Category: Montana

While Republican lawmakers Gary Perry, Jim Shockley, and David Howard attempted to pass over 10 anti-immigrant bills this legislative session, all of them were ultimately rejected by the Montana legislature. While many of these bills were defeated by only a narrow margin, I am proud of our legislature as a whole for killing these prejudiced and reactionary bills.This was not an easy battle to win, and I would like to thank everyone who worked tirelessly to make sure that Montana remains a welcoming place for immigrants. Kim Abbott and Jamee Greer at the Montana Human Rights Network spent hours and hours of their time testifying and getting the word out about these bills, despite being spread thin with the countless other human rights issues up for debate this session. Scott Crichton and Niki Zupanic at the ACLU also testified at every single hearing, and their clear, articulate testimony surely played a large role in defeating these bills. Debbie Smith, my mentor and colleague, fought this year — like every year — to protect the rights of immigrants in this State. Kelsen Young with the Montana Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence provided important testimony on the effect many of these bills would have on victims of domestic violence. Jorge Quintana and many other individuals provided difficult testimony on how these bills would affect them personally.I would also like to thank Colonel Mike Tooley, Chief Administrator of the Montana Highway Patrol, for taking a strong interest in ensuring that racial profiling does not occur on his watch. His dedication is very admirable, and much appreciated.Thanks again to everyone who lobbied with us, and to the legislators who worked with us to ensure that these harmful bills were not passed. I’ll see everyone again next session.

Molly Priddy of the Community News Service has written a good article on the immigration legislation proposed in Montana this legislative session.  The original article is located here.

Do we have an illegal worker problem?by Molly Priddy, Community News ServiceWednesday, March 18, 2009As the state’s economy stumbles, some lawmakers fear a new threat to Montana’s businesses and workers: illegal immigrants.Nobody really knows how many undocumented immigrants live and work in Montana, but everyone agrees the number is tiny, perhaps less than half of 1 percent of the population.Regardless, several immigration bills have quietly passed the Senate, where sponsors fear an imminent explosion of illegal workers and want laws to punish those who hire or protect them. Opponents fear racial discrimination and profiling.Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor, and a sponsor of several immigration bills, said his focus is on those who hire illegal workers. “It’s all about ‘illegal,’” he said.Illegal immigrants themselves are not the “bad people,” he said, but they do get exploited by employers who pay below minimum wages and dodge paying for overtime, benefits and workers’ compensation.“How can an honest employer compete with somebody who’s cheating?” Shockley said. “It’s about wages and jobs.”But Jamee Greer of the Montana Human Rights Network said the bills are offensive and unnecessary.“They’re institutionalizing fear in an ‘other,’” Greer said. “There’s not an illegal immigrant problem in Montana. It’s just one of those perennial things that keeps coming from the right.”Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena, said the immigrant bills are part of a conservative national agenda.“All of these bills are pieces of a national model that is put out by anti-immigrant groups,” Kaufmann said.She said the legislation is essentially racist because it creates fear and discrimination toward dark-skinned people.“I don’t think anyone here is racist,” Kaufmann said of her Senate colleagues. “But (the bills) are part of a racist agenda.”National census data estimate between 4,000 and 5,000 immigrants in Montana, documented and undocumented. Shahid Haque, an attorney in border-crossing law in Helena, said precise numbers on undocumented immigrants are impossible to find, but Montana’s numbers are minuscule compared to other states.Small or not, Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan, who is also sponsoring several immigration bills, said Montana could soon see an increase in illegal immigration.“We are already experiencing problems here in Montana,” Perry said, “particularly with illegal aliens working around Big Sky in Gallatin County.”Those illegals, typically construction workers, give their employers an unfair marketplace advantage, Perry said.“It’s important to take steps before the problems of Southern California arrive in Montana,” he said.But Haque, who works with the Gallatin County immigrant workers, said they are largely documented laborers brought in on work visas. He agrees that the companies that bring in foreign labor should be scrutinized but said workers should not be penalized.“By redirecting everything at undocumented immigrants, you’re sidestepping the issue,” he said.The Senate immigration bills take different approaches. Shockley’s Senate Bill 381, which passed 26-24, would train state employees and law enforcement to help federal officials enforce federal immigration laws. That’s necessary because federal immigration employees in Montana are few, Shockley said.“We can’t afford to hire immigration officers to do it,” he said.But Haque said the proposed legislation would invite racial profiling. Local police trained to enforce immigration laws would have difficulty deciding whom to pull over or ask for papers, he said.“An undocumented driver doesn’t look any differently than a documented driver,” Haque said. “It’s going to require them to skirt the edges of racial profiling.”Shockley’s Senate Bill 382 would prohibit state and local governments from enacting policies that inhibit federal investigations into individuals’ immigration status.Two of Perry’s bills are still alive: Senate Bill 379 would allow the government to seize any property used to harbor or transport illegal immigrants, and Senate Bill 377 would prohibit Montana companies from taking tax deductions for any money paid to illegal immigrants. SB 377 passed 33-17.Opponents to Perry’s and Shockley’s bills say they stem from national rhetoric that followed the Bush administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform.Starting in 2003, members of Congress sponsored several bipartisan attempts to create a guest-worker program that would allow foreign workers to obtain visas for jobs that American employers could not otherwise fill.But U.S. House Republicans replaced the guest-worker program with legislation to deport all illegal immigrants and make it a felony to help them. Conservatives also blocked legislation to help immigrants obtain citizenship. Comprehensive reform has proved elusive ever since.Kaufmann supports national immigration reform but argues that human rights extend across borders as well.“People have rights, not just citizens of a country,” she said.Perry said the idea that racism motivates Montana’s legislation is “baloney”. “Is it not a valid reason that we should support federal laws in our own state?” Perry said. “There’s nothing racist about it.”Shockley insisted his legislation isn’t aimed at immigrants but at the people who illegally employ them. He said he didn’t know about the conservative national movement until this session.His bills reflect his personal views, he said, but added his staffer may have used information from conservative national organizations to write the bills.“Some of this stuff probably came from those organizations,” Shockley said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad.” He also said it’s not uncommon for bills to be modeled on existing statutes.Opponents contend both Shockley’s and Perry’s bills are nearly identical to those that can be found on the Web site of the Federation for American Immigration, which they consider an anti-immigration group.It is unclear how the immigration bills will do in the House. SB 381 and SB 382 are in the House Judiciary Committee and have yet to be voted on.

