it — and it would not be implemented until August, at the earliest.

Sure enough, last week, the State Department brought a group of Pakistani legislators to the U.S. on a goodwill tour. It ended in what The New York Times calls a “public relations fiasco” after — of course — the dignitaries were told they’d be pulled out of a security line at a New Orleans airport and frisked. Instead, they refused to board their plane. Now, back home, they’re heroes. And we’re villains. One of them told a radio host: “Going through a body scan makes you naked, and in making you naked, they make the whole country naked.”

Imagine you’re a Pakistani official. You make a risky decision to start arresting your former proxies in the Afghan Taliban after years of American pressure. And this is how your legislators are treated by the Americans? How would you respond?