Category: Immigration News

Towards the end of last year, things became very busy for the firm, and for me in particular.  Many things happened that I would have liked to share, but I couldn’t find the time for it.  I will attempt to go back and post some notable events from the past year, as well as update this blog more regularly.
Last October, I became involved in an effort to draw attention to serious abuses committed by Bruce Norum, who was the most senior official in Montana working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).  At that time, Bruce Norum was the Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer for the state. In that capacity, he made final decisions regarding who should be detained, whether or not an immigrant should be released pending court hearings, what bond amount should be set, and other important determinations regarding immigrants under ICE scrutiny.On September 28, 2011, during working hours and from his ICE e-mail account, Mr. Norum forwarded an e-mail to another ICE agent and myself, recommending it as a “good read.”  The e-mail plainly advocated racial profiling of Muslims, and asked for a form of loyalty test to be administered before a Muslim should be afforded basic due process.Some statements from the e-mail included:

I’ve been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn’t. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don’t blend in anymore.. . .

It is not MY responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I DEMAND to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America …. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car?  Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihads?  Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

. . .

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting ‘Allah Bless America’.. I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them.

You know where they are. Hand them over to us, NOW!. . .We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us — our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to DEMAND it.

It was shocking and appalling to receive this message from Mr. Norum for many reasons.I am a Pakistani-American who was raised in a Muslim household.  Mr. Norum was well aware of my race and ethnicity, as we had met in person many times in an official capacity.  As I practice solely immigration law, I routinely represent immigrants (including Muslims) facing the threat of deportation in Mr. Norum’s jurisdiction.  By sending this message to me, it appeared that Mr. Norum may have been trying to question my loyalty to the United States, and use his position of authority to intimidate me.Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Norum would forward this e-mail from his government account, during work hours, seriously called into question all decisions he has made in his official capacity.  The views he advocated run directly contrary to the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.  Indeed, the e-mail even implies that Muslims cannot be “true citizens” of the United States.I immediately filed complaints with the civil rights and professional oversight divisions of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).  I also contacted reporter John S. Adams regarding this matter, and a story was printed in the Great Falls Tribune on October 9, 2011.   Around the same time, I was contacted by Mr. Norum’s direct supervisor, who is based out of Salt Lake City, Utah.  He informed me that he was taking the incident extremely seriously, and was taking immediate action.  Mr. Norum was quickly suspended from duties, pending an investigation.  I was grateful for the prompt attention that was given to this matter. You can find a follow-up story from the Great Falls Tribune, containing more details.

Since then, I spoke with investigators from ICE “internal affairs” and I understand that their investigation finally concluded at the end of November 2011.  At this time, I am not aware of the results of the investigation.After Mr. Norum was relieved of duties, he was replaced.  I have had very positive dealings with his replacement, as well as other Department of Homeland Security officials in Montana.  Thus far, I am pleased that I have not experienced any harassment or retaliation as a result of this matter.Based on his clearly  bigoted views, I do not believe that Mr. Norum has any credibility to serve within the Department of Homeland Security, and certainly not in a supervisory role.  It is my sincere hope that Mr. Norum is permanently relieved of duties.  One thing is certain — if he returns to work, he will be met with fierce opposition.I will keep you posted as more information comes to light.

Jon Tester has finally come out in support of amnesty and a path to legalization.  The only problem is that he isn’t referring to comprehensive immigration reform — he is using this language to argue that military veterans should be able to keep machine-guns and other fully automatic “trophy” firearms acquired on the battlefield.  Tester wants to open a 90-day “amnesty period” for veterans to register these machine-guns so they have a “viable path to comply with federal law.”No, I’m not kidding.  A press release that was issued today states:

“It is important to protect veterans and members of our armed forces from unnecessary prosecution and give them a viable path to comply with federal law,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Those who fought to preserve our freedom should not be penalized for their desire to lawfully own firearms from the battlefield.”

