Mediaboss Marketing

It may be hard to imagine, but prior to 1986 it was not illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker. All of that changed with the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). In addition to requiring employers to verify the work eligibility for all employees, IRCA's antidiscrimination provisions prohibit an employer from discriminating in hiring or firing on the basis of an individual's citizenship status or national origin.

The pre-employment process is wide open with traps for an employer to inadvertently run afoul of antidiscrimination provisions under IRCA. One issue that is particularly tricky, and perhaps not given enough attention, is what an employer is and is not allowed to request from a foreign national candidate seeking employment. On one hand, it is impossible to properly assess eligibility for applicable nonimmigrant work authorization options without knowing the individuals complete immigration history. On the other hand, an employer needs to be mindful of not stumbling into a citizenship status or national origin discrimination claim. How does an employer properly walk this fine line?

I. Antidiscrimination Provisions

We must first understand the antidiscrimination provisions under IRCA. Section 274B(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) reads that it is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to hiring, recruiting, or discharging the individual because of his/her citizenship status or national origin. Citizenship status includes an individuals immigration status.

However, the INAs antidiscrimination provisions for citizenship discrimination only apply to protected individuals under the law, which includes (1) U.S. citizens and nationals; (2) lawful permanent residents (green card); (3) refugees; and (4) asylees. These citizenship discrimination provisions therefore do not apply to foreign nationals in nonimmigrant status.

While nonimmigrants are not a protected class of individuals for citizenship discrimination, employers still need to be mindful that nonimmigrants could claim national origin discrimination if they believe the decision not to hire them was based on country of origin, accent or appearance. National origin discrimination applies to treating individuals differently because of place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they look foreign.

II. How Should Employers Juggle These Considerations?

An employer is not required to hire a foreign national who requires sponsorship for non-immigrant work authorization. But how does an employer inquire about work authorization status without worrying about engaging in citizenship or national origin discrimination?

Thankfully, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) provides some cover and helpful guidance on what initial inquiries are allowed. OSC confirms that employers may ask these three questions during the pre-employment process:

It is important to note that these three questions are an all or nothing proposition. If you ask one, you need to ask all three.

The responses to these three questions may elucidate information that the individual is a foreign national who will require sponsorship. In fact, in many cases, even without these three questions, a foreign national candidate will be very up front with their immigration status and volunteer information about their sponsorship needs. An employers next consideration is how to proceed with this knowledge. Is it safe to request documentation regarding their immigration history or should that be deferred until after the offer of employment has been officially accepted?

There is no explicit right or wrong answer to that question. Some employers may choose to not ask any related work authorization questions during the pre-employment process, while others will only ask the three questions above provided by the OSC. Still others are comfortable with requesting immigration history information from a foreign national in nonimmigrant status.

Interestingly, since nonimmigrants are not protected under INA antidiscrimination provisions, requesting certain documentation and or deciding not to hire a nonimmigrant based on the sponsorship requirement would not violate antidiscrimination provisions. The OSC confirms this by writing:

Accordingly, an employer that asks all of its job applicants whether they will require sponsorship now or in the future and refuses to hire those who require sponsorship would likely not violate 8 U.S.C. 1324b. Similarly, an employer that asks questions designed to prefer certain classes of nonimmigrant visa holders (e.g. STEM OPT students) over other classes of nonimmigrant visa holders is unlikely to violate the INAs prohibition against citizenship status discrimination.

Therefore, if the individual volunteers information about their nonimmigrant status or the initial three questions approved by the OSC trigger a confirmation that an individual is a foreign national nonimmigrant who requires sponsorship (e.g. H-1B), an employer may request documentation relating to the individuals H-1B eligibility without violating citizenship status discrimination provisions. They may wish to do so before making an offer, while other employers defer this analysis until after the offer and risk the scenario of having to rescind the offer.

While those in nonimmigrant status are not a protected class under citizenship discrimination provisions, an employer still needs to be careful about those in a protected class or engaging in national origin discrimination.

