[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6260449,"mediaKeyId","3130962-92addeb1a3bab5c26ceed7aa24425909","parentId",3130962,"title","Committee advances five immigration‑related bills after hours of testimony and public opposition","audioSeconds",3699,"startMs",930000,"endMs",4629000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3130962-92addeb1a3bab5c26ceed7aa24425909&start=930&end=4629","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3130962-92addeb1a3bab5c26ceed7aa24425909/thumbnail_930000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6260449/Michigan/Committee-advances-five-immigrationrelated-bills-after-hours-of-testimony-and-public-opposition","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6260449-574f3d830a4d43dd6a1837e2d5aee136/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141504&Signature=WH~UUnN380uFQzpgY6bdbN75PNMqfYi8q5hq8Po3QvWkYutT4T6Bk5UBK~7umoLw7DWrlQGGQHzYb81kzYyjVshQ~fKd~s-9pIUzX3sAPrfMLMUfR8XsYxRx2D5AaO7zA4aYYyRYAT0KQxTm~Kfc1cD3TMpRyWteDd0TKcBBp9iU-LuAsdQIa9TpYgc9DBxI~FpIW2vdjXK~UGNq3NcLwwc8lKWk~MmwjJWVh0er6msU0aQvaisCtOq7zqAg~0PNFb4W-KDiPTyu8ojm2CmClApCF3x8FXtGVZZf4B~zqI7klNchAI8UvA9Qr88~Cy0H0AZ1APfGEE80gMgquQV48w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Government Operations","date","2025-04-24T00:00:00Z","article","The House Committee on Government Operations on Oct. 12 voted to report five immigration‑related bills with a recommendation, advancing each measure by a 3‑2 roll call vote after hours of testimony from sponsors, law‑enforcement stakeholders and dozens of public commenters.

Bills acted on: HB 4338, HB 4339, HB 4340, HB 4341 and HB 4342. Committee members recorded final roll calls of 3 ayes and 2 nays for each bill; a series of proposed amendments brought by committee members failed by 2‑3 votes before the measures were reported.

What the bills would do (as described at the hearing):
- Prohibit local governments and public bodies from enacting or enforcing laws, ordinances, policies or rules that limit communication or cooperation with federal immigration authorities, according to sponsor testimony presented at the hearing (HB 4338, HB 4339).
- Restrict eligibility for certain state housing and public‑benefit programs to U.S. citizens and qualified residents, except where federal law requires otherwise (HB 4340, HB 4341), and tie eligibility for some state discretionary enhancement grants to compliance with the act (HB 4342), as sponsors described it at the hearing.

Why it matters: Committee action moves the bills forward in the legislative process. Sponsors argued the measures would promote consistent enforcement of federal immigration law, protect state social safety‑net resources for citizens and legal residents, and improve public safety by incentivizing cooperation between local and federal law enforcement. Opponents — including legal aid organizations, civil‑liberties groups, faith leaders and municipal advocates — warned the bills would undermine local control, chill cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement, duplicate existing federal eligibility rules, and create legal liabilities and budget risks for local governments.

Key points from testimony and committee discussion:
- Sponsors’ arguments: Witnesses identified in the hearing record as representatives who sponsored the measures argued the bills would prevent local policies that they described as “sanctuary” practices and would protect taxpayer funds and public safety. Sponsors told the committee that some counties and local law enforcement officials have policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities; sponsors cited those policies as motivating the legislation and said the bills create remedies, including resident lawsuits and complaints to the attorney general, for noncompliance (witnesses referenced “section 7” and “section 9” language in committee testimony explaining amendment and enforcement timeframes).

- Public commenters and civil‑liberties groups: Dozens of public commenters and multiple organizations testified in opposition. Testimony in opposition came from the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, the ACLU of Michigan, the Michigan League for Public Policy, We The People Action Fund, the Michigan Catholic Conference (neutral but expressing concerns), and other speakers. Opposition testimony warned the bills could:
- Discourage immigrants — including U.S. citizens in immigrant families — from seeking essential services or reporting crimes, harming public safety;
- Duplicate existing federal rules that already govern eligibility for many benefits and public‑housing programs;
- Lead to racial profiling, civil‑rights violations and legal challenges; and
- Shift enforcement and fiscal burdens to local governments that lack funding and training for federal immigration duties.

- Enforcement details discussed at hearing: Supporters described enforcement tools in the bills that would require local policies allegedly in conflict with the act to be amended within specified deadlines (testimony referenced a 60‑day window for amendment in one bill). Testimony also discussed citizen enforcement options and complaints to the attorney general beginning after the specified compliance periods.

Amendments and committee votes: Committee members offered and debated amendments designed to narrow or clarify enforcement, to limit applicability to conflicts with federal law, to condition enforcement on federal detainer practices, and to protect persons who have paid into benefit systems. Most attempted amendments were defeated on 2‑3 votes. Examples recorded in the hearing record include:
- An amendment to limit enforcement to cases where local policy conflicts with federal law (defeated 2‑3).
- An amendment to make enforcement contingent on mandatory federal detainer or 287(g) practices (defeated 2‑3).
- Amendments to ensure eligibility where individuals have paid into benefit systems or to preserve certain federal exemptions (defeated 2‑3).

Votes at a glance (committee level):
- HB 4338 — Reported with recommendation, committee vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays.
- HB 4339 — Reported with recommendation, committee vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays.
- HB 4340 — Reported with recommendation, committee vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays.
- HB 4341 — Reported with recommendation, committee vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays.
- HB 4342 — Reported with recommendation, committee vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays.