The press release also says:

“It is critical that we give our veterans another 90-day amnesty period to comply with the law without fear of penalty,” Tester and McCain wrote.  “If an amnesty is not provided, we will be further convinced that legislation is necessary in order for our veterans to register their lawfully obtained firearms.”

These statements are rich with irony because when talking about the DREAM Act or the need for immigration reform, Tester has stated repeatedly stated that he opposes any amnesty or path to comply with federal law.To keep things straight:  Tester supports “amnesty” so veterans can keep fully automatic weapons such as machine-guns, but no “viable path” to citizenship for undocumented kids who came here when they were children and want to serve our country in the military.Do those sound like your values?

Today, I was interviewed for an article in the Huffington Post about Democrats who are standing in the way of immigration reform.  The article was written by Elise Foley, and is well worth reading in its entirety.  Here is the section that relates to Montana in particular:

In Montana, home to two of the senators who voted against the DREAM Act, advocates are mobilizing against Sen. Tester to pressure him into changing his immigration stances.”What we’d really like is to change his mind, but we know that it’s going to take a lot for that to happen,” Montana immigration attorney Shahid Haque told HuffPost on Thursday. “One of our major goals is for Tester to get the message that it’s not going to be politically expedient for him to be raising immigration as a campaign issue.”Tester is up for reelection in 2012 against Republican Rep. Danny Rehberg, putting activists in the odd position of fighting against a Democrat who assumes he will get their support. Although they do not want Rehberg to be elected, they see it as important to send a message to Tester, Haque said.In addition to voting against the DREAM Act, Tester also voted to take away funding from the Department of Justice to block it from challenging Arizona’s contested immigration enforcement law.”Rehberg’s positions are certainly no better than Tester’s,” Haque said. “But they’re also no worse.”

I have previously discussed Senator Jon Tester’s problematic immigration positions in two posts on this blog (here and here).  It is also important to note that not all Montana Democrats share Tester’s views on immigration.  Governor Brian Schweitzer has an incredibly enlightened view of immigration, and for two sessions in a row, Democrats in the Montana Legislature have taken caucus positions against anti-immigrant legislation.  Democrats just need to take action to get our U.S. Senators back on the right track.

Jon Tester (D-MT) is facing a tough run for re-election to the U.S. Senate, but he just keeps giving progressives more reasons not to vote for him. His track record on immigration issues has been abysmal, as I’ve written about before. Make no mistake about it — Tester is probably the worst Democrat in the Senate on the issue of immigration, and he is one of the most vocal. The way he talks about the issue, you would think Montana wasn’t one of the states with the least number of immigrants in the whole country.Despite outrage over his despicable vote against the DREAM Act, Tester hasn’t decided to leave immigration policy to states that actually have a dog in the fight. You won’t see him bragging about his DREAM Act vote, mind you — after all, Daily Kos famously called him an “asshole” for that reprehensible vote, and he doesn’t want to rekindle the ire of the netroots crowd. However, he has continued to make his anti-immigrant positions a core part of his campaign, jumping at every opportunity to link immigration to national security concerns. For instance, when a college in California was found to be enrolling foreign students without proper accreditation, Tester quickly issued a press release noting that “several of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, had entered the country using student visas.”Recently, Jon Tester put up two web pages on the issue of immigration that are so ignorant you would think Tester locked anti-immigrant zealots Mark Krikorian and John Tanton in a room with a bottle of whiskey and posted whatever they came up with.In fact, these two immigration pages are so wrong-headed that they require some analysis and interpretation to fully make sense of them. One web page outlines his unsophisticated view of the immigration issue in four paragraphs. His other page lists his immigration “accomplishments.” (By accomplishments, Tester seems to mean ways he has screwed immigrants and wasted federal money.) I’ll review both of the pages together.

Jon’s position on immigration is simple: people who wish to immigrate to the United States must follow the rules, and we must enforce them. That’s why Jon opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants.

During his first year as Senator, Jon helped put a stop to a bill that would have granted amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the United States.Jon voted in 2007 to defeat the Immigration Reform Bill, telling his colleagues, “We don’t need hundreds of pages of expensive new laws when we can’t even enforce the ones we’ve already got on the books.”

