VivirLatino

Living & Luchando la Vida Latin@

Tag Archives: Immigration

Breaking : Undocumented Arizonans Risk Arrest Outside Sheriff Joe’s Trial

July 24th, 2012

As I wrote earlier today, a group of undocumented Arizona residents publically declared their undocumented status outside of the trial of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. While Arpaio testifies inside the U.S. courthouse, four undocumented individuals indentified as Miguel Guerra, 37; Natally Cruz, 24; Leticia Ramirez, 27; and Isela Meraz are in the street at the Federal Courthouse (401 W. Washington Street) with a banner that says “No Papers, No Fear: Sin Papeles y Sin Miedo.”
The group released the following statement:

“As undocumented people living in Arizona, we know firsthand what it is like to live under Arpaio’s terror and the constant threat of deportation. Many of us started participating in the movement for justice the day that Jan Brewer signed SB1070 into law. We knew at that moment that things were so terrible, we had to do something to protect our families and our communities. We have learned our rights and our experience has shown us that the best way to fight back is to come out of the shadows and organize.
We have marched and we have protested. Today we are taking civil disobedience to ensure that our voices are heard. We are no longer afraid. Today, we confront publicly what we risk every day, being arrested by the police, and separated from our families, only because we are undocumented. We’re confronting fear itself. We are undocumented and unafraid. We hope to inspire others in our own community to lose their fear, to come out of the shadows, and to organize.”

I asked a representative about any demands that those risking arrest have and was told that they want Arpaio arrested, not the people and that the Feds should stop deporting Arpaio’s victims (who would seem to be victims of the Feds as well no?).

More information as/if it becomes available.

Post to Twitter

The Mixed Bag S.B. 1070 SCOTUS Decision and the White House Response

June 26th, 2012

Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered a mixed decision on the fate of four specific parts of Arizona’s infamous Senate Bill 1070.

Three of the four sections of the larger law that had been argued against by the U.S. Department of Justice were determined to be unconstitutional, specifically violating the supremacy clause which basically says that Federal law overrides state law.

The sections deemed unconstitutional are (from the Crimmigration blog):

Section 3, which, the Ninth Circuit explained, “essentially makes it a state crime for unauthorized immigrants to violate federal registration laws.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 355 (9th Cir. 2011)

Section 5(C), which makes it a state crime for an undocumented person to apply for, solicit, or perform work in Arizona. United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 357 (9th Cir. 2011)

Section 6, which permits warrantless arrests if probable cause exists that a suspect “has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 360 (9th Cir. 2011).

However, one of the most controversial parts of the law was upheld. Section 2(B) requires police officers to check the immigration status of all people stopped, detained, or arrested presumed there is “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is an undocumented immigrant and…

requires officers to verify—with the federal government—the immigration status of all arrestees before they are released, regardless of whether or not reasonable suspicion exists that the arrestee is an undocumented immigrant.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 347 (9th Cir. 2011)

I am not surprised by the decision and I question if there is as large an impact because of the decision. Federal policy, specifically Secure Communities and 287(g) have basically empowered law enforcement to stop those they suspect of being undocumented. This, contrary to what many like to say, was not about civil or human rights. It was about asserting Federal power and we have seen federal power under President Obama help create record breaking deportation numbers. The precedent for racial profiling of Latinos, the precedent for amping up criminalization of immigrant communities has its roots in federal policy.

Post to Twitter

Prosecutorial Discretion : A Deeper Look at the Numbers

June 12th, 2012

Yesterday’s post on what I called the failure of President Obama’s prosecutorial discretion “policy” received a good amount of attention in social media. Many within the immigration activist community agreed, while others felt that the administration needs more time.

Yesterday, the Immigration Policy Center released a fact sheet giving information about the case-by-case review process and a look at the stats released from the Department of Homeland Security.

Some things to note when looking at the highlights below : how many cases are still being put into removal proceedings especially as the percentage of cases being determined eligible for administrative closure gets lower and lower.

Also it’s important to note that administrative closure does not grant any sort of legal status or allow for legal employment in the United States. Administrative closure is really an indefinite suspension. According to Ben Winograd, Staff Attorney at the American Immigration Council, DHS could ask an immigration judge to reactivate the removal proceeding that had already been started, rather than initiating an entirely new proceeding.

Some highlights from the fact sheet:

 

Total Cases Reviewed (as of May 29)

Total Cases Reviewed

Cases Found Eligible for Administrative Closure

All cases

288,361

20,648

7.16%

Non-detained cases

232,181

20,608

8.88%

Detained cases

56,180

40

0.07%

 

Number of new cases placed into deportation : 111,000 new removal proceedings have been initiated since the review began

Total Cases by Period of Review

Period of Review

Total Cases Reviewed

Cases Found Eligible for Administrative Closure

Before March 5

165,471

13,190

7.97%

March 5 – April 16

54,083

3,354

6.20%

April 16 – May 29

68,807

4,104

5.96%

Total

288,361

20,648

7.16%

Post to Twitter

Lawsuit Filed Against US Border Patrol & Department of Homeland Security over “Voluntary” Departures

June 8th, 2012

Yesterday, the Legal Action Center (LAC) at the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, filed suit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for unlawfully withholding records concerning voluntary returns of noncitizens from the United States to their countries of origin. Between January 2009 and April 2011, CBP managed 662,485 voluntary returns of Mexican nationals.

Voluntary return, also known as “administrative voluntary departure,” is a procedure whereby CBP officers permit noncitizens to voluntarily depart the United States at their own expense rather than undergo formal removal proceedings. Noncitizens may be granted voluntary return to their countries of origin after conceding unlawful presence in the United States and knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to contest removal.

Based on reports from immigration advocates, CBP officers do not always provide noncitizens with information regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary return and in some cases even compel them to “agree” to “voluntarily” depart. Consequently, individuals who accept voluntary departure may be forced to relinquish claims for legal status in the U.S. or become barred from lawfully reentering the United States for up to ten years.

Seeking greater transparency regarding these practices, the LAC filed a detailed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in June 2011. CBP produced four pages of records with the promise of more to come. After waiting almost a year for additional documents, the LAC filed suit under the FOIA, which requires federal agencies to produce responsive, non-exempt documents upon request.

“CBP’s voluntary return practices compromise the due process rights of noncitizens who are forced to relinquish valid claims for legal status,” according to Melissa Crow, Director of the Legal Action Center. “We hope this lawsuit will generate greater public awareness about CBP’s use of coercive tactics to enforce immigration law.”

Via / American Immigration Council

Post to Twitter

STARS & ARMS : Steps to DREAM?

June 5th, 2012

While the Democratic party points fingers at Republicans for the DREAM Act failing to pass in Congress, the GOP is presenting alternatives to DREAM that some call better than nothing and others call a path to a permanent underclass. No, I’m not talking about Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s version of the DREAM Act, which he has talked much about while creating false hype about him as a possible running mate for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. That proposal has proven to be like Democratic promises for immigration reform – all talk and no action. I’m talking about what another Florida Republican, Congressman David Rivera, actually introduced last week.

Rivera introduced a bill focusing on education as a follow up to the Adjusted Residency Status (ARMS) Act which was introduced in January of this year. The ARMS Act would provide a path to permanent residency to undocumented youth who serve in the military after a conditional status period. The newly introduced Studying Towards Adjusted Residency Status (STARS) Act, would provide a path to permanent residency to graduates of a four-year college or university after a conditional status period like ARMS. In many ways STARS answers critics of ARMS who wanted an alternative to boosting military enrollment as a path to legalization. STARS and ARMS also run counter to what Sen. Rubio’s alleged plan contains or rather doesn’t. Rubio’s plan allegedly does not/will not contain a path to residency.

Post to Twitter

The Devil is in the Details, Not the Party

May 27th, 2012

Last week there were a lot of gasps from people who couldn’t believe that President Obama was being compared to Maricopa County’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Not only was Obama compared to the Sheriff who is facing a federal lawsuit for refusing to allow oversight of his department over accusations of racial profiling against Latinos and general poor management, Obama was called worse when it came to immigration.

Democrats and Obama supporters are quick to point out that the accusation is coming from a conservative strategist, Alfonso Aguilar, in an effort to gain votes for Republicans in key swing states like Nevada, especially since assumed GOP presidential candidate Romney is trailing in polls among Latino voters.

But is the accusation so off base? Obama’s detention and deportation policies have been built on the legacies of presidents before him. Secure Communities has been expanded and made mandatory under Obama’swatch and responsible in large part to record deportation numbers topping over a million. Comprehensive immigration reform, a promise made to Latino voters during Obama’s 2008 campaign, has failed to make an appearance. Weak willed face saving actions like pushing the DREAM Act and announcing prosecutorial discretion haven’t lived up to expectations nor the demands of immigration advocates and the Latino electorate.

Maricopa Country Cheriff Joe Arpaio’s power has been bolstered by federal immigration policies that lack real oversight on the state level. The soon to be faded out 287(g), allowed Arpaio to turn his police force into defacto immigration enforcement agents. Secure Communities bolsters this. So it’s not a matter of if Obama is worse than Sheriff Joe, it’s a matter of what polices allowed Sheriff Joe to become who he is. The role of state laws like SB1070 cannot be ignored, which is why the Feds are trying to shut parts of that law down, not on the basis of how they violate the rights of immigrants, especially immigrant Latinos (and non-immigrant Latinos as well) but on the basis of how those laws step on federal immigration enforcement toes.

Obama is in a bad position. He has an immigration record that can be scrutinized while Romney is all talk. And while Romney’s talk sure ain’t pretty, it’s not surprising. It follows the same hard-line anti-immigrant, enforcement first agenda that was set back during McCain’s presidential run. If Romney really wants to win the Latino vote in Nevada or any other state he’s gonna need to do better and chances are he won’t and no brown face, not Marco Rubio’s or Alfonso Aguilar’s, is going to help just by pointing out what Latinos already know. Yes, the Obama administration has failed massively and miserably when it comes to immigration reform. What is the GOP offering that is any better?

Let’s see some real policy proposals and less party pointing.

Post to Twitter

Welcome to NY Secure Communities

May 14th, 2012

Despite efforts by local and national advocates and activists, the Secure Communities deportation program will go into effect in New York and other states tomorrow.

S-Comm is a Department of Homeland Security program that requires states to identify immigrants for deportation. While NY governor Cuomo and other governors across the country have expressed concerns regarding the difference between what how DHS says the program is implemented and what statistics show regarding the deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. There have been mixed messages and allegations of a cover up regarding the mandatory nature of the program. The intense roll out of the program despite complaints and protests seems to make the mandatory nature of the program clear.

Given the latest report of racial profiling by the New York City Police Department which showed that 87 percent of those stopped were blacks and Latino, the implementation of S-Comm especially in urban areas with large immigrant populations is extremely concerning. Immigrants account for more than one-third of the city’s residents and 29% of all voters in New York.

While the federal government attempts to make an example of Arizona by challenging parts of SB1070 in the Supreme Court and by suing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for racial profiling, it continues to fast track a program that has contributed to racial profiling.

Post to Twitter

Broken Promises and Lowered Expectations : Immigration Reform in the Time of Elections

April 24th, 2012

It’s time to woo the Latinos! It’s time to woo the Latinos!

According to Michael Scherer in TIME:

 “When we consider the impact of Latinos in 2012, we are looking at a swing between about a 20% vote share for Republicans and a 45% vote share. The question that follows is how much of an impact this swing will have on the final electoral college results. The polls that really matter are state-by-state surveys, not national ones. Latinos are expected to make up about one in ten voters this year, but many of those votes, in big states like Texas, California and New York, will have no impact on the electoral college, since those states are not in play for Romney. But Latinos can have a big impact on the outcomes in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Florida, and a marginal impact in states like North Carolina and Ohio, all of which both parties will contest.”.

In other words game on. While the immigration issue may not be the most important to all Latinos, it is one that many care about for ourselves, our families, and our loved ones. It’s a political litmus test of racial politics beyond black and white. The call has gone out and both parties are upping their game by reviving dead immigration horses and even hitching their hopes to new ones.

Republicans love to remind Latinos that we’re just like them, based on stereotypical assumptions on issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion. Moving away from morality a bit this election season, the GOP is sing the promise of a potential brown vice-president, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who made the rounds on the Sunday morning political pundit television shows and the novel approach of challenging Democratic inaction on immigration reform by pushing various pared down versions of the DREAM Act.

The Democrats are approaching the Latino vote in three ways. One, by pouring money and energy into massive voter registration and get out the vote campaigns. Two, by repeating the promise of immigration reform and three, by pointing out how bad Republicans have been and will continue to be for the Latino community.

Last week Latinos for Obama officially relaunched, complete with a newish tag line : Estamos Unidos. There is nothing novel in the outreach which focuses on Latinos as the backbone of the alleged economic recovery. Of course there is mention of fixing the broken immigration system and taking a swipe at GOP versions of the DREAM Act, a mention of offering a pathway to citizenship to those who came into the U.S. as children.

Recently in an interview with Univision (of course- this a promise not to be made in English), President Obama promised, again, that if he were reelected he really would push for comprehensive immigration reform in the first year of his second term. Problem with the promise, besides that he made the same exact promise back in 2008 and didn’t keep it, is that Obama has already excused eventual failure. In that same Univision interview, Obama said that while he would push for comprehensive immigration reform in his second term, the Republicans (cue evil music) would kill it, especially Republicans like his likely opponent, Mitt Romney.

With Mitt Romney emerging as the likely GOP presidential nominee, liberal think tanks, non-profits, and advocacy orgs have joined with the Democratic Party in attacking what the Republican ticket would look like with junior Florida Senator Marco Rubio as it’s Vice-presidential pick. The Center for American Progress Action Fund recently released an issue brief ominously titled, “Nightmare Ahead: What a Romney-Rubio Presidency Would Mean for Immigration.”. One thing that immigration advocates and activists should be concerned about, according to CAP, is that both Romney and Rubio seem to love E-Verify, a flawed internet-based work-authorization system and that both would push for mandatory nation-wide use. While CAP accurately points out the problems with E-Verify, including error rates that misidentify workers authorized to work as not and vice versa, what isn’t mentioned is how the current Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano voted to make E-Verify mandatory in Arizona. 

Also under attack from the Democrats and their supporters is the GOP DREAM Act. While no actual piece of legislation has been drafted, what Senator Rubio has proposed in statements is a DREAM Act like bill that would allow young undocumented people brought into the United States by their parents some sort of legal status but no path to citizenship. This proposal has rankled many within the immigration advocacy world who took up the DREAM Act as their pet cause after it became clear that President Obama was not going to keep his campaign promise of comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and allied orgs are quick to point out that Republican senators overwhelmingly voted against the DREAM Act coming to the floor back in 2010. What many undocumented young people have countered with is how some Democrats also voted against the DREAM Act in that procedural vote and that since then the Obama administration has offered nothing save an increase in detentions and deportations. In other words, something is better than nothing and it certainly is better than living in fear of being arrested and deported. Likely GOP presidential candidate Romney has cubically spoken out against the original DREAM Act but He did say that he would support a military only version, like Republican David Rivera’s ARMS Act and has indicated that he is not opposed to a something like what Rubio is suggesting. Not all immigrants wants to be citizens and certainly that’s not a path that anyone should be forced to go on, but critics worry about the creation of second class non-citizens who are able to live and work in the United States but not vote. And because it is election time, it’s all about the vote, voters, and would be voters.

The proof however goes beyond words. We need to see what an actual GOP DREAM Act would contain and see if the Obama administration makes any real attempts at slowing down the detentions and deportations. 


Post to Twitter

Eye on the Florida Primary : Mirror on the Wall, Who is the Most Anti-Immigrant of All?

January 27th, 2012

I’m feeling a little dazed from the seemingly endless stream of GOP debates and the incumbent President’s non-statement statement on immigration policy during the SOTU. With the Florida primary just days away, both political parties are targeting the Latino vote that the state allegedly represents. Both parties are playing a spin game, ready to crown an opponent as the most anti-immigrant on one hand, while claiming that the Latino electorate in Florida doesn’t really care about immigration.

In last night’s GOP debate, on again off again front runner Newt Gingrich took a page from the Democratic National Committee, targeting Mitt Romney as the most anti-immigrant. Certainly this attack is related to Romney’s statements earlier this week touting “self-deportation” as a good solution to current problems. Romney, offended by Gingrich’s characterization, demanded an apology. As I pointed out in a piece I wrote for El Diario La Prensa last month, we are heading into dangerous territory when we try to find the “worst” among bad choices. Gingrich’s allegedly kinder, softer approach to immigration amounts to what the current Obama policy is on paper, allowing “non-threatening” immigrants with family ties and a long history in the U.S. to stay in a permanent limbo status.

A new/old Latino target is being pushed by one organization. Today, Presente.org launched a campaign targeting potential GOP Vice Presidential pick, Senator Marco Rubio. The campaign wittingly named “No Somos Rubios” (We are not Rubios/We are not Blondes), hones in on Republicans using a brown face with a brown name to earn Latino votes. This right wing strategy is being called into question not just based on Rubio’s anti-immigrant positions but also because Rubio represent such a specific facet of the Latino electorate. Rubio appeals to Cuban-American anti-Castro demographic. Rubio probably will not appeal to other Latinos, especially in the South West, who according to polls, played a critical role in Obama’s getting elected in 2008.

Post to Twitter

Mistaking Immigration Proposals for Policy in an Election Year

January 10th, 2012

All weekend my inbox was flooded with press releases and emails from immigration organizations across the country praising the latest immigration policy proposal announcement from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Last Friday, USCIS filed a notice of intent to change current policy that requires undocumented spouses and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens facing 3 and 10 year bars to file waivers outside the U.S. and then allowing them to return to their families by showing that their U.S. citizen family member would face extreme hardship as a result of the separation.

Before you break out the leftover new year’s confetti, I would like to remind people that this is a proposal. I have read the Notice of Intent and the language is very provisional. An intention is not that same as an actual action and within the actual document it states, “USCIS is considering regulatory changes…” (emphasis mine). There will be a several-month period for the public to provide comments on the proposed change before it goes into effect. A consideration is a thought, not an actual change in practice. In my opinion, a consideration is the campaign promise of an incumbent president trying to gain the Latino vote.

Post to Twitter