Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Advocates
Another Lawsuit Against Arizona’s SB1070 Moves Forward
01 year ago
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied motions by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu last week to dismiss a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against Arizona law SB 1070. Counsel for the plaintiffs, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center, alleges that SB 1070 unlawfully attempts to regulate immigration and would result in widespread racial profiling. The lawsuit is one of seven originally filed against SB 1070.
While Judge Bolton ruled that the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against SB1070 was moot (because of the one previously granted to the Department of Justice), she also found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because the “alleged harm to the organizational plaintiffs will occur if SB 1070 goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.” In addition, Judge Bolton stated that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.” Judge Bolton also found that “While Governor Brewer correctly points out that, for the most part, the organizational plaintiffs’ allegations involve threats of future harm, the threat of future harm is sufficiently imminent.”
Specifically, the complaint filed by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations alleges that SB 1070 will result in racial profiling; will subject people of color to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures, and arrests; and will deprive people of freedom of speech and expressive activity. Bolton ruled that the law:
[C]ontains no meaningful procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivations of liberty, and immigration status is not something that is easily ascertainable. A person who is lawfully present in the U.S. may look and act the same way as a person who does not have permission to be in the country, and plaintiffs’ allegations of ’subjective and arbitrary’ detention decisions by law enforcement agents are plausible.
Judge Bolton did, however, rule in favor of some of Gov. Brewer’s arguments, dismissing a First Amendment claim based on the argument that barring illegal immigrants from soliciting work violated the right to free speech. She also dismissed a claim brought by two New Mexico residents who argued their right to travel was impeded because their driver’s licenses might not be sufficient proof of status under SB 1070.
So what’s next? Seven suits have been filed against Arizona law SB 1070, two have been dismissed, and two have yet to reach argument in front of Judge Bolton. The appeal of a preliminary injunction against SB 1070 given in the Department of Justice lawsuit will be heard November 1st before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center provides a more detailed analysis of the cases against SB1070.
Photo by flying white.
Sen. Menendez Aims for Lame Duck, Urges Advocates to Focus on Policy of CIR 2010
01 year ago
There can be advantages to going it alone. Despite two years of repeated attempts to get a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the Senate, Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Leahy (D-VT) finally said “enough” and introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 (CIR 2010) last week. Plenty of people have pointed out that the bill was introduced just as Congress left Washington to go into full-time campaign mode, leaving Sens. Menendez and Leahy virtually alone in Washington to promote their new bill. On a conference call Friday, however, Sen. Menendez said he aims at moving the bill during lame duck session or next Congress, but urged advocates and the media to focus on the merits of the bill, rather than the timing. (Other immigration bills passed during lame duck include the LIFE Act and NACARA.)
CIR 2010 doesn’t stray too much from the general framework we have seen since 2006 and builds on much of Sen. Menendez’s own work in the past two years. Analysts are digging away at the details of this massive bill (the official summary alone ran 73 pages) but the outline should be familiar to everyone by now.
The bill is broken into six parts—titles—addressing the major elements of reform: 1) Border security 2) Interior Enforcement 3) Employment Verification 4) Reforming Legal Immigration 5) Legalization of the Undocumented and 6) Integration and Citizenship. It adheres to many of the major principles outlined in the bipartisan REPAIR proposal released by Senators Schumer, Graham, Menendez and others earlier this spring. It incorporates many provisions of past and current legislative proposals that have had bipartisan support in the past—AgJobs, DREAM Act, Strong STANDARDS Act. It also includes provisions long advocated by Senator Grassley (R-IA) on routing out fraud in the immigration system.
CIR 2010 pushes the envelope, too, most notably by including the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)—a bill which provides equal immigration protection and benefits for permanent partners of LGBTQ U.S. citizens. It includes the creation of a Standing Commission on Immigration which would have the authority to dig deep into the impact of immigration on our economy, national security, and labor markets. The bill also creates a new temporary worker program, but leaves the politically delicate question of how many new workers to the Commission to solve.
The Menendez-Leahy bill also offers an extremely generous legalization program, making anyone in the country as of September 30 eligible to apply. Like the Gutierrez-Ortiz bill in the House, it offers a more streamlined approach to legalization than the complicated and bureaucratic approaches that emerged from bipartisan bills in 2006 and 2007. In a nod to the continuing sluggishness of the economy, however, CIR 2010 abandons all pretense of requiring gainful employment during the Lawful Prospective Immigrant phase (the six to 11 year period before someone could qualify to get a green card). That’s not to say that people won’t work—but by eliminating that provision and focusing on the basics—paying taxes, learning English and civics, passing all criminal and background checks—CIR 2010 offers a clear-headed process for getting people registered and moving the country beyond the rhetoric of amnesty.
The generosity at the front end is tempered, however, by some extremely tough requirements regarding challenging denials of LPI status or the validity of the law itself. The bill, for instance, keeps the registration program open for only one year—a source of concern to service providers who know how difficult it is to ramp up a program and move ten million people through it. It continues the trend of denying access to the program if the applicant ever committed a crime subject to a sentence of one year or more (there are more generous waivers and exceptions than in the past, however). The ability to challenge denials in administrative and judicial settings is available, but strictly limited.
Similarly, the inclusion of triggers relating to operational control of the border—no matter how achievable—is disturbing. While the program to give people LPI status will be able to go forward unimpeded, the decision to link border security to legalization is a significant reminder that Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t exactly going it alone. The political baggage of our enforcement driven culture has become a seemingly unavoidable part of immigration reform.
People will find far more to critique and argue about before too long—that’s the nature of a massive bill like CIR 2010. But that’s also the beauty of it. Theories, proposals, and principles advance the debate only so far. An actual piece of legislation, real text that people can debate and analyze, gives advocates something to rally around and policy folks something to build on. In going it alone, Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t truly alone, of course. CIR 2010 is a snapshot of where the Senate is today—a calculation about what makes sense to the sponsors but also about what is most likely to bring more people to the bill. Sometimes you just have to take the plunge, knowing and believing that others will follow.
Photo by menendez.senate.gov.
Polls Show Latinos and Republicans Still Drifting Apart
01 year ago
As Congress’ attention to lawmaking wanes in place of politicking and mid-term elections, a string of new polls are emerging that further depict the strained relationship between Latinos and Republicans. The GOP strategy of alienating the fastest growing demographic through harsh rhetoric and the blockage of immigration reform is starting to reap results. Much like polls that emerged after the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, Latinos are steadily edging away from the GOP.
One example comes from the Los Angeles Times, whose recent poll shows that California Latinos strongly approve of Obama’s performance and have a high voting enthusiasm. According to the L.A. Times/USC Poll conducted this month, Latinos clearly support the Democratic candidates over their opponents in the state’s Senate race, particularly when it comes to the issue of immigration (24 points higher). Latinos also favor the Democratic candidate for Governor and believe he will be better on the issue of immigration than his opponent (23 points higher).
According to Latino Decisions:
Latinos are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Republican Party, following three weeks of data from the Latino Decisions weekly national tracking poll of Latino registered voters, though Democrats have not yet surged ahead in the 2010 congressional vote. 65% of Latinos now say they are less excited about the Republican Party as compared to one year ago, up from 60% who were less excited as of August 30th. Further, when it comes to immigration, 74% of Latinos say the Republican Party is either ignoring or blocking immigration reform, up from 70% as of August 30th.
According to America’s Voice, “Latino voters will punish Republicans who oppose immigration reform.” They cite LatinoMetrics polls which show that since the end of 2009, immigration has catapulted to the top issue of personal concern among 1 in 4 Latinos—tied with jobs and the economy. Also when asked, “With which political party do you most closely identify?” only 13% said “Republican.” The same poll also asked, “How do you think the immigration issue would impact how you feel about politicians and the parties they represent?” 68% said they would support candidates who favor immigration reform, while only 19% said they would be willing to support a candidate who opposed immigration reform.
Immigrants’ rights groups are already working to capitalize on this growing schism, particularly in hotly contested races. For example today, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Mi Familia Vota Civic Participation Campaign, and America’s Voice are launching Spanish-language radio ads in nine media markets across the country. The ads point to the Republican Party’s obstructionism on immigration reform, cite the GOP’s successful effort to block a vote on the DREAM Act last week, and encourage voters to support the candidates who “support our families, and make our dreams come true.”
Despite repeated warnings from GOP leaders, many in their party continue to ignore the Latino vote, and it looks like they are doing so at their own peril.
Photo by automata.
Will the GOP’s Failure to Move the DREAM Act Galvanize the Latino Vote?
01 year ago
In a procedural vote yesterday, Senate Republicans (and two Democrats) voted not to proceed (56-43) to the Defense Authorization bill in a party line vote, preventing the consideration of, among others, the DREAM Act amendment. Hemming and hawing their way through floor speeches, Senate Republicans expressed sympathy for the plight of potential DREAM Act students and offered to “debate the merits of the DREAM Act” in a standalone bill, just not on the Defense authorization bill. This latest vote, coupled with some in the GOP’s recent anti-immigrant rhetoric on birthright citizenship and Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws, has the potential to not only alienate America’s fastest growing voting bloc, but drive them to the polls in November.
On a conference call today, several local immigration advocacy groups stated that they’re already gearing up for a fight. Gihan Perara, Director of Florida New Majority, said many Latinos feel betrayed by Republican Senator George LeMieux’s vote yesterday, enough so to head to the ballots:
People are very angry at Sen. LeMieux for what people consider a double-cross of fairness and caving into right wing groups who are trying to shape politics in this state. Starting today, we’ll have field groups in the state talking to voters to talk about November vote. We’re not only talking to Latino voters, who make up 14% of voters in the state, but also African Americans. Yesterday’s Senate vote is a strong tip off point for this population to find a reason to come out to the ballot box. We’re getting tons of calls from people about what they can do to help after the vote yesterday. The show of unity shows the degree to which people feel betrayed and angered.
Joshua Hoyt, Director of Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), said that as 9% of the state’s voters, Latinos are a group than simply cannot be ignored.
The unified Republican filibuster represents, to us, the position of Republicans on this issue. The Republicans’ filibuster is being interpreted as an attack on the children of Latino immigrants.
We’re raising money in Illinois to do immigrant voter turn out. We will have a full multi-contact program to get out the immigrant vote. The time has passed for taking empty promises from anyone. The time has come to take names and to deliver a political message in November.
Similarly, Theresa Trujillo of Colorado Progressive Action, said:
I think that we will continue to see [yesterday’s vote] as an opportunity, as a step on a longer journey, to organize Latinos around this issue and to galvanize Latinos in the electoral process. … We’re in the middle the largest effort to mobilize Latino voters. Our organization, and a collaboration of other organizations, are talking to hundreds of thousands of voters every single day, who call us about immigration reform and want to know what we’re doing to move this forward. What we’re hearing is that jobs and fair immigration reform are top issues for Latino voters. In 2008, the whole message was that hope and change won out over fear. Yesterday, we saw who was in favor of change and who was in favor of fear.
This week, former Secretary of State and retired General, Colin Powell, called for Republicans to both support the DREAM Act and to stop with all the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Last week, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Latino community that if they want immigration reform next year, they must turn out in force in November.
Latinos made up 7.4% of the electorate in 2008, which has roughly double in the last 20 years, and is expected to grow. If they’re not careful, the “Party of No” could easily become the “Party of No One” if leaders continue to alienate America’s fastest growing voting bloc.
Photo by neon.mamacita.
Will Immigration Get a Fair Fight on the Senate Floor?
01 year ago
With dizzying speed this week, immigration advocates went from gloomy to galvanized with the announcement that Senator Reid intended to bring the DREAM Act to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. To further add to the euphoria, Senator Menendez announced that he would introduce actual comprehensive immigration reform legislation sometime soon. President Obama made another speech in support of DREAM and broad reform, and met privately with Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders to seal the deal on DREAM support. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who has been bluntly critical at times of the President’s actions on immigration, appeared delighted with the outcome:
“I think the White House, the Democrats, and the allies that support serious immigration reform are going on offense and the President is our quarterback,” Rep. Gutierrez said after the White House meeting Thursday. “I have been pushing hard to get us all pointing in the same direction on this issue and now with the White House standing with us and the Senate poised to act, I think we are seeing that effort begin to bear fruit.”
For a political movement starved for actual action, all this activity was like a shot of adrenaline. The well-organized coalition of DREAM activists quickly got themselves ready to march, pray, call, fax, and influence Congress in every way possible. And immigration restrictionists sent out numerous action alerts predicting both doom and collapse should the DREAM Act pass, but also trotting out the familiar epithet of amnesty in order to rally their forces as well.
Let’s hope they both get to have their fight. The intricacies of contemporary Senate procedure are such that there is still a long way to go before DREAM (as well as an amendment repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) get a vote on the floor. First, the Senate has to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, which translates into agreeing to end debate over whether or not to take up the bill. It used to be that this wasn’t much of an issue—by unanimous consent the Senators could agree to go directly to debate on a bill. In fact, in a rare bipartisan move, the Small Business bill which passed the Senate this week got to the floor by unanimous consent. Don’t count on that kind of consensus for the defense bill, however.
Republicans have vowed to block the bill, and thus a cloture vote will be necessary simply to get the bill to the floor. Only if Senator Reid can get 60 votes on his cloture motion—which is in doubt, many think—will the Senate even start debating the bill and accepting amendments on it. Senator Reid said yesterday that they would not finish debate on the bill until after the November election which, no matter what happens on DREAM Act, means that we won’t know for sure until late November or early December whether a successful vote on DREAM Act will translate into an actual law (and of course it has to get through the House as well).
But right now the battle is simply to get the defense bill to the floor. If the motion to proceed to debate fails next Tuesday, it’s back to the drawing board.
The vote next week shouldn’t fail, however, because all of the objections are essentially about style not substance. In this case, procedural wrangling keeps people from actually debating the merits of an issue, which means you don’t have to explain why you are opposed to helping students who could help this country become better. If you object to bringing the bill to the floor on the principle that you think the Senate leader is using it to score political points, you get to sound principled yourself without actually explaining to anyone why you oppose the DREAM Act or anything else.
One of the chief objections voiced by Republicans for keeping the defense bill off the floor is that Senator Reid is playing politics with our national security by adding controversial and irrelevant amendments to what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says should be a simple vote. And Senator McCain said the amendment is a “pure political act for Harry Reid, who is worried about his own re-election.” The folks working on the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell provision take issue with that characterization, throwing the idea of playing politics right back at the GOP, accusing Senator McCain of “playing politics with the lives of men and women in uniform.”
At some point, it just gets tiresome to hear everyone talking about playing politics. After all, this is politics, isn’t it?
The truth is, there are no simple votes, particularly in the 111th Congress, which will long be remembered for its bitter partisan squabbles that led, especially in the Senate, to political gridlock.
The truth is, good policy is rarely enough to motivate a vote on a controversial issue. If that were the case, Senator Reid wouldn’t have to maneuver like crazy just get important issues like immigration reform and fair treatment for the LGBTQ in the military onto the floor of the Senate.
And the truth is that, of course, this is political. The upcoming elections are a real incentive for showing voters where you stand. And generally, we only know where a politician stands when they actually have to vote on something.
So for once, it would be nice if the Senate could actually get to the heart of an immigration matter, debating it on its merits, rather than its procedural purity. Senators should be brave enough to take the issues up for their own sake rather than hide behind the increasingly oppressive use of the cloture vote, which seems to be the ultimate act of playing politics in the Senate.
Photo by jessejameswood.
Congressional Leaders Announce Forthcoming Immigration Bill, Support for DREAM and a White House Meeting
01 year ago
At a forum today in Washington, D.C., faith, civic, community and Congressional leaders gathered to rally the immigration reform faithful, endorse Sen. Reid’s (D-NV) DREAM Act amendment, announce the introduction of a forthcoming immigration overhaul bill in the U.S. Senate and a meeting with President Obama this week on immigration. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) announced that he will introduce a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill—one that addresses the nation’s economic and security needs— presumably during the lame duck session while Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) revealed a meeting between herself, President Obama, Sen. Menendez, and Rep. Gutierrez to discuss immigration, deportations and the DREAM Act. The forum also highlighted personal stories from legal permanent residents (LPRs)—military veterans, mothers, families—and the complications of being caught up in a broken immigration system.
In front of a full house at Lutheran Church of the Reformation on Capitol Hill, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) took to the stage and threw his support behind Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid’s (D-NV) recent announcement that he will put the DREAM Act up for a vote when he attaches it as an amendment to a Defense Authorization bill next week. Senator Menendez then made an announcement that he will soon introduce an immigration reform bill in the senate:
I will introduce legislation, not a framework, but legislation in the U.S. Senate, outlining comprehensive immigration reform … to ensure that we secure our country as we all wanted to, that we look at how we deal with the economic needs of our country, but it will also have a pathway toward earned legalization for those who are in the shadows who will be able to come into the full light and observe the dignity that they deserve with what they are helping America to achieve. And so we will pursue that legislation in the Senate and we will create clear basis of what we see. I believe that [CIR] is in the national security interest. I believe that the economy is not a reason to oppose immigration reform, but a reason to have immigration reform. I believe in the dignity of each and every individual and the concept of family values that we hear so often in the senate needs to be preserved. We cannot see families ripped apart.
Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), announced a White House meeting tomorrow as well as the CHC’s support for Senator Reid’s DREAM Act efforts, arguing that supporting DREAM Act students is just step one in the CHC’s continuing efforts to secure immigration reform for the Latino community:
If we can protect one part of our community by continuing to fight for our entire community, it is our responsibility to do so. So a call for a vote on the DREAM Act is a sign that things are marching in the right direction. The message for America is that these students will finally be embraced by the only country they know as home and finally be able to contribute to our society and make us a better nation … We will not rest until we get CIR.
Finally, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a long-time immigration advocate and a member of the House Judiciary committee, called on President Obama to throw full White House support behind both the DREAM Act and Sen. Menendez’s forthcoming immigration reform bill.
We need the President to embrace. We need the President to say “Enough!” We need to the President to speak loudly and clearly and decisively that when Sen. Bob Menendez introduces that bill that he is strongly behind and supporting that bill. We will also ask him to use all his power, to use all his influence, to use all his might and to use that bully pulpit of the White House and Presidency to make sure that the DREAM Act has a successful vote next week. We talked to Harry Reid, and he’s moving forward. Tomorrow we talk to President Obama and make sure that Harry Reid has everything he needs in order to be successful next week for the vote on the DREAM Act.
While today’s immigration forum ended in a GOP pray-in (faith leaders literally went to the offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and George LeMieux (R-FL) and pray for reform), only time will tell whether Sen. Reid can conjure the 60 votes necessary for cloture on the DREAM Act amendment next week.
Photo by RI4A.
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
01 year ago
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we’ve started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead.
At the fifth annual Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Democratic leadership rallied the progressive voice to keep doing what they’re doing—holding Congress accountable and moving the progressive agenda forward. A large part of that progressive agenda is immigration reform—an issue that many progressives feel the Administration has yet to throw its full weight behind. In a Q&A forum, progressive bloggers and activists held Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s feet to the fire on the immigration front. With Congressional Republicans blocking comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), many wondered about the viability of passing the DREAM Act this year. Here’s what Democratic leadership had to say:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
There is a difference of opinion on how we go forward on [the DREAM Act]. We are committed to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We don’t want to take one piece and leave the rest of the undocumented behind. We need to secure [the] border, enforce laws, stop the exploitation of workers, and provide a path to legalization. If we take off rosier pieces, it will diminish the prospect for CIR. Others have a different view, but that’s a debate we’re having. Arizona also shouts out for the need for CIR which supports all the things I mentioned. We know what our values are as a country. We continue to meet with business and evangelical communities, not our usual allies, but who both understand the need for CIR. We need to keep the heat on for when the time is right to pass CIR, which will be soon. We’re all cosponsor of DREAM Act, but we don’t want to diminish the support for CIR.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):
We’re still working on CIR. We’re not finished after this work period before Congress goes out. We still have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up. No one has worked harder on immigration then me. I’ve got the stars to show it. We spent more time last session on immigration than any other issue.
Those people screaming the loudest, the Senators from Arizona, won’t let us move on immigration. I believe we need CIR. We need to take care of our borders, get a guest worker program that includes more than just AgJobs, bring people out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay taxes, and get to the end of the line…which for some is thirteen years long. Remember, more than half of these undocumented immigrants have American children. We can’t do what Rush Limbaugh wants us to do. There’s no way we can ship them back to somewhere else. This is not amnesty, it’s fairness.
I’ve worked really hard to push for CIR. I’m working with Durbin and Lugar. But I’m not going to the DREAM Act unless I’ve got the 60 votes. I won’t disappoint all those young men and women if I don’t have the votes. So that’s the story.
So where does that leave us? A dose of political reality is never fun to swallow, but both leaders paint a pretty clear picture of an uphill battle for immigration reform of any kind this fall. The upcoming recess and elections, the lack of votes for CIR, and the questionable number of votes out there for the DREAM Act are all sobering reminders that the work isn’t over. The difficulty of immigration reform is also a strange reminder of just how much Congress has accomplished this year, despite overwhelming obstacles. That Republicans and some Democrats are digging their heels in on immigration could mean that progressives haven’t yet found a way to make this issue click for other political interest groups. Despite more and more involvement by conservatives, evangelicals, and law enforcement officials, immigration remains an issue that doesn’t get a lot of bipartisan support. While progressives may chastise their leaders for not doing enough, it was probably pretty fair of Pelosi and Reid to challenge progressives as well.
Photo by wellsy.
Enough is Enough: State Legislators Fight Arizona Copycat Laws with Progressive Immigration Policies
01 year ago
Tired of restrictionists introducing “get tough” anti-immigration legislation in their states, state legislators are pushing back with progressive immigration policies of their own. On a telebriefing yesterday sponsored by the Progressive States Network and the National Immigration Law Center, state legislators from Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Utah discussed what they are actively doing to push back on the recent uptick in statewide anti-immigrant legislation. From public education campaigns to health, wage protection and enforcement legislation, these state leaders are fed up with the status quo.
With less than a month until SB1070’s enactment date (July 29), Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is on a campaign to educate local police about the economic and legal realities of enforcing SB1070. While some claim that the Arizona law will help crack down on border violence, Rep. Sinema wants others to realize that SB1070 does nothing to address violent crimes but instead impedes local law enforcement’s ability to keep communities safe.
SB1070 is a very difficult issue to address in Arizona because the perception of many people in the state is that SB1070 addresses border violence. Some individuals have expressed initial support for it, but once folks understand that border violence is not actually addressed whatsoever by this legislation, we see support begin to drop.
What we’re working towards in Arizona—in anticipation of the law’s implementation—is to help law enforcement understand the jeopardy they are placed in—being faced with law suits if they enforce the law and lawsuits if they don’t enforce the law. We’re really seeking to try to find opportunities to help others in the country avoid SB1070-like measures and try to stop copycat legislation across the country. Instead, we want to focus on the kinds of measures that actually help interdict the criminal activity we see happening in border regions.
State Sen. Joe Bolkcom of Iowa is trying to leverage state wage enforcement legislation to address the rampant exploitation of all Iowa workers by unscrupulous employers. According to Sen. Bolkcom, the current wage protection laws in Iowa are weak.
We have focused on expanding and improving wage/hour enforcement law. This legislation really targets those employers who would take advantage of any Iowa worker—including newcomers. Essentially, it’s a zero tolerance law for unscrupulous employers that protects every worker and ensures that we don’t become a state where people are taken advantage of—whether they’re new to the state or have been long-term Iowa workers. Essentially our approach to fighting off really bad anti-immigrant legislation is to say that all Iowa workers deserve protections from wage theft, from law-breaking employers. It’s the best way to strengthen workers, their families and Iowa’s communities.
State Sen. Luz Robles of Utah has prioritized quality, accessible and affordable health care for all children in Utah. After President Obama signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP) back in 2009, Sen. Robles continues those efforts by introducing health amendments to benefit legal immigrant children.
It’s always more cost effective to provide adequate coverage to these children than it is to be dealing with children who are uninsured for that five year period. That’s our message throughout the session. It’s important for us to have all the children in Utah covered.
State Sen. Daylin Leach of Pennsylvania has introduced an advanced community policing bill which essentially bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws.
Local police are supposed to stop street crime, which becomes more difficult to do if people in the neighborhood you’re policing or patrolling don’t trust you because they fear you’re going investigating their immigration status. They’re less likely to cooperate with you or give you the tips you need. In fact, a number of police chiefs have made that point that the obligation contained in the Arizona law would undermine their ability to do what they have historically been charged to do.
These are just a few examples of how frustrated state legislators are pushing back on anti-immigration legislation and restrictionists in their states. Although immigration advocates anxiously await the Department of Justice’s soon-to-be-filed federal lawsuit against SB1070, anti-immigration measures in other states unfortunately show no sign of slowing. One can only hope that as the economic, political and legal consequences of anti-immigration laws begin to unfold, that communities—and the legislators who represent them—begin to understand the costly damages these measures will have down the road.
Photo by altnav.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform is More than a Piece of Legislation
01 year ago
Realistically, the likelihood of a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill passing before the midterm elections is pretty small. News reports indicate that many advocates are pivoting to supporting more targeted immigration measures, such as DREAM Act or AgJobs, both of which have been introduced and have numerous co-sponsors already. Inevitably, these reports talk about backtracking, moving to a piecemeal approach or abandoning CIR. And then there is usually some kind of smug, I-told-you-so comment from an immigration restrictionist—one that revels in the supposed failure of comprehensive immigration reform. But CIR is more than a piece of legislation. It’s a goal—one which requires long-term commitment and a belief in the fundamental goodness of Americans.
As the Immigration Policy Center has consistently pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform is the solution to a problem that is far more pervasive than most Americans (still) realize. Our broken immigration system contributes to our stalled economy, undermines our reputation in the world, costs us billions of dollars in unworkable enforcement only strategies, and chips away at the moral values of the country. The problem is so big, in fact, that no one bill will ever fix all the pieces at once. But a systematic overhaul, one that includes legalization for the roughly 11 million people already here, a reduction in immigration backlogs that keep families apart, a flexible and fair system for bringing in new workers, and reasonable enforcement would create a solid base on which to build an immigration system that helps the country succeed in the 21st century.
