According to a press release from America's Voice, US states should be wary of the hefty costs for implementation and lost economic activity of state-level legislation. I would also like to point out that on the other side of the border-- along with lost revenue caused by America's fear of traveling to Mexico thanks largely to hyperbolic media coverage-- Puerto Penasco and other Mexican destinations also suffer from those US anti-immigration laws because of their negative effect on the US economy and thus the pocketbooks of potential US travelers.
I offer this information for your serious consideration, not knee-jerk reactions from either side of the political fence. Is the information correct? If not, I invite you to point out the inaccuracies, with accompanying verification.
According to America's Voice: As costs mount, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is asking a federal judge to consolidate legal challenges to the state’s “papers, please” immigration law, SB 1070. Brewer’s learning the hard way that when you attack the Constitution, civil society stands up to protect it.
Before legislators on other states follow down the Arizona path, they should do a cost/benefit analysis. Fortunately, many of their colleagues have already done the research for them. Following is a recap of studies that look at the costs to governments, businesses, and taxpayers in states that considered passing immigration crackdowns. They show that state-based immigration laws are expensive to implement, defend, and live with. What’s more, they won’t actually solve the problem, which requires a federal fix.
Instead of adopting costly, divisive, and alienating immigration reforms at the state level, state legislators should pressure Congress to do its job and pass comprehensive immigration reform. This is the only fiscally responsible and practical solution.
READ MORE...
-by El Gitano Peñasco, "The Peñasco Gypsy"
