BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 60 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 25, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 60 (Gonzalez) - As Amended March 19, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill extends existing protections against fraud related to providing immigration reform-related services, as a result of Congressional action, to also apply to reform arising from AB 60 Page 2 executive actions. Specifically, this bill: 1)Revises the definition of an "immigration reform act" to include the President's November 2014 executive actions on immigration, or any future executive action or order, authorizing an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain a lawful status under federal law. Further requires the State Bar to announce and post on its website when such an executive action or order has been issued. 2)Clarifies that "immigration reform act services" do not include legal services that have an independent value apart from the preparation of an immigration reform act and other related initial processes, such as assisting a client in preventing removal from the United States. 3)Prohibits attorneys and immigration consultants from demanding or accepting advance payment of any funds from a person for specified immigration reform act services. 4)Clarifies that any advance payment of funds for immigration reform act services received after October 5, 2013(the date that AB 1159 [see below] became effective), but before the enactment or implementation of the immigration reform act for which the services were sought, shall be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of the funds. FISCAL EFFECT: 1)Violations by attorneys and immigration consultants of the underlying statutes amended by this bill are misdemeanors, and immigration consultants are also subject to civil penalties. AB 60 Page 3 This bill could therefore result in addition non-reimbursable costs to local governments for prosecution, offset to some extent by fine revenue. In addition, there could be minor state and local revenue increases from civil actions brought against immigration consultants by the Attorney General or local prosecutors for violations of the bill's provisions. 2)This bill will not result in any additional state costs beyond the minor one-time costs previously identified to implement AB 1159. COMMENTS: 1)Background. On June 27, 2013, the United States Senate passed S. 744, known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. On July 10, 2013, AB 1159 (Gonzalez) was amended to guard against immigration services fraud upon those seeking potential relief under S.744, should it have ultimately become federal law. AB 1159 was signed by Governor Brown as an urgency measure and its protections took effect on October 5, 2013. However, S. 744 was never passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and died later in the 113th Congress. On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration. 2)Purpose. On December 10, 2014, this bill was introduced to further the objectives of AB 1159 and protect consumers seeking immigration services in connection with the President's executive actions. (These executive actions are currently on hold pursuant to a preliminary injunction issued AB 60 Page 4 by a federal court in Texas.) According to the author, various services in anticipation of prospective but uncertain immigration reform are being targeted to Spanish-speaking immigrants. The author and supporters indicate that a large number of people are at risk of exploitation, given the potential size of the immigrant pool that may be affected. Undocumented immigrants may be particularly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous businesses and individuals because of the risks they face in asserting their rights as consumers and victims of fraud or other wrongdoing. The bill is strongly supported by immigrant advocates, City of Los Angeles officials, civil rights organizations, and labor, among others. 3)Opposition. The Southern California Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argues the bill is overly broad and "will further deter future immigration attorneys from entering into this field to begin with, directly reducing the amount of competent immigration attorneys willing and available to help serve this population." Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 60 Page 5