Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Legislation
Police Forum Recommends Limitations on Investigating Immigration Status
011 months ago
The role of local police in immigration enforcement continues to be a complex policy and legislative issue at both the state and federal level. State legislatures, for example, are contemplating bills designed to increase the role of local police in immigration enforcement while federal legislation targets cities with so-called “sanctuary policies.” And as programs like 287(g), Secure Communities and other federal/local partnerships continue to expand, local police are now more involved in identifying undocumented immigrants than ever before. Many law enforcement officers, however, find that enforcing federal immigration law may interfere with their ability to prevent crime and keep neighborhoods safe, so they have designed tailored local policies to ensure that they maintain the best possible relationship with their communities. In a new report by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), local police speak out on the difficulties of enforcing immigration laws and talk about best practices for navigating immigration issues in the future.
In Police and Immigration: How Chiefs are Leading their Communities through the Challenge, (PERF) looks at several case studies (New Haven, CT; Prince William County, VA; Montgomery County, MD; Minneapolis, MN; and various law enforcement agencies in Phoenix, AZ) to show how police efforts to engage with immigrant communities makes cities safer.
Each of these cities works with ICE in one way or another to aid in immigration enforcement. However, these cities have worked with local police on policies regarding the way police enforce federal immigration laws, i.e. when police officers can question arrestees about immigration status, when cops contact ICE, and how witnesses and victims of crime are treated. While each of the policies is different, each one was developed over time with input from various stakeholders and was custom-made to serve the best interests of the local community.
However, federal, state, and local policymakers continue to impose policies and responsibilities on local police without getting their input. In the interest of looking tough on illegal immigration, some policymakers continue to claim that these localities are giving “sanctuary” to unauthorized immigrants and to criminals, and seek to undermine all of the hard work and thought put into designing their community policing policies.
At the same time, ICE continues to expand the Secure Communities program, forcing local police to send fingerprints to DHS to be matched against immigration databases. When there’s a hit, local jails are asked to hold those individuals that ICE is interested in, at the expense of local taxpayers. While the police aren’t deputized agents making arrests for immigration violations, the effect on the community can be the same—immigrants fearful of reporting crimes to the police, endangering everyone. DHS is not giving local police jurisdictions the ability to opt out of Secure Communities, even if the locality determines it is in its own best interest to do so.
PERF’s report offers many excellent recommendations for ensuring that federal agencies consult with state and local police as they craft immigration policies—not just impose something on them after the fact. They also recommend ICE increase coordination with and responsiveness to local police agencies and be more engaged and active in explaining their policies and actions to local communities. Furthermore, the role and authority of local police needs to be more clearly defined by the federal government.
As for the police, PERF recommends officers be prohibited from arresting or detaining persons just to investigate their immigration status. Police must uphold Constitutional and civil rights, and protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their immigration status. Similar to their recommendations for ICE, local police must engage their communities in dialogue about their policies and programs, educate their communities about their authority and actions, and develop clear, written policies and procedures regarding the handling of unauthorized immigrants.
Enacting these recommendations would go a long way toward ensuring that police and policymakers are on the same page, and that the best interest of the entire community is front-and-center in the immigration debate.
Photo by Lester Public Library.
What’s in Your Wallet? Fiscal Notes Give States Pause Over Enforcement Laws
012 months ago
As states continue to crowd the immigration enforcement debate with rhetoric and white noise, other states are getting down to brass tacks. On Monday, Utah’s Legislative Fiscal Analysts office hung an $11 million price tag around HB 70, Utah’s immigration law requiring local law enforcement to check the citizenship status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. That’s a steep price to pay for a law Arizona has already proven will cost your state jobs, legal fees and tourism revenue. Kentucky also recently crunched the numbers and found their SB1070-style law (SB 6) would cost the Bluegrass state a whopping $40 million per year. As many states face budget deficits in 2011, lawmakers might be asking their constituents the same question as those Capitol One commercials, “What’s in your wallet?”
So how much would Utah’s immigration enforcement bill cost exactly? According to HB 70’s fiscal note, the price ranges from $5.3 million to $11.3 million. Further fiscal breakdown reveals:
- $875,300 in costs to the state in 2012 and $829,800 in 2013,
- $143,000 in costs to the attorney general’s office in 2012;
- and $162,000 in additional cost to the Department of Public Safety in 2012.
Amazingly, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem), said that after HB 70 goes into effect, residents “would actually save money as a city” then said “maybe not in the first few months, but shortly thereafter you will. That is something we can’t quantify when you look at costs.” Unfortunately for Rep. Sandstrom, that’s precisely what Utah is trying to do—calculate the immediate costs. Sandstrom’s bill drew ire from Councilman Carlton Christensen who said he “resented the bill’s unfunded mandate.”
Yesterday, Rep. Sandstrom came back with a revised version of HB 70, a version supporters called weak and “watered down” and critics referred to as the same unconstitutional proposal “in a new dress” in a slightly different color.
Kentucky’s legislature also recently estimated the cost of implementing an Arizona-style enforcement law and arrived at $40 million per year in prison, court and foster-care fees. As if the hefty price tag wasn’t enough, hundreds of Hispanic workers rallied outside the capital in Frankfort this week to protest SB 6, which recently passed the Senate but is not expected to move in the House.
In Colorado, the anticipation of costly litigation fees and backlash from the agricultural community caused Rep. Randy Baumgardner (R-Hot Sulphur Springs) to attempt to kill his Arizona copycat enforcement bill, HB 1107, before it even reaches committee. According to Rep. Baumgardner, there were just too many problems with his bill to continue.
“After many drafts and hours of deliberation and meetings with entities, we had come to some agreement with agencies out there,” Baumgardner said. “(But) we couldn’t seem to get away from some parts of it that could be possibly unconstitutional.”
Arizona is still calculating their loss from SB 1070. Todd Landfried at the Hinckley Institute of Politics in Utah said this week that Arizona will “lose $490 million in tourism revenue this year, including $141 million in lost spending due to cancelled conferences,” as well as 3,000 tourism jobs. He also pointed out that some manufacturing jobs are moving operations to Texas.
As restrictionist lawmakers attempt to build their careers on introducing and advancing SB1070-style legislation, taxpayers and legislatures would do well to run down the long laundry list of costs associated with any SB 1070-type bill—the cost to police for increased hours spent arresting, detaining, transporting, booking immigrants, the increase in costs to jails, the cost of projected increase in prosecutorial and public-defender staff, cost of foster-care for children of detained immigrants, and the cost to the state economy in revenue loss and legal fees—and decide how much they’re willing to spend enforcing federal immigration laws.
Photo by tjkirch.
Some States Applying Brakes to Legislation Denying Citizenship to U.S.-Born Children
012 months ago
Yesterday, a panel in South Dakota’s legislature voted to halt legislation aimed at denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. South Dakota’s bill—and others like it—propose measures which challenge the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that, with very few exceptions, all persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. While conservative lawmakers continue to introduce bills challenging the birthright citizenship clause, other states—like Arizona and Montana—are joining South Dakota’s lead in deciding whether to move these bills forward.
South Dakota’s House Judiciary Committee voted 8 to 5 yesterday to put the brakes on HR 1199, a bill introduced by Rep. Manny Steele which calls on the Governor to join a compact with other states to issue two different types of birth certificates—one for those considered “natural-born U.S. citizens” and another singling out those whom the state does not consider a citizen. Executive Director of the State Bar of South Dakota, Tom Barnett, questioned whether the bill is constitutional while Sam Ellingson of South Dakota’s ACLU said the “U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that all children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents’ status. A state legislature cannot decide which people are citizens.”
