Introduction

1

Over the past forty years, the foreign born population in the United States has more than tripled, and the number of immigrants in the United States continues to grow; in 2008, immigrants made up approximately 12% of the population, and estimates for 2010-2011 state that about 14% of the total population, or more than 43 million people in the United States, were immigrants. Similar trends can be seen in Pennsylvania: between 2000 and 2010 the state’s immigrant population increased by over 45%, coming to represent approximately 6% of Pennsylvania’s total population[i].

As foreign born residents, documented and undocumented alike, have begun to occupy a large and permanent part of national as well as Pennsylvanian communities, so too has there been a significant increase in immigration related legislation. Over the past eight years this increase has been especially noticeable. In 2005, 300 immigration related bills were introduced nationally, and 45 were passed in state legislatures. In 2009, just four years later, approximately 1,500 immigration related bills were considered across the 50 states and of those, 222 laws and 131 resolutions were enacted in 48 different state legislatures.

While legislative attention has most definitely turned towards immigration and immigrant related issues, the majority of this legislation has attempted to restrict immigrant and citizen rights alike. These local and state measures have managed, while attempting to “crack down” on immigration, to simultaneously restrict the rights of US citizens and especially those citizens often discriminated against: including minorities, women, the elderly, and the poor. Despite census data showing that immigrant communities bring much needed economic growth to Pennsylvania and the United States as a whole, in the 2011-2012 legislative session in Pennsylvania, for example, state legislators in Harrisburg introduced 21 anti-immigrant bills that threatened to stifle this growth by driving immigrants away. These bills follow the example of states like Arizona and Alabama who have spent millions of dollars implementingand defending hateful, ineffective anti-immigrant and anti-immigration policies. These billsare not only expensive and detrimental to the US and local economies, but violate multiple 14th amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike, serving as attempts to legalize racially motivated and economically fearful injustice(s) throughout America.

While the past few years have been difficult for pro-immigration policy in the United States, the entire country has now seen the failures of anti-immigration policies in states like Arizona and Alabama, and governments and citizens alike are realizing that anti-immigrant attitudes are unproductive and unconstitutional. The atmosphere is ripe for initiating local pro-immigrant policy and projects in an effort to make our own communities immigrant friendly,economically successful, and socially just.

What Can We Do?

2

As anti-immigrant legislation peaks, it is time to not just fight these measures, but to actively engage in advocacy that encourages pro-immigrant communities and governments. Community organizing and awareness as well as legal action are all crucial methods for establishing our communities as communities that value every person – regardless not only of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, and class, but ethnicity, linguistic background, and immigration status as well.

What is a pro-immigrant community?

A pro-immigrant community is a community that actively engages with all of its residents and members – regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, class, ethnicity, language spoken, or legal status in the United States. A pro-immigrant community is one that promotes national, state, and local legislation that incorporates and supports immigrants in the United States. Pro-immigrant communities are composed of all sectors of social, cultural, and political life including philanthropists, governments, businesses, labor unions, faith based institutions, schools, and hospitals. As a pro-immigrant community, it is essential to not only act legislatively for more welcoming immigration policies, but to also take symbolic action that provides immediate support for American immigrant communities throughout the United States.

What is pro-immigrant “action”?

Pro-immigrant “action” consists oflegal or symbolic measures taken to make one’s local or state community welcoming, supportive, and accessible for immigrants, their families, and their friends.

Legal pro-immigrant action, such as executive orders and resolutions, are local laws that seek to achieve the following:

Promote the acceptance and integration of immigrants & their families into all parts of community life.

Counter all forms of discrimination, but specifically discrimination based on race, economic status, immigration status, and linguistic background.

Establish a legal precedent that lacking documentation does not make a person “illegal” or deserving of criminal treatment.

Symbolic pro-immigrant action, including board formations, official “commitments”, and development of alternative social services, is action that seeks to uphold the same legal values in a more accessible, grassroots manner.

Based on these founding ideas, pro-immigrant “action” consists of practices, legal or otherwise, thatupholdthe rights of every person to live, work, learn, and play free from discrimination – regardless of immigration status or linguistic background.[ii]

3

Pro-Immigrant Action

In efforts to make our communities immigrant friendly, policies and practices must be introduced that not only defend against hateful anti-immigrant measures, but that actively promote positive and welcoming pro-immigrant values. While the majority of immigration measures are overwhelmingly “anti-immigrant”, there are an abundance of states, cities, and communities that have begun to take successful pro-immigrant action on a local level.

Typically, these actions specifically address one of the following categories in relation to immigration and citizenship status:

Law Enforcement & “Reporting”

Wage & Employment Standards

Health Care

Education

Other Basic Services

3.1 Law Enforcement & Reporting

Pro-immigrant Law Enforcement & Reporting action can take two forms:

A legal opposition to collaboration with immigration law authorities (ICE & DHS).

