nc - i don't thing they "invested" in the sense of a conscious movement toward this goal. like other border states they found themselves inundated by job seekers and those fleeing violence and corruption in mexico.
that said, california's government has been eager to test the limits of public patience on this topic. the state grants drivers licenses without proof of identy/legal residency - and a drivers license is sufficient to satisfy most identification aspects of homeland security. illegal aliens get equal access in public schools, health care clinics, etc - benefits which even England doesn't afford.
texas is walking a more nuanced line, but it also has a larger, longer resident population of hispanics from uncertain origins. they can afford to, because they have much higher employment rates, and apparently can offer jobs to most illegal immigrants as well as bona fide citizens arriving from states in decline. texas is also demonstrably tougher on crime, and ethnic drug and criminal gangs don't operate as freely there as they do in california. there are dozens of movies featuring latino violence in LA, but the only notable one set in texas is "no country for old men", which is actually set in 1978, before illegal immigration became the so called "crisis" it is today.
in most locales, illegal immigrants are only unwelcome to the extent that they become violent offenders or welfare recipients. oddly enough, california doesn't seem to object to these outcomes as vigorously as neighboring states.