For example, OSC cautions against requesting certain documentation and engaging in citizenship discrimination against a protected class of individual. It writes:

However, asking job applicants detailed questions about their immigration or citizenship status may deter individuals who are protected from citizenship discrimination, such as refugees and asylees, from applying due to a misunderstanding about their eligibility for the position. Therefore, we caution employers against asking detailed questions pertaining to status that may lead to such confusion.

Again, while nonimmigrants are not a protected class under citizenship discrimination, national origin discrimination is still a concern. OSC confirms that all work-authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination under the antidiscrimination provision. Accordingly, individuals who believe that they were not hired based on national originfor example, their country of origin, accent or appearancemay allege discrimination on this basis.

III. No Really How Should Employers Juggle These Considerations?

These can be slippery concepts and trying to forge a policy to cover every scenario can feel overwhelming. There are some simple steps to consider:

Read the original here:
Avoiding Citizenship and National Origin DiscriminationThe Tricky Analysis Surrounding What Employers May Request from Foreign National Candidates...

Last month, the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Justice jointly announced the creation of a dedicated docket process to make immigration hearings more expeditious. Specifically, the plan is to establish a fairer and more efficient system for families arriving at the southwest border of the United States. The new process is aimed at reducing the time it takes to adjudicate cases, so families arent caught in an endless backlog.

This process will apply to immigrants arriving on or after May 28, 2021, who are placed in removal proceedings and are enrolled in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD). Homeland Security, Justice, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which make up the immigration court system, will work together to refer families to pro bono legal services for possible legal representation. Ten cities across the country have been selected for this program, including Seattle, where I live.

Not much else has been shared about this new process, so those of us on the ground are not necessarily clear on the actions to follow. And although I do not practice immigration removal defense, the past four years have given me a crash course in organizing and finding solutions for our local communities whose members need legal representation.

This new process announced by DOJ and DHS sounds like it will need a local solution.

But there are challenges to that. The supply of experienced immigration lawyers offering pro bono services has steadily declined over the past four years and is now lower than it has ever been. In my book, Legal Heroes in the Trump Era, I explore some of the reasons why.

In sum, the Trump administration depleted resources, energy, and time by orchestrating one crisis after another within the immigration system. Working with a team of lawyers here in the Seattle area, we began looking for ways to address the mounting problems.

To create sustainable solutions for detained trials and large-scale legal clinics in Washington state, we created the Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN) andstipendedlegal clinics. In the WIDEN model, seasoned immigration lawyers provide training and guidance to nonimmigration lawyers, while representing detained immigrants in trial.

New problems require new and creative solutions. And with momentum for delivering efficient processing times, we need to look at the capacity on the ground in each state to see who can offer help. A one-size-fits-all measure may or may not work. But I know from the experience of having run a law firm for over a decade that people hear what they want to hear. And if the administration says it will refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possiblerepresentation there will be an expectation of pro bono services.

But lets be clear: there is no right to counsel in immigration court. Too often, immigrants and their families cant afford legal services. The issue has been hard fought for decades by many advocates, such as the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), which provides services to immigrants, including detainees; the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit research and policy organization; and many others. The comprehensive immigration reform bill that was introduced in February 2021 has some reasonable provisions for a right to counsel program, but the future of the bill seems, at best, uncertain. This new, dedicated docketing system allows us to think about and consider solutions that could eventually pave the way for a national legal aid program for vulnerable immigrants.

But the problem is profoundly deep and complicated.

The announcement states that the new system will apply to eligible newcomers only and cases must be concluded within 300 days of the master calendar hearing. While thats a good start to demonstrate the administration is trying to find solutions, it unveils another set of problems. As of December 2020, for example, there were 1.3 million cases in the immigration court system. TRAC, a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University, reported that at the time Donald Trump assumed office, 542,411 people had deportation cases pending in immigration courts. By the start of 2021, that number had ballooned to 1,290,766 nearly 2 1/2 times the level from four years earlier.

