The Subfederal in Immigration Polarization

Authors

Huyen Pham, Texas A&M University School of LawFollow
Pham Hoang Van

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-2024

Journal Title

Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality

ISSN

2573-0037

DOI

10.24926/25730037.690

Abstract

The framing of subfederal immigration regulation as a red- blue divide is conventional wisdom. As more states, cities, and counties have engaged in the regulation of immigrants within their jurisdictions, it is not particularly surprising to see deep-red states like Texas enacting laws that restrict the rights of immigrants in their jurisdictions (e.g., requiring police within the state to honor detainers issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) or deep-blue states like California enacting laws that protect immigrants’ rights (e.g., issuing driver’s licenses without requiring proof of lawful immigration status).

Rather than only reflecting national polarization on immigration issues, however, our empirical study shows that subfederal immigration regulation has contributed to increasing national polarization on immigration issues. Using our unique Immigrant Climate Index (ICI) and over fifteen years of subfederal immigration legislation data, we find that subfederal regulation initially crossed red-blue lines more frequently, with blue jurisdictions enacting restrictive laws and red jurisdictions enacting integrationist laws.

Starting with the Obama Administration, subfederal regulation has become more partisan, which has increased national partisanship in two important ways. First, as national legislative policy remains gridlocked on immigration issues, regulation has devolved to smaller, more partisan state legislatures or city councils. This change then extends regulation to include policies and issues that are primarily, if not exclusively, within local control (e.g., access to private housing or professional licenses). Thus, as local governments regulate immigration through local policies, they create more substantive issues about which to express immigration disagreement in the national debate. Second, we identify a copycat counter-effect dynamic between subfederal governments, as the enactment of a novel, controversial immigration regulation often inspires duplication and then a counter-reaction as protest effect. For example, Arizona’s infamous S.B. 1070 law (requiring law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of detained persons whom officers suspect are in the United States illegally) inspired copycat laws in Utah, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, and South Carolina. These restrictive laws, in turn, engendered protest legislation, like California’s “anti-Arizona” TRUST Act that greatly restricts police in honoring immigration detainers. Further, as more formerly federal policies (like abortion) devolve to the subfederal level, our analysis of polarization trends in immigration provides insights into polarization in other policy areas.

First Page

33

Last Page

89

Num Pages

57

Volume Number

42

Issue Number

1

Publisher

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

Recommended Citation

Huyen Pham & Pham H. Van, The Subfederal in Immigration Polarization, 42 Law & Ineq. 33 (2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/2158

File Type

PDF