Seeking solutions: can Utah's approach to immigration offer a way forward for other states?

• Author: Greenblatt, Alan
• Position: A SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE STATES

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Utah legislators are crafting a compromise on immigration law that could end up being a model for across-the-aisle cooperation for other states. Last year, Republican Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill requiring employers to check the citizenship status of their new hires through the federal E-Verify system. He said he would sign it only if legislators agreed to come back later in special session to soften the law, making the verification requirement voluntary for the first year.

Before the governor could call legislators back to Salt Lake City, however, Arizona had passed its controversial immigration law.

Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 required local police to check the immigration status of individuals they had reason to suspect were in the country illegally. Many lawmakers there believed the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in the state contributed to an atmosphere of violence and they had lost faith in the federal government to take meaningful action.

It now seemed to Herbert that if he asked the Utah Legislature to reopen its immigration bill, lawmakers might emulate Arizona's tough new approach instead of softening it.

"The mood had changed," says Utah Representative Stephen Sandstrom.

Even though the number of illegal immigrants in the country had dropped from more than 12 million in 2006 to about 11.2 million in 2010, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, many people support tougher laws. National polls following passage of the Arizona law showed a majority of Americans supported the legislation, and even larger majorities supported individual aspects of the law, such as making it a crime to support someone who is an illegal immigrant.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Although much of the law was struck down by a federal judge a day before it took effect, Sandstrom still thinks Utah should follow Arizona's lead.

Nonetheless, Sandstrom has been working with legislators from both parties for months on a version of the bill that would not only impose tougher penalties on illegal immigrants and their employers, but also would allow new immigrants into the country to meet specific workforce needs. Sandstrom insists this hybrid approach is "not a compromise."

"It's kind of the carrot and the stick," he says. "We're going to crack down on the illegals who are here in the country, but at the same time there's a need for migrant workers."

If the bill passes, it may provide a model for other states that are still looking for the best ways to address illegal immigration.

MIXED HISTORY

Congress has been unable for years to come up with any sort of approach that can satisfy those concerned with the public safety and costs associated with illegal immigration, while also satisfying those who believe removing more than 11 million illegal immigrants from the country would cause economic chaos and human rights abuses. A Congress now under divided control will likely make little progress at all.

"Continuing political stalemate is the most likely scenario. Congress is not going to act," says Stephen Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors a tough approach on immigration.

There have been laws restricting immigrants since the late 19th...