Tag Archives: South Carolina

CONGRESS: the Republican led House – the Senate debates S.3240,Farm bill & 3.5yrs later, Judicial nominees


the Senate Convenes: 3:00pmET June 18, 2012

5:30pm The Senate began a roll call vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar #612, the nomination of Mary Geiger Lewis, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina; Confirmed: 64-27

     *****************************************************************************************************************************************

House Floor Activities
Legislative Day of June 18, 2012
 Last Floor Action:
5:10:57 P.M. – The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. today.

2:00:07 P.M.

  The House convened, starting a new legislative day.
2:00:33 P.M.   The Speaker designated the Honorable Steven C. LaTourette to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
2:00:42 P.M.   Today’s prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Patrick J. Conroy.
2:01:45 P.M.   The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
2:01:50 P.M.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Chair designated Mr. Burgess to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
2:02:13 P.M.   ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches.
2:11:50 P.M.   The House received a message from the Clerk. Pursuant to the permission granted in Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Clerk notified the House that she had received the following message from the Secretary of the Senate on June 15, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.: That the Senate passed H. Con. Res. 128, without amendment.
2:12:41 P.M.   The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is scheduled for 4:00 P.M. today.
4:01:00 P.M.   The House convened, returning from a recess continuing the legislative day of June 18.
4:02:02 P.M.   The Speaker announced that votes on suspensions, if ordered, will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. today.
4:02:14 P.M. H.R. 1556 Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. H.R. 1556 — “To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow certain land to be used to generate income to provide funding for academic programs, and for other purposes.”
4:02:32 P.M. H.R. 1556 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:02:38 P.M. H.R. 1556 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1556.
4:06:47 P.M. H.R. 1556 On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
4:06:50 P.M. H.R. 1556 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4:07:00 P.M. H.R. 4027 Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. H.R. 4027 — “To clarify authority granted under the Act entitled “An Act to define the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the State of Utah, and for other purposes”.”
4:07:19 P.M. H.R. 4027 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:07:22 P.M. H.R. 4027 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4027.
4:12:12 P.M. H.R. 4027 On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
4:12:16 P.M. H.R. 4027 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4:12:20 P.M. S. 404 Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. S. 404 — “To modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of the Interior.”
4:12:37 P.M. S. 404 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:12:41 P.M. S. 404 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 404.
4:16:44 P.M. S. 404 At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
4:17:00 P.M. S. 684 Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. S. 684 — “To provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah.”
4:17:09 P.M. S. 684 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:17:11 P.M. S. 684 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 684.
4:19:15 P.M. S. 684 At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
4:19:20 P.M. S. 997 Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. S. 997 — “To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.”
4:19:35 P.M. S. 997 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:19:36 P.M. S. 997 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 997.
4:21:48 P.M. S. 997 On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
4:21:53 P.M. S. 997 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4:28:03 P.M.   The Speaker laid before the House a message from the President transmitting a notification of the continuance of the National emergency with respect to the proliferation of weapons-uasable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula – referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 112-113).
4:29:18 P.M.   The Speaker laid before the House a message from the President transmitting a notification of the continuance of the National emergency with respect to the accumulation of alarge volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation – referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 112-114).
4:35:05 P.M. H. Res. 683 Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. H. Res. 683 — “Expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.”
4:35:10 P.M. H. Res. 683 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:35:15 P.M. H. Res. 683 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 683.
4:57:12 P.M. H. Res. 683 On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
4:57:17 P.M. H. Res. 683 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4:57:21 P.M. H.R. 3668 Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. H.R. 3668 — “To prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs.”
4:57:36 P.M. H.R. 3668 Considered under suspension of the rules.
4:57:37 P.M. H.R. 3668 DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3668.
5:10:45 P.M. H.R. 3668 On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
5:10:49 P.M. H.R. 3668 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
5:10:57 P.M.   The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. today.

« Previous Day

Official 2012 Democratic National Convention BBQ Sauces


Published on May 7, 2012 by

http://store.charlottein2012.com/

Back in February, we launched a search for the best BBQ sauces to become the official sauces of the 2012 Democratic National Convention. We were looking for the best sauce in three different categories that represent the different regions of the Carolinas — a western North Carolina tomato-based sauce, an eastern North Carolina vinegar-based sauce, and a South Carolina mustard-based sauce.

