ILNews

Would bill make immigrants feel unwelcome?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

As a contentious immigration law that went into effect in Arizona last summer continues to be challenged and further changes are being considered by Arizona lawmakers, similar bills at the state and local level, including one in the Indiana Statehouse, have been gaining traction.

Last year’s Arizona bill increases the authority of police officers to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants. Senate Bill 590 in Indiana goes beyond that to include provisions that some fear could affect both legal and illegal immigrants, leading to racial profiling.

A prominent group of civic leaders including the Indiana attorney general, the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, presidents of universities in Indiana, leaders of domestic violence organizations, and others have signed the Indiana Compact of the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana to say they oppose the immigration legislation.

The bill has also caused concern among at least two of Indiana’s largest employers, Eli Lilly and Cummins, which have publicly said the bill will send the wrong message to their many employees who are legal immigrants and have relocated to Indiana to work for them.

SB 590 has the support of the majority of the Indiana Senate. It passed with a 31-18 vote Feb. 22. No Senate Democrats voted for the bill, and five Republicans voted against it. The one excused senator was the bill’s author, Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, who was taking the Indiana bar exam on the day of the vote.

“Today’s vote was a key step in the legislative process,” Delph said in a statement Feb. 22. Delph has authored and supported similar legislation in past sessions. “I will continue to work with my fellow lawmakers to send a clear message that Indiana will no longer be a sanctuary for people who are in our state and country illegally because of our federal government’s failure to act on illegal immigration,” he said.

Various organizations testified on behalf of the bill during debate at the committee level, including employers who use e-Verify to determine if employees are able to work in the United States legally, an expert on homeland security, and veterans’ organizations who expressed concern about Mexican citizens who commit crimes, including violent gang activity.

Yet outside of that hearing, protesters carried signs that said “Yes, I’m American but I’m not fascist” and “Welcome to Indiana, home of the Super Bowl where you will be racially profiled.”

In addition to expanding the authority of local and state police regarding illegal immigrants, which has caused concerns of racial profiling, the bill would require employers to use the e-Verify System; the Indiana Department of Correction to verify citizenship of offenders committed to a correctional facility; the Indiana Department of Workforce Development to verify citizenship before determining eligibility for unemployment benefits; and the Indiana State Police to consider training of federal immigration and customs laws for officers. It would establish penalties for anyone who knowingly transports, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection an illegal immigrant for commercial or private financial gain; and it would require English to be used in public meetings, public documents, and by officers and employees of state or political subdivisions.

Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis professor and immigration law expert Maria Pabon Lopez has been following the legislation and stories about other legislation, including the Arizona law.

She said the Indiana legislation seemed misguided because there is already federal legislation in place. It would be costly, she said, to train police officers on customs and immigration issues.

“Indiana already has an ICE office in Indianapolis, and they already have their priorities,” she said of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. If anything, she said, it would make more sense for state and local police to work with ICE instead of the Legislature implementing a state law about how police officers interact with immigrants.

Seven lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law, including one by the U.S. Department of Justice in July 2010. Those cases in the Arizona District Court, all before the same judge, have all been dismissed, except for the Department of Justice case. It was heard by the 9th Circuit Nov. 1, 2010. No decision had been issued as of Feb. 25.

On Feb. 10, 2011, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed suit against the federal government, claiming that the federal government was violating Arizona’s 10th Amendment rights.

Michael A. Olivas, an immigration law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, mentioned other law suits, including one in Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.

Farmers Branch was one of the first towns to pass an ordinance targeted at undocumented immigrants. The ordinance was challenged by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. MALDEF won, Olivas said, but the litigation will cost Farmers Branch. He said it could take years for MALDEF to collect their costs and attorney fees.

As for the Arizona law, he said, “It’s working if you want to bankrupt your state and drive out anybody who doesn’t look white and if you want to draw critical attention to yourself.”

Olivas also mentioned various studies regarding how the Arizona legislation has led to the state losing money.

A November 2010 study by the Center for American Progress, linked to the Immigration Policy Center’s website, looks at lost revenue as a result of conferences that boycotted Arizona.

“Arizona’s Hotel and Lodging Association publicly reported a combined loss of $15 million in lodging revenue due to meeting cancellations just four months after the bill’s passage,” the report stated. “Our extensive research estimates that the actual lost lodging revenue from these cancellations is at least three times that amount: $45 million. That estimate provides a basis for calculating other losses in visitor spending. Analyzing average food and beverage, entertainment, in-town transportation, and retail sales brings the combined loss of estimated conference attendee spending up to a startling $141 million.”

Lopez added this could be a concern for the Super Bowl and other large events in Indianapolis that might be boycotted if a similar law was passed here.

In response to concerns about homeland security and other issues, Lopez and Olivas agreed that this bill would not necessarily deter terrorist threats. They also compared the crime rates of undocumented immigrants and the general population and said more crimes were committed by U.S. citizens.

In a joint statement, Eli Lilly and Cummins expressed concerns that the bill would hurt economic and business development in Indiana in the engineering and bioscience fields.

Attorney Robert F. Seidler Jr., a shareholder in the Indianapolis office of Ogletree Deakins’ labor and employment practice, said he has been keeping clients informed of what the bill might mean for them.

One provision that led to concern by employers but was removed from the bill, he said, was the three strikes rule. Under that rule, if an employer knowingly employs an illegal immigrant and is caught three times, the business would lose its license. The first or second time there would be probationary periods with supervision.

He said employers are still concerned about the e-Verify requirements for various reasons, including that e-Verify isn’t 100 percent accurate. He added some employers may not realize that e-Verify is in addition to, and not to be used as a substitute for, the I-9 form, which is also used to determine if someone is legally able to work in the United States based on his or her immigrant status.

The bill is now under consideration by the Indiana House of Representatives and is sponsored by Rep. Eric A. Koch, R-Bedford. Koch also wrote an amicus brief last September supporting the state of Arizona in the lawsuit filed against it by the U.S. Department of Justice.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Documentation?
    My only concern about Arizona's law, and Indiana's proposed law, is how are people supposed to verify citizenship if stopped by the police? If a cop stopped me today and asked me to verify my citizenship, about the only thing I could show them is my driver's license, and I don't know if that would suffice. So unless we go to a national ID system, I just don't understand how that part of it is supposed to work.
  • Vote For SB 590
    Attorneys = "Show me the money"

    SB 590 = Safer America / Safer Indiana (illegals go home)!

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT