The R.I. Legislature has the power to help protect our immigrant community
This legislative session, alongside many advocates and policymakers, the
Advertisement
This small adjustment has a profound impact, it protects immigrant Rhode Islanders from unjust immigration detention, denial of relief, and deportation for minor offenses. Under federal immigration law, a one-year maximum sentence — even for minor offenses — can trigger devastating consequences for immigrants, including
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Take, for instance, a longtime legal permanent resident with a single misdemeanor shoplifting conviction. Even if the individual receives no jail time, just a small fine, they can still face the devastating consequence of deportation and permanent separation from their family. This is because under our current laws, the offense carries a potential sentence of one year, triggering harsh
Advertisement
Rhode Island wouldn't be the first to take this step — states like New York, Washington, Nevada, New Jersey, Illinois, and New Mexico have recognized the need to protect their residents; Rhode Island must do the same. For the fifth consecutive year, the Senate has prioritized protecting our immigrant neighbors and friends. Yet, it remains stalled in the House Judiciary Committee, waiting to be voted on the House floor.
This modest one-day change would not shield individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as, violent offenses, domestic violence, or firearm-related charges which are already treated separately under federal immigration law. These offenses would remain deportable regardless of the sentence length.
Just as crucially, this change would not alter the authority of judges or prosecutors. Judges would still retain full discretion to impose appropriate sentences and prosecutors would continue to make charging decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
As the 2025 legislative session draws to an end, the RIBLIA Caucus strongly urges the passage of House Bill 5502. Without action, immigrant Rhode Islanders, both documented and undocumented, will remain vulnerable to life-altering consequences for low-level, nonviolent offenses.
Together, we have the power to uphold fairness, prevent unnecessary family separations, and protect the rights and dignity of
all
Rhode Islanders. The time for a floor vote is now. The time to act is now.
State Representative David Morales represents District 7 in Providence's Mount Pleasant, Valley, and Elmhurst neighborhoods.
State Representative
Leonela Felix represents District 61 in Pawtucket.
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Several provisions fail to pass muster with Senate rules in 'big, beautiful bill'
Several provisions in the Senate GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" have run afoul of Senate rules and must be stripped if Republicans want to pass the package without the help of Democrats. The bill is undergoing what's called a "Byrd Bath," when the parliamentarian meticulously combs through each section of the mammoth bill to determine whether policies comport with the Senate's Byrd Rule. The point of the budget reconciliation process is to skirt the Senate filibuster and pass a massive, partisan legislative package. But if provisions are left in that fail the test, Senate Republicans will have to meet the typical 60-vote threshold. Provisions that don't pass muster can still be appealed, however. Senate Democrats vowed to use the Byrd Bath as a cudgel against the Senate GOP to inflict as much pain as possible and slow momentum as Republicans rush to put the colossal bill on Trump's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could also overrule the parliamentarian but has remained adamant he would not attempt such a move. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough scrutinized three chunks of the megabill from the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services committees and found numerous policies that failed to meet the Byrd Rule's requirements. Among those was a provision that would have eliminated funding for a target of the GOP's since its inception in 2008, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which would have effectively eliminated the agency. Doing so also would have slashed $6.4 billion in spending. Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said in a statement he would "remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee's provisions." Attempts to put guardrails on the $150 billion in Defense Department funding baked into the package also failed to pass muster. The language would have required that Pentagon officials outline how the money would be spent by a certain deadline or see the funding reduced. Other provisions on the chopping block include language that cut $300 million from the Financial Research Fund and cut jobs and move the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board under the umbrella of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have saved roughly $773 million. An attempt to change the pay schedule for Federal Reserve employees was also nixed, which would have saved about $1.4 billion. Environmental standards and regulations set by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act were also determined to have run afoul of the Byrd Rule, including a repeal of tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles with a model year of 2027 and later.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberals' major projects bill passes House of Commons with Conservative support
