North Dakota House passes bill establishing immigration law clinic at UND
Feb. 26—GRAND FORKS — A bill establishing an immigration-focused law clinic at the University of North Dakota passed the House on Monday, Feb. 24.
HB 1600 would allocate some $400,000 over the next biennium to a clinic employing one full-time staff attorney offering low-cost immigration legal services.
House lawmakers passed the bill by a vote of 67-25, with one member absent; the bill now heads to the Senate.
The House Appropriations Committee gave the bill a 21-2 "do pass" recommendation Wednesday, Feb. 19, after moving through the House Judiciary Committee without a recommendation.
Supportive lawmakers and attorneys focused on immigration law say the bill would increase access to much-needed legal services for migrant workers and their employers and offer law students a chance to gain experience in a niche and in-demand practice.
"It's not dealing with illegal immigration, it's dealing with legal immigration," asserted Rep. Jeff Hoverson, R-Minot, who brought the bill to the floor.
In committee, opponents had focused on the lack of precedent for establishing a legal clinic via legislation and raised concern about the clinic serving migrants whose legal status fell into a "gray area," like asylum seekers who may have entered the country without legal authorization.
Sue Swanson, an immigration attorney who worked with lead sponsor Rep. Emily O'Brien to craft the bill, says North Dakota needs more immigration lawyers to sustain and grow the state's workforce.
"There's certain job fields that (employers) are not able to fill at all, period, with U.S. workers, and so the only way these will ever get filled is going to be by foreign nationals," Swanson said. "And knowing that, we need to plan for the future."
O'Brien, R-Grand Forks, characterized the bill as a "workforce development solution catered toward employment-based visas" in a Monday afternoon email to the Herald.
Migrant labor is increasingly in demand across the state. According to North Dakota Job Service, the number of employer requests for just temporary agricultural and non-agricultural workers — H-2As and H-2Bs — more than doubled between fiscal year 2021 and FY 2024, from 2,144 to 4,321 and from 1,012 to 2,924, respectively.
In Feb. 19 testimony before the House appropriations committee, O'Brien cited the need for more energy and agricultural workers and nurses in the state.
The number of immigration attorneys, however, remains stagnant.
Several estimates given by O'Brien and UND Law Dean Brian Pappas count only three North Dakota attorneys specializing in employment-based immigration, including Swanson, who practices law in North Dakota and Minnesota as well as lecturing at UND's law school.
"An H2-A worker, which is an ag worker, is very different than an H-1B worker," said Dustin Hillebrand, workforce center manager at North Dakota Job Service. "The requirements for those visas are very different. The quotas that are set by the government are very different. And so it truly takes someone with a lot of knowledge to be able to help somebody through that."
Multiple lawmakers in Wednesday's appropriations hearing said they'd personally struggled to find reliable legal services to facilitate bringing in new labor or helping some laborers establish residency.
Swanson says HB 1600 would expand the pool of qualified attorneys by exposing UND law students to the discipline.
"Immigration law is complicated. You don't just come out of law school, open up your own practice and get started up," said Swanson, who worked as an administrator for UND focused on immigration for years before becoming a lawyer. "You've got to have mentoring, and you've got to learn."
Right now, students have few options to clerk for an immigration-focused law practice in North Dakota, and those who do seek out the discipline out-of-state are unlikely to return, she said.
"You're always going to have immigration, and you're always going to have employment-based immigration," Swanson said. "Why not keep as much business in the state as we possibly can, and why not train the next generation of attorneys?"
The bill comes at a time of increased hostility toward immigrants in North Dakota and across the United States.
A bill seeking to dismantle the state Office of Legal Immigration failed a floor vote in the House last week; another bill expanding a ban on sanctuary cities in North Dakota is set for a floor vote sometime this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not wanting to cut spending — here's where they said they would
Elon Musk's fiery feud with President Donald Trump spilled onto the top Republicans in Congress, where the tech billionaire questioned if their zeal to cut spending had disappeared. Musk launched into a social media assault this week against Trump's "big, beautiful bill," and accused Republicans of crafting a "disgusting abomination" full of wasteful spending. What started as a rant against the bill turned into pointed attacks against Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. 'He's Not A Big Factor': Trump's Senate Allies Dismiss Elon Musk's Calls To 'Kill The Bill' The tech billionaire and former head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lamented the bill as not cutting deep enough into Washington's spending addiction. The House GOP's offering, which is now being modified in the Senate, set a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Musk set a benchmark of finding $2 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse to slash with his DOGE initiative, but fell far short, hitting only $160 billion in his four-month stint as a special government employee. Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Warpath Against Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Rattles House Gop Still, he came with receipts, questioning whether Trump, Thune and Johnson were actually committed to making deep cuts. Below are moments from the campaign trail and recent months compiled by Fox News Digital where the trio affirmed their commitment to putting a dent in the nation's nearly $37 trillion debt. A common theme for Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign was to go after the Biden administration, and his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, for "throwing billions of dollars out the window." The then-presidential candidate vowed that should he win a second term, his incoming administration would halt wasteful spending. "We will stop wasteful spending and big government special interest giveaways, and finally stand up for the American taxpayer, which hasn't happened since I was president," he said. "We stood up. Our current massive deficits will be reduced to practically nothing. Our country will be powered by growth. Our country, will be powered by growth, will pay off our debt, will have all this income coming in." Gop Senators Express 'Concerns,' 'Skepticism' Over Trump's Spending Bill After Musk Rant Thune has agreed with his colleagues in the House GOP that the tax cut package needs to achieve steep savings, and believes that the Senate GOP could take those cuts a step further. After the bill advanced from the House last month, the top Senate Republican re-upped his vow to slash federal funding. "It does everything that we set out to do. It modernizes our military, secures our border, extends tax relief and makes permanent tax relief that will lead to economic growth and better jobs in this country, and makes America energy dominant, coupled with the biggest spending reduction in American history," he said. "So those are our agenda items, and that's what we campaigned on. That's what we're going to do." Johnson had to strike a balancing act in the House to cobble together enough support behind the legislation, and struck deals and satisfied concerned lawmakers across the spectrum of the House GOP while still setting a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse has been a continued mantra of the speaker and his allies. "I said this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing theme of us identifying waste, fraud and abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity," Johnson said. Original article source: FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not wanting to cut spending — here's where they said they would
