Lisa Kunkel [...]]]> John Harrington of the Helena Independent Record wrote a really nice article about me and the Border Crossing Law Firm in today’s paper:

Lisa Kunkel Independent Record – Shahid Haque-Hausrath, with the Border Crossing Law Firm, stands outside his office Friday morning in Helena. Next week, the State Bar of Montana will present Haque-Hausrath with its Neil Haight Pro Bono Award for his work in providing free legal services to low-income Montanans.

Shahid Haque-Hausrath was born and raised in the heartland of America. But as the son of immigrants from Pakistan, he’s perhaps more sensitive than most to the issues that can confront people from around the world who want to make the United States their home.

After growing up in southern Illinois and Indiana, Haque-Hausrath went to college in Evansville, Ind., then onto the Chicago-Kent College of Law. He met his wife, an Idaho native and University of Montana graduate, while in school in the Windy City.

He worked for several firms in Chicago before the couple set its sights on the West. They moved to Helena about two years ago, and Haque-Hausreth opened his own practice, the Border Crossing Law Firm.

Next week, the State Bar of Montana will present Haque-Hausreth with its Neil Haight Pro Bono Award for his work in providing free legal services to low-income Montanans.

Immigration law can run the gamut from the mundane to the fascinating. While work visas and residency requests can require a great deal of paperwork, patience and legal advice, Haque-Hausreth takes particular pride in his work securing asylum for clients. He has won asylum for seven refugees who fled their native lands under threat of torture, persecution or death as a result of their political beliefs.

“It was really interesting and I really liked doing it,” the 30-year-old said of his work with political refugees. “You’re in effect saving their lives by preventing their having to go back to their home countries.”

In order to earn asylum, a refugee must show a well-founded fear of persecution. And unlike American citizens, refugees aren’t guaranteed the right of counsel.

“Having an attorney makes such a difference just in making sure their story is heard, and in telling the story the way the court wants to hear it,” Haque-Hausreth said.

Helena may seem like a strange place for an immigration attorney to find work, but while Haque-Hausrath takes clients from around Montana as well as other states, he said there’s no lack of work here.

“We’ve got lots of families here, more than you might think, that are mixed-status,” he said. “I was pretty convinced the work would find its way to me. The business has been successful, although I do spend a lot of pro bono time.”

Nor is his work mostly with Canadians, or with Hispanic clients. He’s had clients from Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and many other countries around the world.

“They find their way to Montana probably for the same reason a lot of people come to Montana,” he said. “You can raise kids here, it’s a great community. It’s beautiful here.”

Haque-Hausreth also lobbies for immigration-related causes at the Montana Legislature, and recently joined the board of directors of the Montana Human Rights Network. He’s also active with the Helena International Affairs Council.

Haque-Hausrath said that his work serves as a constant reminder of how postively many people from around the world view America, and the good fortune that comes from calling this country home.

“After doing this type of work, it gets to you and you realize how lucky you are to be a citizen,” he said. “I took it for granted, but when you see people who aren’t citizens and you see what’s going on in other countries, it makes you so thankful to be a U.S. citizen.”

Reporter John Harrington: 447-4080 or john.harrington@helenair.com.

If an immigrant is over 65 they can apply for SSI and Medicaid [...]]]> A friend recently forwarded me a ridiculously inaccurate e-mail that is being forwarded across the country. The e-mail fuels anti-immigrant hysteria by claiming that immigrants and refugees are enjoying better access to public benefits than U.S. citizens.  Here is the text of the e-mail:

If an immigrant is over 65 they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than my mom (in her 80′s) gets for Social Security, and she worked from 1944 till 2004, only getting $791 per month because she was born before 1924 and there is a ‘catch 22′.

It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also obtain an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00/month.  This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Maybe our pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians(Nancy Pelosi Included) have been doing over the past 11 years – to the over-taxed American.

This message is replete with lies.  To begin with, it creates a false comparison between very different federal programs — SSI and Medicaid are different from social security retirement payments.  SSI and Medicaid are “means-tested public benefits” for people with low income and qualifying disabilities.  The e-mail might as well complain about anyone who receives these benefits.  But to claim that immigrants and refugees somehow enjoy these benefits more than citizens is absurd.

An immigrant who is over 65 cannot automatically apply for SSI and Medicaid.  The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 imposed broad restrictions that prevent immigrants from getting most public benefits.  These laws are very detailed, but here are the basic facts:

• Most lawful immigrants (except refugees and some other humanitarian immigrants) who entered the country after 1996 are barred from receiving SSI at all.  It is simply not available to them until they become citizens or work for 10 years in the U.S.  After that, they are eligible to the same extent as any other resident.

• Undocumented immigrants cannot get SSI and Medicaid at all.  They can only get emergency Medicaid, which is for immediate medical treatment that is severe and could cause serious jeopardy to the patient’s health.  Basically, this means that they can get emergency room services only, with no follow-up care.

