Don’t Let Women’s Rights Get Left Behind

by Melissa Davila, intern in the office of Representative Jessica Farrar

It has been almost 140 days since the 85th Legislative Session started, but it feels like it just started yesterday. I remember the day I spoke to my family about applying to this unique opportunity and whether the experience was worth putting my life on hold for. The experience has definitely been worth it. However, as much as I have enjoyed and learned this session, the last three weeks have been very hard. My office was striving to survive the long hours, and most importantly, we were striving to survive the disappointment of watching good bills that were filed fail to be passed, and bad bills end up passing despite fear and opposition from constituents and legislative members.

Although I felt that nothing was going to affect me as much as SB 4 – the anti-sanctuary city law signed by Gov. Abbott last week – I was wrong. The passage of SB 8 was very hard, as I felt so connected with this issue. So, what is SB8? This legislation relates to prohibiting certain abortions and the treatment and disposition of a human fetus, human fetal tissue, and embryonic and fetal tissue remains. It creates a civil cause of action, imposes a civil penalty, and creates criminal offenses. Now, let’s be clear, I personally would not suggest to a woman or a couple to have an abortion, but I would also never question anyone’s decision to have one.

I chose to study social work due to my previous employment. I worked at Texas Children’s Hospital in the department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation where I was able to learn about different diagnoses and the many medications and treatment that children with diseases and illnesses need to survive. This has led me to have so many mixed emotions as I have witnessed this issue myself. I have seen how much a woman suffers from an unplanned pregnancy. Having a child from an unplanned pregnancy is impactful enough on a woman’s life, but can be especially difficult if the father chooses not to be part of the pregnancy. I was already struggling trying to digest this type of legislation when Rep. Matt Schaefer, who was also one of the authors of the House’s version of SB 4’s “Papers Please” provision, proposed an amendment on the floor. He was attempting to revive HB 87, a bill that had previously died in the State Affairs committee, which sought to remove the current exception for women to receive abortion care after 20 weeks if the fetus has severe fetal abnormalities.

Thankfully, State Affairs Chairman Byron Cook spoke against the amendment. He shared the testimony of many parents and physicians who went through a pregnancy where the fetus had a severe fetal abnormality and the anguish the family goes through in those situations. He asked for the House to vote no on the amendment. The amendment was eventually defeated 71-65, which was still too close.  The debate around the bill and the amendments filed on the bill were emotional and tense. However, the best moment of the night was when Representative Donna Howard gave an amazing and heartfelt speech and pointed out several issues with the legislation.

After all of the grief, emotions, and passionate pleas, I was left with several thoughts. Why doesn’t the Legislature try to stop abortion by preventing the need for an abortion in the first place rather than making abortions illegal? Why doesn’t the Legislature ensure schools provide accurate and adequate sexual education to our students? Why doesn’t the Legislature make birth control affordable for women? I believe that SB 8 will not prevent abortions, SB 8 will just make abortions unsafe.

Posted in Melissa | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Empowered and Relieved

by Arielle Day, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

Empowered and relieved are the primary emotions I am experiencing as Sine Die, the last day of session, approaches. My classmates and I embarked upon this journey knowing that we would have to surmount a steep learning curve in an environment that isn’t particularly social worker friendly, and we did just that. In the beginning, feelings of insecurity surfaced regarding whether or not I, a social worker, am actually equipped with the necessary skills to work in an environment as contentious and cold as the capitol. To my surprise I discovered that my social work skills and knowledge base necessitate my participation in the political process and actually grant me an advantage in political settings.

Active listening, critical thinking, setting boundaries, empathy, effective verbal and written communication, self determination, and self-care are just a few of the social work skills and concepts that have proven to be more important to my work in this environment than classroom discussions have ever been able to convey. Having a base level of knowledge and training as a social work student was enough to build off of and rely on when the pace and demands of session intensified. On most days, something as seemingly simple as setting boundaries and having a realistic self-care plan in place was the difference between coming to work as a productive team member ready to tackle the day’s workload or showing up like a limp dishrag ready to self-destruct.

