The City of Portland has introduced a contentious initiative: taxpayer-funded paid leave for immigration-related legal matters. Dubbed “Immigration, Naturalization, and Citizenship Leave,” this new Human Resources Administrative Rule (HRAR) 6.15 allows city employees to take up to 40 hours off each year with pay to attend immigration court proceedings, including deportation hearings. This policy raises eyebrows, especially given Portland’s projected $66 million budget shortfall.
Starting January 1, 2026, city workers may utilize this paid leave for various immigration-related activities. These include obtaining legal support, attending citizenship interviews, or appearing in court for deportation hearings. Eligibility extends beyond the employees themselves; they can also use this benefit to support family members, including spouses, children, parents, and siblings, as well as anyone they consider closely associated.
The privacy aspects of HRAR 6.15 stand out as particularly controversial. Under this rule, supervisors cannot inquire about an employee’s immigration or citizenship status or their country of birth. This significant restriction prevents meaningful oversight, as supervisors are even barred from discussing specific leave requests via email. Such stringent privacy mandates create a scenario where the city can provide paid leave linked to immigration without any scrutiny into its necessity or implications.
This policy comes at a time when Portland grapples with financial difficulties, raising questions about the prudence of diverting public funds to cover leave for immigration matters. Despite the city’s struggles with budget management, it has prioritized funding this new leave category, which many may find perplexing given the potential lack of transparency and accountability.
Critics are likely to point out the irony in the city’s decision-making. Portland has been in the spotlight for various issues, ranging from unrest to declining public safety measures. An initiative that appears to sidestep taxpayer interests in favor of immigration benefits for city workers strikes many as a move in the wrong direction. The city’s past challenges, including riots and crime, further compound skepticism regarding its governance.
This recent policy raises significant questions about the priorities of city officials. By committing to such a program, they may be widening the gap between fiscal responsibility and immigration advocacy in a town already dealing with pressing financial issues. As Portland embarks on this new chapter, taxpayers will undoubtedly be watching closely, weighing the implications of funding paid leave for deportation hearings against the backdrop of the city’s ongoing financial struggles.
"*" indicates required fields
