Immigration Blog
New Reports Describe the “Green-Washing” of Nativist Hate
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 28th
In a new report, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes the rejuvenated efforts of anti-immigrant groups to repackage themselves as environmentalists who are trying to save the United States from the supposed ecological ills of “over-population.” According to the report, entitled Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism & the Hypocrisy of Hate, the two-faced nature of these efforts is “astounding” given the dismal environmental records of the organizations and political candidates to whom nativist groups tend to contribute funds. Moreover, this “green-washing” of the nativist agenda also amounts to a white-washing of the anti-immigrant movement’s white-nationalist roots.
As the SPLC report describes:
In the last few years, right-wing groups have paid to run expensive advertisements in liberal publications that explicitly call on environmentalists and other ‘progressives’ to join their anti-immigration cause. They’ve created an organization called Progressives for Immigration Reform that purports to represent liberals who believe immigration must be radically curtailed in order to preserve the American environment. They’ve constructed websites accusing immigrants of being responsible for urban sprawl, traffic congestion, overconsumption and a host of other environmental evils.
Yet these sorts of arguments, the SPLC report notes, “have in the last 15 years been
rejected by the mainstream of the environmental movement as far too simplistic … most conservationists have come to believe that many of the world’s most intractable environmental problems, including global warming, can only be solved by dealing with them on a worldwide, not a nation-by-nation, basis.” Furthermore, the anti-immigrant groups engaged in the green-washing of their ideologies belong to the national network created by John Tanton, who has long been “far more concerned with the impact of Latino and other non-white immigration on a ‘European-American’ culture than on conservation.”
The SPLC report echoes the findings of another recent report from the Center for New Community (CNC), which explores “how anti-immigrant forces have corrupted the dialogue on population and the environment.” In that report, Apply the Brakes: A Report on Anti-immigrant Co-optation and the Environmental Movement, CNC points out that “anti-immigrant activists belonging to the neo-Malthusian tradition claim that populations are constrained by the carrying capacity of the environment, and that population growth causes environmental degradation.” Within this narrow and inaccurate worldview, “people become pollutants, with all the racial overtones of such a social construction.”
Both the SPLC and CNC reports lay bear the ugly historical roots and flawed intellectual underpinnings of these faux environmentalists. The environmental rhetoric being spouted by anti-immigrant activists is nothing more than window dressing designed to lend a green tinge to an anti-immigrant ideology. As the SPLC report points out, “the greenwashers are wolves in sheep’s clothing, right-wing nativists who are doing their best to seduce the mainstream environmental movement in a bid for legitimacy and more followers.” This is a siren’s call that serious environmentalists should resist.
Photo by mugley.
Restrictionists Confounded by Increased Deportations and the Administration’s Defense of the Constitution
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 27th
According to an article in the Washington Post, ICE expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, which is nearly 10 percent more than the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The Obama administration has also far outpaced the previous administration in terms of audits of employers who may be employing unauthorized workers. Yet even while immigrant advocates decry the administration for spending billions on immigration enforcement and deportation and for failing to move ahead on comprehensive immigration reform, immigration restrictionists continue to deny that enforcement is taking place.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies stated that while the administration focuses on some illegal immigrants with criminal records, others are allowed to remain free, creating a “sense of impunity.” So the U.S. is deporting people but they’re not the “right” people? Krikorian doesn’t want ICE to prioritize terrorists, violent criminals, and gang members?
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo—who never misses an opportunity to express extremist sentiments—took things even further and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he calls for President Obama’s impeachment on the grounds that he is not enforcing immigration laws:
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Huh? Just last Thursday the Administration vigorously defended the Constitution and the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration law by challenging Arizona’s recently passed immigration law on the grounds that it violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
But I guess that didn’t count. Last week, several senators tried to pass an amendment which would have prohibited the Administration from continuing its lawsuit and defending the federal government’s constitutional authority. So Obama does defend the Constitution but he shouldn’t be allowed to? I suppose when facts don’t matter, it’s easy to end up with conflicting or even nonsensical stories.
It’s clear that no matter what this administration—or any other administration—does to enforce immigration laws, immigration restrictionists will not be happy, and no amount of enforcement will be enough. Those who claim we must enforce the law first before moving toward comprehensive immigration reform have no intention of acknowledging enforcement has been done and moving to step two. They have nothing except more enforcement.
The Obama administration must continue to educate the public about all of the immigration enforcement it has done and must continue to defend its supremacy in immigration law. But to distinguish themselves from the restrictionists, the administration and Congress must move on to step two—comprehensive immigration reform—immediately. They must demonstrate that they are serious about finding a fair, practical, sustainable solution.