“After this… I know I can do anything.” This is a statement several of my classmates and I have repeated to each other over the course of the last few weeks. The sixty-hour (and sometimes more) work weeks, the high-stress situations, the anxiety provoking phone calls, and the inevitable bonding that took place within the group gives cause for renaming this internship, Social Worker Boot Camp. In accordance with the desired outcome of this social worker boot camp – and the mission of the Graduate College of Social Work – I now feel that I have obtained the necessary skills and training to promote and achieve sustainable social, racial, economic, and political justice.

Posted in Arielle | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Matters of Personal Privilege

by Joel Kissell, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

The first major hurdle towards the end of the Texas legislative session is over. At midnight, on Thursday, May 11th, any bill originating in the House of Representatives was effectively dead if it had not received a vote on the floor. Some of those bills may still find their way through the legislative process—if their companion bill is passed in the Senate and sent to the House for approval or as an amendment added to other legislation—but the majority of these bills will have their next opportunity in two years when the legislature reconvenes. The days were long in the Legislative Study Group as we put together our analyses for bills, many of which would probably not get their moment, watching our legislators work their way through the bills from last Monday’s calendar on Thursday night.

Over the course of the week leading up to this deadline, several members took time to give speeches to their colleagues about their bills and about the vagaries of the process. These speeches, called Matters of Personal Privilege, supersede all other rules of parliamentary procedure and can be a powerful tool of persuasion. On May 4, Representative Senfronia Thompson of Houston stood up for one of her bills that was removed from the Local and Consent Calendar (typically used for non-controversial bills or bills that impact a small number of cities or counties) by some of her colleagues without warning. The bill, HB 2629, would have required cosmetology programs to include training on identifying signs of human trafficking. A few days later, Representative Helen Giddings of Dallas took to the microphone for her own speech on May 9 after a similar maneuver removed HB 2159, which would have given school districts the option to offer a grace period for children whose lunch accounts were empty, from the Local and Consent Calendar. These two speeches demonstrated the members’ passion for the issues and their frustration with the machinations happening behind the scenes in the legislature.

In a sharp counterpoint to the speeches during the previous week, Representative Drew Springer of Muenster delivered his own emotionally-charged speech an hour before the looming House bill deadline on May 11. The bill, HB 810, was next in line but unlikely to get taken up for consideration as other members stalled for their own unrelated reasons. Springer’s plea emphasized his personal connection to the other members and HB 810, which I am less familiar with, but which enables increased access to investigational adult stem cell treatments for certain patients. Watching the way his speech was received in contrast to the others given that week, where members could be seen laughing and not paying attention, was disheartening. Human trafficking and lunches for schoolchildren could be dismissed as collateral damage resulting from parliamentary moves, but this speech was the one that made the membership change their minds and make sure HB 810 was passed. There is always more happening behind the scenes that affects our understanding of the legislative process, but as I reflect back on my experiences here in Austin, I am reminded that it is always personal.


Posted in Joel | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Nevertheless, She persisted.

by Elsa Mendoza, intern in the office of Senator Sylvia Garcia

Before I started this journey, my biggest concern was that I would be placed in an office that had dissimilar ideologies than my own. I was convinced I would be swimming against the waves.

However, I was fortunate to be assigned to a member who is noble, admirable and has consistent political and social ideologies – and she is a social worker! I am now faced with being so emotionally attached to my work because of how invested she is in absolutely everything she does.

Being on her team has allowed me to feel empowered as a woman, as a person of color, as a daughter of immigrants, and as a person who is not afraid to not be politically correct, all while in an environment with people who are against some or all of these characteristics.