Unfortunately, Rep. Steele didn’t come up with this all by himself. His bill is part of a concerted effort by a group called the State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) who, earlier last month, held a press conference introducing two measures challenging birthright citizenship. One measure is a state compact (upon which South Dakota’s bill is based) requiring states to issue two different birth certificates depending on the citizenship of the child’s parents and the other is a bill which defines “state citizenship” to exclude the American-born children of undocumented immigrants. SLLI members admit that they don’t expect these measures to have a practical effect, rather, they are intended to spur costly legal challenges so that the Supreme Court will take up the case and reinterpret the 14th Amendment.
Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Ron Gould, held up two such measures (SB1308 and SB1309) yesterday after three hours of testimony when it became clear the measures did not have enough votes to pass. The measures, however, can still be voted upon at a different time or assigned to a “friendlier” committee. State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema pointed out that the way these measures are currently written actually denies citizenship to children born to U.S. soliders in bases overseas, which, as Sinema continues, “would have denied our very own United States Sen. John McCain the benefits and recognition of Arizona citizenship under this law.”
Similarly, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer said he will not sign HB 392, a measure introduced by Republican Representative James Knox which denies citizenship to dual-citizens and Native Americans, in addition to children who do not have at least one legal citizen parent. The Governor also said he would “veto any unconstitutional bills.”
Aside from the intention to waste taxpayers money, these bills do nothing to actually solve the problem of undocumented immigration. They are what Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post called bills “in search of a problem.” Hopefully, other state legislatures will call out similar attempts to amend or reinterpret the 14th Amendment for what they are—unconstitutional, wasteful and frankly, un-American.
Photo by Danielle Scott.
The Aftermath of the Ellensburg, WA Immigration Raid and Lessons from Past ICE Enforcement Efforts
01 year ago
BY JUAN PEDROZA, THE URBAN INSTITUTE*
On Thursday morning, January 20, ICE agents descended on mobile homes in the Ellensburg area, east of Seattle, WA. Federal agents drove in with 11 search warrants and a helicopter search light, making simultaneous arrests at 22 different locations. The coordinated effort followed an investigation involving eight federal, county, and local law enforcement entities. ICE agents arrested 14 Mexican immigrants for criminal charges (for instance, using false documents or falsely claiming U.S. citizenship) and then 16 others for non-criminal “administrative” violations. But the aftermath of the recent raid in Ellensburg replayed familiar scenes of trauma from past enforcement efforts—enforcement efforts upon which ICE can and should improve upon.
An ICE spokesperson quickly pointed out that the operation was “not a raid, not a sweep.” The arrests, however, represent a hybrid of ICE operations—something between paper audits and home arrests. During audits, employers identify unauthorized workers, who typically end up jobless (but not under arrest). During raids, Fugitive Operations Teams (FOTs) visit homes, often arresting fugitive absconders and non-fugitives alike. The January 20th arrests resemble aspects of audits and fugitive operations, and the coordinated enforcement approach has familiar consequences.
Accounts of the January 20th Ellensburg area arrests bring to mind three key findings from our studies at The Urban Institute. (See: Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement.) Between 2008 and 2009, we cataloged the experiences of 85 immigrant families in six locations across the country.
First, ICE can apply humanitarian release guidelines to worksite raids which result in at least 25 arrests. These guidelines have a positive impact on communities since reunited families typically fare better than separated families. In our study, early release dampened child- behavior and parental mental health problems. Families who remained intact were also better at coping with challenges after members’ arrest. Given such results, ICE should start applying humanitarian release guidelines in all itsoperations.
Take the recent Ellensburg, WA operation, for example, in which ICE applied humanitarian release guidelines even though the arrests were scattered across nearly two dozen homes. Three immigrants (none of whom face criminal charges) were released on the same day and await an immigration hearing. Within a week, ICE granted pre-trial release for 13 others. School officials contacted ICE and identified children at risk of being left unattended, which helped reunite families.