• Most lawful immigrants (except refugees and some other humanitarian immigrants) who entered the country after 1996 are ineligible to receive any “federal means-tested public benefit” for five years after their lawful admission to the United States.  The only major public benefit available during those five years is emergency Medicaid.  Otherwise, they have to wait five years before getting any benefits.

• Refugees are entitled to apply for SSI if they are disabled, but they can only receive it for seven years.  After that, they are cut off unless they become citizens.

• The “facts” about the support payments that refugees get are totally false.  Refugees do get some support payments for 8 months, and certain other benefits like food stamps.  However, payments that refugees are given are not permanent.  They are for a very limited duration of time.  The purpose of these payments are to help displaced refugees find their footing in a new country.  These are not comparable to retirement payments!

Snopes.com also does a good job of debunking this myth, which has been circulating the Internet for many years now.

E-mails like these use lies to fuel xenophobic sentiment.  If you come across this message, or hear it repeated in public, please do your part to correct these falsehoods.

Do we have an illegal worker problem? by Molly Priddy, Community News Service Wednesday, March 18, 2009

As the state’s economy stumbles, some lawmakers fear a new threat to Montana’s businesses [...]]]> Molly Priddy of the Community News Service has written a good article on the immigration legislation proposed in Montana this legislative session.  The original article is located here.

Do we have an illegal worker problem?
by Molly Priddy, Community News Service
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

As the state’s economy stumbles, some lawmakers fear a new threat to Montana’s businesses and workers: illegal immigrants.

Nobody really knows how many undocumented immigrants live and work in Montana, but everyone agrees the number is tiny, perhaps less than half of 1 percent of the population.

Regardless, several immigration bills have quietly passed the Senate, where sponsors fear an imminent explosion of illegal workers and want laws to punish those who hire or protect them. Opponents fear racial discrimination and profiling.

Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor, and a sponsor of several immigration bills, said his focus is on those who hire illegal workers. “It’s all about ‘illegal,’” he said.

Illegal immigrants themselves are not the “bad people,” he said, but they do get exploited by employers who pay below minimum wages and dodge paying for overtime, benefits and workers’ compensation.

“How can an honest employer compete with somebody who’s cheating?” Shockley said. “It’s about wages and jobs.”

But Jamee Greer of the Montana Human Rights Network said the bills are offensive and unnecessary.

“They’re institutionalizing fear in an ‘other,’” Greer said. “There’s not an illegal immigrant problem in Montana. It’s just one of those perennial things that keeps coming from the right.”

Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena, said the immigrant bills are part of a conservative national agenda.

“All of these bills are pieces of a national model that is put out by anti-immigrant groups,” Kaufmann said.
She said the legislation is essentially racist because it creates fear and discrimination toward dark-skinned people.

“I don’t think anyone here is racist,” Kaufmann said of her Senate colleagues. “But (the bills) are part of a racist agenda.”

National census data estimate between 4,000 and 5,000 immigrants in Montana, documented and undocumented. Shahid Haque-Hausrath, an attorney in border-crossing law in Helena, said precise numbers on undocumented immigrants are impossible to find, but Montana’s numbers are minuscule compared to other states.

Small or not, Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan, who is also sponsoring several immigration bills, said Montana could soon see an increase in illegal immigration.

“We are already experiencing problems here in Montana,” Perry said, “particularly with illegal aliens working around Big Sky in Gallatin County.”

Those illegals, typically construction workers, give their employers an unfair marketplace advantage, Perry said.

“It’s important to take steps before the problems of Southern California arrive in Montana,” he said.
But Haque-Hausrath, who works with the Gallatin County immigrant workers, said they are largely documented laborers brought in on work visas. He agrees that the companies that bring in foreign labor should be scrutinized but said workers should not be penalized.

“By redirecting everything at undocumented immigrants, you’re sidestepping the issue,” he said.

The Senate immigration bills take different approaches. Shockley’s Senate Bill 381, which passed 26-24, would train state employees and law enforcement to help federal officials enforce federal immigration laws.

That’s necessary because federal immigration employees in Montana are few, Shockley said.
“We can’t afford to hire immigration officers to do it,” he said.

But Haque-Hausrath said the proposed legislation would invite racial profiling. Local police trained to enforce immigration laws would have difficulty deciding whom to pull over or ask for papers, he said.

“An undocumented driver doesn’t look any differently than a documented driver,” Haque-Hausrath said. “It’s going to require them to skirt the edges of racial profiling.”

Shockley’s Senate Bill 382 would prohibit state and local governments from enacting policies that inhibit federal investigations into individuals’ immigration status.

