Iowa Immigration Bill Sparks Fear and Uncertainty Among Communities

TFD – Explore the impact of Iowa’s immigration bill, causing fear and uncertainty among communities. Understand the legal and advocacy challenges faced by affected individuals and organizations.

Every time Maria Acosta hears the question, her heart sags.

“Señora, should I relocate?”

In Iowa, newcomers never stop asking her. Acosta adds that she is unsure of how to react.

“I feel helpless. Acosta, a community activist for the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, states, “I’m frustrated.” “What can I convey to others? I am unable to reassure them that everything will be alright. I don’t know if everything is going to be fine. It’s not at all fine right now.

A plan that would give state judges the authority to order deportations and for local police to arrest certain undocumented immigrants was promptly passed by Iowa lawmakers last month. The governor of the state signed it on Wednesday. Even though the bill isn’t supposed to take effect until July 1st, advocates like Acosta claim that among immigrant communities, anxiety and misunderstanding are already running high.

“Seeing the fear on their faces affects me.” According to Acosta, “they’ve been living here for ten or fifteen years, and this is their home, but they don’t know what to do.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that at least nine states, including Iowa, have considered enacting legislation this year that would replicate some of the provisions of the Texas immigration bill known as SB 4. In several states, proposals are still pending. They have fallen short in others.

It’s unclear how authorities would finance and implement the SF 2340 law from Iowa. Like the Texas law that inspired it has been up to this point, it is expected to encounter legal challenges, which might cause its implementation to be postponed or even blocked in court. But advocates say this uncertainty hasn’t eased worries about potential racial profiling and erosion of trust between law enforcement and communities.

“How might one be deported? And with whom? No one knows how this law actually could be or would be applied,” says Erica Johnson, executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice.

This college attendee has already made the decision to go.

Enya Cid has no intention of staying to find out.

The 21-year-old is expected to receive his degree in political science from Grand View University in Des Moines next month.

When Iowa senators voted last month to enact the immigration bill, she was considering her options for graduate school. That, according to Cid, forced her to make a tough choice regarding her future.

After being transported to the US from Mexico as a kid, Cid has spent the last 18 years living in Iowa. “I no longer want to live in a state where I feel like I’m not valued,” she says.

Cid claims to have applied for a U visa, which protects criminal victims from deportation and grants them legal status. She also claims that while her case is pending, she has been granted a work permit. However, she worries that the new policy would still target her and a large number of other undocumented immigrants in a like situation.

In addition to Iowa’s new law, Cid says several recent immigration proposals in the state failed to clear the legislature. They have, in total, “caused a lot of chaos and fear in my community,” according to her.

She claims that option is no longer available, even though she was just accepted to the University of Iowa’s graduate program. She intends to go out of state and is considering attending schools in Arizona and New Mexico in order to pursue her dream of studying urban planning.

She claims, “I may not be able to vote, but I can still cast a ballot with my feet.”

The passage of SF 2340 in Iowa, Cid says, “was the nail in the coffin that made me feel not safe.”

But Cid says many of her loved ones will be around even if she moves away from Iowa. She understands very well that not everyone has the option to go.

“There are many people in Iowa who have established roots here for more than 20 years, even though it may be easy for me to consider moving,” she says. “They operate enterprises in this area. They are home owners. Their offspring were nurtured here after being born.”

Cid says she’s made an effort to comfort them.

She says, “I’ve done my best to explain the law.” “We’re not clear how this will be enforced by the attorney general. I tell them, “Let’s just take it day by day and see how it turns out,” in a way.

Other states are considering taking similar actions.

There are a number of similarities among the states where legislators have proposed legislation like to the Texas immigration law this year. A majority of them have legislatures controlled by Republicans. And most of them are nowhere near the US-Mexico border.

As per the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators considered ideas in Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina. In Arizona, the Republican-dominated legislature passed a law, but the Democratic governor vetoed it. Similarly, planned legislation in Mississippi and West Virginia failed in committee.

Governor Kim Reynolds of Iowa contends that states are stepping in to safeguard the border since the federal government hasn’t, and she has frequently voiced sympathy for her Texas counterpart’s attempts to tighten down on illegal immigration.

Reynolds stated on Wednesday, “Those who enter our country illegally have broken the law, yet (President Joe) Biden refuses to deport them.” “This bill gives Iowa law enforcement the authority to enforce existing immigration laws, something he is unwilling to do.

