State-based business coalitions battling harsh enforcement measures in their state legislatures need to learn from each other, she and other speakers urged. The national network of coalitions needs to grow – needs to expand from grasstops to grassroots. And this army needs to be ready when immigration comes up again in Congress, perhaps as early as 2009 or 2010.

More than a hundred participants attended the day-long summit, most but not all from the Southeast. (Others came from as far away as Arizona, California and Idaho.) Employers, state trade association executives, immigration lawyers and other activists exchanged ideas and contact information. At the end of the day, attendees from Georgia agreed to come together in weeks ahead to revitalize the pro-immigration business coalition in their state.

Speakers looked back at recent struggles, state and federal, in order to plan for the future. Jacoby and other panelists challenged participants to take their efforts to the next level. “Compare our network to NumbersUSA,” one presenter urged. ‘We’ve got a lot of work to do!” And in session and session, attendees were encouraged to consider what they could do to help each other: employer to employer, state to state, the national federation and state affiliates working together to add up to more than the sum of their parts.

The first panel consisted of state-focused activists: veterans of recent state legislative fights and those girding for renewed state battles in months ahead. Members of business coalitions in Virginia and South Carolina reported on what they accomplished in 2008, working with legislators to pass enforcement measures that targeted “bad actor employers” – those deliberately flouting immigration law – while doing minimal damage to the state economy and to employers trying to play by the rules. Another panelist, from Arizona, described doing legislative battle in the most anti-immigrant political climate in the U.S. A fourth speaker, Greg Siskind, one of the nation’s leading experts on immigration law, outlined legal trends he sees developing in the states. And in the Q and A session, members of the audience joined panelists in sharing the tactics that worked in their states in 2008 – potential lessons for other states in 2009.

Speakers on the second panel, also activists from the IW network, described their experience building grasstops and grassroots coalitions. One panelist outlined lessons learned in the past by agricultural employers battling for better immigration law. A second spoke from the point of view of a long-time congressional staffer – someone on the receiving end of constituent pressure. A third detailed his experience mobilizing grassroots support for tort reform – lessons he is now applying to building an immigration coalition. And a fourth, from Minnesota, described the ground-level organizational meetings her coalition is holding in far-flung corners of her state. In this panel too, the focus was on what state-based groups could learn from each other and how the network could prepare together for the immigration fight ahead in Congress.

The meeting’s lunch-time keynote speaker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Charles Kuck, focused on policy. “We’ve talked about the Who, Where and When. Now let’s talk about the What,” he began and went on to lay out his vision of comprehensive reform.

The summit culminated in an afternoon strategy session with a town-hall format where IW and its partners exchanged ideas about how they can work together more effectively in the future. Jacoby kicked off the conversation by highlighting the legislative challenges ahead, then asked participants to strategize with her about how to meet them. What else do state-based coalitions want and need from the national federation? What else are they prepared to do – in what ways are they prepared to ramp up their efforts? And how can the network, DC- and state-based, come together to go to the next level – to prepare itself for what lies ahead, both in the states and in Congress? Answers were recorded on an oversized tablet – assignments for ImmigrationWorks and for affiliates – and the summit adjourned on a high note, with participants vowing to take the challenge back to fellow employers in their states.

AGENDA

Tom Hensley, chairman of Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform, welcomed summit participants on behalf of his organization, the IW affiliate in Georgia. Looking back on his coalition’s early efforts, Hensley highlighted the difference between grassroots and grasstops organizing – grasstops are the out-front, public leaders of a state-based campaign, grassroots the less visible rank and file that backs them up, calling and writing the state’s members of Congress. Hensley urged attendees from other states to develop both kinds of activists. “It’s the only way we’re going to win,” he said.

Chip Rogers, Republican member of the Georgia State Senate, also welcomed the group to Georgia and, as a leading proponent of Georgia’s tough 2007 immigration enforcement bill, reminded attendees of the enforcement-minded politics they are likely to face in their own states in months ahead. “Law and order” is the most important aspect of immigration reform, Rogers stated, highlighting an array of federal enforcement measures he thought needed to be strengthened.

Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, outlined the challenge the network faces in the year ahead.

The most important reason, she said, for the 2007 Senate defeat of comprehensive reform was that “there was no constituency for it – no ordinary Americans who vote calling and writing their members of Congress and urging them to pass it.” This must change, she exhorted attendees – and employers must spearhead the effort.

“Why is this so important?” she asked. “We have the votes. If members of Congress could vote on a desert island, without anyone watching, we would win easily in both houses.” But until reform proponents can match immigration opponents calling and writing their representatives, most members will be frightened to vote their common sense, and there can be no hope of passing more pragmatic immigration law. “It’s up to us,” Jacoby urged. “We’ve got to do better.”

The first panel brought together veterans of recent battles against state immigration enforcement bills. Participants shared successful tactics, analyzed trends and looked ahead to the struggles anticipated in other states in months to come.

Richie Jackson, executive vice president and CEO of the Texas Restaurant Association and moderator of the panel, opened with a warning: not only his state, but many others face tough battles in the year ahead. No state is likely to be immune. Enforcement-minded legislators will borrow tactics and strategies from like-minded lawmakers in other states. And all state legislatures will be in session in 2009 – for the IW network, a daunting multi-front war.

Jackson pointed to three additional reasons for concern:

Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation, described what happened in Virginia in 2008, when his employer coalition successfully fended off immigration enforcement that could have destroyed the state economy.

The key lesson from Virginia: the business coalition recognized early on that many legislators were determined to pass some kind of immigration enforcement. So rather than try to block that effort outright, employers worked with lawmakers to craft a measure they could live with: a bill that targets employers who deliberately hire unauthorized workers but does not interfere with businesses trying to abide by the law.