Commitment to positive and collaborative interaction between immigrant populations and community law enforcement – including face-to-face interaction to build trust and increased language access.

These action(s) specifically engage with undocumented immigrant populations, ensuring that the human rights and privacies that citizens enjoy daily are extended to every person, regardless of documentation.

Examples

Intro656, New York City[iii]

In 2011, New York City’s City Council approved Intro 656, a bill that stops New York City funding of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to detain immigrants who have been cleared of their crimes or have no criminal record.

This bill impedes the development of relationships between city police officials and ICE, DHS, and DOC – when an undocumented immigrant with no prior criminal record is convicted of a minor crime, they are no longer sent to jail and detained until deportation, but rather treated like other minor offenders in the US.

Executive Orders 34 & 41, New York[iv]

Executive Orders 34 & 41 (EO34 & EO41) ensure that all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status, can access the City services that they are entitled to receive. According to EO41, City workers must protect the confidentiality of a person’s immigration status.

In addition, these policies require City employees to protect the confidentiality of information about a person’s sexual orientation, status as a victim of domestic violence, status as a crime witness, receipt of public assistance, and information in income tax records.

Executive Order 8-09, Philadelphia[v]

In 2009, Mayor Nutter signed Executive Order 8-09, prohibiting city employees from asking about immigrationstatus, unless specifically required by law, or to determine program eligibility. It alsomakes immigration status confidential - unless required by law, with the permission of theindividual, or if the individual is suspected of criminal activity.

This EO designates the following regulations for law enforcement officers:

  • Prohibited from stopping, questioning, arresting, or detaining someone solely because of ethnicity,national origin, or perceived immigration status
  • May not ask about immigration status unless the status is directly related to a crime forwhich the person is being investigated or relevant to the identification of a suspect.
  • May not ask about immigration status for the purpose of enforcing
    immigration laws.
  • Specifically prohibited from asking about theimmigration status of victims, witnesses or others who call or approach thepolice seeking help.

Inclusive Communities Partnership[vi]

The Inclusive Communities Partnership is a program originating from the National League of Cities – a program that includes over 191 communities in over 40 states, representing about 18 million people. In Pennsylvania alone, for instance, Carlisle, West Chester, State College, York, and Harrisburg have all passed Inclusive Community resolutions, publically committing these communities to work toward inclusivity.

The Inclusive Communities Partnership has the following goals in mind:

  • To raise awareness and focus attention (legal and public) on the importance and value of living in inclusive communities.
  • To motivate cities and towns to make public commitments toward inclusivity.
  • To provide support to local officials in focused efforts around affordable housing, race and ethnic relations, and equal citizen participation in community decision-making.

“No Hate In Our Town” Campaign, Pennsylvania[vii]

The “No Hate in Our Town” campaign worked to mobilize Pennsylvanians toward speaking out against hateful and discriminatory laws and practices against immigrants and their families.

This campaign had a grassroots approach, combating anti-immigrant legislation and rallies through pro-immigrant presence and promotion of pro-immigrant resolutions. The “No Hate” presence aided in uniting community members throughout Pennsylvania and supported the passing of pro-immigrant ordinances in Adams County, Erie, Lancaster, Philadelphia, and York County (Refer to Appendix 1 & 2 for copies of full resolutions).

  • Erie, Pennsylvania: Erie’s City Council passed a resolution in opposition to US House Resolution #4437, which criminalizes undocumented immigrants and social service organizations that help undocumented immigrants and in support of more compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform. The resolution had three main components, including:

Section One: That the City Council express it’s opposition to US HR #4437

Section Two: That the City Council expresses its support for more compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform and urges the US Senate to pass such legislation.

Section Three: That a copy of the resolution be sent to essential Senators and Congressman.

  • Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Lancaster’s City Council passed a resolution that supported “earned legalization” and that rejected all immigration reform efforts that intended to do the following:

Criminalize individuals because of immigration status.

View immigration policy as a border only security issue.

Fail to recognize common humanity and the values of the nation.

Additionally, this campaignincluded the simple and direct action of asking community members to gather with a group of friends, families, or fellow No Hate in Our Town supporters, to take a photo with the following characteristics:

  • Signs displaying a phrase equal or similar to – “No Hate in Our Town”.
  • The name of the town from which the photo was being taken.

Implementation

There are a variety of methods that can be used in the implementation of pro-immigrant action. When trying to establish your community as immigrant friendly, however, there are certain key elements that should be included to make your efforts as successful as possible.

The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 has presented state and local governments with a difficult situation to maneuver in the reporting of immigration status to Federal agencies or officials.

Despite the legal limitations of state and local governments, there are four main ways to successfully approach legislative immigration activism:

Prohibit cooperation between city officials & use of city resources to enforce civil immigration law unless required by a Federal or state statue court (I.E. no formal “Memorandum of Agreement” with the Department of Homeland Security).