We were excited to receive 30 different sauce submissions from around the country. The sauces ranged from homemade to nationally recognized brands. After the sauce submission deadline, we gathered a group of qualified BBQ judges to help us pick a winner in each category.
Want to know who the winners are? Watch this video to find out!

After you watch the video, head over to our merchandise store and order your own official sauces of the 2012 Democratic National Convention. You can also pick up the 2012 Convention BBQ pack — the sauces, an apron, and an oven mitt.

Immigrant Policy Project – Supreme Court will hear SB1070 arguments April 25, 2012


Posted on April 18, 2012

State Omnibus Immigration Legislation and Legal Challenges

The federal and state roles in immigration continue to be tested in the courts.  Since Arizonas immigration enforcement laws were enacted early in 2010 (and subsequently enjoined after a federal challenge), five additional states enacted similar laws in 2011:  Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.  Legal challenges were filed in each state and the laws have been partially or wholly enjoined.  The federal government has also filed complaints against laws in Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah.

In March, 2012, two additional provisions in Alabama’s HB56 were enjoined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.   The provisions relate to barring courts from enforcing contracts with illegal immigrants and criminalizing “business transactions” between state and local government and illegal immigrants.  More information on Alabama’s law and court decisions can be found below.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Arizona’s SB1070 (Arizona v. US, #11-182) on April 25, 2012, with a decision expected in June or July. 

In 2012, five states introduced omnibus enforcement bills containing provisions such as requiring law enforcement to verify immigration status during a lawful stop, making it a state crime for failure to carry a federal immigration registration document, and creating penalties for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants: Kansas (H2576), Mississippi (H488 and S2090), Missouri (S590), Rhode Island (H7313) and West Virginia (S64).  Bills in Mississippi and West Virginia have failed. Alabama continues to consider amendments to last year’s H56 (H226, H658, and S140).  Two bills (H106 and S41) would repeal HB56.  Utah considered and rejected repeals (H300 and S157) of the guest worker program, part of last year’s package of four immigration bills addressing legal and illegal immigration.  A Washington bill (S6436) would make it unlawful to transport or harbor illegal immigrants; deny a driver’s license unless citizen or lawful permanent resident; require verification of status for a felony or DUI arrest; and mandate a work verification system for public employers.
Background

In 2010, Arizona enacted SB1070 and HB2162, enjoined since July 2010 following a federal challenge, and currently under appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  On July 28, 2010, the U.S. District Court in Arizona granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction.  The sections that were barred from taking effect (pending appeal) were:  Section 2B, requiring law enforcement officers to determine immigration status during any lawful stop; Section 3, creating state crimes and penalties for failure to carry federally-issued alien registration documents; Section 5, making it unlawful for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for or perform work in Arizona; and Section 6, permitting an officer to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Judge Bolton’s ruling can be found here.  The Governor of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for expedited review in the 2011-2012 term.   Governor Brewer’s appeal, filed on August 26, 2010, can be found here. NCSL’s summary of the Arizona law and similar actions in 2010 is available here.  Oral arguments will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2012.

Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – crafted omnibus laws in 2011 following the example of Arizona. The laws typically include provisions that require law enforcement to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop; allow state residents to sue state and local agencies for noncompliance with immigration enforcement; require E-Verify; and make it a state violation for failure to carry an alien registration document.  Alabama’s HB.56 also required schools to verify students’ immigration status.  Legal challenges based on preemption and civil rights were brought in each state and the laws have been wholly or partially barred from taking effect.

This brief includes summaries of the enacted laws and legal challenges.  Links to the omnibus laws and the lawsuits can be found at the end of this issue brief.

Alabama

Alabama’s HB56, signed June 9, 2011, addresses a range of topics including law enforcement, employment, education, public benefits, harbor/transport/rental housing, voting and REAL ID.

