In recent years, a wave of punitive state and local immigration laws went down to defeat in federal courts on the theory that, immigration policy being a national matter, they were preempted by federal law. Since 2012, there has been a proliferation of pro-immigrant state and local policies, such as measures limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials, and allowing immigrants, regardless of legal status, access to driver’s licenses, in-state college tuition, and professional licensing. Why did states and localities pass anti-immigrant laws in the first place, and what explains this shift to the positive? What are the legal theories and policy arguments being offered to support these efforts?
On Monday, March 24, 2014, join the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress for a panel discussion about the potential of immigration federalism to promote pro-immigrant policies, and what the future of state and local action might be, with or without federal comprehensive reform.
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-MD), Sponsor of the Maryland Law Enforcement TRUST Act
Kamal Essaheb, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
Lorella Praeli, Advocacy & Policy Director, United We Dream
Karthick Ramakrishnan, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside
Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President, Immigration Policy, Center for American Progress