Attorney Murthy Helps to Defeat Negative Immigration Bills
Posted Feb 27, 2004

Attorney Sheela Murthy testified before the House Judiciary Committee in Annapolis, Maryland on February 18, 2004. Attorney Murthy's testimony was in opposition to three pending Maryland State bills that would have permitted enforcement of immigration laws at the state level. Her insights clearly made an impact, along with the testimonies of two other immigration attorneys, also opposed to the legislation. On February 19, 2004, the Committee voted against all three bills. The testimony of the immigration lawyers was apparently instrumental in the defeat of the bills, as one of the bill's sponsors took the time to attempt to rebut their testimony.

Those who are not sufficiently familiar with the immigration process presume that the determination of whether someone is lawfully in the U.S. is a simple matter of looking at one or two types of documents. Depth of experience in this area reveals, however, that nothing could be further from the truth. The attorneys were able to explain to the Committee the complexity of U.S. immigration laws, and how various state and federal agencies already are unable to issue government documents based on their incorrect reading of the law.

The bills that were defeated included provisions that would permit state law enforcement officials, who have very little training in immigration law, to detain those they suspect of being unlawfully present. The attorneys rightfully argued that vesting local law enforcement with broad immigration enforcement powers could lead to the detention of many lawful immigrants who may have documents that are not familiar to the state police. For example, would a state police officer know that a person with a validly filed, pending Application for Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) is authorized to be in the U.S. while that case is pending? How would such an officer know whether the I-485 was validly filed? Would these individuals learn the nuances of 245(i) and 245(k) to understand when a person who is out of status or unlawfully present is allowed to file Form I-485 and then be considered to be in a "period of stay authorized" merely based on the I-485 filing? What would happen if a person had not yet received the I-485 receipt notice, but the case had been filed? The examples could go on endlessly. State police have enough work trying to enforce state criminal laws. The federal immigration laws should remain within the jurisdiction of specialized federal enforcement.

In a further example of the types of measures that were under consideration in Maryland, one of the three bills would have authorized seizing the car and license of anyone lending his/her vehicle to an unlawfully present foreign national, regardless of the owner's own immigration status. Along with other issues, this again presents the problem of a layperson having to know or understand the immigration status of another person. Does this require every friend or neighbor to review immigration documents or inquire as to an individual's immigration status? Would only those who "look foreign" or have accents be subject to additional scrutiny while those present in the U.S. since childhood, who may not be lawfully present, would not be subject to such scrutiny?

The proposed bills would have had significant negative consequences for many. The impact potentially could have been more far-reaching if the legislation had passed in Maryland and then been imitated by other states throughout the country. Such bills are a clear example of reactionary efforts to take action against immigrants under the guise of security measures. These bills, if enacted, would have severely infringed upon the civil rights of foreign nationals in all statuses, as well as U.S. citizens who may "look" or "sound different." Without the efforts of Attorney Murthy and others, the dangers of these bills would not have been fully understood.

The Law Office of Sheela Murthy is pleased to, once again, have been successful in lobbying efforts at the state level. We all need to work together to help our legislators understand the complexities of U.S. immigration laws in order for them to pass laws that accord and preserve the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to every person under the U.S. Constitution.