Law Enforcement:   The Attorney General is required to negotiate a memorandum of agreement with DHS.   It prohibits state and local law enforcement from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws.  It requires state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention or arrest in the enforcement of any other local or state law or ordinance where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present, except if it may hinder or obstruct an investigation.   Citizenship or immigration status of aliens arrested and booked into custody must be verified with the federal government. The police officer may not consider race, color, or national origin when implementing the law. The law specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs:  Alabama driver license or ID; tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal or state government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance; foreign passport with unexpired visa or passport issued by a visa waiver country with entry stamp.  It allows citizens and legal residents to sue state or localities that restrict enforcement of federal law.   The law creates a state violation for willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document comparable to federal law in 8 USC 1304(e) or 1306(a) and creates state penalties of up to 30 days in jail and $100 for a first offense.  Immigration status must be verified with the federal government.

Employment.   It is unlawful for a person who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.  Effective April 1, 2012, public contractors and subcontractors are required to use E-Verify.  Public contractors may not knowingly employ unauthorized aliens.  The Attorney General may bring action to suspend the business license for up to  60 days for a first violation and permanent revocation for a second violation.  It is a class C misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $500 for an occupant of a motor vehicle to hire on a street, roadway or highway if the vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic; or to enter a vehicle to be hired and transported.

Education:  Public schools (K-12) are required to determine a student’s immigration status and submit annual reports to the state education board. The law bans illegal immigrants from attending college or receiving any state scholarships, grants, or financial aid.

Public Benefits:  An alien unlawfully present in the United States is prohibited from receiving any state or local public benefits. Exemptions provided for primary or secondary school education, emergency health care, disaster and emergency assistance, prenatal care, child and adult protective services.  An alien’s lawful presence in the U.S. shall be verified by the federal government.  Verification for public benefits shall be made through the SAVE system.

Harbor/Transport/Rental Housing:  It is unlawful for a person to transport an alien; conceal, harbor or shield an alien; or harbor an alien unlawfully present by entering into a rental agreement if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact the alien is unlawfully present.  It provides exemptions for law enforcement and first responder or protective services providers.

Voting:  This law requires a person to present proof of citizenship and residency before voting.

REAL ID:  Nothing in this act is in any way meant to implement, authorize, or establish the Real ID Act of 2005.

Effective date: September 1, 2011.

Legal challenge:   The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Education filed a complaint to enjoin provisions of Alabama’s HB56 on the basis of preemption and violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  On September 28, 2011, the Alabama district court granted an injunction on four provisions and declined to enjoin six provisions of the immigration law pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

The 4 sections enjoined on September 28, 2011:

  • Section 11(a):  creating a misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for or perform work;
  • Section 13: making it unlawful to conceal, harbor, or transport unauthorized immigrants;
  • Section 16: prohibiting business from taking tax deductions for wages to unauthorized immigrants; and
  • Section 17:  creating a civil cause of action for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants against employers if they lose a job to an unauthorized immigrant.

The 6 sections that were allowed to go forward pending trial:

  • Section 10:  creating a state misdemeanor for not carrying an alien registration document (enjoined on October 14, 2011);
  • Section 12(a):   requiring a law enforcement officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the citizenship and immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present;
  • Section 18:  requiring law enforcement to transport a person arrested for driving without a license to a magistrate and if found to be unlawfully present the person shall be detained until prosecution or until handed over to immigration authorities;
  • Section 27:  barring courts from enforcing contracts with unlawfully present aliens;
  • Section 28:  requiring every public school to determine whether a student was born outside of the United States or to parents unlawfully present at the time of enrollment and report to the state board of education (enjoined on October 14, 2011); and,
  • Section 30:  makes it a felony for an alien not lawfully present to enter into “business transactions” with state or local government (e.g., driver’s licenses, business licenses, but not marriage licenses).

On March 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit enjoined section 27 and section 30.  Sections 12(a) and 18 remain in effect.

The case is United States v. State of Alabama and Governor Robert J. Bentley.

Georgia

Georgia’s omnibus immigration bill (HB87) was signed on May 13, 2011.  The bill includes provisions on employment, law  enforcement and public benefits.