The biggest lesson that she has taught me, without her knowing, is how troubling it can be to stand up for what is right. It is easy nowadays to just post something on social media about what you think is right and move on with life feeling like you took a stance on something important. But in the real world, it is commitment and perseverance that separates the talkers from the doers.  I have witnessed her fight the good fight with strategy, guts, and all of the energy she may have – EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now, I am glad to know that I am swimming against the waves with someone who is not going to give up until she shifts the tides in the direction she believes in.

People know her commitment to social justice very well.  You have seen her sit for hours in solidarity with individuals who she is fighting to protect. You have seen her make efforts to inform those who may not be aware of how policy may be affecting them.

It is sometimes not easy to work for someone like that. The long hours the team puts into the work in order to provide support to such a passionate leader are not always pleasant. While inspiring, keeping up with her incredible devotion to her constituents can be physically and emotionally draining.

But then the moment comes where we witness her speak on behalf of our families, our friends, and our neighbors in ways that other members may never have the guts to do. We are there for the moments where tough decisions are being made all with one goal: social justice for ALL. As she is walking out of the office ready to face the opposition, to face the hate and the ignorance, that is the moment I feel the most grateful for the exhaustion, the long hours, and the team I have been lucky to a part of.

Posted in Elsa | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Bill 4- Impact, Implications, and Emotions

By Andrea Elizondo, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group, and Chenelle Hammonds, intern in the University of Houston Office of Governmental Relations

On May 7, 2017 Texas Governor Greg Abbott officially signed into law SB 4, authored by Republican State Senator Charles Perry of Lubbock, otherwise known as the “anti-sanctuary city law,” and criticized as the “show me your papers” law. The law enforces federal immigration law compliance on state and local entities. This means that local peace officers are now required to act as stand-in federal immigration agents. This measure will make Texas the first state to ban sanctuary cities under the Trump administration, when it goes into effect September 1, 2017. A few months prior, President Donald Trump signed an executive order giving broad discretion to immigration agents to arrest undocumented immigrants, regardless of the commission of a crime, while also threatening to withhold federal funding from any city deemed a “sanctuary city.” SB4 mirrors President Trump’s injunction, focused specifically on the state of Texas.

This special post is longer than our usual blog posts to help social workers and others better understand this major new law, the context in which it emerged, its potential impacts in Texas, and ways that social workers can support immigrant families within this new legal environment.

Jump to: Brief History of U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, The Origin of SB4 and the Concept of Sanctuary Cities, How Did SB4 Develop, and What Does it Do?, Emotions & Reactions from Both Sides, Assessing the Potential Impact, What Social Workers Can Do Moving Forward, Media Related to the Events of SB 4


Brief History of U.S. Federal Immigration Laws

To get to the root of SB4, it is helpful to better understand the history behind federal immigration laws. Relatively free and open immigration was encouraged within the U.S. until some states began to pass immigration laws in the late 1800s, following the Civil War. In 1875, the Supreme Court determined that regulating immigration is a federal responsibility. Although various statutes governed federal immigration laws in the proceeding years, there was no official unified body of text until the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952.

The Act, sponsored by two Democrats, was originally vetoed by President Harry Truman. President Truman, also a Democrat, vetoed the Act as he regarded it to be “un-American” and “discriminatory.” Eventually however, Truman’s veto was overridden by Congress and passed into law. Bipartisan efforts to curb illegal immigration resulted in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The IRCA denied welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthened sanctions against employers hiring such immigrants, yet nevertheless granted amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants under specific circumstances. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act addressed the relationship between the federal and local governments. It made minor crimes – such as shoplifting – grounds for possible deportation, placed restrictions on institutions of higher education from granting undocumented students in-state tuition, and outlawed the bans some cities had against employers reporting an employee’s immigration status to federal authorities.