The Liberal government's major projects legislation passed in the House of Commons on Friday evening as MPs wrapped up the spring parliamentary sitting. Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, essentially gives cabinet the ability to pick certain projects to speed through the regulatory process, with an eye to projects that can deliver an economic boost to Canada, help strengthen the country's autonomy and resilience, "advance the interests of Indigenous peoples" and contribute to "clean growth." The legislation was a priority for Prime Minister Mark Carney who promised to "build big, build bold" during the spring election campaign. Once a project is deemed in the national interest, the legislation would allow the government to skirt certain laws — such as the Impact Assessment Act — in order to get construction underway. The legislation passed fairly quickly, having only been introduced earlier this month. The Conservatives supported the bill as a whole, while the NDP and Bloc Québécois backed a part of the bill that removes internal trade barriers. Liberal backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who had previously called on the government to allow for more time to study the bill, also voted against the legislation. The government hasn't said what exactly would be fast-tracked under this legislation — and there are no specific projects mentioned in the bill itself — but Carney has signalled support for new energy "corridors" in the east and west, which could include pipelines and electricity grids, new and expanded port facilities, mines and other resource-related initiatives. After Friday's vote, Carney crossed the House floor to shake hands with a number of Conservative MPs. Despite the bill passing in the House in less than a month, it isn't without its critics. WATCH | Carney on Indigenous consultation: Indigenous and environmental groups, along with MPs — some within the Liberal Party — and senators, raised concerns that the bill is being rushed through Parliament and will grant cabinet sweeping powers to override other laws to plow ahead with industrial projects favoured by the government of the day. Those criticisms prompted Carney to hold a news conference immediately after the bill passed. "These projects will build our national economy — and through Indigenous equity and resource management, these projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities," he said outside the House chamber. "This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself." The legislation itself states the government will recognize, affirm and "respect" Indigenous peoples' constitutional rights when considering a project. But there's a fear among some leaders that the consultation process with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities will be inadequate. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, national chief of The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), told the House transport committee on Tuesday that the bill was being rushed through Parliament without giving First Nations communities time to have their questions answered and concerns heard. "We all need more time and opportunity to speak to this legislation and get answers," she told MPs on the committee, saying she's hearing these concerns from multiple chiefs. WATCH | Grand chief says bill won't apply on First Nations territory: The government sent letters to Indigenous communities last month, outlining what the legislation would look like before the bill was tabled. But Woodhouse Nepinak and other leaders who appeared at the transport committee said the consultations have been inadequate. "The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations," Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond told the same committee on Wednesday. "The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak," Haymond cautioned, referring to the movement that began in 2012 and led to countrywide protests, including road and rail blockades. Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, who represents 49 First Nations in northern Ontario, wants the Governor General to step in before giving the legislation royal assent — an unlikely and constitutionally dubious proposition. "I'm hoping she's paying attention to what's happening here so that she can think about intervening," he said. When asked Friday about those concerns, the prime minister said moving forward in partnership with Indigenous communities was always the intention of the bill. But he said that message might not have been articulated "as clearly and as structured" as it could have been at the start. Carney promised Friday to hold "summits" regarding the legislation with Indigenous leaders starting next month. The legislation is supported by the business community and building trades, who testified to Parliament that it can take longer to get projects approved than to get them built. Other government legislation that the House was examining hasn't yet made it to the finish line, and therefor will need to wait until MPs return to Ottawa in September. Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 were both seen as government priorities that the Liberals were pushing to get through fairly quickly. C-4 primarily would have brought the Liberals' proposed income tax cut officially into law. But even though the bill hasn't passed, the government can move forward with the tax cut starting July 1, thanks to the passage of a ways-and-means motion earlier this month. The government's Bill C-2 focuses on strengthening Canada's borders, but advocates and some opposition MPs have raised concerns that the legislation would create new surveillance powers infringing on personal privacy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy commissioner also raised concerns with some of the provisions in C-4. The Senate will continue to sit next week after agreeing to examine C-5. The House is scheduled to return Sept. 15.
Bloomberg
44 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Carney Bill to Speed Projects Passes Vote Despite Indigenous Opposition
Canada's House of Commons cleared a bill to accelerate the building of major projects such as pipelines, but Indigenous groups are threatening to force a legal battle over it. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Mark Carney's government aims to fast-track construction by allowing projects that are deemed in the 'national interest' to receive a quicker review for environmental and other impacts. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces a final vote before becoming law.