Law Enforcement

If an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime, including any traffic offense, the officer shall be authorized to verify the suspect’s immigration status  if the suspect cannot provide identification.  Criminal offense is defined as a felony violation of state or federal criminal law.  The peace officer may not consider race, color, or national origin in implementing the law. The bill exempts people who are acting as a witness to a crime, reporting criminal activity, or seeking assistance as a victim of a crime. All foreign nationals confined for any period of time in a county or municipal jail will be questioned regarding their lawful presence in the state.

Persons knowingly and intentionally transporting an illegal alien while committing another crime may be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and fines up to $1,000, if it is the first offense and the person in transporting seven or fewer illegal aliens. If it is the person’s second offense, if the person is transporting more than seven aliens, or if the person is transporting aliens for profit, he may be charged with a felony, punishable by one to five years in prison and fines between $5,000 and $20,000. The law provides some exceptions for public employees transporting illegal aliens. The same penalties exist for a person convicted of knowingly concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal alien from detection; and for a person inducing an illegal alien to enter the state.

State and local agencies shall be authorized to enter into agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland Security, or other federal agency to enforce federal immigration and customs laws and the detention, removal and investigations of illegal aliens in the state.

Employment. Public employers must require all contractors to include in their bid for a publicly funded project an affidavit attesting that the contractor and any subcontractor uses E-Verify. Subject to funding, the state will conduct compliance audits on public employers with administrative penalties for non-compliance.  Two instances of non-compliance in five years will result in a 10% cut in appropriations to the offending agency.    Employers cannot claim deductible business expenses for wages paid to an employee in excess of $600 unless the employee has been approved to work in the U.S. using E-Verify.  Identity fraud for the purpose of obtaining employment is aggravated identity fraud.

Public Benefits.  Agencies providing public benefits shall require applicants to provide at least one secure and verifiable document in addition to an affidavit of lawful presence (for those 18 years of age or older).  Foreign consular identification is not considered a “secure and verifiable document.”

All  provisions become effective July 1, 2011 except public benefits provisions, which become effective July 1, 2012.

Legal challenge:  On June 27, 2011 U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. granted a preliminary injunction on sections 7 and 8, sections of HB87 that would have gone into effect on July 1, 2011. Section 7 prohibits transporting, harboring or concealing an illegal immigrant.  Section 8 allows law enforcement to check immigration status if the officer has probable cause the individual has committed another offense. The case is Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights et al. v. Nathan Deal, Governor of Georgia et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Indiana

Indiana’s SB590, signed May 10, 2011,  addresses a range of topics including law enforcement, E-Verify, public benefits,  a cost study of illegal immigrants and further study of immigration topics.

Law Enforcement:   A law enforcement officer can arrest a person if the officer has a removal order, detainer, notice of action or if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has been indicted or convicted of one or more aggravated felonies.  Law enforcement officers can also impound motor vehicles for violations of crimes related to moving, transporting, concealing, harboring, or shielding illegal aliens.  The Department of Corrections must verify citizenship or immigration status of criminal offenders.   Status as a foreign national must be considered in setting bail or bond requirements.  The law establishes state crimes for false ID, identity fraud, transport, and harboring.

E-Verify:  State agencies, political subdivisions and contractors with public contracts for services with the state or a political subdivision are required to use E-Verify.  Certain state income tax credits and deductions are banned for individuals who are prohibited from being hired as employees, unless the employer participated in the E-Verify program.

Public Benefits.  State agencies and localities must verify eligibility for federal, state and local benefits and unemployment compensation.

Studies/reimbursement of costs. The office of management and budget must calculate costs of illegal immigrants to Indiana and request Congressional reimbursement.  The law urges the legislative council to assign immigration topics for further study and consult with the lieutenant governor.

Provisions become effective July 1, 2011.

Legal challenge:  On June 24, 2011 Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a preliminary injunction in Ingrid Buquer, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., The judge preliminarily enjoined the defendants from enforcing sections 18 and 19 of the new law until further order of the court.

South Carolina

South Carolina’s  S20 was signed by the Governor on  June 27, 2011. This bill includes provisions on law enforcement, employment, public benefits, harbor/transport/rental housing, and identification.