As we have seen on healthcare and climate change, the longer we delay, the bigger and more complex legislation has to become to address the problems we face. Immigration reform is no different. If we had been systematically revising and refining our immigration system over the years, we wouldn’t need CIR now. And when that goal isn’t attainable because of the political climate, people are naturally going to gravitate to more modest provisions. Yes, DREAM and AgJobs won’t solve the whole problem, but the mere fact that people are talking about them as viable short-term options is a victory of sorts—kind of like advancing the ball down the field. And should those provisions become law, they will provide relief to a lot of hard working people who want to contribute to this country. As a practical matter, they will also serve as a laboratory for implementation of a bigger program.
Ironically, the continuing impact of Arizona’s SB 1070 highlights both the urgency of immigration reform and how far we still have to go. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans both support the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform—support which reflects our long term love-hate relationship with immigration. Unfortunately, as a nation, we can’t seem to deal with issues that we both love and hate until a crisis reaches the boiling point. Thus, the continuing devastation in the Gulf focuses our attention on energy and climate change—it’s hard to miss the daily pictures of birds smothered in oil.
The immigration crisis has reached a boiling point, but its effects are often quiet and behind the scenes. The political calendar probably means that Congress won’t have the will to take up the issue before the elections, but depending on what message the voters send, they may finally have to address comprehensive reform in either a lame duck session or at the beginning of the 112th Congress. Eventually, the goal of CIR and the mechanics of it—legislation—will meet. Until then, people will push for what they can, where and when they can.
Photo by jvoves.
Deporting America’s Future: Harvard Student Pushes for DREAM Act
01 year ago
Harvard sophomore, Eric Balderas, knows why the DREAM Act is important to so many. Earlier this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked up Balderas in Boston on his way to visit his mother in San Antonio, Texas. Balderas now faces the possibility of deportation at a hearing next month. The 19 year old biology major was valedictorian of his high school class and is on a full scholarship at Harvard. Sadly, Balderas is just one of roughly 1.5 million unauthorized immigrant children—many of whom don’t speak Spanish and consider themselves American—currently living in the U.S. who are at risk for deportation. How many of America’s talented youth must the U.S. deport before Congress musters the courage to act?
If passed, the DREAM Act would allow qualified young people—who were brought to the U.S. without documentation—to adjust their status to “conditional permanent resident” given he/she meets the requirements. Balderas, who came to the U.S. illegally when he was four, is a perfect candidate for the DREAM Act—he entered the U.S. before the age of 16, earned a high school diploma, is a person of good moral character and has no criminal record.
Eric’s case prompted Harvard President, Drew Faust, to issue this statement:
[The DREAM Act provides] a lifeline to these students who are already working hard in our middle and high schools and living in our communities by granting them the temporary legal status that would allow them to pursue postsecondary education.
In the first years of enactment, the DREAM Act would help approximately 360,000 qualified high-school graduates to receive conditional residency. Over the next 13 years, the bill would also provide incentives for another 715,000 youngsters (an average of 55,000 a year) currently between the ages of 5 and 17 to finish high school and pursue post-secondary education.
According to Harvard’s vice president of public affairs and communications, Christine Heenan:
Eric Balderas has already demonstrated the discipline and work ethic required for rigorous university work, and has, like so many of our undergraduates, expressed an interest in making a difference in the world.
These dedicated young people are vital to our nation’s future, and President Faust’s support of the DREAM Act reflects Harvard’s commitment to access and opportunity for students like Eric.
To date, the DREAM Act has 38 cosponsors in the Senate and 123 in the House, with bipartisan support in both. Sponsorship of the bill, however, does not guarantee its movement or passage. (Recall that the DREAM Act failed in a cloture vote in 2007.) Although a group of undocumented college students—along with Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Lugar (R-IN)—have urged the White House and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to halt the deportation of eligible DREAM Act students in the absence of a larger immigration overhaul, their efforts seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The question, however, remains—why would the U.S. want to deport talented students, educated in the U.S., who are clearly economic and social assets to this country?