There are two problems with the Jan. 27 article “GOP chair shuts down testimony opposing sanctuary city ban.” First, the Associated Press reporter probably misunderstood the legislation’s
practical effect, writing “The bill [HB 200] would require local law enforcement to comply with federal immigration law.” Actually, the bill would merely prevent state agencies and local governments from issuing gag orders to keep their law-enforcement officers from communicating with federal immigration agencies when — operating with their usual discretion — such officers would otherwise choose to do so.
In other words, HB 200 wouldn’t force anybody to do anything. It would merely keep the desk jockeys from interfering with on-the-scene judgements of their officers in the field. (Experienced
officers know that federal immigration laws are a useful tool for removing illegal-alien predators from our communities without requiring involvement by often-fearful witnesses.)
Second, the article quotes Lauri Franklin, an opponent of HB 200, testifying that “This bill is specifically intended to isolate, intimidate and demonize both documented and undocumented
immigrant populations by identifying them as other, unworthy of protection, citizenship and humane treatment.”
The problem here is with the testifier, not the reporter: Franklin’s assertion about the bill is industrial-strength hysteria with no grounding in reality, as even a brief glance at this legislation’s
text will confirm.
But as described in the article, Franklin’s ungrounded testimony was in keeping with that of many of the bill’s opponents. Thus it’s worth saying that HB 200 has nothing to do with racial
profiling, or refugees, or asylum, or religion, or immigrants and foreign visitors who are lawfully present.
And House Judiciary Committee Chairman Barry Usher acted responsibly in curtailing the opponents’ attempts to muddy the waters by broadcasting their fantasies.
Paul Nachman
Bozeman
Bozeman Daily Chronicle Letter to the Editor 2/7/21