ThinkProgress filed this report from the Western Republican Leadership Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.

At a conference for Western Republicans in Las Vegas this week, GOP governors had varied reactions to Alabama’s radical anti-immigration law. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who signed Arizona’s infamous SB17070 law, told ThinkProgress that she would like to implement the Alabama model, which goes further than her state by targeting school children and even making it illegal for undocumented immigrants to get water in their homes.

Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV), however, said Alabama’s law would not be right for his state:

KEYES: What about Alabama’s immigration law?

SANDOVAL: That’s in litigation right now, so–

KEYES: Is that something you see as a model that Nevada might be able to use?

SANDOVAL: I don’t. I don’t.

KEYES: You don’t think it’d be appropriate?

SANDOVAL: I don’t see it as being a model.

Watch it:

Nevada and Arizona are both states with a large immigrant population. The two divergent policy positions between Brewer and Sandoval highlights the larger schism in the Republican Party in terms of immigration and the Hispanic population.

Despite a federal court blocking parts of the Alabama law for now, including the schools provision, hundreds of Hispanic children have refused to show up at school and many families are fleeing the state.

The “Papers, Please!” anti-immigration movement could be moving into Arizona’s elementary school classrooms soon. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), the conservative governor responsible for Arizona’s SB1070 law, would like to adopt Alabama’s draconian anti-immigrant measures for her state.

The Alabama law goes farther than what Arizona has already passed. The Alabama law forces schools to check the immigration status of students. Since the law provides new requirements for any Alabama resident to be screened before using public facilities of almost any type, public water utilities have began checking the immigration status of customers.

ThinkProgress caught up with Brewer in the spin room after the CNN debate last night. Brewer referenced the fact that the federal courts have blocked certain provisions of the law, but told us that if Alabama’s law eventually passes constitutional muster, that she would like to see it implemented in her own state of Arizona:

KEYES: Governor, what do you make of Alabama’s recent immigration law?

BREWER: I think that they’re frustrated and they’ve been impacted by illegal immigration down there. Again, states cannot afford it. We cannot afford the health care, the education, the incarceration, and what it does to our communities.

KEYES: Do you think some of the provisions would be appropriate for Arizona as well? For instance, schoolchildren and their families are being asked about their immigration status upon enrolling in school?

BREWER: I don’t really have a problem with that. When I was going to school we always had to bring our birth certificates for whatever reason they needed it at that point in time. Bottom line is that I believe in federalism. With federalism, I think states should have rights, and as long as those taxpayers are paying the tab then they ought to know if they’re legal or illegal. The bottom line of illegal immigration is its all about the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, we ought to abide by the law.

Watch it:

After speaking with Scott Keyes, Brewer confirmed her position in another brief interview with Lee Fang. “I think its important to find out who is going to our schools and if they’re legal or if they’re illegal,” said Brewer.

Despite a federal court blocking parts of the Alabama law for now, including the schools provision, hundreds of Hispanic children have refused to show up at school and many families are fleeing the state.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

Despite pressure from Hispanics and Republican groups, GOP Rep. Mo Brooks (AL) refuses to back away from his inflammatory comment that he would do “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to get them out of the United States. Brooks made the comment at a June town hall meeting — the same month when Alabama’s governor signed the toughest state immigration measure into law.

Brooks’ comments led to bipartisan calls for a retraction and apology. Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), who is head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called on Republicans in Congress to repudiate Brooks’ comments; on its website, the national group “Somos Republicans!” called for Brooks to apologize; and Arizona Hispanic Republicans said Brooks is “no Christian Compassionate.”

Brooks insisted this week that he was speaking in hyperbole when he said in June: “I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.” But even this new interpretation of his own violent rhetoric cannot be squared with the facts.

When Georgia’s draconian anti-immigration law recently caused undocumented workers to flee the state, it led to such a severe shortage of farm workers that the governor had to “beg convicts to take these jobs.” Similarly, Alabama’s own anti-immigrant law, which is the subject of a pending lawsuit, could threaten reconstruction in parts of the state destroyed by April tornadoes while further straining the state’s already severe budget woes.

