Immigration crackdown heads to Indiana governor after falling short last year

Indiana’s Senate on Wednesday sent a bill mandating local government cooperation with federal immigration detainer requests — and punishing businesses who employ unauthorized workers — to Gov. Mike Braun after consenting to edits in the House.

Senate Bill 76 exited the legislative process on an 37-11 concurrence vote and to a chorus of boos. Protesters outside the chamber also chanted slogans like “Ditch 76!” and “We dissent!” during about two hours of debate.

“At the end of the day, we are sovereign nation only if we have secure borders,” said the bill’s author, Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne. “And the last administration did a disservice to immigrants and more importantly, to U.S. citizens, by ignoring our immigration laws and removing any barriers to entry.”

All nine Democrats present voted in opposition. They were joined by two Republicans, Sens. Vaneta Becker of Evansville and Jean Leising of Oldenburg.

“How are you going to enforce this without racial profiling?” asked Senate Minority Leader Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington. “Because immigration status is not visible; citizenship is not visible; legal work authorization is not visible.”

Concurrence debate rages

Democrats unsuccessfully urged their GOP colleagues to vote “no” and send the bill to a conference committee instead of directly to the governor. Lawmakers from both chambers would’ve had until Friday to make changes and finalize it.

“Today, our job is about voting on whether or not we agree with these House changes and whether or not we believe that they made the bill better, and I’m going to say no — that they haven’t,” said Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis.

Brown endorsed the amendments made across the hall during a news conference last week, telling reporters, “I think we worked really well together, in terms of getting this to a good place … So, it was an easy concurrence for me.”

Brown and the bill’s house sponsor — Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City — “knew” the Senate’s rough draft “was not going to be the final version.”

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who would enforce several bill provisions, called the Senate’s version “poorly written” and credited Prescott and others for the final product.

Bad blood between the Rokita and Brown goes back a year.

“This was about making sure we get this right,” she said.

But, Rokita asserted, “She didn’t want any of this. She’s been pushed to do it.”

Local cooperation, anti-sanctuary clarification

Senate Bill 76 would let Rokita sue local units of government and public universities for up to $10,000 per violation of an existing ban on limiting immigration enforcement activities.

Those entities could now violate the law even if their actions weren’t done knowingly or intentionally.

Opponents called that a point of concern.

Hunley and Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, said federal law and court precedent blocks schools from, for instance, confirming whether specific students are enrolled there or answering questions about student immigration status.

The bill clarifies that the prohibition applies regardless of whether federal, state or local law enforcement officers are carrying out the work.

Public employers already can’t limit staff cooperation with the federal government, but this would now apply to both written and unwritten policies.

“By including unwritten policies, we are creating a legal minefield where a local mayor or university president can be sued or fined based on subjective interpretation of their actions,” said Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis. “So, this invites political litigation at the expense of our local institutions.”

Agencies would also be required to comply with federal detainer requests.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement often asks sheriffs and others to keep “potentially dangerous aliens” for 48 hours past when they’d otherwise be released so ICE agents can take them into custody. Detainer requests aren’t warrants and are not reviewed by judges.

That mandate applies “regardless of their current staffing levels or jail capacity,” Democratic Sen. J.D. Ford argued, and the 48-hour holds could rack up for cash-strapped communities.

“We are effectively handing the federal government a blank check drawn on the accounts of Indiana property taxpayers, because our sheriffs should be focused on local public safety, not serving as unpaid administrative clerks for federal agencies,” he said.

Governments and their employees would be immune from both civil and criminal liability in lawsuits over actions they take to comply.

Employers, social safety net use eyed

The bill also bans all employers from knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized workers. 

“If you are employing an illegal alien, enforcement rightly begins with the federal government,” Brown said. But the “huge number” presents an “overwhelming task.” Indiana would pitch in.

There are protections for those who can show they tried to ensure eligibility through the federal E-Verify program or industry best practices.

“I am not going after all our employers in some kind of rabid sense,” Rokita said. “I imagine I’m going to be very busy going after the worst actors. I imagine I’ll probably start with E-Verify as a priority, and then, you know, develop these industry practices, perhaps, as we go.”

If Rokita determines there’s been a violation, he could sue.

Depending on the firm’s history, a court could suspend the operating authorization for a few days at a single location or permanently revoke it at all locations.

“When enforcement depends on suspicion, suspicion inevitably falls on appearance, language, accident, backgrounds,” Yoder said. She feared the provisions could lead to hiring discrimination against non-white Hoosiers.

Leising, a prominent agricultural advocate, said she voted “no” because of the potential negative impacts on the industry.

Other provisions would record non-citizen use of social safety net programs and set reporting requirements for the state’s deal to house ICE detainees at the Miami prison in northern Indiana.

Year-old dispute rages on

Brown and Rokita have been at odds since she declined to hear Prescott’s House Bill 1531 last year. At the time, Brown — who is an attorney — said she’d shared legal concerns about the proposal with Rokita “early in the legislative process.”

In an interview with a conservative radio host, Rokita accused her of killing the bill because “she’s got a family member who’s an illegal alien” — a claim Brown has called “blatantly false.”

She lodged a professional misconduct complaint against Rokita, and later appealed its dismissal. The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission has decided not to reopen the matter, according to a letter provided by Rokita’s office.

“Sen. Brown, as I stated a year ago, sat in my office and basically told me — we differ on the words used — that she wasn’t for immigration reform, that it was deeply personal to her,” Rokita told reporters last Thursday, during a news conference immediately after Brown’s. “I don’t think that’s changed. What’s changed is she’s in a terrible primary battle right now, and she’s very defensive, and so she’s concurred.”

His campaign has funneled $50,000 into primary challenger Darren Vogt’s campaign.

Vogt blasted Brown in a news release last Thursday.

“Only Liz Brown could singlehandedly block President (Donald) Trump’s immigration agenda for a year, then introduce a weak, watered-down version in an attempt to trick voters, and now take credit for it,” Vogt said, “when, in reality, the House gutted her terrible bill and basically replaced it with the bill that clearly would have passed last year.”

“Our district wants someone who will stand with President Trump, Director (Tom) Homan, and Attorney General Rokita to keep Indiana safe instead of someone who serves her own ego and stands with sanctuary cities,” he added. “Liz Brown’s actions put Hoosiers at risk.”

Brown, however, struck a conciliatory tone.

“As I walk through these different sections of the bill and where we landed with who has the right enforcement, the attorney general has enforcement … and that is totally appropriate,” she said. “But where we thought there were appropriate areas for enforcement, for example, the Department of Correction for the training, then that’s appropriate too.”

Brown previously resisted “centralizing” power in Rokita’s office.

“I don’t have concerns about this bill now, but I did have concerns, sure, in the beginning,” she continued. “I wanted to make sure … that the right agency, the right branch of government is able and willing and has the skills to enforce the law, and I’m confident we hit that spot.”