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
In Lansing, Democrats warn Medicaid and SNAP cuts would be a 'perfect storm' for the poor
U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) and U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) at a June 6, 2025 town hall in Lansing. | Kyle Davidson Members of the Michigan Democratic Party laid out the impacts of congressional Republicans' 'big beautiful bill' at a town hall on Friday, calling on residents of Michigan's 7th Congressional District to help educate their friends and family as well. A few hundred supporters packed into the gym of Everett High School in Lansing as U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) and Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel detailed how the Trump administration's policies would impact everyone, particularly individuals with limited income. The Michigan Democratic Party has hosted several similar events in Republican districts throughout the state, Hertel said, noting House Republicans had been instructed to avoid town halls with their constituents. 'The most basic thing for a public servant is to be able to sit and answer questions. … The least someone can do is sit down with people and explain their votes' Hertel said. And the 7th Congressional District's current representative, Tom Barrett (R-Charlotte) has a lot of explaining to do, Hertel said, slamming Barrett for supporting Republican's spending plan, and arguing the representative failed to stand up to the President and make himself available to his constituents A Barrett spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Prior to taking questions, McDonald Rivet slammed the Republican spending effort, telling audience members that it would take away healthcare and raise the cost of medicine, education and energy in order to deliver a tax break to the wealthy. 'Oh, and by the way, it's going to increase the deficit by several trillion dollars,' She said. Slotkin looked back on the president's first term, when Trump was looking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which expanded access to Medicaid and barred insurance providers from denying people coverage or charging them due to preexisting health conditions. 'It was the first thing he talked about when he got sworn in, he even had the House of Representatives vote to repeal Obamacare. And now we not only still have it, we expanded it, and how? Because we educated people,' Slotkin said. However, rather than cutting people's healthcare outright, Slotkin argued Trump is aiming to hide those cuts by requiring individuals to reregister for Medicaid every six months, making it harder to qualify and more difficult to sign up. While the current proposal would implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients, Slotkin noted it also raises the age limit for those requirements to 64. According to KFF, an independent health policy organization, 92% of medicaid recipients under 65 are already working full or part time. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Republican's budget plan would result in 10.9 million additional people being uninsured in 2034, with 7.8 million fewer individuals on Medicaid due to the policy's proposed work requirements. Even individuals who are not on Medicaid will feel the impacts of cuts to the program, Slotkin said, noting that nursing homes, hospitals and mental health facilities all rely on Medicaid funding. 'I would just say this bill is designed to really be a perfect storm for poor people. If you are living at or below the poverty line, you're getting hit in every direction. Medicaid, your health care; SNAP your food; a bunch of programs, right, that you depend on. … They are paying for those tax benefits for the most wealthy by really the perfect storm of cuts for the poorest among us,' Slotkin said. On top of cutting SNAP benefits by $300 billion, the Department of Government Efficiency had canceled $1 billion in funding to programs supporting school meals and food banks, McDonald Rivet said. 'So you're that hungry kid and you have lost access to a food bank. You have lost access to food at school, and now you don't have SNAP benefits. This is the America that this bill creates,' McDonald Rivet said. Alongside questions on cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, audience members asked the lawmakers about the legal challenges levied against the Trump administration, and Democrats' plans to counter Republicans heading into the 2026 mid-term election. On Friday, the Trump Administration backed down in its resistance of a Supreme Court order demanding that the administration facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador three months ago. However, the fight goes beyond Abrego Gracia, into whether the executive branch needs to obey orders from the Supreme Court, Slotkin said. 'Now, we haven't had to deal with this issue in the years past because Democrats and Republicans have largely said, 'Huh, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issues a court order, we're going to follow it.' Trump is pushing the boundaries on all the democratic values and principles most of us grew up with,' Slotkin said. Should an individual defy a federal court order, U.S. marshals would eventually be sent to enforce that order, Slotkin said. However, the U.S. marshals are controlled by the United States attorney general. Should the U.S. marshals receive a request to enforce a Supreme Court order against the president, Slotkin raised the question on whether Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump loyalist, would approve it. 'We've needed to have this fight. We need to have it out. We need a court order that he needs to obey, and we need to precipitate this conversation on the U.S. marshals. But today was an important sign that they don't want to get to that point. They don't want to wait until the U.S. marshals are potentially getting an order to activate,' Slotkin said. In preparing to take on the Trump Administration, Slotkin said she'd gone back to her roots in national security and crafted a war plan in the form of a 17-page powerpoint, with plans to lay out her vision of the nation's future under Democratic leadership. 'It's about facing our problems head on and saying the only way we do well as a country, the only way that we have a strong middle class going forward, the American Dream going forward, is if we face these issues and have a vision. And it's economic, it's about national security, and it's about our democracy,' Slotkin said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