Second, arrests at family homes traumatize children and youth. An earlier study of ICE home arrests by the Immigration Justice Clinic (Cardozo Law School) cited instances where ICE agents kicked doors down while wielding firearms. We learned about these types of operations through interviews with 11 families affected by home arrests. In these cases, ICE agents nearly always arrested immigrants at gunpoint and usually in full view of children. Parents relayed how their children later displayed extreme withdrawal and dramatic behavior changes. Similarly, Ellensburg area parents reported the following: children have trouble sleeping; a child developed a nervous tick following his parent’s arrests; a baby lost weight after his breastfeeding mother was detained; and distressed students were unable to focus at school.
ICE agents entered family homes (in some cases, with guns drawn) during the Ellensburg area arrests. They arrested two parents and handcuffed their two teenage sons. Ricardo, 17, witnessed the entire event and recalled, “I opened the door and they pointed at me with a gun,” he said. “And I said, ‘can I please put a shirt on,’ and they said, ‘put your hands in the air.’ Then when I came out they handcuffed me and they did that to my 15-year-old brother.” Although never arrested, Ricardo told a reporter , “My heart was destroyed. I knew my life wasn’t going to be the same,” he said. “I felt bad for my older brother, because he’s almost 20 and he has to take care of a family now.” Given the damaging aftermath of home arrests, ICE should be mindful when executing warrants in people’s homes.
Finally, ongoing community support can help stabilize families’ economic and emotional distress after immigration arrests. Predictably, isolated families struggle more than those who receive assistance. The outpouring of support in Ellensburg can give families at least a toehold. Absent sustained material and in-kind donations, households go hungry and lose their homes. Amid these households’ uncertainty about the future, educators and counselors have an important role to play re-instilling a routine for families with school-age children.
ICE agents arrest hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year. Immigrant families and their communities live on the frontlines of enforcement operations. Potential opportunities such as early release and ongoing community support and the challenges associated with home arrests both argue for applying humanitarian release guidelines universally, great caution in executing warrants, and greater community involvement.
*Juan M. Pedroza is a Research Associates at The Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed above are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Photo by ICE.gov.
How Reuters, Northeastern University Stifle Immigration Debate by Suppressing Labor Analysis
01 year ago
On January 20, Reuters published a news article with the following headline: “Exclusive: Over a Million Immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10.” The article, which reported on data exclusively provided to Reuters by the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at Northeastern University in Boston, appeared just a few days before the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first hearing of the new Congress criticizing the Obama Administration on worksite enforcement. The article was also quoted in testimony by Mark Kirkorian of the Center for Immigration Studies as proof that the native-born are losing out to immigrants in the work force. The CLMS “study,” however, which supports the flawed restrictionist theory that America can deport its way out of unemployment, actually backfired during the hearing.
Committee member California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), also interested in understanding the findings of the study, instructed her staff members to request a copy from CLMS, which they were denied. The Congresswoman took issue with this in the hearing.
LOFGREN: Mr. Krikorian, just briefly, you, in your testimony today, discussed a recent study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University that purported to demonstrate that recent immigrants were gaining employment while Americans were losing their jobs.
And then you cited a story by Reuters in your written testimony, not the report itself. Have you seen the report itself and analyzed its data?
KRIKORIAN: I’ve looked for it. No, I’m not sure — I think they did it for Reuters. So I’m not…
LOFGREN: Well, I asked my staff to call the center and ask for the report. And they refused to give it to us. And they said it’s — it isn’t being made public. I just wondered if you had a copy…
KRIKORIAN: No, I do not.
LOFGREN: Yes. I — I’ll just advance my view that if something can’t ever be examined by people, I’m not going to rely on it.
The Reuters article reports that CLMS analyzed data produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. This data is not impossible to access, but how the data is analyzed is the key hidden component. CLMS has, to date, refused requests to provide this analysis so that it can be reviewed and/or replicated, which is the norm in academia.
Also troubling was the lack of double sourcing by Reuters. Journalists normally double source or verify the information they report on with a second source. Given that the study is not publicly available, this should have compelled Reuters to conduct their journalistic due diligence.