Photo by Brian Kersey.
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 26th
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.
Border Issues, Border Solutions
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 23rd
Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism held a hearing on Enhancing DHS’ Efforts to Disrupt Alien Smuggling across Our Borders. Witnesses from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Terry Goddard, Attorney General for the State of Arizona all testified. Unfortunately, the hearing ended up being short on solutions and long on rhetoric.
The hearing followed the release of a GAO report, which asserted that the DHS could do a better job along the southwest border by “leveraging investigative resources.” Subcommittee Chairman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) echoed results of the study, and also asked for DHS to use more performance measures so that Congress could better follow DHS’ progress in securing the border. Cuellar also expounded on the strength and utility of Operation Streamline, a program which is not without its own problems.
Representative Candice Miller (R-MI) chose a different tack, choosing to ignore the report altogether. Instead, she tried to push Arizona AG Terry Goddard into saying that we should classify criminal immigrants crossing the border as “enemy combatants,” and not afford them the rights and protections normally given in our court system. Goddard disagreed, stating that he believed that our civilian court system was strong enough.
In rebuttal, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) pointed out that we have never caught any known terrorists coming across the southern border. Sanchez also pushed back on the assertion many have made to justify Arizona law SB1070—that nothing has been done along the border—pointing out that in recent years the Border Patrol has grown from 4,000 to 20,000 agents, and that just this year ICE will be adding 160 additional agents along the southwest border. Clearly, money is not the issue along the border.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ) attempted to get the committee back on track—berating fellow members for talking about issues other than trying to stop alien smuggling—and asked the witnesses if they had any ideas about how to stop alien smuggling across the border (to which they were mostly silent). Rep. Al Green (D-TX) focused on guns, asking the witnesses for ideas on how to stop guns and money flowing across the border. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) was quick to point on in her time that while violence on the Mexican side of the border is still up, violent crime rates in Arizona are actually down.
So what should be tackled next among the myriad issues mentioned in yesterday’s hearing? Clearly, advanced metrics are needed to assess the progress that has been made on securing the border. Major issues must be dealt with—how to stop gun smuggling, alien smuggling—and how to not only ensure that violence does not cross the border into the U.S., but also how to reduce this violence in the first place. Finally, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform must be part of the package of solutions needed to solve these problems.
Photo by Deni
Arizona’s New Law Upends Federal Priorities
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 22nd
Today, a federal judge will begin to hear arguments on Arizona law SB1070. One of the problems with SB1070 is that it places the federal government in an impossible situation. While the proponents of SB1070 say that Arizona will help ICE enforce immigration laws, the fact is that it would impinge upon ICE’s ability to fulfill its mandate, set enforcement priorities, and allocate resources effectively. SB1070 would inundate DHS with requests to determine the immigration status of individuals police have arrested for suspicion of being unlawfully present. If ICE determines that the individual is indeed unlawfully present, ICE would be expected to take custody of him/her and place him/her in deportation proceedings. Today, IPC released a new fact check on how Arizona’s new law interferes with federal enforcement priorities.
Furthermore, through the 287(g) program, Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program, ICE would screen all people booked into Arizona jails and convicted of crimes. ICE would then be expected to take custody of those immigrants charged with or convicted of these state crimes and place them in deportation proceedings.
In other words, Arizona would supply ICE with a huge number of people to deal with – most of them charged with or convicted of very minor offenses. While proponents of the law would say that this is the very purpose of the law, it actually strains ICE’s resources and harms their ability to prioritize the immigrants they target.
ICE already has its hands full, and it has developed enforcement priorities to help deal with its huge mandate. Currently there are 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants, countless legal immigrants who are deportable for serious and minor criminal offenses, and many employers breaking the law by employing unauthorized workers.
Congress has mandated that ICE prioritize the deportation of immigrants who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, and those with criminal histories. So ICE principally targets immigrants engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; immigrants convicted of crimes (with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders); gang members; and those subject to outstanding criminal warrants.
ICE has created a three-tiered priority system to allow them to evaluate each individual and take action on the highest priorities. Those immigrants charged with or convicted of serious crimes such as murder, rape, or kidnapping receive the highest priority, while immigrants charged with or convicted of less serious crimes are lower priority, and ICE takes action on them as their resources allow.
The crimes created by the Arizona law fall into the lowest priority. In essence, Arizona would be asking ICE to respond to all of Arizona’s requests and take custody of countless individuals who are not serious threats to the country and who have not committed serious crimes. This means that ICE would have fewer resources to deal with serious criminals, terrorists, and other priority individuals.