Fast forward more than a decade later, and the U.S. is still marked with conflicting waves of pardoning and restricting illegal immigration. The history of U.S. immigration shows that periods of influx of newcomers settling into American neighborhoods, communities, businesses, and schools have often been met with calls for the tightening of immigration laws. According to Pew Research, the growth in Texas’ Hispanic population is second only to California, increasing 56% from 6.7 million in 2000 to 10.4 million in 2014. Texas is no exception to this pattern of immigration regulation and reform prompted by increasing numbers of migrants.


The Origin of SB4 and the Concept of Sanctuary Cities

Law enforcement agencies in Texas already comply with U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Nevertheless, the bill was proposed in response to Travis County (Austin, Texas) Sheriff Sally Hernandez’s statement that she would comply with ICE on the minimum level, meaning that her office would only call ICE for a serious offense (human trafficking, murder, sexual assault, etc.) and not for minor offenses. According to Cacho v. Gusman, federal law permits this; this specific settlement agreement allowed the prisons in question to only follow ICE hold requests where serious crimes were involved and prohibited local sheriffs from investigating individuals’ immigration statuses.

Gov. Abbott seized this opportunity to make an anti-sanctuary city bill one of his top legislative priorities. He also cited concerns for public safety and a particular incident involving an undocumented immigrant known as Juan Rios. Rios had been arrested in Texas multiple times and deported three times. Last September, he went on a deadly crime spree across Texas, killing two people and kidnapping another. In his 2017 State of the State address, Abbott stated that “To protect Texans from deadly danger, we must insist that laws be followed.”

It is to be noted, however, that there is no legal definition of a “sanctuary city.” The specific term emerged in the 1980s during protests against federal immigration policies that denied El Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees asylum. Several cities led the way in pushing back; most notably, San Francisco passed an ordinance forbidding city police or civil magistrates from assisting federal immigration offices. In response, a Roman Catholic Priest in Los Angeles by the name of Luis Olivares declared his church as a “sanctuary” for people who were poor, homeless, and undocumented. Hence, the term “sanctuary cities” emerged.

The term became more widely used during the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary, when Mitt Romney accused former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of running the city as a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. (Giuliani was once a staunch proponent of a path to citizenship.) Since then, opposition to “sanctuary cities” has manifested into a movement sweeping across the U.S.

Of note, Attorney General Jeff Sessions – appointed by President Trump – visited Austin in April,  suggesting that the city is not an actual “sanctuary” and acknowledging that Travis County is, in fact, complying with federal immigration law. So what then, constitutes a “sanctuary city?” Neither the U.S. Department of Justice, the Trump administration, nor the Texas Legislature (even in this law) have defined this term. With no clear definition of the highly politicized term, how is a ban like SB4 to be fairly enforced?


How Did SB4 Develop, and What Does it Do?

The Texas Senate acted on SB4 swiftly, passing it in February. It was passed by the Texas House on April 27th. The Senate confirmed the changes made by the House and sent the bill to the Governor for his signature on May 3. While Gov. Abbott originally slated the bill to target those who have committed crimes in the State, as the legislative process developed – particularly on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives – the bill deviated from its original intent, becoming more punitive to undocumented immigrants.

At its core, SB4 enforces federal immigration law compliance on state and local entities. It excludes peace officer enforcement in hospitals, churches, school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and public health departments like community health centers and mental health facilities. A series of amendments sought to limit the law’s impacts on certain populations; however many of these proposed amendments failed. As a result:

  • Officers can inquire about immigration status of a person, even if the person is a victim or witness to a crime.
  • Countless amendments offering protections to pre-kindergarten children, homeless shelters, and shelters for battered and abused women were shot down with a consistent vote along party lines.
  • Campus police departments are required to comply.

Although the law includes an anti-discrimination clause, this clause is relatively vague, stating, “A local entity, campus police department, or a person employed by, or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity or department, may not consider race, color, religion, language, or national origin while enforcing immigration laws except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or Texas Constitution.”  These “exceptions” leave much room for possible targeted discrimination toward foreign immigrants.