The report further states: Waiting in the wings are another 300,000+ cases that President Trumps policy changes have decided arent finally resolved, but have not yet been placed back on the active docket.

Therefore, a new effort focused only on newcomers will not make a dent in the problem. But we can use this moment to problem solve and create a workable system that can be the foundation for all the cases in the backlog, as well as for the future.

While I dont think I have the perfect fix right now, this complex problem must start with extensive dialogue among all stakeholders. The administration must collaborate with local service providers and experienced immigration lawyers, especially the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), to ensure we can develop a sustainable solution one that can help us achieve that long-sought goal of a right to legal counsel in immigration. Let us not waste this critical opportunity to usher in long-awaited change.

Tahmina Watsonis the founding attorney ofWatson Immigration Lawin Seattle, where she practices US immigration law focusing on business immigration. She has been blogging about immigration law since 2008 and has written numerous articles in many publications. She is the author ofLegal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Changethe WorldandThe Startup Visa: Key to Job Growth and Economic Prosperity in America.She is also the founder of The Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN), which funds and facilitates legal representation in the immigration courtroom, and co-founder ofAirport Lawyers, which provided critical services during the early travel bans. Tahmina is regularly quoted in the media and is the host of the podcastTahmina Talks Immigration. She was recently honored by the Puget Sound Business Journal as one of the 2020 Women of Influence. You can reach her by email attahmina@watsonimmigrationlaw.comor follow her on Twitter at @tahminawatson.

Read this article:
Administrations Plan To Expedite Immigrant Hearings Opens The Door To Address Right To Counsel In Immigration - Above the Law

(The Center Square) The head of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry said Gov. Kim Reynolds plan to use pandemic relief funds to attract more workers to the state will fulfill a big need for Iowa businesses.

During the associations conference held in Coralville earlier this month, Reynolds told those attending the state would use pandemic relief funds for a marketing campaign to draw people to Iowa to help with its job surplus, The Gazette reported.

I don't know whether it'll be effective. I'm not an expert or anything like that. But it seems like this is a time to try anything and everything, Mark Ralston, president of the Iowa Association of Business, told The Center Square.

First and foremost, the state needs more people, which is why the association has favored immigration reform for a long time, Ralston said.

The second need is for employers to offer not just competitive wages, and if not the best wages, almost the best, he said.

Any employer that's not offering good wages and benefits, they don't have anything to complain about and they're their own worst enemy, Ralston said.

The fact that wages are not rising indicates they are too low or the quality of the available jobs has eroded, according to a Common Good Iowareport by Colin Good.

Businesses and industries need to be competitive on many things. They need to treat their workers as the most important asset because they are, Ralston said.

So that's all part of: One, we need more people; and two: We need to make sure we're treating those people the best possible ways, Ralston said.

Iowa's unemployment rate increased slightly in May to 3.9% from 3.8% in April. By comparison, the jobless rate was 8.3% one year ago. The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 5.8% in May, Iowa Workforce Development reported.

At the associations conference, Reynolds said Iowa is already seeing people return who have been on the East and West coasts. They recognized Iowa kept its economy open and kids in school, she said.

See original here:
Iowa's use of pandemic relief to attract workers comes during a 'time to try anything' - Southernminn.com

There is growing concern over the large number of foreign nationals without legal status in Japan who are locked up in detention facilities for years as their cases play out. Former immigration official Kinoshita Yichi argues that Japans ambiguous immigration laws allow officials to arbitrarily decide who is incarcerated and who gets permission to stay.

After an early career that included probing into the Aum Shinriky terrorist attack for the Public Security Intelligence Agency, Kinoshita Yichi moved to the Immigration Bureau (now the Immigration Services Agency) in the spring of 2001. Later that year, the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States set alarm bells ringing in agencies around the world.

