Representative Joe Harrison (R) of District 51 introduced House Bill No. 59 to the Louisiana House of Representatives; it has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The version of the bill currently available online is nearly identical to the revised version of HB 1205 debated by the Judiciary in 2010. As before, Representative Harrison has titled his legislation the “Louisiana Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2011”. In fact, HB 59 constitutes a grave danger to citizens, as well as to other Louisianans.

§1312 “The Louisiana Legislature finds that illegal immigration has resulted in economic hardship and lawlessness within the state”.

The premise of this legislation is not grounded in fact. Numerous studies point out the economic benefits of immigration. According to a report by the Perryman Group, if all undocumented immigrants were removed from Louisiana, the state would lose $947 million in economic activity, $421 million in gross state product, and approximately 6,660 jobs. Further research shows that cities with high immigrant populations in fact maintain lower crime rates.

§1317 makes it illegal to transport, harbor, conceal or shelter undocumented persons in the state of Louisiana. First time offenders will be fined no less than $500 or imprisoned for up to 6 months, or both.

Since the vast majority of immigrant families include both documented and undocumented persons, these provisions criminalize normal familiar behaviors such as a lawful permanent resident taking an undocumented sibling to the doctor. A U.S. citizen mother driving a school carpool carrying another family’s undocumented child would also become illegal under HB 59, provided that the mother acted “in reckless disregard” of that child’s immigration status. No definition of “reckless disregard” is offered in the bill. HB 59 criminalizes landlords, public transportation operators, and good Samaritans too. Louisiana already has the highest incarceration rate in the nation; increasing our prison population for such actions is neither humane nor financially sound.

§1316 mandates that at the time of arrest police officers shall attempt to verify the immigration status of the arrested person. If unable to do so, he/she shall notify the Department of Homeland Security.

Creating an environment in which undocumented persons feel safe reporting crimes to the police is integral to public safety. Immigration enforcement should be left to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the appropriate federal agency. Converting state and local police into deportation agents undermines community policing and is a particularly severe obstacle in cases of domestic violence.

§1318 directs the State Attorney General to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice relative to immigration enforcement.

§1319 restricts the capacity of local government to pass legislation concerning the extent of collaboration with federal officials with regard to immigration enforcement

These two provisions limit the ability of a municipality to sensibly deploy their resources and resist the rising tide of fear that seems to be prevailing in the nation. In the interest of community policing, a number of cities (San Francisco being the first) have passed ordinances directing the police not to inquire about immigration status. In no way do these ordinances prevent ICE from fulfilling their enforcement role, but they do allow the police to build trust with immigrant communities, documented and undocumented, and stop using scarce resources to jail residents for traffic infractions.

§1320 requires that all public employers verify the work eligibility of all new hires using a federal electronic status verification system.

The existing program, E-Verify, remains a flawed system with unacceptably high rates of errors. It is also particularly burdensome to small businesses and would result in lost tax revenues. Combined with the provisions in §1317 that would complicate the hire of day laborers, §1320 would likely negatively affect the economy of Louisiana.

§1314 compels public benefit providers to verify the lawful presence of all applicants.

Federal law already restricts access to public benefits for undocumented persons. §1314 thus gives the illusion of “protecting taxpayers” when such protections are already in place. As has been the case in Oklahoma following the passage of HB1804 in 2007, one effect of §1314 would be to make undocumented parents fearful of soliciting benefits for which their U.S. citizen children are eligible. It would also penalize U.S. citizens who may not hold a driver’s license or birth certificate. In the long term this creates unhealthy citizens who may become costly to the state.

§1315 would prevent undocumented students from receiving postsecondary education benefits including resident tuition, restricted admissions programs for minority applicants, scholarships, work-study programs or financial aid.

In response to the failure of the DREAM Act, some 11 states have passed legislation granting in-state tuition to undocumented students who have attended high school and reside in the state. While they affect a minority of students, the so-called “in-state DREAM acts” have been demonstrated to increase college attendance and revenues. §1315 would preempt the passage of such legislation in Louisiana and thus ensure that the state continues to grow an underclass of residents without access to educational opportunities.

§1321 permits certain entities to develop and issue ID documents for U.S. citizens, nationals or legal permanent residents.

Entities at the state and local level should not be issuing ID documents tied to immigration status as this is the responsibility of the federal government.

§1322 creates a Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit designed to apprehend those who participate in the sale or distribution of fraudulent ID cards.

The creation of a new department to detect fraud is costly and this bill contains no provisions for funding. Energy and resources should be directed towards comprehensive immigration reform so as to decrease incentives to commit fraud.

Given the complexity and diversity of factors that induce people to migrate, HB 59 is highly unlikely to discourage undocumented immigration. It is, however, likely to produce a climate in which U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents approach immigrants, both documented and undocumented, with fear and suspicion. By encouraging racial profiling, HB 59 works against the very kind of inter-ethnic bridge building Puentes promotes. Moreover, this legislation would negatively impact Louisiana’s economy and create a number of unfunded mandates. In this time of budget shortfalls, scarce resources can be better deployed towards making our state more immigrant-friendly, which will in turn grow the economic pie for all.