The law specifically addresses the complaint process, if one believes that a law enforcement agency or campus police department is not compliant with this law. Any individual residing in a law enforcement jurisdiction or enrolled/employed at an institution of higher education may file a complaint to the state attorney general against a person or entity found to be non-compliant. If law enforcement agencies or campus police are found by the state attorney general to have violated state and federal immigration law, the following penalties will ensue:

  • The agency will be charged with a civil penalty of $1,000-$1,500 for the first violation and $25,000-25,500 for each subsequent violation.
  • The law enforcement agency will be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor, the most serious misdemeanor in the state, punishable up to $4,000 and up to one year in jail.
  • A person holding elective or appointed office of a political subdivision that violates federal immigration law or any sections of SB4 would forfeit their position.

Perhaps the most controversial portion of the law, however, is an amendment added on the House floor. The original Senate and House version allowed local peace officers to inquire about immigration status during a lawful arrest – this change allows officers to question the immigration status of any person they detain. This amendment goes so far beyond the bill’s original focus solely on criminal undocumented immigrants that even the author of the House version bill, Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, amongst a few other Republicans, opposed it on the House floor.

As a result of this detention provision, now incorporated into the law, opponents have proclaimed that Texas, like Arizona in 2010, has become a “show me your papers” state. The Arizona law was the target of much criticism, boycotts, and lawsuits, culminating in a settlement with immigrant rights groups last year. However, Gov. Abbott argues that this provision differs from the Arizona law, in that it “allows” officers to check legal status, but does not require it. Despite such assurances from the Governor, this amendment still begs the question: If SB4 is really just about ICE detainers and public safety, why allow routine traffic stops to become reasonable grounds for suspicion?


Emotions & Reactions from Both Sides

During the 16-hour debate on the floor of the House, emotions stirred high amongst opponents of the bill with state representatives wearing their hearts on their sleeves. State Representatives Rafael Anchia, Mary Gonzales, Ana Hernandez, and Gene Wu gave heartbreaking personal privilege speeches to show their opposition towards the bill. (Videos of some of these incredible, emotional speeches are linked here: Anchia, Wu).

During 10 hours of testimony before the House State Affairs Committee, as well as in other community efforts to oppose this bill, advocacy groups and members of Texas’ immigrant community argued that the legislation is redundant, unconstitutional, and based on fear-mongering and generalizations of the immigrant communities. Many Hispanic immigrants in Texas voiced their opposition, viewing the bill as a direct attack on their community. This idea is not far-fetched, as Cardoso and Faulkner find that “deportations disproportionately impact the Latino community – 96% of all people deported were from Latin America and the majority of children with at least one undocumented parent are Latino, mostly from Mexico (70%) and other Latin American countries (17%).” While undocumented immigrants are not solely Latino, Latinos are stereotyped at a disproportionate rate for being undocumented due to media portrayal of this group.

Other opponents see this bill as a fear-mongering tactic; some suggested that the man being used as example for this bill’s necessity would not have been politicized in this same way had he been a White American citizen. These opponents testified that in contrast to immigrants of color, Whites are often seen as individuals, meaning, that if one White person does harm, society doesn’t punish the whole group, nor enact policies that target the entire group based on the actions of one.

Opponents also expressed concern that SB 4 will terrorize immigrant communities in Texas. They argued that fewer crimes will be reported because individuals from immigrant communities will be too afraid to report crimes out of fear of deportation. They believe that this law will hurt the most vulnerable in Texas, like human trafficking victims, domestic and sexual assault victims, school age children, and immigrant families. For instance, a rape victim who is an undocumented immigrant may fail to call law enforcement out of fear of being detained; thus, the perpetrator could go free and continue to harm others. Testifiers suggested that this would accomplish the exact opposite of the bill’s expressed purpose, making communities less safe. They posited that children with undocumented parents and their mixed-status families will face mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, etc., and that undocumented college students won’t feel safe going to class or will feel discouraged to attend out of fear. This could negatively impact the state’s college retention rates, education workforce, and labor market. Additionally, opponents argued that this law will exacerbate mistrust of law enforcement within communities of people of color, further damaging the police and community relationship and enabling racial profiling of immigrants.