Two of Perry’s bills are still alive: Senate Bill 379 would allow the government to seize any property used to harbor or transport illegal immigrants, and Senate Bill 377 would prohibit Montana companies from taking tax deductions for any money paid to illegal immigrants. SB 377 passed 33-17.

Opponents to Perry’s and Shockley’s bills say they stem from national rhetoric that followed the Bush administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Starting in 2003, members of Congress sponsored several bipartisan attempts to create a guest-worker program that would allow foreign workers to obtain visas for jobs that American employers could not otherwise fill.

But U.S. House Republicans replaced the guest-worker program with legislation to deport all illegal immigrants and make it a felony to help them. Conservatives also blocked legislation to help immigrants obtain citizenship. Comprehensive reform has proved elusive ever since.

Kaufmann supports national immigration reform but argues that human rights extend across borders as well.
“People have rights, not just citizens of a country,” she said.

Perry said the idea that racism motivates Montana’s legislation is “baloney”. “Is it not a valid reason that we should support federal laws in our own state?” Perry said. “There’s nothing racist about it.”

Shockley insisted his legislation isn’t aimed at immigrants but at the people who illegally employ them. He said he didn’t know about the conservative national movement until this session.

His bills reflect his personal views, he said, but added his staffer may have used information from conservative national organizations to write the bills.

“Some of this stuff probably came from those organizations,” Shockley said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad.” He also said it’s not uncommon for bills to be modeled on existing statutes.

Opponents contend both Shockley’s and Perry’s bills are nearly identical to those that can be found on the Web site of the Federation for American Immigration, which they consider an anti-immigration group.

It is unclear how the immigration bills will do in the House. SB 381 and SB 382 are in the House Judiciary Committee and have yet to be voted on.

Thanks to Jamee Greer for formatting and posting this on his blog.

HELENA – State-level attempts at immigration reform are receiving some support this session, but the Montana Legislature is still a frosty place to attempt a crackdown on undocumented workers in the United States.

The Senate on [...]]]> Daniel Person of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle has published an excellent article on the state of immigration legislation in Montana:

HELENA – State-level attempts at immigration reform are receiving some support this session, but the Montana Legislature is still a frosty place to attempt a crackdown on undocumented workers in the United States.

The Senate on Wednesday thwarted a bill that would have criminalized a number of interactions with illegal aliens in Montana, including knowingly transporting illegal aliens into the state and concealing them from detection, in some cases making the transgressions a felony. The bill also would have allowed the state to seize property connected to the violation.

The Senate voted 29-20 against Senate Bill 379, sponsored by Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan.

In failing to pass, Perry’s bill joined most other immigration bills introduced this session.

In the Senate, bills attempting to keep vehicle registration and some workers compensation away from undocumented workers have failed to gain traction. In the House bills introduced by Rep. David Howard, R-Park City, have also been defeated.

Perry’s frustration was evident after Wednesday’s floor vote.

“My impression is that we, overall, don’t seem to be as law abiding as I thought we were,” he said. “Perhaps it’s idealistic to think we obey our laws. Instead, for social liberalism, we ignore our laws.”

But not everyone is taking a negative view of the votes.

“The biggest problem across the board with these bills is the racial-profiling aspect,” said Shahid Haque-Hausrath, a lawyer in Helena who has been lobbying against the legislation.

He said all of the bills would have required state agencies and employers to do more to verify whether someone is lawfully in the country. That’s not as easy as some think, he said, and he fears that non-whites or people with accents would have to jump through more hoops for government services than others.

Of the 10 bills Haque-Hausrath has been tracking, only two have made it out of their chambers, with another still to have a hearing. He commended lawmakers for looking into the full implications of the bills.

“The problem is, the bills are fairly complex and immigration laws are fairly complex. (Lawmakers) are hearing from people who tell them immigrants are taking their jobs. But I think you’re getting a lot of people who read these bills more carefully,” he said.

The Montana Human Rights Network has also opposed the legislation. Jamee Greer, a lobbyist for the group, said he has seen opposition to the bills come from many sides.

“People are opposing these bills for a lot of different reasons – farmers and ranchers concerned about how this will impact their operations, small businesses concerned about how this will affect their family businesses, concerns about racial profiling,” he said.

Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor, has also introduced a number of immigration bills this session. He said two bills passed out of the Senate this session is two better than in 2007 and credited that to the Republicans having party control.

“The Democrats don’t want to do anything on illegal immigration,” he said.

]]> http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/92/feed 1 http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/90 http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/90#comments Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:34:13 +0000 Shahid Haque-Hausrath http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/?p=90 The Montana Senate is to be commended for indefinitely tabling Senate Bill 379, which was sponsored by Senator Gary Perry.  While previous votes in the Senate on immigration bills were split on party lines, with Republicans voting almost unanimously in support of the anti-immigrant bills, this bill was voted down on a bi-partisan vote of 29-20.