Where do we start? Polls have consistently shown that the people think our immigration system is broken and want some form of immigration reform. The last time our immigration laws were substantively changed was in 1996, and almost everyone agrees that those changes were ineffective — in fact, they created more problems than they solved. People are frustrated by the federal government’s failure to act, and don’t believe that “enforcement only” solutions are going to work. As a result of the federal government’s inertia, states like Arizona, Utah, and Georgia have begun to enact their own immigration policies, which raise significant constitutional concerns including due process violations and racial profiling.

While I strongly oppose state level enforcement of immigration laws, and I believe that these state laws are misguided, it is difficult to fault the states for at least trying to take action when the federal government will not.

Yet, Jon Tester considers it an “accomplishment” that he has ignored the will of the public and done absolutely nothing to fix our immigration system. In fact, he is proud that he helped derail immigration reform in 2007, and has continued to sabotage efforts to reform our immigration laws. It’s nice that he sets the bar so low for himself, but the rest of the country is expecting a little more.Tester refuses to acknowledge that our system needs to be fixed, stating “we don’t need hundreds of pages of expensive new laws when we can’t even enforce the ones we’ve already got on the books.” The problem, of course, is that our system is broken and we need to reform our laws in order to more effectively enforce them. Current immigration reform proposals aim to increase enforcement on the border and interior of the country, but recognize that in order to curb undocumented immigration we also need to fix some of our laws that are creating the problems in the first place. For instance, our laws include huge gaps in coverage, where many family members have no reasonable opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States. Among other things, reform proposals would open new paths to family-based immigration that were causing needless undocumented immigration.

Tester remains willfully obtuse in his opposition to so-called “amnesty” for immigrants who lack lawful status. “Amnesty” means a general pardon for an offense against the state, but Tester uses the term “amnesty” to refer to any changes in the law that would create a path to legalization — even if the path is strenuous and imposes a strict set of requirements. He even used the term amnesty to refer to the DREAM Act, which would have created a seven (or more) year path towards citizenship for men and women who serve our country in the military or go to college. There is no “amnesty” on the table, and there hasn’t been for years. Instead, what is being proposed is a way for immigrants who are already here to earn their way back into lawful status by paying fines, back taxes (if they haven’t already been paying like most immigrants), and potentially even community service. After all, even Newt Gingrich understands that it is not realistic to deport all of the 11 million people who are here without status.Finally, comprehensive immigration reform won’t be expensive, as Tester states, but will actually increase wages for all workers and improve our economy. Time and again, it has been proven that spending money on border security alone, without any other changes to our laws, is untenable and ineffective. Nevertheless, Tester has chosen to advocate these “enforcement only” solutions.

Instead [of immigration reform], Jon has focused his energy on boosting security along America’s borders, particularly our northern border with Canada. From his seat on the influential Appropriations Committee, Jon has secured investments to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, as well as critical investments upgrading Ports of Entry along the Canadian border.That same year, Jon introduced and passed into law a measure requiring the Homeland Security Department to report on weaknesses along the northern border and develop a plan for improving northern border security.

So let me get this straight: Instead of working for immigration reform to help the entire country, Tester is pushing for huge government expenditures to protect us from Canada? It is foolish to tout Canadian border security as an alternative to comprehensive immigration reform, because it is clear that the risks from an unmonitored northern border have almost nothing to do with the larger immigration problems our country is facing.While the GAO issued a report stating that Department of Homeland Security needs to work better with other agencies and partners along the northern border, the GAO didn’t endorse Tester’s crusade to spare no expense to “secure” the border. Indeed, the GAO previously pushed back on claims about insecurity on the northern border.