In contrast, proponents of SB4 argued that the law fosters a greater sense of security amongst all residents, including immigrant communities. Supporters believe that by ensuring that local entities do not prohibit enforcement of federal immigration laws, both local officials and federal authorities can work together to keep dangerous criminals off the street. They argue that the law simply applies uniform standards to the state, affecting few cities, as most cities report that they operate in compliance with federal law. Under current law, all law enforcement agencies send an arrestee’s fingerprints to the FBI, after which ICE can request that a jail hold inmates suspected of being in the country illegally for up to 48 hours. SB4 calls for an undocumented individual to be held in federal custody confinement for no more than 7 days for a serious crime, and the state is expected to wait for a transfer approval from ICE if there is no current detainer request from ICE on the individual. Supporters argued that allowing certain cities and entities to disregard these requests enables potential criminals to return to the community and commit serious crimes.

Proponents also stated that the law has other positives, including allowing law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy about educating the public on the bill and its implementation, potentially improving police-community relations. This outreach must include victims of family violence and sexual assault. Supporters noted the law creates a system of due process, as the Attorney General can sue entities or departments in a district court only upon determination that a complaint of non-compliance is valid. Furthermore, the law creates a grant program to financially support cities and counties in offsetting costs related to enforcing immigration laws and complying with federal requests to maintain custody of someone relating to a possible immigration violation. Supporters suggested that this will provide more support to local law enforcement agencies and local communities.


Assessing the Potential Impact

With the passage of SB4, Texas meets the criteria of one of 18 states deemed “hostile” towards immigrant populations, based on research conducted by professors at Dartmouth. “Hostile states” are identified as those with laws requiring verification of immigration status in order to acquire a driver’s license, universal employment verification, or cutting funding to “sanctuary cities.” In fact, on May 9, two days after the law’s passage, the ACLU issued a travel alert to travelers to Texas, stating:

“We plan to fight this racist and wrongheaded law in the courts and in the streets. Until we defeat it, everyone traveling in or to Texas needs to be aware of what’s in store for them…every interaction with law enforcement can become a citizenship interrogation and potentially an illegal arrest.”

Several of these “hostile states” have experienced lower numbers of undocumented immigrants living in the state, with unintended consequences. Texas risks facing similar negative economic impacts as previous states that have passed restrictive immigration laws. For example, Georgia experienced substantial labor shortages in agriculture, triggering an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses the year after the state passed HB 87. In response, the state had to send prisoners to harvest fruit and vegetables from the state’s farms. Arizona faced national scrutiny after its passage of SB 1070. While the law was intended to offer increased safety and economic security to Arizona’s residents by cracking down on those in the State unlawfully, its actions came at a great cost. The city of Phoenix alone lost $141 million in business from the tourism and convention industry in the four months following SB 1070’s passage. Parts of the law were eventually found to be unconstitutional as a federal judge ruled that various police departments had engaged in racial profiling in their immigration enforcement practice; this led to an appointed monitor to institute reforms in the state and an agreement that one particular sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, pay a series of civil sanctions for failing to comply with court orders.

In 2011, Alabama passed HB 56, regarded as the toughest anti-immigration bill in the U.S. to date. The number of Hispanic children attending public schools dropped significantly. Industries dependent on migrant labor workers were heavily impacted, as American citizens were unwilling to work for low pay under these harsh working conditions. The law also was found to have contributed to an increase in violent crime rates. The immigration law was so broad that a few months after its passage, a German Mercedes-Benz executive was arrested in Alabama, when he left at his hotel his passport identifying his permission to be in the U.S. A month later, a Japanese Honda executive was also stopped at a checkpoint and ticketed even though he had a valid passport and U.S. work permit. Research predicted that HB 56 would shrink Alabama’s annual GDP by $11 billion due to lost sales, lost income taxes, and reduction in consumer demand; however, the law’s financial impact was never able to be truly assessed, as, in October 2013, federal courts declared a number of the controversial law’s provisions unconstitutional.