Among the tactics that proved effective: Organize early. Get a seat at the table – get involved in the policy process – well before the session begins. Prepare educational materials for lawmakers. Help them understand that immigration law is a federal responsibility. Drill home that access to affordable labor is crucial to the state’s economy.

Jack Kelly, director of government affairs for Perdue Farms, told a similar success story. In South Carolina, too, a business coalition worked with legislators to craft an immigration-enforcement law that most employers could live with.

The fight was difficult, Kelly explained, because immigration is a “from the gut” issue, and it can be hard to persuade lawmakers to see it pragmatically. People don’t think about where their food comes from, how their houses get built. For many, the issue is cultural: “us versus them.”

Among his lessons for employers working with state legislators: “Pay attention to minutiae in laws. Fine print makes all the difference.”

Though he does not expect the new Congress to act soon – it will be months before there is a committee hearing on immigration – Kelly urged listeners to use this time to prepare for the fight and make their views known. When legislators go back to their districts, they need to hear from constituents – in the supermarket, at church and at town hall meetings – that the immigration system isn’t working.

Joe Sigg, director of government relations for the Arizona Farm Bureau, talked about a groundbreaking initiative he helped spearhead this year in Arizona: a campaign to pass something positive in one of the nation’s most anti-immigrant political climates.

Restrictionist lawmakers and law enforcement officials in Arizona were pushing to crack down harder, adding provisions to what was already the toughest employer sanction law in the country. The atmosphere was “toxic,” Sigg recalled, and it seemed impossible to break through with arguments about employers’ economic need for immigrant workers.

But determined business leaders found a way to shift the debate, coming together behind a bill to create a stand-alone state temporary worker program.

The bipartisan bill drew support from across the business community. Employers rallied around the chance to play offense rather than defense. Their slogan, which resonated across the state and beyond: “What part of legal don’t you understand?”

In the end, the bill was killed in committee – a casualty of the poisoned political atmosphere. But coalitions in other states are expected to back similar measures in 2009, picking up where Arizona left off in spreading the message – that employers desperately need immigrant workers and the states need Congress to act.

Greg Siskind, partner at the Siskind Susser law firm in Memphis, drew a national map of recently passed state immigration laws. Before 2006, few states were concerned about immigration. Now, virtually every state has considered measures to crack down. The three most common kinds of laws:

  Other alarming trends:

Craig Regelbrugge, vice president for government relations and research for the American Nursery & Landscape Association, outlined some lessons learned from the agricultural community’s long fight for better immigration law.

Restrictionist activists have succeeded by tapping into a highly motivated minority of the voting public. The majority of voters are concerned, but not passionate about immigration. A majority support pragmatic reform but didn’t realize what was on the table in Congress in 2006 and 2007.

Among the reasons employers have been slow to join the debate: it takes them away from their businesses, they are in denial about the urgency of the issue, they worry about unwanted scrutiny and damage to their reputations.

But they must overcome these obstacles, Regelbrugge urged. And they must expand their base of support – reaching out through their trade associations, to employees and, perhaps most important, to customers. People care where their food comes from, they care how much it costs. And reform advocates can tap into these concerns to build a grassroots constituency that matches the opposition’s.

Billy Moore, a principal at the public-affairs firm, ViaNovo, underscored the need for both quality and quantity in the grassroots push for an immigration overhaul.

A long-time veteran of Capitol Hill, someone once on the receiving end of constituent pressure, Moore knows firsthand what difference it makes when voters contact their lawmakers and make their views known.

But quality is as important as quantity, he said: those in favor of reform can counter opponents by making a better case. And most lawmakers will take a visit from an employer in their district as seriously as a dozen irate phone calls.

IW’s flagship partner, Texas Employers for Immigration Reform, is working to recruit a grassroots constituency at meetings across the state, Moore reported. And this rank and file will be the key to victory in 2009. “We can’t wait,” Moore concluded. “There may not be a bill on the floor till next September or later. But that is no excuse to put this off.”

Ken McClure, general counsel at Givens Pursley law firm in Boise, talked about his experience in Idaho in the 1980s mobilizing grassroots support for tort reform – lessons he is applying now to building an immigration coalition in his state.

His core argument: that elected officials will not support reform unless they believe that their constituents also support reform. And business must take the lead in creating a safe political environment in which lawmakers can act.

How to build a grassroots network? Reformers must start by identifying the individuals best positioned to make an impression on targeted lawmakers. They must recruit those advocates one by one, town by town, industry by industry. Once recruiters have mined the sectors most affected, they can shift to employers standing two or three lines behind – in the case of immigration, auto dealers, realtors and bankers, among others, who need to understand the trickle-down effect bad immigration law can have on them.

A critical challenge, according to McClure: convincing Main Street Americans that immigration affects their families’ pocketbooks.

Stacia Smith, government relations manager at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, talked about her organization’s successful effort to build a pro-immigration business coalition in Minnesota – a coalition now enlisting grassroots support across the state.

The Minnesota coalition brings together employers from every sector that employs immigrant workers: farmers, milk producers, landscapers, contractors, the hospitality industry. They share a core belief: that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. And while their coalition is made up exclusively of employers and business groups, it is working with like-minded allies – unions, immigrant advocates, the faith community – to rally ground-level support.

Among the coalition’s most important initiatives: a series of regional meetings in remote corners of the state. “We’re working to expand our base,” Smith explained. “We need the choir to become the preachers.”

Charles Kuck, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, entranced summit attendees with his presentation of what federal reform should look like.

To learn how you can help and to take action today,
visit our website at ImmigrationWorksUSA.org.