According to former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner:
[S]ince SB1070 does not, and cannot, distinguish among ICE-established priorities of targeted categories of aliens, Arizona’s verification requests would be likely to encompass those who have committed minor violations under Arizona law, and those simply suspected of such offenses – potentially at the expense of pursuing more serious criminal aliens, both in Arizona and in other states. Furthermore, SB1070 would not only conflict with federal priorities, but would also put Arizona in a position to dictate priorities for immigration enforcement to ICE and the federal government, which is contrary to our existing federal system. The effect would be to force ICE to respond to reports of civil immigration status violations over all other priorities, with the likely outcome of overwhelming carefully calibrated strategies for meeting federal statutory mandates within the bounds of budgetary constraints.
In other words, if Arizona’s intention was to “help” the federal government do its job, it has failed. SB1070 unfairly hijacks federal priorities and resources at the expense of our safety and security.
Photo by xomiele
Obama Administration Mimics George W. Bush on Immigration Prosecutions
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 21st
It would seem that the Obama administration has chosen to mimic its predecessor in its zeal to pursue the criminal prosecution of unauthorized immigrants for minor, nonviolent offenses such as crossing the border. As the Associated Press reported recently, “federal prosecutions of immigrants soared to new levels this spring, as the Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy championed under President George W. Bush.” However, the IPC has noted that this “dramatic increase in criminal prosecutions can be traced in large part to Operation Streamline, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program which mandates federal criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment of all persons caught crossing the border unlawfully.” Yet large numbers of these federal immigration prosecutions “have focused on non-violent border crossers.” In other words, DHS under the Obama administration is needlessly clogging the federal courts with people who have not committed any serious crime.
The Associated Press story draws upon data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which found that “criminal immigration enforcement by the two largest investigative agencies within DHS has increased to levels comparable to the highest seen during the Bush Administration.” Specifically, writes TRAC:
The government reported that during April 2010 there were 7,822 new prosecutions referred by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), following 7,090 prosecutions in March. The total of 14,912 is the highest two-month total since September and October of 2008, when the combined figure was 16,127.
In addition, there were 2,119 new criminal prosecutions referred by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in April 2010, following a March figure of 2,026. The combined two-month total of 4,145 is the highest recorded since the creation of the agency in 2005. This surpasses previous highs of 3,777 in July and August of 2008 and 3,787 in July and August of 2009.
As the IPC noted following the release of similar TRAC data in February, “the prioritization of immigration has made it difficult for law enforcement agents to pursue other more serious crimes.” In fact, the Associated Press rightly points out that this “heavy focus on immigration investigations already is creating a heavy burden for the swamped courts along the U.S.-Mexico border, whose judges handle hundreds more cases than most of their counterparts in the rest of the country.” This is a pointless waste of law-enforcement and criminal-justice resources that would not be taking place if the Obama administration and Congress had the political courage to pursue comprehensive immigration reform rather than the failed enforcement-only policies of decades past.
Photo by Beverly & Pack
J.D. Hayworth Challenges Administration on Immigration Enforcement Just Weeks Before National Guard Deploys to Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 20th
Over the weekend, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth challenged the Obama Administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement—just weeks before the Administration is set to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico Border. On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that the National Guard will begin deployment on August 1, with more than 500 soldiers going to Arizona and the rest to New Mexico, California and Texas. The President has also requested that Congress appropriate $600 million in supplemental funds for “enhanced border protection and law-enforcement activities.”
Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain (R) in the Arizona GOP primary, is a notorious immigration hardliner who has been criticized by the Mayor of Phoenix as “being full of racism.” It’s quite a challenge on the part of Hayworth to be even more hawkish on border issues than Sen. McCain—who recently released a 10 point border security plan with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) and has recorded a television spot solely dedicated to “completing the danged fence”—but Hayworth has managed to do so. Campaign politics aside, challenging the Obama Administration on immigration enforcement—an issue that immigration advocates have criticized the President as being too heavy-handed on, in fact—just doesn’t make sense.
On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Hayworth defended Arizona’s “show us your papers” law, SB 1070, and commented that the Obama administration supports “no enforcement” of immigration law:
It should come as no surprise that any number of people who advocate open borders and advocate no enforcement of the law, including this current administration, are trying to throw up these roadblocks.
Also on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, published an op-ed in The Arizona Republic highlighting the Administration’s progress on enforcement and border security:
Over the past year and a half, the Obama administration has pursued a new border-security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency, making historic investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure while combating the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle weapons, cash and people across the United States border.
Make no mistake: Despite what those looking to score political points may tell you, the numbers show we are moving in the right direction.
Last year, illegal crossings along the Southwest border were down 23 percent from the year before, to a fraction of their all-time high. Seizures of contraband rose significantly across the board in 2009. DHS seized 14 percent more illegal bulk cash, 29 percent more illegal weapons and 15 percent more illegal drugs than the year before. And, by all measurable standards, crime levels in U.S. border towns have remained flat for most of the last decade.
Meanwhile, in response to a firm date for National Guard deployment, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer criticized the President for not sending more troops or allocating “more resources” to the border. “While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border.” Similarly, Sens. McCain and Kyl commented that while these additional border resources are “a step in the right direction,” a lot more still needs to be done—which no one would argue with. It’s called comprehensive immigration reform.
When it comes to immigration enforcement, it seems like the President just can’t win—either he’s doing too much to enforce “the laws on the books” or he’s not doing enough. The fact that deportations are up under President Obama doesn’t seem to matter to those who would rather score cheap political points rather than acknowledge the work on the border or any other enforcement benchmarks that DHS has met. Of course, for politicians like J.D. Hayworth, it may never be enough. This is, after all, the same man who actually advocated for a ban on legal immigration from Mexico. Not that Hayworth is concerned with things like credibility, but he might do himself a favor by acknowledging the reality that President Obama is spending enormous amounts of resources to enforce immigration law and secure the border.
Photo by Media Matters.
UPDATE: Utah Attorney General Condemns Immigration Knock List
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 16th
Utah officials and community leaders reacted swiftly and with revulsion to the announcement this week that confidential state records had been breached to compile a list of more than 1,300 supposedly undocumented people living in Utah, including pregnant women and children. At a press conference this afternoon, State Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff condemned the list, noting that “some call it a blacklist, but I call it a hit list.” Speaking for himself and on behalf of the governor of Utah, Gary R. Herbert Shurtleff made it clear that the release of confidential information was “not the way we do things in Utah” or in this country. He noted that the state government of Utah is trying to speak with one voice to condemn the release of information, will not be using the list to initiate actions against anyone on it, and roundly criticized those who would use lists, hate mongering and political rhetoric to stir up racism in Utah. Instead, he called on the federal government to continue to work for a truly comprehensive solution to immigration reform. He noted that the governor has called a meeting next week to produce Utah’s recommendations for immigration reform that will help to keep Utah from going down the road of S.B. 1070. Schurtleff is also awaiting results of an internal investigation before determining how many laws at the federal and state level may have been broken and who is subject to prosecution.
Other speakers included Paul Mero, head of the conservative think tank, the Sutherland Institute, who also condemned the list, calling it “reprehensible.” He noted that the “good people of Utah won’t stand for this” and predicted that the list itself may backfire, given the controversy it has created, and serve as a tipping point for a more rational discussion on immigration reform. Mero also noted that he believed support for comprehensive immigration reform represented a tenet of an “authentic conservative position” as fixing the immigration system went directly to what kind of people we are and what kind of world we want to live in.
A Closer Look at the Seven Lawsuits Challenging Arizona Law S.B. 1070
originally posted by Kalie Moody for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 16th
Almost immediately after Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070 into law, lawsuits were filed in federal court in Arizona challenging the law. The lawsuits all seek the same result—a halt to the law’s enforcement—although each suit argues different grounds. Some suits cite civil liberty violations, racial profiling and unlawful regulation of federal immigration law, while another suit states that the police training videos exacerbate conflicts between federal and state law. As July 29, 2010, the date S.B. 1070 is set to go into effect, draws near, litigants and supporters on both sides of the lawsuits are seeking swift resolutions. Ultimately though, the timing of any resolution will depend on the court.
Six lawsuits have been brought by non-profit organizations and individuals and a seventh lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Five of the six lawsuits filed by individuals and organizations ask the court to declare S.B. 1070 unconstitutional and to block Arizona from enforcing the law. The sixth lawsuit and the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice ask for the same relief, but only seek to block the first six sections of the law. This would leave intact provisions about employment and the impounding of vehicles.
In Escobar v. Brewer and Salgado v. Brewer, Arizona police officers claim that they cannot enforce S.B. 1070 absent a judicial declaration that it is lawful and argue that they could be sued for violating the civil liberties of people against whom they would be required to enforce the law. In a third lawsuit, Frisancho v. Brewer, a Hispanic resident of D.C. who plans to visit Arizona claims that police enforcing S.B. 1070 may stop him based solely on his ethnicity.