Suddenly, we were forced to confront the threat of terrorism on a daily basis, Kinoshita recounts. I think everyone in the Immigration Bureau felt a genuine sense of alarm, myself included. Although he says he did not feel particularly passionate about his job, he admits he recognized the danger and took his duties seriously. I could see that letting just anyone into the country risked inadvertently allowing a terrorist to slip in too, potentially exposing the country to an attack.

Kinoshita initially worked in the Verification Department of the bureau. Basically, I was responsible for making sure that the details in a persons application checked out. If an applicant claimed to be married, to work at a certain location, or to have their own business, Kinoshita would go out to the addresses provided and check if this was really the case. After a stint at Haneda Airport, Kinoshita from 2006 spent three years in the Adjudication Department as an immigration inspector. It was this experience that made him feel increasingly uncomfortable with the way the immigration system worked.

I dont have any problem with carrying out strict checks on foreign nationals for the sake of maintaining peace and public order, he declares. But the fact is that most of the people who overstay their visas are living quiet lives and minding their own business in a little corner of society somewhere. In many cases, they have been in Japan for so many years that they no longer have a strong connection to their home countries. I found it difficult to watch dispassionately when children born and raised in Japan were forcefully deported to countries they might never have seen before, simply because their parents were in the country illegally.

Kinoshita joined the Adjudication Department while it was in the second year of a plan to halve the number of people in the country illegally within five years. He notes that there was more transparency in the bureau then than at any other time. If a person was married to a Japanese citizen, they were almost certain to be granted special permission to stay in Japan [officially issued at the discretion of the minister of justice]. As for minors, children up to elementary school age were deported, even if theyd been born in Japan, while permission to remain was normally granted for children in junior high and above. The idea was that children in elementary school were still young enough to adapt to life in their parents countries, and thats where the line in making decisions was drawn. Even if an officer had doubts about the policy, at least it was clear and made some kind of sense.

Kinoshita was startled to find that the situation had drastically changed when he returned to the section in 2016 after several years in other departments. For example, some people married to Japanese citizens would be granted special permission to remain, while others would be denied. It was impossible to know what standards were being used to make these decisions. It was like a black box.

In 2006, the Ministry of Justice published its Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan, establishing a number of positive factors to be taken into consideration in applications. These included marriage to a Japanese citizen or permanent resident and a family relationship with children based on long-term settlement in Japan. However, Kinoshita argues that immigration agents do not set much store by them. They view them merely as guidelines and not legally binding, he says. I think the main priority of these officials is to steadfastly preserve their prerogative to decide everything with a free hand. He insists that they willfully refuse to acknowledge the guidelines as formal standards, even though it was their own bureau that drew them up in the first place. Theyre afraid that if the guidelines become legally binding, they will lose their discretion to decide things as they see fit.

In 2017, Kinoshita decided to go to graduate school to study law in an attempt to get to the bottom of the uneasiness he was feeling about his job. Focusing his research on administrative discretionary powers, he looked at the decisions in cases that had gone to trial, comparing those that the state had won against those where rulings went in favor of plaintiffs. He wanted to understand how decisions were made and find legal evidence that would back up the authority of the immigration bureau. Instead, his doubts only grew. After completing his masters, he decided to resign from the bureau. Today, he continues to campaign for reform, organizing study groups and seminars with the aim of highlighting problems with the countrys immigration system and encouraging change.

What normally happens when a person staying in the country illegally is apprehended, and how is a decision reached on whether the person should be given special permission to stay in Japan?

Kinoshita says there are several stages, the first of which is for an immigration control officer to investigate whether there has been a violation of immigration law. After this initial step, the case then goes to an immigration inspector. If the foreign national agrees to leave Japan, a deportation order is issued. If the individual applies for special permission to remain in the country, however, there is another hearing, this time carried out by a special inquiry officer. At the end of the process, the minister of justice makes a formal decision to either deport the individual or grant him or her special permission to stay.

