House panel debates repeal of Office of Legal Immigration; sponsors, agencies and stakeholders disagree on role and results

The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee took testimony on House Bill 1493, which would repeal the statutory provision that created the Office of Legal Immigration in the Department of Commerce.

Representative Andrew Rios, the bill sponsor, said the office — established in 2023 to support recruitment, retention and community integration for foreign‑born workers — had not yet produced results that justify continued funding. Rios told the committee the office had placed roughly 15 workers since it began activity in December and questioned whether state dollars should be used to recruit foreign workers when other programs target domestic recruitment. “I say we repeal the Office of Legal Immigration. It's not needed,” he said.

Department of Commerce workforce director Katie Ralston Howe testified in opposition to repeal. Howe said the office does not process visas or provide immigration legal services and instead helps employers navigate federal immigration processes and builds recruitment pipelines. She described a timeline of study, a statewide vendor report published in May 2024, a Global Talent Summit in August 2024 and the start of placements in December 2024. "We do not work directly with foreign born job seekers or assist with processing any part of an individual's visa application or certification," she said.

Howe and deputy director Jana Pastor provided staffing and grant details the committee requested: the office was appropriated funds in the 2023–25 biennium (the sponsor cited a figure of roughly $2,000,000 plus ongoing salary funding in testimony), and Howe told the committee Governor Armstrong's budget for the current biennium included $2,000,000 for the office (about $250,000 in operating and the remainder proposed as grants). Pastor said the grant program opened in August and that approximately $252,000 in grants had been awarded so far to nonprofits that provide community integration and employer support; Pastor said the grants are largely for nonprofit support services and not employer operating costs.

Howe described placements and economic impact estimates provided by Commerce: about 10 workers had arrived in the state since December at the time of testimony, with 16–20 additional hires in process; Commerce estimated an average annual economic impact of roughly $25,000 per worker (industry-specific estimates: construction ~$58,000; health care and manufacturing ~$75,000; oil and gas ~$76,000).

Opponents of repeal included hospital systems, business and economic development groups and community organizations who said the office supports recruitment that rural and health care employers otherwise cannot accomplish. Arne Brennan of the North Dakota Hospital Association said the office’s expertise and webinars reduce barriers and recruitment costs for hospitals and health systems, and Ultra Health System’s corporate counsel, Britney Blake, said the system expects to place six to eight employees per quarter using pipelines the office helped develop. Derek Gross of CATCH, a nonprofit working on community integration, said the issue is as much about population and school enrollments as workforce vacancies: in communities where new families arrive, local schools and businesses can see multi‑year revenue and staffing benefits.

The committee heard competing policy frames: Representative Rios emphasized possible duplication with the Find the Good Life recruitment program and urged consolidation of functions; Department of Commerce witnesses said the two programs serve complementary roles and that the Office of Legal Immigration focuses on employer navigation of federal hiring pathways and community integration. Several committee members urged metrics and clearer reporting. Representative Koppelman asked for the count of placements tied to current spending; Pastor and Howe said the office is producing placements and pursuing longer‑term metrics on employer engagement, retention and community-level impacts.

No committee vote was recorded. The record contains requests for fiscal and performance metrics; the department offered that additional data and clarifications are available and that the office's work remains early in implementation.