Prohibit the collection of information on immigration status.

Prohibit the sharing of information with ICE (using privacy and confidentiality ordinances and executive orders that cover not only immigration status but other identifiers as well).

Pass resolutions that publically express pro-immigrant attitudes and lobby against harmful anti-immigrant legislation.

There are three main categories, when pursuing or proposing the passing of these pro-immigrant provisions, which are essential in terms of language and policy development. The National Immigration Law Center suggests the following key language[viii]:

Non-participation in the enforcement of civil immigration law.

  • “Unless otherwise required by law or court order, no city agents, including agents of law enforcement entities, shall use city monies, resources, or personnel solely for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of the law is or may be a civil immigration violation.”
  • “Police officers are exempted from the above limitations when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has been convicted of a felony, was deported or left the US after the conviction, and is again present in the US.”
  • “City agents shall not single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based solely on their country of origin, religion, ethnicity, spoken language, or immigration status.”

Not collecting information on immigration status unless required by law.

  • “No general city service or public safety services shall be denied on the basis of citizenship. City agents shall not inquire into the immigration status of any individual.”
  • “If necessary to inquire about an individual’s immigration status for the determination of eligibility for services, benefits, or provisions or if required by the law, city agents will not report that or any other confidential information to federal sources unless required by the law.”
  • “It shall be a policy of public safety services departments not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who request help from city agents.”

For symbolic immigration action in relationship to law enforcement and reporting, it is important to keep the above information in mind, while utilizing a more explicitly pro-immigrant language in documents, campaigns, and resolutions. An important component of symbolic pro-immigrant action is that the action is recorded and presented, whether in writing, photos, video, or another medium, to officials who will be creating and implementing immigration policy in your community.

For instance, the Inclusive Communities Partnership, as described above, has the following process of public proclamation and commitment to being an inclusive, welcoming community to immigrants:

  1. Pass a resolution affirming the community’s commitment to promoting inclusion.

Sample Resolution:

  1. Send an official copy of above resolution to the National League of Cities.
  2. Send an information and contact form (available online) to the National League of Cities to maintain in contact about what inclusivity actions are taking place throughout the community.
  3. Upon receipt of the community’s resolution and information, NLC will officially enroll the community in the partnership as well as send a “sign of inclusivity” to be displayed.

3.2 Wage & Employment Standards

Pro-Immigrant Wage & Employment Standards action focuses on improving wages for those who work at the bottom of the labor market and stopping employment and labor rights violations.

These action(s) typically include the city or community acting as a “proprietor” in the following ways[ix]:

Establishing city-wide or targeted minimum or living wages.

Implementing community-initiated equal opportunity employment policies that specifically include non-discrimination based on national origin and citizenship status.

Curbing employers’ manipulation and misuse of Social Security Administration (SSA) “no-match letters”.

Using proprietary interests to discourage the use of the E-Verify system and pass legislation that mandates eligible employers within city limits to not use E-Verify until proven to be more accurate (99%, for example).

Supporting or providing “worker centers” for day laborers – the majority of whom are immigrants and often undocumented.

Reduce employer’s abilities of misclassifying immigrant workers as “independent contractors”.

Examples

“Measure C”, Emeryville (California)

In 2005, the city of Emeryville, California passed “Measure C”, an ordinance that regulates minimum compensation for all employees in hotels with more than 50 guest rooms.

“Measure C” address both minimum wage requirements as well as benefits and working conditions for hotel employees – redefining the definition of “employee” to be a broad term covering any persons regularly providing services to hotel guests, and excluding highly-paid managerial or administrative employees.

The ordinance also includes the following provisions:

  • Minimum compensation of $9 per hour, including the value of health benefits (to be adjusted continually for inflation).
  • Average compensation of all employees of $11 per hour.
  • Protection from unjust discharges with new employer takeovers.
  • Square feet requirements – employees who are required to clean rooms amounting to more than 5,000 square feet in an eight hour day to be paid at least 150% of minimum compensation.
  • Hotels to which the ordinance applies must pay the city an annual permit fee to cover costs of enforcement.

Resolution of Non-Discrimination Upon Receipt of SSA “No-Match” Letters, Santa Fe (New Mexico)

In 2006, the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico passed a resolution declaring a policy of non-discrimination upon the receipt of Social Security Administration “No-match” letters (Refer to Appendix 3 for a full copy of the resolution).

“No-match” letters are letters that the Social Security Administration sends to employers and employees when they identify an inconsistency between the name and Social Security Number in its records SSA records and those on wage and income tax forms. These inconsistencies may be due to fraud, but more often than not are due to typographical errors, incompletely filled in or blank Social Security numbers, or name changes.