Saturday, Jan. 20, 2007 | 7:11 a.m.
Congress' failure to craft any meaningful immigration reforms has created a vacuum in which states and local governments have enacted laws that seek to address the issue, such as what government services undocumented residents should receive.
Of the 570 bills proposed by lawmakers in 32 states last year, 84 were signed into law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization that provides research and assistance to state lawmakers.
Nevada lawmakers have proposed at least four immigration-related bills for the legislative session that opens Feb. 5. Assemblyman Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas, has called for the state to study the financial impact of undocumented residents and workers. Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, has introduced a bill that calls for denying most state benefits to undocumented immigrants - including medical treatment for infants born to people who are living here illegally.
In the Senate, Sen. Joe Heck, R-Henderson, has filed a bill draft request for legislation that would require university students to prove they are Nevada residents and living in the United States legally to receive state-funded education assistance or benefits. And Sen. Sandra Tiffany, a Henderson Republican who lost her reelection bid in November, had asked for a bill to exclude undocumented residents from receiving government services.
Whether another legislator will pick up Tiffany's request and sponsor a bill remains to be seen. But measures similar to those sponsored by Heck and Cobb were typical fare in states that passed immigration laws last year. Twenty-seven of these laws involved citizenship status as it related to employment, education and public benefits.
Nevada's most notable foray into the immigration debate happened in November, when the Pahrump Town Board approved an "English-only" ordinance that also prohibits the lone display of any foreign flag. The constitutionality of this measure still is being debated. Thankfully, the Pahrump Town Board in December refused to consider a proposal that would have required people from other countries to register with the town office and pay a $200 fee if they lacked documentation.
Laws that bar children born in the United States from receiving education, medical care and other benefits are the types of measures that result from a debate that has been long on inflammatory rhetoric and short on facts. These state-by-state attempts to confront immigration issues - which should be resolved at the federal level - have blanketed the nation in a crazy quilt of laws that are hard to decipher and track. Colorado alone passed 17 laws last year that dealt with undocumented residents.
Defining a person's immigration status and civil rights are federal, not state, issues. Still, states can help move the immigration debate forward by studying the local fiscal impact of undocumented residents. So far, only Texas has completed such research - and it showed that undocumented workers contributed more to state coffers than they used in services.
This type of factual information could prove useful to Congress as it confronts immigration this year. Denis' proposal to seek such information on Nevada's undocumented residents is the type of measure that the Nevada Legislature should discuss. Information from such a study certainly should be considered before debating the so-called merits of these other mean-spirited proposals, which basically call for withholding educational and health benefits from children who don't make the choices about where they live.
The Nevada Legislature already has a number of complex challenges this year, including finding enough money to adequately fund our education and transportation systems, and increasing residents' access to health care. It should not be wasting its time getting bogged down in immigration measures that have no real effect on reforms that Congress - not state governments - must enact.
archive