Thanks to Jamee Greer for formatting and posting this on his blog.

On Wednesday, we celebrated the death of SB 379.  Given that the Senate voted to indefinitely table the bill, it seemed like a done deal.  The Bozeman Daily Chronicle headlined the death of the bill.  Nevertheless, it looks like Senate Republicans have been successful in resurrecting the bill.  It appears that yesterday, Senate Republicans took advantage of the absence of three Democrats (Sens. Squires, Jent and Windy Boy) to move that SB 379 be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for amendments.This move was met with skepticism as to whether it is permitted under the procedural rules of the Senate.  Nevertheless, it appears that SB 379 will rear its head once more for a floor vote in the Senate.At this point, we don’t know what amendments will be made.  However, we can guess that the amendments will remove the controversial forfeiture provisions of the previous bill, which would have allowed the state to seize property used to “transport, move, conceal, harbor, or shield” any undocumented alien.There were many problems with this bill, and the forfeiture provisions were only one of them.  While these forfeiture provisions were clearly over the top, I find the human implications of the bill far more troubling.  I have a difficult time understanding how property interests can take precedence over the human suffering that would result from the bill.I urge lawmakers to stick to their guns and vote against this bill when it reappears on the Senate floor.

Daniel Person of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle has published an excellent article on the state of immigration legislation in Montana:

HELENA – State-level attempts at immigration reform are receiving some support this session, but the Montana Legislature is still a frosty place to attempt a crackdown on undocumented workers in the United States.

The Senate on Wednesday thwarted a bill that would have criminalized a number of interactions with illegal aliens in Montana, including knowingly transporting illegal aliens into the state and concealing them from detection, in some cases making the transgressions a felony. The bill also would have allowed the state to seize property connected to the violation.

The Senate voted 29-20 against Senate Bill 379, sponsored by Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan.In failing to pass, Perry’s bill joined most other immigration bills introduced this session.In the Senate, bills attempting to keep vehicle registration and some workers compensation away from undocumented workers have failed to gain traction. In the House bills introduced by Rep. David Howard, R-Park City, have also been defeated.