The law, though, does not establish strict criteria for immigration officials to follow in processing a case. In practice, officials interview an applicant and compile a report detailing the reasons why the person wishes to continue to reside in Japan. But Kinoshita points out that the way reports are written varies depending on the official, and that the final decision, although theoretically made by the minister of justice, is in practice left to the prerogative of the head of the regional immigration bureau handling the case. In other words, whether a person is granted special permission to stay in Japan or not depends entirely on the personal feelings and whims of the official who happens to be heading up the local agency.

The government recently shelved an immigration reform bill that it had argued would have made these decisions more transparent. Kinoshita, however, says the proposed legislation fails to address the issues adequately.

The current process aims to establish that a person is in the country illegally. In that sense, you could say its a positive step that the government wants to shift to a system based on the idea of applying for special permission to stay from the outset. But its impossible to know how decisions will be made. Will it be a cautious, several-step process? How would a person apply? Who gets to carry out the hearings? The bill left all these details up in the air. Or more precisely, they would be determined according to the regulations of the Ministry of Justice. In other words, everything would still be left to the internal rules of the Immigration Services Agency. In the end, the proposals would have done nothing to address the fundamental problem of a basic lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

He says a more straightforward approach would be to make the guidelines that already exist legally binding, but emphasizes that immigration authorities would never support such a move. The bill contains provisions relating to special permission to stay, and at a glance appear to resolve the issue. In fact, though, the provisions are more or less meaningless. They identify various factors like family circumstances, the applicants conduct, and details of entry into Japan to be considered when deciding whether to grant permission to stay, but its just a list. Determining the standards to be applied based on these factors is the most important component of the decision-making process and the provisions do not address this point. One section of the proposed revision (to the immigration law) stipulates that consideration will be given to situations in Japan and abroad and to the potential impact on the unauthorized immigrant, but this in effect gives immigration officials a free hand to decide things as they like.

Kinoshita recognizes that not all foreign nationals who resist deportation orders have valid reasons preventing them from returning to their home countries, and that the Japanese public would disapprove of any move to allow such individuals to remain unconditionally, anyway. However, he insists that when talking about the tragedy of endless deportation battles and long-term detention, it is wrong to place all the blame on the side of the foreign national who refuses to accept a deportation order. Given the lack of clarity about standards for determining the immigration status of a foreign national who has overstayed a visa and the general lack of transparency in the system, it should come as no surprise that many individuals refuse to meekly accept the decision of the authorities. If they ask why their application to remain in Japan has been refused, they just get the pat answer that the decision was based on a comprehensive appraisal. If they push for more details, theyre then told that no further response can be given. I know what its like because Ive had to make similar statements myself.

Detainees mill around the detention center at the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau in a photo from 2016. ( Reuters)

The proposed revisions to the immigration law make it easier to deport people by changing the regulations on applications for asylum. At the moment, a deportation order is effectively suspended if the person in question applies for refugee status. The proposed amendments to the law would limit the number of appeals that can be made and make applicants subject to deportation after applying for refugee status a third time. Applicants from some countries would face the additional requirement of going to the embassy of their home country to obtain a passport, a condition meant to apply pressure on the foreign national and speed up the deportation process.

Its certainly true that the present system makes it extremely difficult to deport an individual. Theres no limit to the number of times a person can apply for refugee status, so cases can drag on almost indefinitely. Certainly, people in some cases simply apply for refugee status as a way of avoiding deportation. Its a complicated problem and its easy to understand why the government wants to address the situation by placing limits on the number of times a person can apply. But this would have a catastrophic effect on some individuals. Kinoshita points to the many Kurds and Rohingya who have repeatedly applied for asylum in Japan only to have their applications denied each time. Clearly, not every person who submits multiple applications is looking to exploit the system.