Although some Americans believe that immigrants negatively impact the economy by ‘stealing’ jobs or pushing down wages, evidence does not support this claim. Research has also shown that immigrant populations are not marked with increased violence. In fact, immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than individuals born in the U.S. Both immigrants born outside the U.S. (first-generation) and children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents (second-generation) are substantially less likely to commit violent crimes than are children born in the U.S. to native-born parents (third-generation). The goal of protecting communities can come at a hefty price tag, but are the concerns lawmakers raise based in truth…or scare tactics?


What Social Workers Can Do Moving Forward

As social workers, we have a commitment to social, economic, and political justice. SB4 presents an opportunity for social workers and others who share our values to begin the discourse on how we can increase public safety, community involvement, and public trust for all communities, while also respecting the human rights of individuals. Given the sharp divisions in this country on the issue of immigration, it is even more crucial now that we strategically devise advocacy efforts to bring the state of Texas and our nation together. There needs to be more advocacy not only in talking collectively to proponents and opponents of this bill but in listening, working together, and educating each other on our concerns and experiences.

Equally important, is the need to exercise keen discernment between opposing undocumented immigration and anti-immigrant sentiments. One can value “law and order” while also valuing the worth and dignity of people. In response to SB4, local community organizations plan to set up presentations like “Know Your Rights,” “Protect Yourself from Deportation,” and “Planning Ahead.” For those interested in helping populations that may be affected by SB4, we encourage you to get training in these areas and reach out to your local immigrant community and local law enforcement.




This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Posted in Andrea, Chenelle | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

My Thoughts and Ramblings After a Courageous and Radical Testimony

by Serena Ahmed, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

For the past two months, at least half of my work week as a policy analyst for the Legislative Study Group has been spent in committee hearings. I typically sit in the back of the room with my computer on my lap, so that I can take notes on every bill being heard that day. Bills are primarily referred to committees based on subject matter. The committee chair and her clerks plan the committee schedule each week, including what bills will be heard that day and organizing the order by which they will be heard. The order is not known to the public beforehand  – just like most of the bill process, that happens “behind the scenes.” When it is a bill’s time to be presented and delved into, the author, who is a member of the Texas House of Representatives, gives an opening statement describing the background and purpose to the committee. Representatives who are members of the committee may ask questions of the author during the opening and closing statement, and they do so by pushing a button near their microphone that alerts the chairwoman that they wish to ask a question. After the author’s opening statement, witnesses testify in support of, against or neutral on the bill. There is typically a three-minute time limit, but this tends to be enforced inconsistently; it is enforced more often when it is late after a long day, or when the committee is trying to finish before the House floor convenes. The Representatives may ask questions of the witnesses. The bills are then “left pending in committee” and only live to move on to the next step in the procedure if they are voted out of committee. Most bills never even get voted on by the committee.

One of the best memories I have of a hearing was during a meeting of the Business and Industry (B&I) Committee. This is the primary committee devoted to the conflictual relationships between employers and employees. As such, all the bills for the 85th session related to increasing the minimum wage statewide were referred to B&I. The committee organized it so that all 8 or 10 of them were heard on the same day. It was exciting. The press was there. The room was packed with different activist groups there to testify and support, including Fight for 15. Fight for 15 started a few years ago with a few hundred fast-food workers that protested in New York City for a $15 minimum wage and a right to unionize. It grew into an international movement comprised of hundreds of thousands of workers in a wide variety of industries.