Perry’s frustration was evident after Wednesday’s floor vote.

“My impression is that we, overall, don’t seem to be as law abiding as I thought we were,” he said. “Perhaps it’s idealistic to think we obey our laws. Instead, for social liberalism, we ignore our laws.”But not everyone is taking a negative view of the votes.“The biggest problem across the board with these bills is the racial-profiling aspect,” said Shahid Haque, a lawyer in Helena who has been lobbying against the legislation.He said all of the bills would have required state agencies and employers to do more to verify whether someone is lawfully in the country. That’s not as easy as some think, he said, and he fears that non-whites or people with accents would have to jump through more hoops for government services than others.Of the 10 bills Haque has been tracking, only two have made it out of their chambers, with another still to have a hearing. He commended lawmakers for looking into the full implications of the bills.“The problem is, the bills are fairly complex and immigration laws are fairly complex. (Lawmakers) are hearing from people who tell them immigrants are taking their jobs. But I think you’re getting a lot of people who read these bills more carefully,” he said.The Montana Human Rights Network has also opposed the legislation. Jamee Greer, a lobbyist for the group, said he has seen opposition to the bills come from many sides.“People are opposing these bills for a lot of different reasons – farmers and ranchers concerned about how this will impact their operations, small businesses concerned about how this will affect their family businesses, concerns about racial profiling,” he said.Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor, has also introduced a number of immigration bills this session. He said two bills passed out of the Senate this session is two better than in 2007 and credited that to the Republicans having party control.“The Democrats don’t want to do anything on illegal immigration,” he said.

The Montana Senate is to be commended for indefinitely tabling Senate Bill 379, which was sponsored by Senator Gary Perry.  While previous votes in the Senate on immigration bills were split on party lines, with Republicans voting almost unanimously in support of the anti-immigrant bills, this bill was voted down on a bi-partisan vote of 29-20.We previously discussed this bill, which would have made it a state misdemeanor or felony to transport, move, conceal, harbor, or shield any alien in “reckless disregard” of the fact that they are undocumented.  It would have also make it a misdemeanor or felony to encourage an undocumented alien to enter or remain in the state without status.  Finally, the bill applied harsh forfeiture provisions that would allow the state to seize property belonging to anyone convicted under the law.

This bill had many problems — it would waste state resources doing the federal government’s job, its harsh penalties would make people reluctant to hire immigrants regardless of  their status, it would further segregate and drive our immigrant population into the shadows, and it would result in greater racial profiling.  While Democrats voiced concerns about all of these factors, it was the excessive forfeiture provisions that appeared to make the difference for the Republicans who voted against the bill.

I would like to especially commend Senator Joe Balyeat (R) for his thoughtful comments during floor debate.  Senator Balyeat recognized that while the sponsors of this bill may have intended to target people who “traffic” undocumented aliens for profit, the broad language of the bill would also punish people who shield family members.  When coupled with harsh forfeiture provisions that could allow seizure of a person’s home and property without a warrant, Senator Balyeat recognized that the bill was “over the top.”

The Montana Senate did the right thing by tabling this bill.  However, there is still much work to be done.

Two of the ten anti-immigrant bills that have been proposed this session have been transmitted.  In the coming days, SB 381 and SB 382 will be heard in the House.  Thus far, the House has killed every anti-immigrant bill that it has heard in Committee.  We can only hope that this trend continues, and will re-double our efforts to educate Legislators on the harmful effects of this legislation.

Jamee Greer, a progressive lobbyist and all-around good guy, has a great post about an interesting exchange that occurred in the Montana Legislature last week between Representative David Howard (the sponsor of three anti-immigrant bills that were tabled) and Representative Tim Furey.  He posts about it at his blog:

