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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT