As President Obama starts off 2013 with a goal of enacting comprehensive immigration reform, states that have tried to pass their own laws on the issue are suffering the ill effects of a broken immigration system. The latest example? Officials in Phoenix, Arizona are having a hard time attracting new businesses to the city, and they say Arizona’s harsh immigration law is a big part of the reason why.

The Arizona Republic has a long story exploring the suffering convention center in Phoenix, and the quotes from some local politicians show serious dismay over SB 1070, the anti-immigration law that was partially struck down by the Supreme Court last year. The law gained infamy for its ‘show me your papers’ provision, which allows law enforcement to ask for proof of residency from anyone stopped for any other reason.

Phoenix officials blame the law for the slowdown in business activity:

Projected bookings for the Phoenix Convention Center are down by as much as 30 percent for the current fiscal year compared with 2009. The city projects about 184,300 convention guests, down from a high of about 275,400 in the 2009 budget year — a difference of about $132 million in direct spending, according to the city.

Meanwhile, other cities with comparable convention facilities, including San Diego, Denver, San Antonio and Salt Lake City, have experienced a different trend. In those locales, guest counts are slowly rebounding or relatively flat.[...]

“The misperception that our city does not value diversity continues to be an impediment to attracting national convention groups,” said Scott Dunn, a spokesman for the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau. “In some cases, the damage from what happened in 2009 or 2010 won’t wash ashore until 2013 or 2014.” [...]

Tracking losses tied to SB 1070 is difficult. But convention and tourism officials say it has been a frequent issue in discussions with prospective convention groups, including several that have said they will not consider Arizona because of the law.

In 2010, right after Arizona’s immigration law passed, the Center for American Progress estimated the economic losses, brought on by companies abandoning the conference industry in Arizona in the wake of SB 1070, would be $141 million for the first few months alone. It also estimated that, “Arizona businesses will lose $76 million in direct revenue from decisions not to book in Arizona in the future.” These estimates are proving true.

Other factors are influence business at the Phoenix convention center, but the losses at the Phoenix convention center just add more evidence to the argument that harsh immigration laws are, simply, bad economics.

Even though he once supported the idea of having a Wisconsin version of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) said this week that he hopes state legislators avoid passing a harmful state immigration measure this year:

“I think that would be a huge distraction for us in the state,” he said. “There’s our niche and our priorities. I don’t think that falls into one of those priorities, so I would certainly hope that the legislature didn’t spend time focusing on that, instead focused on the economy.”

Walker declined, however, to say whether he would veto an immigration bill.

“I’d push to make sure it wouldn’t come up,” he said.

Two years ago as a gubernatorial candidate, Walker said he would sign a version of Arizona’s SB 1070, which aimed to make the state so hostile to undocumented immigrants that they self-deport. “The federal government has failed to secure the border, and states have a right to protect their law-abiding, legal citizens,” Walker said in a May 2010 statement. “The 10th Amendment gives states the right to act as Arizona has with the immigration law.”

But after a Supreme Court ruling struck down much of Arizona’s law and mass deportation policies have harmed state economies, Walker has backed away from his previous statements.

Walker is also one of several Republicans backing away from anti-immigrant measures after Latino voters, who strongly oppose the laws, overwhelmingly backed President Obama in November’s election. Six percent of Wisconsin’s population is Latino, but that number is growing nationally. Even conservative radio host Sean Hannity said he had “evolved” on immigration after the election. “It’s simple to me to fix it,” Hannity said. “I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here — you don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on.”

Officials with Arizona police departments and sheriff’s offices claim that victims and witnesses to crimes will not be asked about their immigration status and should not fear coming forward even now that the state’s harsh immigration law has taken effect. But Martha Angel Castillo, a volunteer with the Tucson May Day Coalition, said she knows several women who fear being separated from their children if they report abuse. And Castillo explained that happened in the case of Maria Calderon, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, in 2011:

Calderon was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in June 2011 after she asked the Tucson police for help because her husband was beating her again.

“Her husband, a U.S. citizen, immediately told the officers that she was undocumented. They asked Maria Estela to come outside and they contacted ICE, (whose agents) arrived in less than 10 minutes to detain her,” Castillo said.

Since then, Calderon has been in a detention center for undocumented immigrants in Arizona and is fighting to stop her deportation and request a U visa, created for crime victims.

Now that the controversial “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s SB 1070 has gone into effect — requiring officers to question the immigration status of individuals they stop who are suspected to be in the country illegally — undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence could be most affected out of fear that they could be deported if they go to the police.

When police were investigating abuse at a Los Angeles high school, the sheriff’s department had a difficult time getting some parents to come forward because they were afraid of deportation. Some came forward to apply for U-visas, but that does not alleviate all fears. The Violence Against Women Act would expand the number of visas available to domestic violence victims, but Republicans have blocked the measure. And in an attempt to compound the issue, GOP Rep. Lamar Smith (TX) proposed a bill last year to forcibly deport undocumented immigrants who are domestic abuse victims, removing immigration authorities’ power to protect the immigrants who most need their help when they come forward.