As Lee Fang wrote about Brooks’ original comments, “Undocumented immigrants have faced attacks, police brutality, and other forms of violence because of exactly the same type of dehumanization and hatred espoused by lawmakers like Brooks,” and Brooks is hardly alone even among Alabama lawmakers in his use of violent rhetoric against immigrants. Earlier this year, Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason (R) advised Republicans to “empty the clip” on illegal immigrants.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

At a town hall recently, Brooks told constituents that he would do anything to an “illegal immigrant” short of literally shooting them to get them out of the country. Speaking with WHNT News, a local television station, Brooks repeated his threat enthusiastically:

“I wanted to ensure people that I have an intensity on this subject that we have to address the illegal alien issue,” said Congressman Mo Brooks. [...] “They have no right to be here. They are clogging up our emergency rooms, and making our education system more expensive. If you go to the Madison County Jail, there are far too many illegal aliens there because they have victimized Americans,” added Brooks.

Brooks’ intensity is clear. He did not flinch when asked to repeat what he said during a recent town hall meeting. “As your congressman on the house floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens,” added Brooks.

What is Brooks referring to when he says he will do anything short of shooting people? Does he mean he will cheat them, or defraud them, or exploit them in some way, as long as he’s not breaking the law but making their lives miserable? He already has no problem scapegoating tens of thousands of people just to score cheap political points.

Brooks may think that making threats against immigrant communities could help him politically, but he disgraces his office with such rhetoric. Undocumented immigrants have faced attacks, police brutality, and other forms of violence because of exactly the same type of dehumanization and hatred espoused by lawmakers like Brooks.

Last month, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a draconian law intended to keep undocumented immigrations from working in that state. As a result, Georgia is now facing a farm labor shortage of close to 11,000 jobs — and Gov. Deal is proposing a unique solution to the labor shortage:

I asked Department of Corrections Commissioner Brian Owens and Commissioner Black to  review the current situation and offer possible options.  Commissioner Owens has indicated that there are 100,000 probationers statewide, 8,000 of which are in the Southwest region of the state and 25 percent of which are unemployed.  Commissioner Owens is working with Commissioner Black and other state agencies to connect unemployed probationers–especially those in the Southwest part of the state–and others who are preparing to reenter the workforce to employers who are seeking labor.

Advocates of harsh anti-immigrant laws frequently claim that such laws are necessary to prevent undocumented workers from taking Americans’ jobs. Indeed, this is the driving value behind the House Reclaim American Jobs Caucus, a coalition of right-wing lawmakers formed to combat “the direct link between unemployment and illegal immigration.” Watch:

Georgia’s experience, however, gives the lie to their claim. Unemployment among former inmates is both a serious problem and a leading cause of recidivism, but the fact that Georgia farms can’t find anyone to pick their crops shows that U.S. citizens have little interest in backbreaking migrant farm labor. 11,000 workers left Georgia, and the state now has to beg convicts to take these jobs.

Moreover, if Georgia can’t find a way to clean up the mess Gov. Deal’s law has made quick, the state could lose even more jobs. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower Association reports that around $300 million worth of crops could rot on the vine if no one can be hired to pick them. As of last month growers only found 30 percent to 50 percent of the workers needed.

In other words, after all that Republicans and advocates of immigration reform have said about illegal immigrants taking American jobs, Georgia’s assault on undocumented workers has only succeeded in proving that the opposite is true.

–Sarah Bufkin

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) scheduled a markup on the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act,” a bill that Smith claims will “stop the release of dangerous criminal immigrants into American communities.” The reality, however, is much darker:

To understand the scope of Chairman Smith’s bill, take the example of someone who commits a crime and serves a five-year term. If he’s a U.S. citizen, after his prison sentence, he is released into society. If he’s an immigrant, lawfully in the country or not, the U.S. can move to deport him after his five years in prison.

However, if he is a legal immigrant but from a country such as Cuba, with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations, he probably cannot be deported. There are a handful of countries around the world with which the U.S. has such constrained diplomatic relations that deportation is very difficult.

What this bill would do is allow the government to lock that person up indefinitely. All it would take is a written certification every six months from the Homeland Security secretary that the detainee is a risk to the community.