Distinctions in the record: Multiple witnesses said federal law already limits eligibility for many programs; legal advocates and service providers warned the bills would create confusion by duplicating federal requirements and could remove access to narrowly defined protections for survivors of trafficking, youth services and elder interventions. The Michigan Catholic Conference said it had no formal position but raised concerns that the bills could reduce trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement and that enforcement of immigration policy is primarily a federal responsibility.

Next steps and implications: Each bill now proceeds with the committee’s recommendation in the House process. If these bills advance beyond committee and are enacted, local governments could face new state requirements, potential loss of state enhancement grants and increased legal exposure, depending on final statutory language and judicial review. Opponents signaled plans to challenge the measures in court if enacted, citing civil‑liberties and due‑process concerns.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Government Operations | Thursday, April 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Committee on Government Operations on Oct. 12 voted to report five immigration‑related bills (HB 4338, 4339, 4340, 4341 and 4342) with a 3‑2 recommendation after several failed amendment attempts and extensive public testimony.","taxTitle","Government Operations, House of Representative, Committees\t\t\t\t\t, Legislative, Michigan","taxId",27465,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6260454,"House Government Operations committee reports bill to change Gulf name after failed amendment votes",591,333000,924000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3130962-92addeb1a3bab5c26ceed7aa24425909&start=333&end=924","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3130962-92addeb1a3bab5c26ceed7aa24425909/thumbnail_333000.jpg","/articles/6260454/Michigan/House-Government-Operations-committee-reports-bill-to-change-Gulf-name-after-failed-amendment-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6260454-97297af1ab2e20e0110892044671f68c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141504&Signature=G1r90jnjdP1fkjb9808NHeX1MMomFgIB~b1vXjitvQWbTkfHzjTjoARPCfo4IUKg1n~WSbQhqon~bsCuZx7g8u27f49yWMm-Kvjk1fUrdfTEJ-yZVmeMEuOOt2N0n0liGSyYDMla8P49XSAAQf-tqNMQuqSce2ag9lxM1nscT3URz~wq5I5yRtA5hmrhi5PN8Efwn5kNKC6O4v-pGzUD7JFfQml7rsXNYFmDMydQEm587nqvjeBUYY9zJD6M4WNh6LNBP-9rwOXyzHVFHPMiGgcL-axbhqBByxcORgcQruNrhLhY41O78QYMOmjHxJisipUDOpFa-~WKDvOnmbIqWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Government Operations on Oct. 12 reported House Bill 4244 with a recommendation after a 3‑2 roll call vote, sending the measure to the next stage of consideration.

The bill, identified at the hearing as sponsored by Representative Baddock, would encourage state usage of the phrase “Gulf of America” (as presented at the hearing) in place of the Gulf of Mexico. Supporters who testified told the committee they view the change as a symbolic way to promote pride in veterans and the state; opponents and several committee members raised concerns about local costs, historic usage and the role of executive orders and federal or international geography.

Why it matters: The committee-level recommendation means the bill moves forward in the legislative process; if enacted, the change would affect how state communications and signage refer to a major body of water. Committee debate focused less on immediate regulatory details and more on symbolic, fiscal and jurisdictional implications.

The hearing record shows five amendments were offered and defeated before the committee voted to report the bill. Representative Fitzgerald offered an amendment to allow state officials, when communicating with non‑Michiganders, to use “Gulf of Mexico” or to treat “Gulf of America” as a voluntary alternate name; that amendment was defeated on a 2‑3 vote. Fitzgerald’s second amendment, to allow local public bodies to seek state reimbursement for costs of compliance, also failed 2‑3. Representative McFall offered several amendments — including language to make executive orders that had effected prior name changes unenforceable and to preserve use of “Gulf of Mexico” in historical contexts — and another to give public bodies discretion if compliance would raise costs; each of those amendments failed on 2‑3 votes.

The final committee roll call on the motion to report House Bill 4244 was recorded 3 ayes and 2 nays. The committee record shows the motion to approve the minutes earlier in the meeting and then the hearing and amendment votes on HB 4244 proceeded before the bill was reported.

Substantive details from the hearing include:
- Number of amendments considered: 5 (all defeated). The amendment votes were recorded as two yays and three nays on each failed amendment motion.
- Final committee action: Motion to report HB 4244 with recommendation passed 3 ayes, 2 nays.

Discussion vs. action: Much of the committee exchange on HB 4244 was discussion of symbolism, potential reputational effects in communications outside Michigan, and whether cost burdens could fall to local governments. The failed amendments attempted to limit enforcement to conflicts with federal law, to create reimbursement mechanisms, to protect historical usages, and to preserve local discretion for cost concerns. No amendment passed at the committee level; the committee did not adopt language changing existing executive orders or creating a state reimbursement program.

Public comment during the hearing touched tangentially on HB 4244. One commenter who identified as a tribal citizen said she did not “hate America” and described concerns about the rhetoric and language used in related bills. The committee did not take additional public‑comment votes specific to HB 4244 beyond the amendment and reporting votes.

Next steps: With the committee report, HB 4244 will proceed according to the House calendar and committee-referral process. Any future changes would occur in subsequent committee action or on the floor of the House.

The committee conducting the hearing was the House Committee on Government Operations.","The House Committee on Government Operations on Oct. 12 reported House Bill 4244 with a recommendation after a 3‑2 roll call vote, sending the measure to the next stage of consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances five immigration‑related bills after hours of testimony and public opposition

House Government Operations committee reports bill to change Gulf name after failed amendment votes