One Fight for 15 activist and worker who testified that day on behalf of increasing the current Texas minimum wage from $7.25/hour left me with thoughts and feelings of respect and awe for their bravery and commitment to social and economic equality. In front of a room where most of the people were not going to agree, they talked about the greedy hand of capitalism. They were laughed at and brushed aside, while far right-wing testimony is never so simply casted off in this context. It was proclaimed that the witness and testimony could not be taken seriously. It was unsurprisingly casual and typical, while simultaneously so difficult to just sit there and watch all at the same time.

These bills on increasing the minimum wage were heard a couple of months ago. It is clear that they will not be voted on in committee, yet alone referred to the Calendars committee to even be considered for a House floor vote. “Calendars” is where bills go if they are voted out of committee. Many bills die during this stage of the bill procedure because the Calendars committee decides that they will not vote them to the House floor. No one from the public witnesses this stage at all.

Like any realist, I believe in incremental change. This is a simple fact of life. The question is what change are we moving towards. I want to be a part of radical, structural change. One that is not afraid to question systems that may seem so ingrained and natural, but in actuality are just a few minutes in the history of humanity.

I am so thankful for my experiences here. However, I cannot wait until May 29th when my journey continues outside of the space of the Capitol. I did not need this experience to come to the realization that this is not where the radical changes will find nourishment and grow, but it is certainly an excellent reminder each day. I am so excited and looking forward to spending my life organizing and educating with a variety of communities and groups, and slowly but surely building a radical base of progressive critical consciousness in both theory and action.

Posted in Serena | Tagged | Leave a comment

There is Hope in This House

by Tyler Anderson, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

We’re four months into this legislative session and if there’s one thing I can say about the Texas House of Representatives, it’s that, oftentimes, hope can seem scarce. It seems that every day a different bill advances that would strip basic human rights or harm a certain vulnerable population; most times, these populations are the same ones that we as social workers hope to work with and protect throughout our careers. I could easily name 30 bills filed this session that would hurt women, immigrants, people of color, people living in poverty, veterans, children, and even animals – as policy analysts, we see these bills up close every day and are intricately familiar with how easily they become the laws that govern people’s lives. While being so close to the process has its advantages, more often than not, it leaves me feeling frustrated, disillusioned, and hopeless. For the past month or so, I’ve been in a major rut because of these feelings; it becomes more difficult to perform to the best of your ability when you feel like your advocacy efforts fall on deaf ears.

For the past couple of weeks, however, I’ve been reflecting on times when I have seen hope in the legislature. I’ve seen advocates show up tirelessly, week after week, in order to speak for vulnerable communities. I am reminded of the children who have bravely testified in front of legislative committees against bills that would negatively impact their families, such as SB 4 and HB 2899. I look to members such as Representative Victoria Neave, who boldly embarked on a spiritual hunger fast for four days in opposition to SB 4. I come back to members such as our boss, Chairman Garnet Coleman, who filed HB 2702, “The Sandra Bland Act,” a bill that seeks to make meaningful and necessary reforms to our criminal justice system at a time when people are dying at the hands of this system every day. I think about the courtesy and respect I’ve seen members with opposing political views give each other during heated floor debates. I look to my social work colleagues here in the Capitol who are putting everything they have into this job in hopes of influencing policies that will have lasting impacts on Texas families.

All these examples don’t fully negate the hopelessness I feel. At the end of the day, many of these harmful bills will pass and become law. They also do not eliminate the real consequences these bills will have on people throughout the state. I would be remiss, however, to not take time to recognize and appreciate these examples and the solace they bring me. With five weeks left in session, I will continue to draw motivation from the strong, caring people I work with and the families I hope I am able to help. I will tell myself that it’s ok to be overwhelmed by the scope and ramifications of these harmful bills. I will continue to look for ways I can advocate both within my work and outside of it. Most importantly, I will continue to remind myself that there is hope in this House, and it’s ok to focus on that from time to time.

Posted in Tyler | Tagged | Leave a comment