Nevertheless, Tester is so eager to appear strong on immigration enforcement that he managed to get an appropriation for military grade radars on the Canadian border. He also wants to expand the use of unmanned drones (and they are already being used in some areas). Those radars and drones would have come in handy last year, when I helped a Canadian kid who got lost and accidentally drove his ATV across the border.As George Ochenski put it: “For most Montanans, the border with Canada has never been and likely will never be seen as a threat. After all, the U.S. and Canada share the longest border on the continent, and it has been our ally in world wars as well as regional conflicts. It’s also our largest trading partner and our closest, largest and most secure source of oil. Treating Canada as some variant of Pakistan’s border is, in a word, insulting to both Montanans and our Canadian friends.”

Jon was the only Senate Democrat to put his name on legislation pumping new resources into border protection for new technology and new border patrol officers. Jon cosponsored the measure after securing a pledge that a certain percentage of those new resources would be spent along the northern border.

Here’s a tip for Tester’s staffers: When you’re the only Democrat to put your name on a piece of legislation, its probably nothing to brag about. The bill that Tester is referring to is actually a corollary to one that was introduced by his opponent, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). Jon Tester partnered up with Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-AZ), among other Republicans, to co-sponsor a $3 million amendment. This bill also funded construction of the fence along the Mexican border — a project that has been abandoned and condemned as a tremendous failure and waste of billions in taxpayer dollars.

And from his seat on the influential Appropriations Committee, Jon has secured investments to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, as well as critical investments upgrading Ports of Entry along the Canadian border.

One of Tester’s “critical upgrades” was a $15 million dollar renovation to the border station in Whitetail, MT, which was reported to get about five crossings a day and no commercial traffic. After facing criticism for needless spending, Tester and Max Baucus reduced the appropriation to only $8.5 million. Meanwhile, Canadian officials closed the road leading to this border station, rendering the whole project useless. This embarrassing episode didn’t make Tester’s list of accomplishments.Of course, even though he votes against any legislation that isn’t directed purely towards deporting immigrants, Tester wouldn’t want you to get the impression that he is against immigration:

Jon knows that legal immigrants, like his grandparents, helped build America into what it is today. But he also believes that no one is above the law.

In public statements and constituent letters, Tester is constantly stating that his grandparents “waited in line” and followed the rules, implying that new immigrants should be expected to follow the same process. However, it appears that Tester’s ancestors entered the country in 1916 — before our current immigration system even existed. At that time, our immigration policy was comparable to an “open border” policy. Years later, quotas were enacted to limit immigration and more stringent criteria for entry were developed. It was not until 1965 that the current Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted, with its very limited methods for gaining permanent residence in the U.S.There is no question that Jon Tester’s ancestors faced a dramatically different immigration system than those who are immigrating today. Tester and other enforcement advocates often evoke the image of a “line” that immigrants must simply wait in. However, the truth is that for most immigrants, there is no “line.” Tester’s own grandparents may not have been able to enter the country under our current immigration scheme.

Jon Tester’s vocal anti-immigrant positions have placed Montana progressives in a difficult position. Contrary to the attacks of those who want to silence any opposition to Tester’s bad policies, none of us are excited about the prospect of his opponent, Dennis Rehberg, being elected to the Senate. Indeed, Rehberg’s stance on immigration is no better than Tester’s. However, Tester’s ignorant views on immigration are also making it impossible for us to lend him our vote.Tester’s positions on immigration are not gaining him support with Republicans, but they are causing a split among Democrats. The best thing for Jon Tester to do is distance himself from the issue of immigration, because each time he opens his mouth, he brings many progressives closer to sending a difficult message: The progressive movement cannot tolerate a Democrat who has an anti-immigrant agenda, regardless of the consequences.

KULR 8 news in Billings interviewed both me and Rep. James Knox about his unconstitutional bill to exclude children of immigrants and dual citizens from Montana state citizenship. The interview also focussed on the term “anchor babies” and why it is a highly offensive term.   The news story and video are available by clicking here.