The draft revisions are based on recommendations submitted in June 2020 by a government panel of experts on detention and deportation issues. The panel suggested that third-party checks should be required if the authorities wanted to start the deportation process after the third application for refugee status, but the proposed revisions omit this. In a criminal case, the police, prosecutor, and court each handle different stages of the case. With immigration, the same bureau handles all three roles, a fundamental problem that the draft revisions failed to address.

Aside from the proposed reforms, Kinoshita says that existing procedures for recognizing refugee status are at least somewhat better than those for dealing with individuals who have overstayed their visa. There is a system for appeals through a refugee examination counselor. So even if the primary adjudication doesnt grant refugee status, an applicant can move onto a secondary consideration of their case. But immigration authorities are still in charge of selecting and appointing the examination counselor and they are the ones who oversee cases. From the applicants perspective, the decision ultimately remains within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.

Kinoshita says that as there is no institution in place to check the decisions of the immigration agency, even foreign nationals working legally in Japan have no recourse except to bring a legal case if immigration authorities decline to renew their visa for any reason. However, Japanese law grants broad discretionary powers to government ministries and agencies, and rulings are made in favor of the state in around 98% of cases that go to court.

Several recent high-profile cases involving the long-term detention of foreign nationals facing deportation have made national headlines and led to widespread outrage. One detainee starved to death after going on hunger strike to protest his conditions, and there have been allegations of violence and maltreatment by immigration officials. In March this year, a Sri Lankan woman died in the immigration detention center in Nagoya. The government came in for harsh criticism from opposition parties over its handling of immigration and asylum issues, prompting it to abandon plans to get its proposed revisions to immigration law passed in the current session of the Diet.

I think a lot of immigration officials are well aware that the current situation is far from ideal. When I was still at the agency, my colleagues and I often talked about things that struck us as strange. But as the law doesnt provide any clear guidance, even if officials feel uncertain about the screenings and the decisions they make, they have no alternative but to get on with their work the best they can in spite of any reservations about the way the system is being run.

Kinoshita says that this leads to physical and mental exhaustion. Most officials arent in favor of indefinite detention. Even the report by the governments advisory panel noted the high numbers of officials who quit their jobs because of the heavy physical and mental stress of working with detainees and the deportation process. The current situation involves suffering for everyone, officials included. At the risk of sounding overly negative, I think the proposed revisions would do nothing to improve the situation, at least as far as the burden on immigration officials is concerned, and could even wind up making matters worse.

Asked what he thinks should be done, Kinoshita declares: There needs to be more transparency. As long as the bureau has sole authority over immigration cases, appeals, and detention decisions, without any involvement by courts or third parties, the black-box situation will remain unchanged. The same is true of provisional release. It is absurd that there are actually people with no legal residential status who have remained on provisional release for long stretches, a decade or more in some cases. If people are going to be granted provisional release, the government should at least legalize their status rather than letting them languish in limbo year after year. Once their status is regularized, people can work to support themselves and pay taxes. The standards for regularizing legal status should be made clear in law.

(Originally published in Japanese, based on an interview by Itakura Kimie of Nippon.com. Banner photo: Kinoshita Yichi, campaigner for immigration law reform. Courtesy of Kinoshita Yichi.)

Read more from the original source:
Japan Needs to Reform its Black Box Approach to Immigration Law - Nippon.com

Last year, a Senate version of the bill was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Transportation on a party-line vote. But it was never taken up on the floor of either chamber.

In this two-year session, which began in January, proponents of the measure hope the early hearing held Wednesday afternoon will be a first step towards passage.

Advocates say allowing undocumented people to obtain a license will improve roadway safety and help immigrants by providing them an official ID along with the ability to drive legally.

But the bills opponents argue that those who entered the US illegally shouldnt be granted an official state license, and warn the measures passage could lead to fraud.

Identical House and Senate bills filed in January would strike language barring undocumented immigrants from obtaining a license. The bills would prevent the Registry of Motor Vehicles from asking a license applicant about their immigration status.