I thought I’d share some of the quotes from Rep. Howard, and much like last time, I’ll point out the good with the ugly.“Now the reason for this bill is very simple. If you look at states like Colorado, who have not watched their licenses, you have almost ninety percent of all the sheetrock contractors are illegal aliens. You have almost one hundred percent of the contractors that do yards and clean up and everything, are illegal aliens. I want to create a deterrent so Montana isn’t a state we wanna come fill up with illegal aliens.”“I was on a business trip to Las Vegas, and I was really stunned that while I was driving into where I was gonna do some training, and at a corner where they had a Safeway, there was over a hundred and fifty people there, all illegal aliens, obviously, and the contractor trucks were driving up and picking them up.”While Rep. Howard’s comments were offensive, Representative Tim Furey (D-HD 91) nobly tried to point out that you cannot make rash judgements on someone’s status based on conjecture, or hearsay.Rep. Furey: “When you were in Las Vegas, and you saw one hundred people on the street corner, how did you know that the one hundred people you saw were ‘illegal aliens’?”Rep. Howard: “I was with a contractor, doing a contractor seminar. And he was telling me that that was what was happening. He was showing me and telling me that that was actually cheating other young Americans that wanted jobs, out of jobs, because those were contractor jobs and they had the ability to pay them half as much and not pay them workers comp. Actually, in real true sense, they were taking advantage of the unauthorized alien.”Rep. Furey: “So nobody checked their IDs? Just the fact that they looked like they were ‘illegal aliens’?”Rep. Howard: “No they didn’t. I was being told that they were, by a contractor who had been doing this for twenty five years.”

This was one of many exchanges that occurred both last week and this week that highlight one of the biggest problems with state enforcement of immigration laws.  Even as he defended legislation that would would result in rampant racial profiling, Representative Howard couldn’t help but make baseless assumptions about people’s immigration status.  He basically made our point for us.Thanks to Representative Furey for pointing this out, and thanks to Jamee Greer for posting about it.

Last week was an exceptionally busy one for those of us who have been fighting the suite of anti-immigrant bills that have been proposed this session.  Committee hearings were held every day of the week, and there were ten hearings in all.  I am glad that I was able to testify on each of these bills, and I cannot thank Kim Abbott, Jamee Greer, Debbie Smith, and the ACLU enough for their help.  First, the good news:  Every anti-immigrant bill that originated in the House has been killed.  This is a huge victory, as these bills would have been disastrous for Montana.  In addition, one particularly ridiculous bill from the Senate has been tabled.  Here is the list of anti-immigrant legislation that has died in committee:HB 587:  This bill would have required the Department of Labor to investigate immigration status before issuing a professional or occupational license, and go back and review every single license already on the books.   No evidence has been presented that undocumented aliens are getting professional licenses in Montana.  This bill would have needlessly cost the state time and resources, and it would have resulted in undue scrutiny for minority business owners.  The Business and Labor committee wisely tabled this bill, which was sponsored by David Howard.HB 496:  This bill would have encouraged citizens to waste law enforcement time and resources by making complaints about employees that they suspect to be unauthorized aliens, and then required law enforcement to investigate each and every complaint regardless of whether they appeared to have any merit.  This would have had incredibly negative consequences for minority employees, who could be subjected to police investigations without any legitimate basis.  It would also have wasted law enforcement time and resources.  The Business and Labor committee tabled this bill, which was also sponsored by David Howard.HB 554:  This incredibly misguided bill would have required the state to investigate the immigration status of children in foster care and deport them.  I wrote about this bill earlier.   The Judiciary committee tabled this bill mere hours after hearing oral testimony on the offensive bill.  This resulted in a shutout for Representative David Howard’s anti-immigrant bills.  HB 556:  This bill would have required the state to use the federal E-Verify program for all state contractors.  E-Verify is not ready for widespread deployment and has far too many errors, especially when dealing with non-citizens.  Implementing this program would have resulted in far too many legitimate workers losing employment opportunities.  The State Administration committee wisely chose to wait until this program was ready for primetime and tabled the bill, which was sponsored by Gary MacLaren.SB 380:  This bill would have required the county treasurer’s office to investigate immigration status and deny motor vehicle registration to undocumented immigrants.  The bill would have only had one effect:  less accurate motor vehicle registrations.  Rather than throwing their hands in the air and going home, undocumented immigrants would simply register in other people’s names or not register at all.  The Senate Judiciary committee tabled the bill.Now the bad news.  Three bills sponsored by Shockley have made it out of committee and passed 2nd reading on a floor vote.  Votes were almost entirely based on party lines — Republicans in favor, and Democrats against.  I’ll be posting more on each of these bills in the coming days.SB 381:  This bill would require the state to enter into a costly Memorandum of Understanding so that the Highway Patrol can be deputized as ICE agents and enforce immigration laws.  This was sponsored by Shockley and passed by Senate Judiciary.SB 382:  This bill would require the state to “cooperate with” the federal government in immigration investigations without receiving any compensation for doing so.  It also allows crazies to sue to force the state to do the federal government’s job.  This was sponsored by Shockley and passed by Senate Judiciary.SB 379:  This bill was discussed in a previous post.  It was sponsored by Gary Perry and passed by Senate Judiciary.I will be posting more on the significant harm that would be caused by the remaining bills.  So long as the Democratic caucus holds, as it has been, these bills will never survive the House.

