The bill would place the state attorney general in charge of investigating complaints against businesses, require local prosecutors to take action against employers suspected of violating the law and charge the State Police with training local police forces to target illegal immigrants in communities determined as “problem areas.”

“I don’t blame anybody that wants to come to this country to better their life,” Delph said. “I do have a problem with a U.S. company that knowingly and willingly takes advantage of an illegal activity to cut their costs.

“That’s not right, and it’s time to do something about it.”

Alfonso Vidal disagrees.

He chairs the Indiana Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs, and said it’s not the job of the state — or businesses — to enforce federal immigration law.

“We should not place the burden of proof on the private sector that has enough challenges already,” Vidal said. “The federal government should accept its mistakes and propose a comprehensive and realistic solution.”

Demand for action

Nationwide, more states are becoming impatient with inaction by Congress and are passing their own laws to address illegal immigration.

A study in November by the National Conference of State Legislators showed that in 2007, state lawmakers nationwide introduced nearly three times the number of immigration-related bills as they did in 2006.

Those 570 bills ranged in topic from driver’s licenses and education to law enforcement and jobs.

“The federal government hasn’t done anything, and the public is angry,” said Anne Morse, a program director for the conference. “There is a tremendous demand for action.”

A handful of states, Morse said, have adopted legislation that would revoke state business licenses as Delph’s would. A similar Arizona law, which has been upheld in court challenges, went into effect Tuesday.

The transition in that state hasn’t been smooth. As of last week, 6 percent of Arizona businesses had signed up to use the E-Verify system to check worker eligibility.

In Indiana, both the chamber of commerce and the Indiana Manufacturers Association criticized the accuracy of that federal system and expressed concerns about Delph’s proposal.

George Raymond, the chamber’s vice president for human resources and labor relations, said his group would not support the bill as long as businesses could be shut down on their second offense, a penalty he called “too severe, too harsh.”

Pat Kiely, president of the manufacturers’ association, said solving the problem should start with the illegal immigrants, not employers.

“Anytime you try to turn employers into an immigration police force,” Kiely said, “we’re going to have concerns.”

A “feel-good” bill?

Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, said he planned to co-author Delph’s bill and dismissed criticism from business groups.

“There are going to be some employers who complain, but those are probably the ones who are violating the law today,” Boots said. “I don’t see businesses having a valid argument in this.”

Employers weren’t the only critics.

Ken Falk, an attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, said state lawmakers have no business meddling in immigration, which he said is a federal issue. Falk said if Delph’s bill is passed, employers would be less likely to hire immigrants who are legal because of the risk to lose their business.

Delph’s bill doesn’t just target employers.

The legislation would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to transport, conceal or harbor an illegal immigrant. A second offense would become a felony.

“So if someone goes into a church and confesses that they’re an illegal immigrant, the priest could face misdemeanor charges?” asked Falk. “That won’t work.”

The bill also would require hospitals to report the total costs for the care of illegal immigrants to the state’s department of health. Delph said those calculations could net reimbursements from Congress.

Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, said he has concerns about the provision of Delph’s bill that targets those who assist illegal immigrants and the reporting requirement for hospitals. But Crawford, chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, said he supported Delph’s plans to punish businesses.

“I don’t see this as a partisan issue,” Crawford said. “I think as Americans, we’re all concerned about this.”

The General Assembly has debated immigration bills before. In 2006, a bill that would deny health benefits to illegal immigrants died in the House after it was amended to penalize businesses.

Rep. Michael B. Murphy, R-Indianapolis, delivered a passionate speech on the House floor against that bill. Murphy said Friday that he understood Delph’s motivation but is skeptical the bill would have any real effect.

Because the legislation only would apply to businesses that “knowingly” break the law, Murphy said the legislation would be difficult to enforce, and it could only be implemented if enough resources are dedicated to the Attorney General, State Police, local law enforcement and prosecutors to get the job done.

“The net result of this, if it passes, is that it’s mostly a feel-good bill that gives politicians the ability to go home and say, ‘See what I did to relieve your frustration,’.” Murphy said. “Ultimately, it will have very little impact and people will still want to blame those with darker skin who speak with an accent more than they will their own business leaders who are employing these people.”

Murphy also doubted the legislation’s chances of passing.

“Many of the people who are employing illegal immigrants are the same people who are making significant political contributions to our elected officials,” he said. “There will be a lot of back pressure from the chamber of commerce and business interests.”

But Delph said if the bill is sent to either the Republican-controlled Senate’s labor or criminal committees, its chances would be good.

“It would get a hearing and probably pass out of those committees,” he said, “and I can’t imagine it wouldn’t pass out of the Senate.”