When delegates return, passage vote on human trafficking bill could heat up – WV MetroNews

West Virginia lawmakers are scheduled for a late start on Monday because of the severe weather that hit the state over the weekend. When delegates do return, they’re set for a passage vote on a bill that proposes significant expansions to state laws on human trafficking and smuggling.

A significant point of contention is over whether the bill would criminalize charitable or religious activities to help immigrants.

HB 4433, which aims to strengthen the judicial framework for prosecuting exploitative labor and migration practices,  was advanced by the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 and then was the subject of debate over amendments on Friday.

The House is set to return for a 1:30 p.m. Monday floor session after snow, ice and freezing temperatures hit the state over the weekend. In the interim, the fatal shooting of an ICU nurse by federal immigration enforcement officers during protests in Minneapolis inflamed national debate over immigration enforcement policy.

The West Virginia bill establishes specific criminal penalties for the illegal transport of adults and minors.

The legislation includes legal exemptions aimed at ensuring that providing medical care, mental health counseling or authorized legal representation to undocumented individuals does not constitute a crime, but critics of the bill have said its language needs to go farther to prevent well-intended citizens from being swept up.

Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, said during committee discussion that his concerns start with the possibility that the legislation could subject people of faith to criminal penalties for providing basic services, such as transportation to grocery stores or medical appointments, to immigrants

“The first concern is about people who, as part of their religious practice, are providing service to the poor, to immigrants, to people who need help,” he said. “My concern is that these types of actions will subject people of faith to criminal penalties and time in jail.”

He continued, “One common type of action is to take care of the poor and take care of the needy and take care of immigrants. And I want to make sure that we allow that to occur, we don’t subject people to criminal penalties and we don’t chill that type of activity for fear of going to jail, even if it would be unlikely that they would be prosecuted.”

Hansen said he also has concerns that the bill would encourage greater activity in West Virginia by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Delegate Joe Funkh0user, R-Jefferson, countered during the meeting that he believes the bill is needed.

“Our compassion has been exploited for too long, and the perpetual amnesty cries and the facilitating of the invasion of this country by the previous presidential administration in exploiting every loophole, and it has gone on for far too long,” Funkhouser said.

“I feel comfortable with the current administration, but we do need better protections for all West Virginians.”

During debate over amendments on the House floor on Friday, Delegate Kayla Young proposed making a change to the bill to add an aspect of intent to the definition of human smuggling.

The main part of the definition in the bill says: “Human Smuggling”, “smuggling”, or “smuggles” means knowingly transporting, transferring, receiving, isolating, enticing, or harboring an illegal alien to avoid enforcement of the
laws of this state, another state, or the United States.

Young’s proposal was to add “for financial or material benefit.” The amendment was rejected on a voice vote.

“I think we all want to go after people that are breaking the law,” Young said. “I want to make sure we’re targeting people that are profiting off of exploiting other people. And so this amendment clarifies that there would be a financial motive for people who are doing this for a capital gain.”

House Judiciary Chairman J.B. Akers, R-Kanawha, countered that the bill already has definitions meant to safeguard against overly broad application.

“You do not have criminal liability under this bill if your purpose is simply to provide transportation services to someone, do a favor for somebody,” Akers said.

“You only have liability for the smuggling provisions of this bill if the transportation you’re providing is to avoid enforcement of the laws, which is consistent with federal law.”

An amendment proposal led by Delegate Laura Kimball, R-Harrison, removed a line of the bill that said “Except as otherwise provided in this article, any individual or entity that transports illegal aliens is engaged in human smuggling.” Delegates voted to adopt the amendment.

Kimball told delegates that phrasing “is unnecessary and causes confusion about the original definition already in the previous parts of the bill.”