Law enforcement:  If a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person who is stopped, detained, or arrested is an alien unlawfully in the United States, the officer or his agency is required to verify the immigration status of that person. A law enforcement officer would then contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine if that person should be arrested for immigration violations.  An officer may not consider race, color, or national origin while implementing this law.

Employment.   It is unlawful for a person who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.  All public contractors and subcontractors are required to use E-Verify.  After being hired, an employer has three days to check an employee’s verification in E-verify.  Public contractors may not knowingly employ unauthorized aliens.  When a private employer’s licenses are suspended, the private employer may not seek reinstatement of the licenses for a period of five years. After five years, the director may grant reinstatement of licenses if the private employer goes on probation for three years, terminated the unauthorized alien, and pays a reinstatement fee equal to the cost of investigating and adjudicating the matter.

Harbor/Transport/Rental Housing:  It is unlawful for a person to transport an alien; conceal, harbor or shield an alien; or harbor an alien unlawfully present by entering into a rental agreement if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact the alien is unlawfully present.  It provides exemptions for law enforcement and first responder or protective services providers.

Public Benefits: An alien unlawfully present in the United States is prohibited from receiving any state or local public benefits. Exemptions are provided for emergency health care, disaster and emergency assistance, prenatal care, child and adult protective services.  An alien’s lawful presence in the United States shall be verified by the federal government.

Identification: This act does not implement, authorize, or establish, and shall not be construed to implement, authorize, or establish the federal Real ID Act of 2005. It is unlawful for a person to make, issue, or sell, a false, fictitious, fraudulent, or counterfeit picture identification that is for use by an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, must be fined $25,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. It is unlawful for a person eighteen years of age or older to fail to carry any certificate of alien registration. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

This law is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2012.

Legal challenge:  On October 31, 2011 the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to enjoin South Carolina’s law in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston division.  The motion argued South Carolina’s immigration provisions are preempted by federal law and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.  The lawsuit, brought by DHS, DOJ and the Department of State, is United States of America v. State of South Carolina and Nikki R. Haley in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina. On December 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court enjoined three provisions of South Carolina Act 69 related to making it a state crime for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants; making it a state crime for failure to carry a federal immigration registration document; and requiring law enforcement to determine immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Utah’s “Compact” and Utah Laws

Utah’s immigration reform discussion was framed by the “Utah Compact,” a set of five principles crafted in the summer and fall of 2010 based on federal solutions, law enforcement, families, economy and free society. The compact received support from a broad range of sectors, including state and local officials, the Salt Lake Chamber, the Sutherland Institute, law enforcement, advocacy and religious organizations.

Utah was the first state this year to address immigration reform in a comprehensive package.  Enacted on March 15, 2011, Utah’s package of laws (H116, H466, H469 and H497) includes immigration enforcement, immigrant integration, and a pilot temporary worker visa program.  H116, an omnibus law, addresses employment, identification and verification, human trafficking and law enforcement. H466 creates the Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration Act, addresses integration of immigrants in the state, and provides for the creation of the Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Program. It also commissions a study of the impact of illegal immigration on Utah.  H469 creates a pilot sponsor resident immigrant program.  The omnibus H497 addresses law enforcement, REAL ID and public benefits.

H116

  • It establishes a temporary guest worker program and seeks federal waivers to implement the program by July 1, 2013, or within 120 days of receiving a federal waiver, whichever is sooner. The law requires implementation of the law to be consistent with federal immigration law, civil rights, and privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
  • To be eligible for a guest worker permit, individuals must be older than 18 or have parent or guardian permission; have worked or lived in Utah before May 10, 2011; provide regularly updated contact information; provide proof of work within 30 days of permit issuance; agree to a criminal background check, and not have been convicted of or pled guilty to a serious felony; provide evidence that the individual would not be inadmissible based on public health grounds; have health insurance; and hold a driving privilege card.
  • Application for the two-year permit requires paying a fine of $1,000 if the undocumented individual entered legally but is not currently in compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act or $2,500 if the undocumented individual entered illegally.
  • Permit holders must make good faith efforts to become proficient in English.
  • Private employers are prohibited from knowingly hiring an undocumented individual without a permit.
  • The department created to administer the guestworker permit must establish a verification requirement substantially similar to E-Verify. Employers with more than 15 employees must verify employment eligibility through E-Verify, an equivalent federal electronic verification system, the Social Security Administration or an independent third-party system with equal reliability.
  • The Attorney General may administer a multi-agency strike force to combat crimes associated with illegal immigration and human trafficking.
  • Law enforcement officers shall request verification of immigration status while enforcing a state law or local ordinance that is a class A misdemeanor or felony and the individual is unable to provide one of several specified documents, including Utah identification cards. Law enforcement may request verification for a class B or C misdemeanor.