The term “anchor babies” is one of the most offensive and pejorative terms being thrown around when talking about immigrants. It is based on the false belief that when an immigrant has a baby in the United States, that prevents the child’s parents from being removed and gives them some form of immigration status.  That is not true.  In actuality, a child can only confer immigration status to his or her parent when the child reaches age 21.  Every years, tens of thousands of parents of U.S. citizen are deported — amounting to over 100,000 deportations over the last ten years.

Of course, the term is not intended to be accurate.  It is designed to dehumanize these young children, by stereotyping and casting a false motivation on their birth. Rather than recognizing that immigrants have families for the same reasons as the rest of us, this term is meant to differentiate immigrants, so that we can justify treating them as less than human, and less deserving of the same rights are privileges as the rest of us.

Dehumanizing language like this is dangerous.  Historically, we have seen this kind of language referring to children the “disfavored” groups of the era.  These included Irish, German, Chinese, Eastern European, and, most prominently, African-Americans.  Rather than merely having children, members of these groups were said to be “breeding” or “multiplying.”  The term “anchor babies” is just another example of language meant to dehumanize children of immigrants and infringe upon their reproductive freedoms.

People who use the term “anchor baby” would actually be referring to me.  I am the child of two immigrants.  Over 30 years ago, my parents came to the U.S. from Pakistan. My father was a doctor, and he came here to work in an underserved community with a shortage of medical professionals.  When I was born, my parents weren’t citizens yet.

My parents certainly didn’t have me in order to stay here in the country.  They became citizens on their own several years later.  But that’s the problem with using a term like “anchor baby” to sweepingly refer to children of non-citizens.  It is clear stereotyping and assigns a cynical motive behind one of our most fundamental human rights — the right to raise a family.I just had my first son.  If you don’t know why the term is so offensive, try imagining how you would feel if someone referred to your own child in that way. I know how angry I would be if I ever heard that term used about my son.  I’d imagine you would feel the same way.

Rep. James Knox, a Republican, has introduced a bill that purports to “reinterpret” the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and strip citizenship from certain children of immigrants and dual citizens.  The hearing on this unconstitutional and bigoted bill was heated.  Only one person spoke in support of the bill, with a dozen opponents — including me — speaking against it. In his closing, James Knox referred to me as the “gentleman from Pakistan” even though I testified that I was born in the U.S. He also referred to my U.S. citizenship as an accident. Click here for the Yellowstone Public Radio segment. Click here to listen to the Yellowstone Public Radio segment on HB 392. The Billings Gazette published an article on this bill.  Newstation KXLH has also published an article as well as a video segment on this bill.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer was quick to point out that this bill is unconstitutional, and that he will veto the bill if necessary.  I applaud the Governor for speaking out strongly against this un-American bill.  We have previously written about Gov. Schweitzer’s personal understanding of our immigration system, and the need to treat immigrants fairly.The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly controls both state and federal citizenship laws, and Montana state legislators have no power or authority to change our country’s constitution.  The interpretation of the 14th Amendment included in this bill is invented out of whole cloth.  Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their lineage.

In order to do what this bill tries to accomplish, one would have to amend the U.S. Constitution.  Last time I checked, they couldn’t do that in a committee of the Montana legislature.  If the committee passes this bill, and the rest of the legislature shares in its delusion and enacts this law, lawsuits will be immediately filed. The law will be enjoined and then invalidated. They will have accomplished nothing, because this bill attempts to do what the state simply cannot.What the legislature is deciding is not implementation of this law, which is impossible, but whether it wants to take our state down a path that generations of Montanans will look back on with shame.What this bill would attempt to do is strip people like me of their citizenship.  Both of my parents are from Pakistan.  They grew up in a small village in the mountains of northern Pakistan.  The village had extremely limited resources and only the best and brightest students were able to study past high school.  My Dad was one of only a few students from his village who was able to graduate and attend college.  He studied medicine and became a doctor.  In 1974, he got a visa to enter the United States to practice medicine in an underserved community that had a serious need for doctors.