We previously discussed this bill, which would have made it a state misdemeanor or felony to transport, move, conceal, harbor, or shield any alien in “reckless disregard” of the fact that they are undocumented.  It would have also make it a misdemeanor or felony to encourage an undocumented alien to enter or remain in the state without status.  Finally, the bill applied harsh forfeiture provisions that would allow the state to seize property belonging to anyone convicted under the law.

This bill had many problems — it would waste state resources doing the federal government’s job, its harsh penalties would make people reluctant to hire immigrants regardless of  their status, it would further segregate and drive our immigrant population into the shadows, and it would result in greater racial profiling.  While Democrats voiced concerns about all of these factors, it was the excessive forfeiture provisions that appeared to make the difference for the Republicans who voted against the bill.

I would like to especially commend Senator Joe Balyeat (R) for his thoughtful comments during floor debate.  Senator Balyeat recognized that while the sponsors of this bill may have intended to target people who “traffic” undocumented aliens for profit, the broad language of the bill would also punish people who shield family members.  When coupled with harsh forfeiture provisions that could allow seizure of a person’s home and property without a warrant, Senator Balyeat recognized that the bill was “over the top.”

The Montana Senate did the right thing by tabling this bill.  However, there is still much work to be done.

Two of the ten anti-immigrant bills that have been proposed this session have been transmitted.  In the coming days, SB 381 and SB 382 will be heard in the House.  Thus far, the House has killed every anti-immigrant bill that it has heard in Committee.  We can only hope that this trend continues, and will re-double our efforts to educate Legislators on the harmful effects of this legislation.

]]> http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/90/feed 0 http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/88 http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/archives/88#comments Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:19:19 +0000 Shahid Haque-Hausrath http://www.bordercrossinglaw.com/blog/?p=88 We spend a great deal of time in this country complaining about immigrants coming across the border to the United States.  We spend very little time contemplating our own policies, and how these policies can impact our neighbors.  A recent New York Times article highlights an illicit export from the United States that is having a [...]]]> We spend a great deal of time in this country complaining about immigrants coming across the border to the United States.  We spend very little time contemplating our own policies, and how these policies can impact our neighbors.  A recent New York Times article highlights an illicit export from the United States that is having a profound affect on Mexico:  assault weapons.

The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the fire power that greeted them.

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy gun store here called X-Caliber Guns.

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa. The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.

Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.

The article goes on to explain why guns are being brought in from the United States:

Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.

The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.

The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.

What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.

Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, often secreting them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here say. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.

You can read the full article at the New York Times website.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v. [...]]]>

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in the ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v. Doe (1982).

I thought I’d share some of the quotes [...]]]> Jamee Greer, a progressive lobbyist and all-around good guy, has a great post about an interesting exchange that occurred in the Montana Legislature last week between Representative David Howard (the sponsor of three anti-immigrant bills that were tabled) and Representative Tim Furey.  He posts about it at his blog:

I thought I’d share some of the quotes from Rep. Howard, and much like last time, I’ll point out the good with the ugly.

“Now the reason for this bill is very simple. If you look at states like Colorado, who have not watched their licenses, you have almost ninety percent of all the sheetrock contractors are illegal aliens. You have almost one hundred percent of the contractors that do yards and clean up and everything, are illegal aliens. I want to create a deterrent so Montana isn’t a state we wanna come fill up with illegal aliens.”

“I was on a business trip to Las Vegas, and I was really stunned that while I was driving into where I was gonna do some training, and at a corner where they had a Safeway, there was over a hundred and fifty people there, all illegal aliens, obviously, and the contractor trucks were driving up and picking them up.”

While Rep. Howard’s comments were offensive, Representative Tim Furey (D-HD 91) nobly tried to point out that you cannot make rash judgements on someone’s status based on conjecture, or hearsay.

Rep. Furey: “When you were in Las Vegas, and you saw one hundred people on the street corner, how did you know that the one hundred people you saw were ‘illegal aliens’?”

Rep. Howard: “I was with a contractor, doing a contractor seminar. And he was telling me that that was what was happening. He was showing me and telling me that that was actually cheating other young Americans that wanted jobs, out of jobs, because those were contractor jobs and they had the ability to pay them half as much and not pay them workers comp. Actually, in real true sense, they were taking advantage of the unauthorized alien.”

Rep. Furey: “So nobody checked their IDs? Just the fact that they looked like they were ‘illegal aliens’?”

Rep. Howard: “No they didn’t. I was being told that they were, by a contractor who had been doing this for twenty five years.”

This was one of many exchanges that occurred both last week and this week that highlight one of the biggest problems with state enforcement of immigration laws.  Even as he defended legislation that would would result in rampant racial profiling, Representative Howard couldn’t help but make baseless assumptions about people’s immigration status.  He basically made our point for us.

Thanks to Representative Furey for pointing this out, and thanks to Jamee Greer for posting about it.