Under the bill, in order to obtain a license, immigrants would need to meet all other existing licensure requirements and show proof of identity, date of birth, and Massachusetts residency.

Unlike previous versions of the proposal, the bill introduced this session includes language specifying what documents are needed in order to obtain a license, rather than leaving it to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Immigrants without legal status in the US would be able to provide proof of identity and date of birth with a foreign passport or consular identification document that is no more than five years expired or a combination of other documents.

Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, another lead sponsor of the House legislation, testified Wednesday that the changes came following a great deal of work with the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs of Police Association, which has backed the bill.

An estimated 43,000 to 78,000 undocumented people would get licensed within the first three years of the laws enactment, according to a 2020 report by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Estimates from the Migration Policy Institute say the state is home to more than 200,000 undocumented people.

Lawmakers have been trying to pass similar legislation since at least 2003.

I definitely feel like this is the year for the bill, said Dlida Rocha, the political director at 32BJ SEIU and the co-chair of the Driving Families Forward Coalition, which has been advocating for the drivers license proposal for several sessions.

Democratic leaders in both chambers, who control what bills are brought to the floor, have expressed openness to the measure. In a statement to the Globe, Senate President Karen E. Spilka wrote that she supports the idea behind the Work and Family Mobility Act.

. . .Individuals and families deserve to feel safe, and drivers licenses for all qualified state residents is good for our economy and public safety, she said.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who assumed the gavel in December, pointed to a March statement in which the Quincy Democrat said he recognized the value in bringing all drivers under the same public safety, licensing and insurance structures, but stopped short of endorsing the measure.

Farley-Bouvier said at a press conference before the hearing Wednesday that Mariano requested that the Transportation Committee co-chairs schedule an early hearing on the legislation.

But the Legislature may need a veto-proof majority to make the proposal law. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has opposed similar proposals in the past.

Governor Baker supports existing laws in Massachusetts, enacted on a bipartisan basis, that ensure Massachusetts compliance with federal REAL ID requirements and enable those who demonstrate lawful presence in the United States to obtain a license, Bakers press secretary, Terry MacCormack, said in a statement on Monday.

State Senator Joseph A. Boncore, the co-chair of the Transportation Committee and a cosponsor of the Senate bill, said he hopes the Legislature will take up the proposal early in the session in order to provide enough time to override a potential veto.

I am going to advocate strongly to move [it] . . . onto the floor of the Senate, Boncore said.

I think theres an overwhelming amount of support for this, he added.

Supporters say the measure will help immigrants while improving roadway safety overall, pointing to data showing a reduction in hit-and-run crashes in states that have passed similar measures. Sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

One of the things that COVID raised from all of this was that a drivers license really is necessary in a lot of parts of the state to just get basic health care that we know is all necessary for all of our public health, said Barber.

Many GOP lawmakers oppose the bill.

I dont think it helps public safety at all, said state Representative David F. DeCoste, a Norwell Republican who sits on the Transportation Committee. And just philosophically, I disagree with accommodating people who have chosen to break our laws with providing them drivers licenses.

State Senator Patrick M. OConnor, the lone Senate Republican on the Transportation Committee, stopped short of saying he opposed the measure, but said he has a lot of concerns about the proposal. OConnor said we need to continue to provide more for those who are here undocumented, including a pathway to citizenship, but he contended that states acting on their own could take a tool out of the toolbox of negotiations at the federal level.

I believe that this bill might weaken the ability for our federal government to achieve true immigration reform, which is exactly what we need right now, OConnor said.

Many Democrats concur that immigration reform is necessary at the federal level. But in the meantime, Farley-Bouvier said in an interview earlier this week, theres no reason for us in Massachusetts to wait for that, and to have our public safety at risk.

Drivers licenses are squarely in the purview of states, she said.

Jasper Goodman can be reached at jasper.goodman@globe.com.

See the original post here:
Lawmakers have long considered drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. Will this be the year the bill passes? - The Boston Globe