A few years later, I was born.  I acquired citizenship at birth, and became a U.S. citizen before both of my parents.  However, they both naturalized a few years later.  If this bill had applied to me when I was born, it could have stripped me of my citizenship, because my parents were Pakistani citizens at that time, and under Pakistani law I would have been considered a Pakistani citizen.  That could have made me a “foreign national” as far as this bill was concerned.

Thankfully, the law has never and will never work as this bill contemplates.  Everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, and that includes the children of immigrants.  I just had my first son two months ago.  As a new father, and in my line of work as an immigration attorney, I can’t tell you how often I am thankful that my parents came to the U.S. and that I was born here.The bill tries to state that Montana citizenship does not “confer any right, privilege, immunity, or benefit under law” (as stated on lines 26-27, page 1).  This language is a crude attempt to assert that it doesn’t violate the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. constitution.  Well, I value my citizenship dearly.  Citizenship is one of the most important rights and privileges that one has.James Knox and the Republican legislators should ask themselves if they think Montanans will take kindly to this.  I know I won’t stand for my citizenship being tinkered with by this state legislature.If the Montana Legislature passes this bill, it will be flagrantly violating the U.S. constitution in a manner not seen since the days of Brown v. Board of Education.  I anticipate that the response will be as swift.

Yesterday, Rep. Gordon Vance proposed HB 71, a bill that would prevent certain immigrants from being able to collect worker’s compensation benefits if they are injured on the job.  As discussed below, this bill threatens the safety of all workers in Montana.  I testified against this bill, along with the Montana Human Rights Network and the ACLU, among others.  Emilie Ritter, with Montana Public Radio, prepared a radio story on this harmful bill, and included some of my testimony in the report.  John Adams from the Great Falls Tribune also wrote about the bill and quoted from my testimony.The following are my arguments against the bill:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

• I oppose this bill, because it would create a perverse incentive for employers to hire undocumented workers.
  • Current law states that claims must be paid to “aliens and minors, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.”  MCA § 39-71-118(a).  To ensure the safety of the workplace, the law was designed to ensure that all workers were covered by worker’s compensation.
  • Eliminating worker’s compensation to “unauthorized aliens” will do nothing to deter employers from hiring unauthorized workers.  Instead, it would actually create an incentive for unscrupulous employers to hire such workers, because they won’t have to worry about worker’s compensation claims being made against them.
  • This would decrease workplace safety for all employees. If the employer pays less attention to workplace safety for unauthorized aliens who cannot recover benefits, this would impact the safety of other authorized employees as well.
  • Imagine a construction company that works in dangerous conditions.  If that business has experienced several injuries and its worker’s compensation premiums have gone up, it might have an incentive to knowingly hire unauthorized workers who can’t make worker’s compensation claims.
  • This bill has the potential to create a class of “disposable” workers who are sent to work in dangerous conditions without fear for their safety.
• This bill would harm employers as well as workers.
  • Worker’s compensation claims are considered an “exclusive remedy,” meaning that an injured worker cannot sue in court for personal injury.  They have no choice but to go through the worker’s compensation system.
  • If aliens are excluded from this scheme, they will have no choice but to sue employers in court for personal injury.  This would result in costly litigation.
• The Department has no expertise in immigration law, and is not qualified to determine whether an employee is an “unauthorized alien.”
  • There is no law stating that the Department of Homeland Security has to check into requests by the state to confirm lawful status.  How will insurance companies make their determinations that someone is unauthorized?  They are not qualified to make such determinations.
• The language of this bill also creates significant ambiguity as to which aliens are covered by worker’s compensation.  It seems to indicate that many aliens who are lawfully present with work authorization actually won’t be covered.
• There is simply no need for this bill.
  • When an employer hires an employee, federal law requires the employer to verify employment authorization.  If an employer hires an unauthorized alien, that alien is their responsibility just like any other worker.  The employer should pay any compensation for injuries that occurred on their watch!

Regardless of the motivations behind this bill, it would only succeed in making the workplace less safe for all Montana workers.  I urge legislators to vote against this dangerous bill.If you agree, please click here to write to your Senators and Representatives to let them know.