Observations of immigration bill hearing

February 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Rebecca Berfanger submitted this post.

Because the Indiana Lawyer’s immigration law focus section is coming in March, and because, as are many Hoosiers, I’m interested in a Senate bill similar to the law passed in Arizona regarding immigrants, I attended part of Wednesday afternoon’s Senate Committee on Pensions and Labor hearing on Senate Bill 590.

While I expected many people there both supporting and opposing the bill that, among other things, would require only English be used for certain communications, the office of management and budget to determine how much illegal immigrants cost Indiana, and police officers to determine the immigration status of offenders, as well as punish “employers who knowingly employ unauthorized aliens,” I was slightly underwhelmed.

From the buildup this hearing had received, I expected more people, like me, who were there to observe but could only stand in the hallway. There were maybe 40 or 50 of us, not a tiny number but not the hundreds I expected. Then again, I wasn’t allowed in the Senate gallery – it was full before I arrived – and the Senate chamber also looked full. Of those in the chamber, it was difficult to tell who were senators or their staff members, who was there to testify, and who may have been there merely to observe.

While it might have been interesting to sit in the gallery to observe the observers, I decided early in the day that I didn’t have 30 minutes or an hour to sit and wait to guarantee a comfortable spot. For those who do have that time, maybe they deserve those spots more than I do. When the bill comes before the full Senate or, possibly, the House, maybe I’ll plan to get there a little earlier to get a better viewing spot. Better yet, maybe I’ll stay in the office and watch it online like I normally do.

There were a few protestors holding signs in the hall outside of the Senate chambers. “Yes I’m American but I’m no fascist” and “Welcome to Indiana, home of the Superbowl where you will be racially profiled” caught my eye. While these posters may have received the attention of those in the chamber, the bill still passed out of committee by a vote of 8 to 1.

Other observations: the hearing started about 15 minutes late (do these ever start on time?); a few senators came out into the hall to meet with constituents; it is approximately 200 degrees in the Statehouse; the veterans’ groups that spoke early about national security received cheers and applause, but those who were applauding were quickly reminded that no one is allowed to talk during a hearing except for those who are testifying; the TV outside of the Senate chamber did not show what was happening inside as I had hoped; the audio system in the hallway was either too loud or too quiet, depending on who was speaking; and a few people in the hallway who were there to protest the bill brought their young kids.

I couldn’t stay for the entire hearing – I had work to do back at the office and figured I’d follow up with a few of the key people later for my story – but these are worth checking out from time to time, if you have the time. They’re open to the public and free and always a good reminder of how state government works. Or you can watch it live online from the comfort of your desk.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT