Conference Committee Request Letter FY13

7/31/2019 Conference Committee Request Letter FY13

1/3

Supported by

June 7, 2012

Chairman Stephen Brewer

Senate Ways and MeansRoom 212

Vice Chair Jennifer Flanagan


Senator Michael Knapik


Chairman Brian DempseyHouse Ways and MeansRoom 243

Vice Chair Stephen KulikHouse Ways and MeansRoom 238

Representative Viriato DeMacedoHouse Ways and MeansRoom 124

State HouseBoston, MA 02133

Honorable Members of the Conference Committee:

The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) deeply appreciates your support andcommitment, in previous budget seasons, to immigrants and refugees and to the integration efforts of the Commonwealth.Maintaining funding for programs that promote the economic, social, and physical well-being of immigrants helps ensurethat they continue to integrate and to be productive contributors to the Commonwealth as workers, business-owners andnew citizen voters. We respectfully request your renewed support for the priorities of immigrant communities throughinclusion of the following appropriations in the Legislatures final FY2013 budget:

Level fund the Citizenship for New Americans Program (line item: 4003-0122) at $237,500 (as in House 2,House and Senate budgets).

Level fund Adult Basic Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (line item 7035-0002) at$30,707,455 (as in House 2 and Senate budget).

Fund Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention and Victim Services in DPH line item 4513-1130, whichincludes the Refugee and Immigrant Safety and Empowerment program, at $5,514,340 (as in Senate budget).

Fund the Employment Services Program (line item 4401-1000) at $8,109,035 (as in House budget), including$380,000 for the Employment Support Services Program administered by the Office for Refugees andImmigrants (ORI).

Unfortunately, our concerns extend beyond appropriations for critical programs, as the House and Senate budgetsincluded harmful policy changes, largely drawn from bills which have not received favorable committee reports, such asthe omnibus Act to Enhance Community Safety, (H. 3913/S. 2061). We urge you to exclude such provisions from theLegislatures final budget, specifically to exclude Senate Amendment GOV 128.1 and certain provisions of HouseAmendment 538.1. These amendments present unanswered questions about their costs to courts, correctional facilities,state agencies and businesses and would have sweeping and harmful consequences for immigrants and native-born

communities alike.

Among the harmful provisions of the Senates consolidated amendment GOV 128.1 are those that would:

Require all public employers, state contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify, a system found to impose highcosts on businesses1 and, most concerning, to have a high error rate which denies many authorized workersemployment without meaningful recourse.2

1See Regulatory Impact Analysis, Employment Eligibility Verification (Federal Acquisition Regulation Case 2007-013), Final Rule, October 1,2008, available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAR-FAR-2008-0001-1609


2/3

Supported by

Prevent "applicants" for state public housing who are neither federally-eligible nor person[s] residing under colorof law (PRUCOL) from receiving "priority" over those who are federally eligible or PRUCOL. In effect, thiswould likely bar from public housing mixed status families headed by a non-PRUCOL individual and could deny

many U.S. citizens, as well as lawfully present, taxpaying immigrants, access to public housing. Because a federalcourt enjoined on equal protection grounds a previous attempt by Massachusetts to discriminate against immigrantsin public housing, this provision would likely be challenged as unconstitutional and could subject the state to costlylitigation.

Require applicants for driver's licenses and learner's permits to submit proof of "lawful presence, a provision whichcould increase wrongful denials of licenses and learners permits to documented immigrants. Under current Registryof Motor Vehicles (RMV) policies, undocumented immigrants do not obtain drivers licenses in MA, unless they doso by fraud. Rather, the current problem is that some documented immigrants including, e.g., refugees and thoseapproved for green cards are denied licenses when their documents and statuses prove confusing to RMVemployees. The RMV should not be thrust into the position of making complex immigration status determinations,as it has neither the expertise nor the resources to do so.

Increase documentation requirements for registering a motor vehicle, including requiring social security numbers(SSNs) for sole proprietors registering a vehicle for a business and requiring, for any applicant, an SSN,identification card issued by the RMV, or "other proof of legal residence." This provision would similarly put theRMV in the position of making complex immigration status determinations and could result in wrongful denials ofvehicle registrations to documented immigrants ineligible for SSNs but eligible for MA drivers licenses or drivingprivileges under treaty.

Alter criminal penalties for numerous driving and identification related offenses, including by allowing forimprisonment, or increased imprisonment. Serious changes to criminal law, in particular changes which couldincrease incarceration, deserve careful and transparent consideration, with opportunity for public input, of whetherthe proposed penalties have a demonstrated connection to increased deterrence, as well as their potential to strainresources of our courts and correctional facilities. Among the criminal penalties this amendment would provide are:

o Increased fines for employing or permitting an unlicensed driver to operate ones vehicle.o An altered structure of fines for driving without a license and, for third and subsequent offenses, a possible 30

days imprisonment.o Up to one year imprisonment for using a false identification document to obtain or maintain employment.o Graduated penalties, including up to a $10,000 fine and 15 years in prison, for a new crime of falsely making,

stealing, altering, forging or counterfeiting, with intent to distribute, one or more RMV-issued identificationdocuments.

o Fines of up to $1000 and/or 90 days in prison for transferring, altering, defacing, using or carrying "any suchcard or license,"3 or using anothers license or furnishing false information to obtain "such card or license.

o Up to $5000 and/or five years in prison for selling or distributing a false identification card.

2 Westat, Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation, Report Submitted to Department of Homeland Security, September, 2007, at xxviii, 148.Available at: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf, and Westat, Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation,December 2009, xxxv-xxxvi. Available at: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/E-Verify/E-Verify/Final%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-09_2.pdf. Seealso Center for American Progress, Seen and (Mostly) Unseen: The True Costs of E-Verify, Available at:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/e_verify.pdf, National Conference of State Legislatures, E-Verify FAQ, revised November 4,2011. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13127; Letter of Rep Roybal-Allard to USCIS, Help Workers Barred from their Jobs because ofE-Verify Errors, May 1, 2012, Available at: http://roybal-allard.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=2935773Read in the context of the full section, "such card or license" appears to mean an RMV-issued ID that was falsely made, stolen, altered, forged or

counterfeited, or obtained by impersonating another or using a false name. This offense has significant overlap with offenses already punished withdifferent penalties under current law.


3/3

Supported by

In addition, while less sweeping than Senate Amendment GOV 128.1, House Amendment 538.1 contained someconcerning provisions that we similarly urge you to exclude from the Legislatures final budget. In particular, werespectfully request that you omit:

Changes to vehicle registration procedures which charge the RMV with ascertaining proof of legal residence alegal standard requiring interpretation that the RMV is not resourced to provide. This provision, by requiring anRMV-issued license or ID number for vehicle registration, could also bar foreign-licensed persons with drivingprivileges under treaty, but without RMV-issued IDs, from registering vehicles purchased in our state.

Changes to criminal penalties for driving or identification related offenses, including a provision allowing for highfines and lengthy prison time for a new crime of making, forging or counterfeiting, with intent to distribute,RMV-issued identification documents.

MassHealth expenditures reporting requirements which could require the Office of Medicaid to divert resourcesaway from member services and towards potentially time-consuming data analysis.

Massachusetts, like every state, is grappling with the current failure of the federal government to pass humane and

comprehensive immigration reform. The prudent course of action is to encourage our federal Congress to act, rather thanto adopt policies seeking to promote attrition through enforcement or self-deportation. Policies that discriminateagainst immigrants risk conflicting with federal immigration law and with our states own constitutional equal protectionrequirements. Additionally, immigration law is among the most complex areas of law, second only to tax law, andimmigration enforcement budget amendments may inflict unintentional harms due to inadequate consideration of thecomplexity and fluidity of the dozens of federally-conferred immigration statuses, the numerous and varied documentsthat may evidence immigration status, the prevalence of mixed status households, the lack of congruity between lawfulimmigration status and eligibility for social security numbers, and many other factors. Budget amendments often cannotreceive the same thorough consideration afforded bills through the committee process. It is therefore dangerous to makepolicy changes that impact peoples access to employment, housing, transportation and even their liberty and family unitythrough the compressed timeline of redrafted budget amendments with limited public input or transparency.

These policy changes could also subject our state to costly, protracted litigation. In January 2012, the Supreme JudicialCourt struck down, in Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority,4 an instance of discrimination onthe basis of alienage as a violation of Massachusettss constitutional equal protection requirements. However, thisvindication of equal protection principles occurred only after tens of thousands of documented, taxpaying immigrants hadbeen for over two years unconstitutionally denied the ability to purchase Commonwealth Care health insurance due aprovision in the FY2010 budget. We ask that you avert the need for similar litigation challenging provisions, such as thataltering public housing eligibility, in this years budget, by excluding the aforementioned policy changes.

We once again respectfully recommend that you exclude all of Senate Amendment GOV 128.1 and those provisions ofHouse Amendment 538.1 which would alter current law from the Legislatures final budget, and we urge you to continueto fund programs that promote integration, self-sufficiency of immigrants, and safe and healthy communities for all.Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Eva A. MillonaExecutive Director

4 461 Mass. 232, January 5, 2012.

Documents

Conference Committee Request Letter FY13