House Committee Backs Immigration Changes for Businesses
The bill has reignited debate about what the state's role should be, if any, in addressing illegal immigration.
April 25, 2023 at 12:48 PM
4 minute read
The Florida House began moving quickly on a plan that would stiffen requirements on businesses to check the immigration status of workers, crack down on bringing undocumented immigrants into the state and require hospitals to collect data about whether patients are in the country legally.
The Republican-controlled House Commerce Committee voted 13-5 to approve the plan (HB 1617), which emerged as lawmakers entered the next-to-last week of the annual legislative session. The Senate Fiscal Policy Committee was scheduled Tuesday to take up the Senate version of the bill (SB 1718).
The bills have reignited debate about what the state's role should be, if any, in addressing illegal immigration. Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is widely expected to run for president in 2024, has frequently criticized federal immigration policies and pushed for the state to take action.
"We simply have got a crisis in our nation, and we cannot as lawmakers ignore that there's a crisis," Rep. Kiyan Michael, a Jacksonville Republican who is one of the sponsors of the House bill, said Monday.
But opponents said the bill would hurt businesses and immigrants and is rooted in DeSantis' political ambition.
"I'm tired of this body leaning into these culture wars, as opposed to dealing with the real issues that we have for Floridians that are already in this state that are U.S. citizens, lawful-permit residents," Rep. Dotie Joseph, D-North Miami, said. "We have real needs right here."
DeSantis and the Legislature have passed a series of changes in recent years to target illegal immigration, including a 2019 law that banned so-called sanctuary cities. A federal appeals court this month tossed out a constitutional challenge to that law.
The state also drew national headlines last year, when the DeSantis administration flew 49 migrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The House bill includes $12 million for similar efforts during the fiscal year that will start July 1.
Among other key parts of the bill:
• All businesses with 25 or more employees would be required to use the federal E-Verify system to check the immigration status of workers. Since 2021, such businesses have been required to use E-Verify or what are known as I-9 forms.
• Toughen criminal penalties for transporting undocumented immigrants into Florida. While the bill indicates the changes are aimed at curbing human smuggling, opponents raised the prospect of people and groups such as churches being prosecuted for transporting immigrants into the state.
• Require hospitals to ask patients about whether they are U.S. Citizens or are in the country legally. Hospitals would be required to submit reports about the responses to the state.
• Require law-enforcement agencies to take DNA samples from people being held on federal immigration detainers. The samples would be sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
The bill drew opposition or concerns from a wide range of groups, such as Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
For example, Adam Basford, a lobbyist for Associated Industries, raised concerns about the E-Verify requirement, including potential penalties for businesses. He also said E-Verify is not always reliable.
Some other critics of the bill said they were worried that it would lead to immigrants not seeking medical care because they would be asked about their legal status.
"Anyone having a health-care emergency shouldn't have to think twice about seeking health care," said Aurelie Colón, a lobbyist for the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice.
Michael said she doesn't think the bill will hurt businesses. Meanwhile, Rep. Joel Rudman, R-Navarre, said he was "flabbergasted" by deference given by the bill's opponents to people in the country without authorization.
"Let's be very clear, there is a difference between doing things the right way and the legal way and skipping the process altogether and going about it through an illegal manner," Rudman said.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 2SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 3Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 4DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 5Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250