The bill’s critics argue that it is an unconstitutional bill that will lead to foreign nationals who pose no threat to society being detained indefinitely — and there are two Supreme Court decisions that strongly suggest they are right about the bill’s unconstitutionality. According to Antonio Ginatta of Human Rights Watch:

[A] person who completes his sentence is suddenly subject to a lifetime in detention based purely on the unilateral and unappealable decision of an administration appointee. It gives that official full authority to subject someone to incarceration well beyond the criminal sentence imposed by the judge or jury. [...] This bill gives the president imperial power over the judiciary and the legislature when it comes to locking up immigrants.

Human Rights First also notes that the bill “contains several provisions that have nothing to do with dangerousness or safety assessments or even flight risk.” In fact, it will likely lead to the indefinite incarceration of “asylum seekers fleeing religious, political and other forms of persecution and seeking protection in the United States – who do not warrant that description and whose detention is unconnected to community safety.” The organizations also claims that since 2003, “immigration authorities have spent more than $300 million of taxpayer dollars detaining thousands of asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities under a system that lacks basic due process safeguards.”

The prolonged detention of refugees and asylum seekers hasn’t worked out so well for Australia. Suicide is common among detained refugees in Australia, and riots erupted in April in the country’s detention centers over Australia’s prolonged mandatory detention policy.

Salvatore Colleluori over at Political Correction further argues that Smith’s bill is “an attempt to correct a statistically small problem.” In his testimony on the bill, Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Gary Mead pointed out, “Since the beginning of FY 2009, ICE has released 12,567 individual aliens. … Of this amount, 868 were re-booked into ICE custody, which is a relatively low re-detention rate of 7 percent.”

Earlier this year, the Arizona Legislature considered a sweeping immigration omnibus bill that was often referred to as “SB-1070 on steroids.” The legislation would have required parents to provide proof of their childrens’ immigration status when enrolling them in school, prevented undocumented immigrants from driving, and seized their car if they did, among other things. The measure failed, but the Arizona Republic points out today that one smaller bill managed to pass:

Starting July 20, state and local government entities no longer can recognize photo-ID cards issued by foreign consulates. The cards often are the sole form of photo identification for individuals living in another country who do not have a passport or a local driver’s license.

Some state lawmakers have been trying to pass the law for years as part of a larger push to keep illegal immigrants out of Arizona. They say the ID cards are too easy to fraudulently attain and give the inaccurate impression that all cardholders are in the country legally.

State Sen. Ron Gould (R), who sponsored the bill, was motivated by the concern that the Mexican government does not adequately verify the identity of individuals before issuing cards. “This is not a secure method of ID,” Gould said.

The Mexican consulate denied Gould’s claims, stating that cards are issued “solely upon a rigorous confirmation of nationality, local residence and identity.” Meanwhile, the law’s critics believe that it will only lead to more fraud and insecurity. While foreign nationals will continue to be able to use the consulate cards at private businesses, individuals will no longer be able to use them to obtain a library card or as an official means of identification during an investigation. Immigration advocates argue this will largely dissuade undocumented immigrants from reporting crimes.

Connie Andersen of the Valley Interfaith Project said, “People need a way to identify themselves in order to report crime when they are a victim or witness, and they were accustomed to using (consular) ID…This tells them they have to put that away. Some people don’t have alternative forms of ID. Now, they’re not sure what to do.”

Lawmakers have been trying to pass this law for more than 10 years. Former Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) vetoed similar bills in the past over concerns that “if immigrants can’t use consular cards, they’re likely to seek forgeries of drivers’ licenses and social security cards.” “While it is positioned by the bill’s sponsor as a quote – anti-illegal immigration measure – it’s an anti-law enforcement measure,” Napolitano reasoned in 2007.

Over 30 states accept the consulate-issued photo-ID cards for foreign nationals. Indiana, however, recently passed a law that makes it illegal to use the IDs. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging Indiana’s measure, stating, “This law marginalizes entire communities by criminalizing commonly accepted forms of identification. The law also undermines our most cherished constitutional safeguards by putting Indiana residents at risk of unlawful warrantless arrests without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less criminal activity.”