H466 creates an advisory Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration composed of 27 members of the legislature and executive agencies and members of the public appointed by the Speaker, Senate President, and Governor. The Commission shall:  review the economic, legal, cultural and educational impact of illegal immigration; review federal and Utah laws related to immigration. The Commission shall also develop a state plan on immigration and integration and make recommendations to the governor and the legislature, with an initial report in six months followed by annual reports. The law establishes a migrant worker visa pilot project and authorizes Utah to work with the State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico to fill jobs in Utah.

H469 provides for the Pilot Sponsored Resident Immigrant Program Act, under which a resident immigrant may reside, work, and study in the State. It provides that a resident of the State and a U.S. citizen may sponsor a foreign national as a resident immigrant and permits employment of resident immigrants.

The omnibus H497 addresses law enforcement, REAL ID and public benefits. The law requires that an officer verify the immigration status of a person arrested for a felony or a class A misdemeanor and a person booked for class B or C misdemeanors. It clarifies when passengers in a vehicle where the operator has been detained may also be questioned and their immigration status verified. It requires verification of immigration status regarding application for public services or benefits provided by a state or local governmental agency or subcontractor, except as exempted by federal law. This bill does not implement or authorize the federal REAL ID Act to any extent not currently provided by state law.

Legal challenge:  On May 10, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups in Utah granted a temporary restraining order that prevented HB 497 from taking effect.  The case is Utah Coalition of La Raza et al. v. Gary Herbert and Mark Shurtleff.  On November 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against HB 497.

Other Omnibus Legislation

As of June, 2011, 30 states considered 53 omnibus bills.  Six omnibus bills have been enacted; 21 are pending or carryover bills; and 26 have failed.  Some of these bills are in the model of Arizona’s SB1070 in 2010, seeking to expand state actions in enforcing immigration law.  These omnibus bills include multiple topics in one bill such as immigration law enforcement, employment verification, and verification of lawful status for public benefits.

Many omnibus immigration bills introduced in 2011 contain law enforcement provisions similar to Arizona’s SB1070, such as requiring officers to verify immigration status during a lawful stop, requiring immigrants to carry alien registration documents, and adding state penalties for harboring, transporting, and/or smuggling of illegal immigrants. Other omnibus bills follow the example of previous years, addressing verification of legal status for public benefits and driver’s licenses, use of E-Verify by public or private employers, and immigration law enforcement provisions such as authorizing agreements with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
This chart lists the 53 omnibus bills, bill status as ofJune 30, bill title, and brief summary.  Click here for printer friendly version of chart  (PDF)

Note: In the first half of 2011, state legislators in the 50 states and Puerto Rico considered 1,592 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants and refugees. State legislators enacted 257 laws and resolutions. The 2011 report is online here.   Previous reports can be found here.

Resources

Laws

Alabama H56

Georgia HB87

Indiana SB590

South Carolina S20

Utah HB116 “Guest Worker Program Act”

Utah HB497 “Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act”

Utah HB466 “Migrant Workers and Related Commission Amendments”

Utah HB469 “Pilot Sponsored Resident Immigrant Program”

The Utah Compact: http://www.theutahcompact.com/
Legal Challenges and Court Orders

Alabama lawsuit

Alabama Injunction September 28, 2011

Alabama 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Injunction October 14, 2011

Alabama Injunction March 2012

Georgia lawsuit

Georgia Injunction

Indiana lawsuit

Indiana Injunction

South Carolina lawsuit

South Carolina (U.S. Department of Justice Complaint)

South Carolina Injunction

Utah

Utah Injunction

Related NCSL publications

Arizona SB1070 summary: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20263

NCSL’s immigration reports: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19897.

