HB 4117
Appropriates moneys from the General Fund to the Oregon Department of Administrative Services for purposes of deposit in the Universal Representation Fund.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
97%
Oppose
3%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
House Bill 4117 allocates $10 million from the state’s General Fund to the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. This money will be deposited into the Universal Representation Fund, which is then intended to be disbursed to Oregon Worker Relief. The bill also declares an emergency, meaning it goes into effect immediately upon passage. This funding aims to support relief efforts for workers.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of HB 4117 emphasize the importance of ensuring due process for immigrants in sanctuary states, particularly vulnerable children and families. They argue that this legislation addresses the traumatic effects of ICE sweeps on immigrant families and communities, causing fear, disruption, and separation. Advocates highlight the need for access to representation for immigrants who often cannot afford it, citing the devastating consequences of lack of due process. The bill is seen as crucial in providing funding for sanctuary states, protecting immigrant rights, and keeping families together, including those with critical healthcare needs. Supporters also express concern over the cruelty and lack of due process in ICE deportation actions and advocate for state-level action to address these issues, emphasizing that everyone deserves protection and due process.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of HB4117 express concerns that the bill's proposed funding allocation is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, diverting resources away from more pressing needs. They argue that the allocated funds could be better spent on other priorities, such as education or infrastructure development. Additionally, some the need for greater transparency and accountability in government spending, suggesting that the bill's lack of clear budgetary details undermines public trust. Furthermore, ideological opponents of the bill contend that it represents a misguided attempt to impose a specific policy agenda, rather than addressing the root causes of social issues.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.