A March 6 raid on a leather-goods factory in New Bedford that resulted in hundreds of suspected illegal immigrants being either detained or deported sparked a flurry of proposals by members of the General Assembly.

The New Bedford Standard Times

For all the debate that swirled around immigration issues this spring, and all the bills introduced in the General Assembly, lawmakers are indicating they intend to pass one bill, at most, on the topic this session.

An already-active debate about immigration suddenly exploded March 6 when federal agents raided a factory in New Bedford and detained 361 people accused of being in the United States illegally. Lawmakers introduced new bills on a daily basis. Rallies and hearings were held.

As the legislative session heads into its final weeks, the fervor has abated. The House leadership has expressed interest in acting on a bill that would require employers to verify new hirees’ eligibility to work using a federal database, aimed at preventing future situations like what happened in New Bedford. But Senate leaders have expressed reservations about that bill, and the business community registered strong opposition.

The other 35 or so bills are stuck in House and Senate committees. The deadline for voting bills out of committee passed weeks ago, and although the rules allow for exceptions, the lawmakers who chair the committees say the bills are not likely to move. There’s talk of creating a study commission to take a more deliberative approach to the issue.

Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston, was one of two representatives who introduced the majority of the immigration bills this year. Among Palumbo’s measures: a bill that would levy fines against landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, and a resolution that would ask Congress to halt the practice of granting U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

“I knew that they were going to meet with a lot of resistance,” Palumbo said last week. “I think they were taken seriously, but we have a very liberal leadership now.”

Palumbo and the other representative who made immigration a signature issue this year — Rep. Richard W. Singleton, R-Cumberland — both say they still are hoping to get at least one immigration bill to the House floor for a vote yet this year. Singleton’s bills include one that would require people to provide “documentary proof of citizenship” — such as a birth certificate or naturalization documents — as part of registering to vote, rather than just signing a sworn statement that they are U.S. citizens.

“If none of these bills pass, certainly, I’ll be disappointed,” Singleton said. “But I think one of the things we’ve done this year … is we’ve brought these issues to the forefront, had the courage to bring them up for debate, and I think that’s a good thing.”

Some, however, don’t agree that the bills from Singleton and Palumbo sparked a good discussion.

“When I see some of these bills, I have to ask, who are they targeting?” asked Miguel Sanchez-Hartwein, executive director of the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy, in Providence. “Are they targeting mainly Latinos, or immigrants in general?”

Sanchez-Hartwein and others say that some bills may have worthy policy goals, but would lead to racism and discrimination as the government tries to implement them.

For instance, one of Singleton’s bills would disqualify anyone who isn’t an American citizen or legal permanent resident from receiving unemployment benefits. (The state Department of Labor and Training already asks unemployment applicants whether they are U.S. citizens but does not take further steps to verify citizenship if an applicant answers yes.) Another would make legal immigration status a prerequisite for living in subsidized housing or getting any other housing assistance.

Advocates for immigrants’ rights question whether landlords and state officials would request documentation from everyone, or just from people who have dark skin or speak with an accent. “Regardless of the intent of these policies … unfortunately, they’re promoting discrimination and fear,” said Wilfred Ordonez, a community organizer for Central Falls-based Progreso Latino.

“If you hear some of the rhetoric, if you listen to the radio talk shows, there’s a palpable animosity toward people simply for being different, for coming from a different country, for not speaking English,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Our country has always had a pecking order, and somebody always has to be at the bottom, where all of our fears and concerns get laid on. Right now, it’s immigrants. They’re the scapegoat for all the country’s problems.”

Brown says Palumbo and Singleton are adding fuel to the fire with their bills. “I think this is a test for the General Assembly to do what is right as opposed to what may be perceived to be popular,” says Brown. “The General Assembly, as a democratically elected body, should generally listen to its constituents, but there are times when it has a higher calling, and this is one of those issues.”

WHILE EACH BILL addresses a very specific aspect of state government, the debate invariably turns to larger issues: federal immigration policy, and a broader discussion of how open the United States’ borders should be.

Singleton and Palumbo agree that immigration policy is ultimately the federal government’s responsibility. But every proposal for addressing the problem on the national level has failed to win a critical mass of support. In the absence of action by the federal government, the state can contribute to a solution, Singleton and Palumbo say.

One of Singleton’s bills — to prohibit the children of illegal immigrants from attending public schools in Rhode Island — contravenes federal law, and Singleton said he’s well aware of that. He said he introduced the measure in hopes that the Assembly would pass it and the ACLU would bring a court challenge that would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a reversal of the current policy on a national level.

“I think it’s incredibly unfair,” Singleton said, “that people can come here, break into our country, sneak in during the middle of the night, and the American taxpayer is expected to educate their children. I think that’s wrong, given the fact that we’re all struggling to pay taxes that cover the cost of education.”

By failing to enforce immigration laws, Palumbo says the U.S. government is “easing the burden” on foreign governments to rule justly and improve their citizens’ quality of life. “If people weren’t able to come into our country, they would have to stay and fight like we did years ago, and overthrow the regimes,” Palumbo said. “By us allowing them to come over here, there’s a way out for them.”

Palumbo said he’s still holding out hope that the House Corporations Committee will move on his bill that would require banks to demand proof of legal immigration status before providing loans to noncitizens. Some banks, Palumbo said, “are actually targeting the illegal market.”

Singleton said he’d like the Judiciary Committee to act on his bill that would require proof of legal immigration status when applying for a driver’s license. If state governments chip away at the products, privileges and services illegal immigrants can receive, he said, fewer people will be induced to come. Brown, of the ACLU, says this bill is among the worst of the proposals. “All you’re doing is driving individuals underground by denying them a driver’s license,” Brown said. “The government actually has less knowledge of who is here and where they are.”

In any event, the chairmen of key House committees say they are unlikely to move forward with any of the bills besides the employment-verification database bill. House Judiciary Chairman Donald J. Lally, whose committee handled many of the immigration bills, proposes forming a legislative commission to study the issue, with the goal of passing legislation next year. “Instead of passing laws in a patchwork manner, we need to address the whole system,” said Lally, D-Narragansett.

Palumbo and Singleton both said they support that idea and would be the first to volunteer for the commission. Said Palumbo: “Remember one thing: Next year is an election year.” He said he thinks lawmakers will be more willing to get tough on illegal immigration next year because that is what their constituents want. “The majority of people,” Palumbo said, “are on my side with these bills.”

egudrais@projo.com