On Thursday, February 12, 2009, Senator Gary L. Perry’s SB 378 will go to Committee.  This bill would prevent insurers from paying worker’s compensation claims to “unauthorized aliens.”  Current law requires that claims be paid to “aliens and minors, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.”  MCA § 39-71-118(a).  While SB 378 does not amend the definition of an employee under the law, it would have the same effect.  The bill imposes obstacles that would make it impossible for unauthorized aliens to pursue a claim for worker’s compensation.

Our worker’s compensation laws are based on the principle that once an employer has hired an employee and put them to work, the safety of the worker is the employer’s responsibility.  Any law that would prohibit an employee from making a claim for worker’s compensation would result in a less safe work environment for all workers.  Rather than deter employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, SB 378 would actually create a perverse incentive to hire unauthorized aliens to work in dangerous job positions.  This could create a class of “expendable” workers that an employer need not be concerned about insuring.  An employer who pays less attention to the safety of unauthorized aliens will create a hazardous work environment for all employees.

SB 378 would require hospitals to foot the bill for an employer’s mistake.  The bill would prevent insurers from paying for medical services until an unauthorized alien goes to a U.S. Consulate overseas to execute an affidavit, presumably to prove that the alien has left the country.  If an employee is seriously injured on the job, he or she will not be in any condition to undertake international travel.  Hospitals cannot refuse to provide emergency medical care, and will be required to pay for primary medical services that would normally be the insurer’s responsibility.

The bill provides no details on how an insurer is to determine whether or not an employee is unauthorized.  Our immigration laws are complex, and the potential for mistakes and abuse are obvious.  The state and federal government lack the time and resources to check into the immigration status of every employee who is injured on the job.  It would violate due process to simply single out minority workers for extra screening.  Injured workers who need immediate care cannot afford to waste time proving their authorized status to insurers.  If an employee is wrongly accused of being unauthorized, he or she may have to expend significant time and effort litigating the matter in state court.  But even state courts are not equipped to interpret and apply our immigration laws.

The requirement that an unauthorized alien go overseas to get an affidavit before making a claim is clumsy and ineffective.  If the drafters of this bill believe that it will compel unauthorized aliens to depart from the country, they are sorely mistaken.  Unauthorized aliens will surely recognize that it would be impossible for them to maintain a worker’s compensation claim from outside of the country.

The type and amount of compensation that a worker receives depends upon objective medical findings.  Nothing in the proposed law that would require an insurer to accept the determinations of a foreign doctor, and there would be no way to prove that injuries were not exacerbated by  travel — a specific defense provided under statute.  See MCA § 39-71-704.  Even simple issues like service of process would rely upon international treaty and would be costly and time-consuming for all parties.

The truth is that this bill would eliminate recovery for unauthorized aliens, destroy the public policy behind our carefully designed worker’s compensation system, and provide no incentive for any unauthorized alien to leave the country to pursue benefits.  The bill only ensures that employers get off scott-free for creating a dangerous workplace.

The proper time to inquire into an employee’s work authorization is when an employee is hired — not when an employee is injured and requires medical assistance.  An employer bears the responsibility for ensuring the safety of all employees, and this results in a safer workplace for everyone.  SB 378 threatens workplace safety by relieving employers of their safety obligations with regard to unauthorized aliens.  We must not let the agenda of anti-immigrant activists affect the safety of all of our workers.  Implementing this law would be costly to the state and fails to resolve any identifiable problem that exists under current law.

I strongly urge you to voice your opposition to this bill.  Click here to send a message to Mr. Perry and your local representatives to let them know that you oppose this disastrous bill.