A bottom-up solution to America’s immigration dilemma

American policy on illegal immigrants is plagued by an inherent tension, bordering on schizophrenia. The right brain approves of them because they are immigrants and the US is a nation founded on immigration. The left brain disapproves of them because they are illegal and Americans are passionate about the rule of law.

Now, the subject is at the forefront of the 2012 presidential campaign, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on a tough Arizona law that several other states are following. The well-worn debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney shows the near impossibility of agreeing a federal solution for the “undocumented” – as illegal immigrants are often called. Yet a solution may be within reach – based on competition between states for migrants’ labour.

Past attempts to reform the system through federal legislation have vacillated between the draconian and the benign. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 introduced sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants, at the insistence of unions – but left out any obligation to verify employees’ legal status, at the insistence of civil liberties lobbies, making it certain that the sanctions would be a paper tiger.

Other attempts at federal action have even been counterproductive. Democratic presidents seeking to placate the anti-immigration lobbies have taken drastic measures – Bill Clinton with military-style border enforcement, Mr Obama with unprecedented levels of deportations. But they have done little to contain, let alone reverse, the illegal influx. They have simply worsened the lives of the undocumented immigrants living in Americans’ midst.

Spearheaded by Mr Clinton, spending on border enforcement has risen from $326m in 1992 to more than $3bn in 2011. Fences and trenches were built. Illegal immigrants were forced from safer routes to attempt entry through the desert. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has shifted the focus to deporting those caught in raids that disrupt immigrants’ lives. In 2009-11, annual deportations averaged 390,000: in 2001 under George W. Bush, they averaged less than 120,000.

Read More: A bottom-up solution to America’s immigration dilemma

Kris Kobach: Immigration Isn't Just a Federal Matter

The battle over illegal immigration heads to the U.S. Supreme Court next week, when the court will hear arguments for and against new Arizona laws requiring police, employers and landlords to expose undocumented immigrants.

Arizona of course is not alone in its crackdown on illegal immigrants, with states including Alabama, Georgia, Utah, as well as a number of cities, passing similar measures.

The movement's chief legal architect is 45-year old Kris Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, current secretary of state of Kansas and adviser to Mitt Romney on immigration issues.

While Kobach is not arguing in the Arizona case, he has been helping other states and cities defend their laws against challenges by the U.S. Justice Department and civil rights groups.

Reuters' Terry Baynes recently discussed with Kobach the issue of state versus federal authority in immigration matters. The questions and answers were edited for clarity and brevity.

Read More: Kris Kobach: Immigration isn't just a federal matter

Kansas Officials Await Ruling on Arizona Immigration Law

Kansas hasn’t adopted an Arizona-like immigration law, but several current and former elected officials from Kansas have chosen sides as the issue goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court will hear arguments April 25 in the legal battle between the state of Arizona and the federal government over the immigration law known as Senate Bill 1070.

Kris Kobach, a Republican who before being elected Kansas secretary of state gained national attention by pushing tough anti-immigration laws, helped write SB 1070. The measure was adopted by the Arizona Legislature and enacted by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2010.

The law contained a number of controversial provisions that are now front and center before the Supreme Court.

One of the most controversial requires local police in Arizona to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not the states. Officials in Arizona, a state bordering Mexico, say the feds haven’t done their jobs and that is one of the reasons for SB 1070.

In addition to legal briefs from the specific parties in the case, the Supreme Court has received approximately 40 legal briefs from others who support and oppose SB 1070, according to a report completed by the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan group whose mission “is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.”

Read More: Kansas officials await ruling on Arizona immigration law

New Rules, but Few Changes for Immigrants Trying to Stay

Immigrants, attorneys don't see much change with new approach to deportation. Feds say final numbers aren't in.

Minnesota immigrants hoping to catch a break from new rules on who can stay in the country and who must leave haven't had much luck yet.

More than six months after the Obama administration ordered a landmark review of 300,000 pending deportations to focus on dangerous criminals, there's little sign of change in Minnesota's immigration court. Confusion is spreading among immigrants and the lawyers who represent them.

"We have not seen a big shift," said Dick Zonneveld, president of the Minnesota/Dakotas chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The chapter recently polled its members to see how many had won reprieves for clients based on the new guidelines, and the results were "overwhelmingly negative," Zonneveld said. People who would seem to qualify as low priority for deportation -- meaning they haven't committed serious crimes in the United States and pose no threat to national security -- have seen their appeals denied.

Hard facts will not clarify the situation any time soon. Immigration, Customs and Enforcement officials would not release numbers showing how many cases in Minnesota have been reviewed and how many have been approved for "favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

Data will be released only after all 300,000 cases have been reviewed, according to local ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer. But at a congressional hearing earlier this month, ICE director John Morton said the agency is halfway through the review and, so far, 1,500 out of 150,000 cases have been put on hold.

Read More: New rules, but few changes for immigrants trying to stay