SB 1070 supporters outside the Supreme Court

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice

• The latest challenge to the Arizona immigration law’s “show me your papers” provision was turned back by a federal appeals court in a brief order. The Ninth Circuit rejected civil rights groups’ argument that the law fosters racial profiling, and cannot be enforced without unfairly targeting Latinos.
• Another decision out of the Ninth Circuit held that green card applicants whose parents filed for “derivative visas” on their behalf did not “age out” of the system when they turned 21 without their application having been processed. United States Citizen and Immigration Services had been removing applicants from the queue who turned 21, some of whom had been waiting for years, reasoning that they had to start the application process over as an adult.
• The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant a fourth stay to a death row inmate in Texas who alleged he received ineffective legal assistance. Cleve Foster became the 30th person to be executed in the United States this year, and the ninth in Texas.
• The New York Times features the story of an undocumented Mexican immigrant in jail for the death of a child she babysat, who has become a symbol for the poor legal representation available to immigrant defendants.

The ACLU of Arizona has released thousands of emails it says prove that SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, was racially motivated. According to a report by the Arizona Republic, the emails, acquired through a public records request, are to and from the author of SB 1070, recalled Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce (R). The documents may help the ACLU to convince a federal judge to prevent the “show me your papers” section of SB 1070 from going into effect.

Key excerpts from the over 10,000 pages of emails include:

• “Last week, Denver’s illegal aliens sang our national anthem in Spanish and bastardized the words of OUR country’s most sacred song.”
• “Battles commence as Mexican nationalists struggle to infuse their men into American government and strengthen control over their strongholds. One look at Los Angeles with its Mexican-American mayor shows you Vincente Fox’s general Varigossa commanding an American city.”
• “They create enclaves of separate groups that shall balkanize our nation into fractured nightmares of social unrest and poverty.”
• “Corruption is the mechanism by which Mexico operates. Its people spawn more corruption wherever they go because it is their only known way of life.”
• “Tough, nasty illegals and their advocates grow in such numbers that law and order will not subdue them. They run us out of our cities and states. They conquer our language and our schools. They render havoc and chaos in our schools.”
• “We are much like the Titanic as we inbreed millions of Mexico’s poor, the world’s poor and we watch our country sink.”

One email, with a the subject line “What’s a racist?” included the following:

• “I’m racist because I don’t want to be taxed to pay for a prison population comprised of mainly Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans or whatever else you wish to call them.”
• “I’m a racist because I believe the News Media has a duty to tell us the names and race of criminals.”
• “I’m a racist because I object to having to pay higher sales tax and property tax to build more schools for the illegitimate children of illegal aliens.”
• “I’m a racist because I dislike having to push one for English and/or listening to a message in Spanish.”
• “Factual is not racial. Realism is not racism. The new definition of racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal, minority, pacifist, bible banger, or moron.”

The part of SB 1070 that is currently being challenged by the ACLU is section 2(B), the “show me your papers” provision. The Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of the law earlier this summer, but left 2(B) intact, noting that there are potential constitutional problems with the section. The ACLU filed suit in federal court earlier this week contending that 2(B) unlawfully discriminates against Latinos and individuals of Mexican origin.

A recent poll of registered Latino voters found that 66 percent of those polled oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to leave “show me your papers” intact, while only 29 percent approve. Seventy-nine percent of Latino voters are concerned about racial profiling, responding likely to the question “how likely is it that Latinos who are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens will get stopped or questioned by police?” And 70 percent believe that allowing police to check immigration status will not increase public safety.

–Alex Brown

Much of the debate about state immigration laws has revolved around harmful anti-immigrant measures in states like Alabama and Arizona. But in California, state lawmakers are working to pass an “anti-Arizona” bill that would protect undocumented immigrants. The legislation would prevent local law enforcement officials from referring a detainee to immigration officials for deportation unless the person detained has been convicted of a violent or serious felony. “California cannot afford to become another Arizona,” said California Assembly member Tom Ammiano, who sponsored the bill:

The California bill, which has the support of over 100 immigrant rights groups, police chiefs and mayors, was drafted not only as a symbolic counter to legislation in neighboring Arizona, but also to push back against a federal program called Secure Communities that shares the same principles as Arizona’s law, supporters say.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, established the Secure Communities program in partnership with local law enforcement agencies and the FBI to deport unauthorized immigrants. [...]

The federal program has been responsible for deporting over 72,000 Californians, according to Ammiano, with 70 percent of those deported from the state having either no criminal conviction, or conviction for a minor offense.

By a 21-13 vote, state senators approved the bill Thursday, which now heads to the California Assembly for consideration.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070 — in which the court allowed the “show me your papers” provision to go into effect after limiting it — federal officials ended Secure Communities partnerships with seven Arizona law enforcement offices. A DHS official said the Obama administration determined that the agreements are “not useful” now in states that have Arizona-style laws.

This week’s ruling on Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB 1070 by the U.S. Supreme Court left the bill’s most controversial measure — the so-called papers please provision — untouched, and Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is not happy about it.

The Huffington Post picked up on remarks from the congressman on the House floor this morning:

“Arizona politicians will tell you with a straight face, no less, that they can apply this law without using racial profiling,” Gutierrez said, “without assuming that someone named Gutierrez isn’t less likely to be in this country legally than someone named Smith. That’s an amazing skill.”

And to prove the point, Gutierrez issued a challenge for C-SPAN viewers, which we’ve recreated below: