Florida proposals
State lawmakers considered a number of immigration bills during their annual spring session in Tallahassee. Sensing support from Florida voters, backers of get- tough immigration policies hoped to persuade the public that meaningful policies could be enacted without violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens, provoking consumer boycotts or profiling legal immigrants whose labor is critical to the state's agriculture and tourism industries.
However, powerful business and political forces that include the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida, Hispanic voters, law enforcement associations, and tourism and agricultural interests are openly questioned the wisdom of adopting measures that target immigrants. In the end, the 2011 legislative session adjourned without any immigration measures being passed.
A half-dozen bills were filed, including one that requires private employers to check the immigration status of employees through a federal database known as E-Verify. But the attention was focused on two bills, one by Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, and another by Rep. Will Snyder, R-Stuart. Each included portions of the controversial Arizona immigration laws, including criminal penalties for immigrants who fail to carry identification proving their legal status.
Bennett said his intent is to find a "happy mix" that does not too closely mirror Arizona's law, but addresses the most undesirable issues surrounding illegal immigration in a state that is now among the most ethnically and racially diverse in the nation. "We need to find a way to help local enforcement get rid of the criminal element without duplicating what they're doing in Arizona," Bennett said.
Shortly after the legislative session began, Bennett filed notice of his intention to withdraw his bill in favor of one drafted by the Senate Judiciary Committee that is less stringent. The committee's Unauthorized Alien bill relaxes the E-Verify requirement for private employers. That move was unacceptable to immigration reform backers in the House, and ultimately doomed any immigration measures from being passed in 2011.
Snyder, a former Miami police detective and now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, initially considered harsher penalties for unauthorized immigrants. Among them, according to news accounts: allowing judges to consider immigration status when setting bond; subjecting unauthorized immigrants to stiffer criminal sentences than legal residents who committed the same crime; and making it illegal for unauthorized immigrants to solicit work. Like the Arizona law, Snyder's draft required local police to question the immigration status of anyone they stop and suspect of being in the country illegally. But during a hearing Jan. 27 of the House Judiciary Committee, Snyder said he was willing to soften that provision. Rather than allow police to conduct immigration status checks during all traffic stops, those checks would be limited only to those facing criminal investigations. "I'm open to suggestions," he said. "If we're moderate and thoughtful, we can produce good policy."
Florida and Arizona share many common characteristics, Snyder said. And while Florida may not have a dry border with another country, it is a major destination for immigrants. "Except for the fact that we don't have a fence, how different from Arizona are we?" Snyder said. "The biggest challenge will be to overcome the false and misleading rhetoric concerning this issue, especially the blatantly false allegation that this is racially motivated."
Backers of new immigration laws have an ally in Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who supports the Arizona-style identification requirements. Scott has said will support a similar law in Florida. He said providing immigrant status is no different than being required to show proper ID. "If you are in our state or any state and you are stopped for violating the law… you should be asked if you're legal or not," Scott said. He said he's confident lawmakers can pass a law that is constitutional. "We have to make sure there is no racial profiling," Scott said. "It's got to be fair. We need to know who's in our state, especially people doing something wrong."
Shortly after taking office Jan. 4, Scott signed an executive order requiring state agencies to check the immigrant status of state workers using E-Verify, a web-based system that utilizes Department of Homeland Security and Social Security databases. He is expected to again push for immigration reform during the 2012 legislative session.
Worker advocates and civil rights groups have expressed deep concerns about the suggested reforms. The concern most cited is what they consider an inevitable consequence: Racial profiling. "It is impossible to enforce (these bills) without racial profiling Latinos, including Cubans and Puerto Ricans, our largest communities," Maria Rodriguez, Executive Director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, said of Snyder's bill. "Many Latino leaders see this as a slap in the face to their communities that work, spend money, and create jobs in the state."
The ACLU of Florida called the legislation proposed during the 2011 session "a low point in modern America" and has urged members to write letters to state lawmakers in opposition to an Arizona-style law. The civil rights groups say pledges by reform backers to eliminate racial profiling would cause another undesirable outcome of requiring all citizens and visitors to carry identification or face incarceration or fines. "Instead of turning Florida into a police state where racial profiling is standard operating procedure, legislators should work with members of Congress to fix our broken immigration system and leave the job of immigration enforcement to the federal government, as mandated by the Constitution," the ACLU statement concludes. Also expressing concern are farm worker advocates, the state Legislature's Hispanic caucus, the Florida Catholic Conference and the Florida Police Chiefs Association.
Before the 2011 legislative session began, the Florida Chamber of Commerce asked lawmakers to acknowledge the positive economic factors associated with immigration when considering reform, rather than focus entirely on the financial burden placed on the state and local governments. In a report, the chamber wrote that diversity and innovation is good for Florida's economy, and that collaboration is needed to address the cost burden of unauthorized immigration at the state and local levels. "Florida must use caution with any immigration restrictions to help ensure we don't create an economic boycott," the chamber said.