Prepared by:
Ann Morse, Program Director, Immigrant Policy Project, NCSL
April Carter, Spring Fellow, Immigrant Policy Project, NCSL
Marie Lawrence, Emerson National Hunger Fellow, NCSL
Joy Segreto, Summer Fellow, Immigrant Policy Project, NCSL
www.ncsl.org/programs/immig

Send a clear message now: “No help for the jobless? No vacation for Congress!” AFL-CIO


Chris from South Carolina used to work in an unemployment office. Then he was laid off. Here’s his warning:
You should know that Congress has let the emergency benefits lapse several times in the past few years and always when a break is scheduled for them. It happened last Easter and last Christmas. They don’t care about the unemployed. They take their holiday break and deal with it when they return to Washington.
We can’t assume Congress will renew unemployment in time for the millions who are hanging by a thread before extended benefits expire Dec. 31. That’s why we’re pulling out all the stops. More than 2,000 jobless workers, activists and clergy are on Capitol Hill, right now—demanding a clean and immediate extension of emergency unemployment benefits. Thousands more are in district offices across the country.

As we gather on Capitol Hill and at district offices, activists across the country are flooding Congress with messages.

Add your voice: Help make sure the voices of America’s jobless can’t be ignored by Congress. http://act.aflcio.org/salsa/track.jsp?v=2&c=NNlhbPw0buvN0Kq3T7aq%2F2C84X%2BQ3emC

Diane from Michigan worked in the newspaper industry and is now unemployed. Here’s how she describes her situation:

Every job opening has hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants. It is almost impossible to get a job—especially if you also face age discrimination. Retraining is too costly. Meanwhile, we are hanging on by a thread. No health insurance….My current unemployment benefits are the only thing saving me from the street. I have faced food insecurity for the first time.

We must not let people like Diane be forgotten.

Make Congress hear the stories and see the faces of jobless workers. Contact Congress now and demand an immediate, clean extension of emergency unemployment benefits.

Momentum is building—but we can’t take the passage of emergency unemployment aid for granted.

Obstructionists like House Speaker John Boehner—who has nearly absolute control over what comes up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives—continue to block a clean, immediate extension of emergency jobless aid. There’s no excuse for that. Especially when our economy is so bad and budget cuts in our communities are so dire.

Chris, a now unemployed unemployment office worker, asks a powerful question: “Don’t they realize they work for us?”

Tell Congress: “You work for us. Renew emergency unemployment aid now.”

Will obstructionists like Speaker Boehner really let benefits lapse yet again, take a vacation, come back and play partisan games?

Will the obstructionists let families get thrown out of their homes? Will they force kids to go hungry to extract cuts and concessions that hurt our most vulnerable people?

Send a clear message now: “No help for the jobless? No vacation for Congress!”

Thank you for all the work you do.

In Solidarity,

Richard L. Trumka
President, AFL-CIO

P.S. Our unemployment stories website has been covered by the media in publications lawmakers read while in Washington, D.C., including The Washington Post and The Hill—plus papers they read at home.

 But we need your help to make sure every lawmaker feels the heat and sees these stories. Take action now.

Rep. Joe Wilson – a needed reminder


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Op-Ed Contributor

Joe Wilson’s War

 
By JOANNE B. FREEMAN
Published: September 18, 2009

New Haven

ON Tuesday, seven Republicans broke party ranks and voted to reprove Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, for calling President Obama a liar. One of the renegades was Bob Inglis, who upbraided his fellow South Carolinian for a breach of House rules. “That problem could have been fixed by an apology to the House,” Mr. Inglis explained.

And he was right. In fact, his comment reminds us that Congress has a long and storied culture of apology, to go along with its long and storied culture of insult — and that the two traditions are inextricably bound together.

