This month, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed legislation that creates new restrictions on undocumented immigrants, as well as new requirements for business that employ them. Forbes reports that under the state’s immigration legislation, applicants for food stamps, housing and other public benefits will need to prove they are US citizens; the Highway Patrol will need to seek special federal immigration training; commercial driver’s license tests will be given in English with no translation assistance; and cities would risk state aid and grants if community leaders adopt policies to not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Though the immigration bill passed the state legislature with little opposition, a particular provision came under scrutiny: how best to implement a strategy to ensure that employer’s follow the new law. Lawmakers initially sought to require everyone to use E-Verify, but this was met with resistance from business leaders, pointing to database errors and uncertainty about the system’s future; they accused lawmakers of trying to turn the state’s employers into immigration agents. E-Verify, which has been plagued with numerous problems since its 1996 creation, and its state-by-state adoption has been less than favorable; some states, most recently Illinois, excluded E-Verify in its latest legislation regarding immigration enforcement.
In addition to deciding whether to require employers to use the federal database, Missouri lawmakers also battled over whether to punish employers who misclassify their workers as contractors. For contractors, employers don’t have to pay withholding taxes, provide other benefits, or take responsibility if the worker is an undocumented immigrant. The immigration bill signed allows fines of up to $50,000 for business that misclassify workers and have at least five employees performing public works.
The content of Missouri HB1549 is available online at: http://house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills081/bills/hb1549.html.
*****
Due to a rigorous petition campaign by Arizona business owners which concluded last week, Arizona voters will get a chance this fall to vote on key provisions of the state’s employer-sanctions law, The Arizona Star reports. The measure contains the same penalties against employers who hire undocumented immigrants, but adds a provision that would require prosecutors to prove the owner of a company had “actual knowledge” that a worker is there illegally. The provision also seeks to provide protection from prosecution for businesses if they had taken reasonable steps when screening prospective workers. Finally, the law seeks to bar anonymous complaints on employers to authorities, and will require a signed complaint before any investigations can begin.
The petition, titled Stop Illegal Hiring, received nearly 284,000 signatures, passing the 153,365 signatures required by Arizona to put it to a statewide vote.
Attorney Andrew Pacheco, chairman of the group that filed the initiative, said this is not a license for companies to accept bogus documents. Rather, the provision seeks to address what his group sees as a dangerous flaw in Arizona’s current immigration employment legislation: determining the difference between having “actual knowledge” of illegal hires, or mere “constructive knowledge”, where prosecutors currently need to show that a business owner knew, or should have known based on the evidence, that the potential employee was unauthorized. Pacheco’s provision would require prosecutors to prove the employer had actual knowledge he was engaging in illegal hiring activities.
State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa), the drafter of Arizona’s current employer sanctions law, defends the existing statutory language, claiming that proof of actual knowledge “is an impossible task.” He argues that the introduced provision undermines the ability for ICE agents and prosecutors to effectively do their job. By merely requiring employers to submit documents, the content or legitimacy of what is submitted is of no consequence so long as the employer claims they acted reasonably. If the new provision were to pass, “all you have to do is have documents,” says Pearce. “It doesn’t matter that they’re good or not. This is employer amnesty.”
*****
Middletown, NJ, mayor Gerard Scharfenberger announced in a monthly township committee meeting that the city intends on adopting an ordinance that would penalize landlords for renting to undocumented immigrants. The Ashbury Park Press reports that the city’s proposal would require landlords to verify the legal status of all tenants and to instruct policy to notify federal authorities should a tenant be found to be undocumented.
Middletown’s 2006 population increased by 5.3 percent from 2000, when it was 66,327, according to the US Census. During the same period, Hispanics in Middletown increased by 58.2 percent. Frank Argote-Freyre, director of the Monmouth County chapter of the Latino Leadership Alliance, said that given the relatively small size of Middleotwn’s minority population, he questions Scharfenberger’s motivation for bringing up the issue. “This will further discourage landlords from renting to anyone who looks brown,” he said. “The mayor’s proposal turns landlords into immigration agents.”
*****
Last month, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced a private bill on behalf of an Armenian student living in California and facing deportation. Arthur Mkoyan, his parents, and his naturalized 12-year-old brother were ordered late June by ICE to return to Armenia. The bill, if passed, would grant permanent legal residency to Arthur and his family.
Arthur’s family, who entered the US on tourist visas, fled the former Soviet Union and has been seeking asylum since 1992. Arthur’s father, Ruben Mkoyan applied for an asylum application that was rejected. Mkoyan appealed the the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco; the court rejected his appeal, saying he was unable to demonstrate that he or his family would be in danger if they returned to Armenia.
Arthur, a 4.0 grade-point-average student, who received a scholarship offer from UC-Davis shortly before the ICE order, has drawn national media attention after The Fresno Bee first reported his story.
Since January 2005, congressional records show that members of the House and Senate have introduced 301 private bills. Some of these have been duplicates, carried over from one Congress to another. Many, though not all, of these private bills deal with immigrants and refugees.