A fourth and fifth lawsuit, Friendly House v. Whiting and National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders v. State of Arizona, are class action lawsuits brought by non-profit organizations and individuals. Both lawsuits claim that S.B. 1070 unlawfully regulates immigration, will result in widespread racial profiling, and will unconstitutionally deprive people of freedom of speech. In a sixth lawsuit and the most recent class action, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Arizona, non-profit organizations and individuals claim, among other challenges to the law, that the police training materials released to train Arizona law enforcement on how to enforce S.B. 1070 worsen conflicts between the United States Constitution and federal laws on the one hand, and Arizona law on the other hand,
A seventh lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice claims that S.B. 1070 conflicts with comprehensive federal immigration policy, ignores humanitarian concerns, and will interfere with foreign policy and national security interests.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will preside over six of the seven lawsuits and has scheduled hearings in three of the cases. On July 15, Judge Bolton heard oral arguments in Salgado, and on July 22, Judge Bolton will hear oral arguments in Friendly House and in the case brought by the United States.
In response to any of the hearings that are scheduled, Judge Bolton could block Arizona from enforcing S.B.1070 while the lawsuits are pending. For this to occur, the plaintiffs have to convince the judge that if the law was to go into effect, plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm” and that the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits of their case. On the other hand, the judge could also dismiss the cases entirely. If that happened, the plaintiffs could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop S.B. 1070 from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit could override Judge Bolton’s decision and halt enforcement of S.B. 1070, or it could uphold Judge Bolton’s ruling. There is no guarantee that Judge Bolton will issue a ruling before the July 29 effective date but because she is hearing the cases next week, it is possible she will rule on the motions for preliminary injunction.
If the lawsuits are not dismissed at these hearings or other hearings, Judge Bolton will eventually make a final decision about whether to strike down the law. If the court upholds the law, plaintiffs could appeal the court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit and if unsuccessful at the Ninth Circuit, they could seek Supreme Court review. It often takes years for a case to wind its way through the appeals process. Unless the court acts to block enforcement of the law during the appeal, it could take many months before any court issues a final decision.
Photo by M.V. Jantzen.
The Right Side of History: Religious Leaders Urge Immigration Reform at Hearing
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 14th
At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing today, a panel of conservative religious leaders made the case for common sense solutions to our immigration problems—comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that secures our borders, follows the rule of law and provides a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. While the hearing, The Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System, started off with ethical and biblical arguments supporting and opposing reform, it later evolved into what most immigration debates eventually boil down to—fairness, justice and the punitive aspects of a reform effort.
The majority witnesses—Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and VP of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Dean Mathew Staver of the Liberty University School of Law—testified to the moral and biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us,” the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Faith leaders will continue to reach out and support the undocumented population, Dr. Land said, but “only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.”
“Get tough on immigration” hardliners—Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)—however, pushed back on religious leaders by citing scripture that quote the “rule of law” and advocate the “punishing of wrongdoers.” “Americans need not repent for wanting to follow the rule of law,” Rep Smith said, “A truly Christian approach would be to end illegal immigration.” Likewise, the single witness for the minority, Dr. James R. Edwards, Jr. of the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies, testified that biblical precepts of compassion and mercy “might not apply to civil government of the nation-state of which we are citizens. Sometimes, such application would actually be harmful and wrong.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)—among others—took particular offense to Dr. Edwards’ distinction. Rep. Gutierrez replied, “I want my government to be a reflection of my values, don’t you?” Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) asked Dr. Edwards if our current immigration laws were just and whether deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living here was considered “justice?” Dr. Edwards replied “no” to both questions.
The underlying tension in the room, however, wasn’t whether our immigration system is broken (everyone in the room agreed on that) but in how to fix it—and a step further, what a “just punishment” might look like. While the majority of committee members and witnesses agreed on CIR as a solution, immigration restrictionists championed the Arizona SB1070 model—enforcement through attrition—that is, create enforcement laws so harsh that people choose to leave the state. Rev. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, argued that deportation wasn’t the answer and that the conservative “amnesty” scare tactic wasn’t helping anyone:
I call upon those who label an earned path to legal status as amnesty to stop politicizing this debate needlessly and to honestly acknowledge the difference.
Dr. Richard Land echoed Rev. Staver’s complaint that “amnesty” is, in fact, something very different from proposed CIR proposals.
Some critics, however, suggest that “comprehensive reform” is a code for amnesty, but such action is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write and speak English, and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (American citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants) with dignity.
While restrictionist committee members continued to argue that CIR and its prescribed penalties—paying fines, going back to the end of the line, etc.—were simply not enough, religious leaders like Rev. Staver, continued to drive home the point that immigration is not a “right left” issue, but a “right wrong” issue, a moral issue, and that we “should not allow partisan politics to deter us from the ultimate goal of fixing a broken system.”
Photo by Lone Primate.