According to the Iowa measure, if an immigrant returns to the US after having been previously denied entry or deported, it is an aggravated crime to remain in the state. Additionally, it mandates that state judges grant a deportation order in the event that an immigrant is found guilty of the aggravated misdemeanor offense.

The proposal is being made at a time when immigration is a major talking point for those running for president in 2024. Republicans have turned their attention to criticizing the Biden administration’s approach to border security, while Democrats charge that Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, and his allies are purposefully escalating the situation and sabotaging potential solutions in order to gain political points.

Tensions have risen along the US-Mexico border and around the nation as record numbers of migrants attempt to enter the US, and Republican-led states are attempting to exert more authority over immigration enforcement.

Proponents of the Iowa bill and other like legislation contend that the “invasion” at the border justifies the need for these actions. Opponents claim that immigration enforcement should be under federal control rather than state authority, and they label the Iowa bill and other proposed state laws as discriminatory and unlawful.

A similar pattern emerged in 2010, according to Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, following the passage of a contentious immigration law in Arizona.

In the end, the Arizona 2010 legislation and a flurry of state laws were overturned by the Supreme Court, which ruled that states could not implement immigration rules that conflicted with federal law. One of the more contentious aspects of the Arizona law—which permits police to check someone’s immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally—was upheld by the court in its 2012 ruling.

As a result of a legal challenge, SB 4 is currently on hold in Texas.

However, legal experts told CNN last month that the Texas case might eventually present a chance for the majority-conservative Supreme Court to reconsider the federal government’s long-standing authority over immigration policy.

Advocates for immigrants claim they are ready to challenge any more state legislation that is passed. However, even in the unlikely event that the courts decide to stop those measures, as supporters hope, their effects are already being seen.

“The mere act of enacting the legislation creates this level of fear and chaos because it is so broad and oppressive,” claims Balakrishnan.

“Because I’m a citizen, I could be stopped.”

Estefania Mondragón claims that while trying to spread the information, she has also been keeping people calm in Idaho, where the state House passed a bill last month that is similar to the Texas law. Some of her own family members have inquired as to whether they should begin making plans to leave the state.

“Educating the community without frightening them at the same time is a difficult balance to achieve,” says Mondragón, co-executive director of PODER of Idaho, an advocacy group that supports immigrant and Latino populations.

The Idaho bill would make it a state felony to enter the country illegally and a state crime to reenter after being deported or denied entry.

The bill, which includes sections that appear to be copied word-for-word from the Texas law, failed to come up for a vote in the state’s Senate before the legislative session ended Wednesday.

However, that won’t make it disappear in a later session. Mondragón claims that her company is keeping a careful eye on it. Advocacy organizations fear that, like in Texas and Iowa, law enforcement may use racial profiling to implement it.

Since it would also target non-immigrants like ourselves, it would be terrible for a large number of immigrant people. Mondragón states, “I may be pulled over and asked for my papers because I am a citizen.

Mondragón adds that for the time being, family members should postpone packing.

But she says she’s sure a lot of families will think about moving if the initiative ends up passing. That would harm agricultural communities and small towns across the state, Mondragón says, many of which “would be ghost towns without immigration.”

They’re preparing for the next move.

A significant issue that has surfaced in recent community forums and on the Spanish-language radio program Schirrmeister broadcasts is racial profiling.

She argues, “We can be detained by the police and they have the right to ask me for my documents, without me doing anything wrong, because we look different, we have dark hair, and we have dark-colored skin.” “In 2024, it’s not something you want to hear.”

Advocates said they are planning their legal approach and, most critically, working to assist members of the community in being ready as they wait for answers.

According to Johnson of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, “We’re helping them set up what we call the safety planning and community defense mechanisms that have, unfortunately, become all too familiar with immigrant communities not just in Iowa, but everywhere.” “What should I explain to my children about our family’s plans in the event that I be picked up while commuting to work? If I’m not there to pick them up at school, who do they call? Who gets guardianship of them if I’m arrested and deported?”

What steps can be taken now? According to Acosta, “all we can do is know our rights, create a safety plan, and get ready for battle.” “Because we intend to combat this.”

That’s one thing she knows, in a time when it’s difficult to come up with conclusive answers to an endless list of questions.

This report was assisted by CNN’s Devan Cole, Alisha Ebrahiji, and Alexandra Ross.