Congressional insults — and apologies — had their heyday in the first half of the 19th century. Much as we envision the pre-Civil War era as the golden age of Congressional oratory delivered by the likes of Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster, alongside this eloquence was a generous helping of rough-and-tumble brawling.

Men pulled knives and guns on one another. There were shoving matches and canings — the most notorious being the 1856 attack by Representative Preston Brooks, Democrat of South Carolina, on Senator Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts. Tables were flipped, inkwells and spittoons went flying. Occasionally there was a grand melee with dozens of congressmen pummeling one another, emerging after a few minutes of mayhem with torn clothing, assorted bumps and bruises, and toupees askew. Not surprisingly, accompanying all of this tumbling and punching was a slew of insults.

Most powerful of them all was “the lie direct.” According to the formal code of honor then in play, a man who didn’t keep his word was no man at all, so there could be only one response to such a charge: a duel (or very careful negotiations to avoid one). For that very reason, “throwing the lie” was a handy strategy in Congressional debate. The gasp-inducing drama of the moment was precisely the point. Nothing called an audience to attention as quickly as the threat of gunplay. Whether one was trying to attract attention from the press, derail a debate or humiliate an opponent, the lie direct was a grand slam in the game of politicking.

But untarnished victory required one final step: an immediate apology to the House or Senate — delivered on the floor. In part, this was the logic of the code of honor. The only way to offset a public insult was with a public apology; the audience that had witnessed the insult needed to witness the making of amends. And when a combatant voluntarily apologized as soon as a fight was reconciled, he prevented the opposition from milking his misbehavior for partisan gain.

In addition, a quick apology prevented an exchange of words from becoming something worse. In 1836, when a panicked speaker of the House began to adjourn the body after a tussle between two congressmen, several members instantly protested that this would prevent a public reconciliation. The result could have been ugly. As a House clerk put it, had “the speaker adjourned the House, as he was about to, there would have been a battle and blood would have been spilt upon the floor.”

These formal apologies nearly always followed the same script. After harsh language or fisticuffs, the combatants would rise to their feet and apologize in open session. The 1856 apology of Senator Andrew Butler, a South Carolina Democrat who was also the uncle of Preston Brooks, the assailant of Charles Sumner, is typical. In the flurry of outraged debate after the Sumner caning, Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts insulted Brooks. Butler immediately jumped to his feet and called Wilson a liar. Within minutes, Butler was on his feet again. “This mode of attacking my relative is very trying,” he said in apology. “I used a word which I hope will not be put down. I have never used an epithet on this floor, and therefore I ask that it may be excused. I make the request at the unanimous instance of my friends.”

As antebellum congressmen well knew, serious insults required serious apologies. So important were these rituals that they sometimes required hours or even days of negotiations for acceptable terms. In 1837, when Representative John Bell, an Anti-Jacksonian from Tennessee, called Leonard Jarvis, a Jacksonian from Maine, a liar during a debate, the outraged Jarvis first insisted that the matter would have to be settled “in another manner,” meaning in a duel. Jarvis also made clear that he wouldn’t retract the words that had prompted Bell to insult him in the first place. After several hours of wrangling by dozens of congressmen, Bell withdrew his words unconditionally.

No one assumed that such apologies were heartfelt. As The New York Times groused in 1859, these “Congressional rowdies” seemed to “have got it somehow into their heads that they can descend to any depth of blackguardism, if they only make an apology immediately afterwards.” Even so, these apologies meant something. By publicly apologizing to his colleagues, a congressman not only paid obeisance to the dignity and order of the House or Senate, but he also upheld the civility of Congressional proceedings as a whole.

This sentiment was perhaps explained best by Senator Louis McLane, a Jacksonian from Delaware, in an 1828 debate over the vice president’s right to call men to order. Written parliamentary rules were useful, he said, but the Senate’s tradition of “liberal comity” was “more efficient than any written rule.” What would preserve the Senate was “the great moral influence of the power of the body for its own preservation.” For this reason, the Congressional culture of insult was necessarily accompanied by one of apology. Whether it exists today remains an open question.

Joanne B. Freeman, a professor of history at Yale, is writing a book on Congressional violence in the first half of the 19th century.