The legislative graveyard got a little bit bigger this week as lawmakers in Mississippi pronounced a series of restrictive immigration measures dead. More than 30 immigration-related bills—including an Arizona-style enforcement bill—failed to meet a legislative deadline due to disagreements over the laws’ impact on the business community. Mississippi joins nine other states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Virginia, Wyoming) where legislators have cut Arizona-style enforcement bills—bills that are, according to the Washington Post editorial board, causing many businesses to speak out for fear of sharing Arizona’s economic fate.

Mississippi’s legislature killed more than 30 immigration-related bills this week that would have, among other things, required people to speak English before receiving a state license, denied public benefits to the undocumented and attached an additional fee to all wire transfers going out of the country. The most controversial of the package, however, was SB 2179—Mississippi’s Arizona-style bill which would require police to investigate the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

Although separate versions of the bill passed the state’s House and Senate earlier this year, the bill did not make it out of conference. According to the Associated Press, the House replaced language that would have allowed residents to sue cities and local law enforcement for not enforcing immigration laws with language that would impose large fines against employers who hire undocumented immigrants—language which ultimately turned out to be a deal breaker.

Bill Chandler of the Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance called the bill “xenophobic” and a “continuation of the kinds of things that really hold Mississippi back.” The Clarion Ledger also celebrated the defeat, acknowledging that “illegal immigration is a serious national problem,” but a problem that calls for a “national comprehensive solution, not piecemeal, punitive, ineffective state laws.”