Pushing aside the missteps of both CLMS and Reuters, the article presents data on immigration and unemployment that is far more nuanced than its shrill title would suggest. At first glance, the story seems to incorrectly suggest that every job filled by an immigrant since 2008 could have been filled by an unemployed native-born American. Numerous, public studies have refuted such findings. Indeed, the story itself makes the following observations:
- Some immigrants “land jobs that unemployed Americans turn up their noses at or lack the skills to do.”
- “Some of those who entered the country since 2008 were employed in sectors that generally require a high level of skills and education, such as finance and insurance.”
- Some “newcomers since 2008 got work in health care and social services, a fast-growing sector where skills are in demand.”
In other words, not all unemployed Americans possess the skill sets required to fill the jobs which became available. Not to mention the fact that many unemployed Americans may not even live in the same part of the country where job openings occurred. This isn’t to say that some unemployed Americans didn’t find themselves in direct competition with immigrants for the same jobs. But the Reuters story uses hyperbole and insinuation to greatly exaggerate the extent to which this occurs.
Developing immigration policies that maximize the many benefits that have been bestowed on America by immigration while minimizing the potential negative effects on the current labor force isn’t easy. CLMS and Reuters decision to manufacture a “study” without making it available to policymakers simply adds more heat to a debate that is already too heavy on rhetoric and short on facts.”
Photo by (cup)cake_eater.
Senator Cornyn, Republicans Continue to Stammer on Immigration Reform
01 year ago
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Photo by musicFIRSTcoalition.
The official Republican response to the State of the Union address may have been delivered by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), but the immigration response came from Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn who fired off an editorial questioning the President’s commitment to border security and immigration reform. While the Administration has certainly heard Sen. Cornyn’s accusations before, his mixed messaging on border security and reform efforts seem indicative of a larger Republican problem—one in which words don’t quite match up with deeds.
Despite the fact that President Obama articulated the need to “take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration,” requesting that Congress make a bi-partisan effort to protect our borders, enforce our laws, address the millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. and stop deporting talented youth, Sen. Cornyn argued that the President has “never seriously engaged Congress on immigration reform.” Nor is the Senator “optimistic about a credible immigration reform proposal coming from this White House” this year.
Which begs the question—what exactly is a “credible immigration reform proposal” in Republican eyes? Was the proposal offered by Sens. Menendez, Schumer, and Gutierrez not credible? Was the DREAM Act proposal that the Senate failed to pass last fall also unacceptable? Why must the proposal come from the White House and not Congress?
Democrats have expended resources more on border security in the past few years, including engineering a $600 million boost to southwest border funding. Perhaps that’s why Senator Cornyn sent a mixed message about progress on border security. He wrote:
In the last fiscal year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Yemen. They detained more than a dozen each from Iran and Iraq. Some of these nations harbor terrorists. Washington’s failure to secure our border puts local residents at risk and jeopardizes national security.
So which is it? Is the Obama administration failing to secure the border or are they making progress? Either way, the Senator’s editorial doesn’t really signal what he is for or how he hopes to move forward on other aspects of reform. Ironically, when he does talk comprehensive reform, he sounds quite a bit like the President he is criticizing:
Despite the challenges, immigration reform remains a federal responsibility and a national imperative. We must find a credible and compassionate solution to the 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country. We must address the millions who come here legally but overstay their visas. We must honor those who have played by the rules of our broken system.
Actions speak louder than words for both parties, and particularly for Senator Cornyn who has repeatedly voted against genuine immigration reform, including the DREAM Act. Rather than continue to point fingers, Republicans and conservative Democrats need to take the President up on his offer to make this the year that we all agree to start fixing the broken immigration system. There are plenty of “what if’s” and “should haves” to go around for the 111th Congress, but now that Republicans control the House, they will have to start shouldering both the responsibility and the blame for our broken system. Senator Cornyn can choose to point fingers or roll up his sleeves. For the sake of the country, let’s hope he chooses the latter.
Legislators Intend to Burden States with Costly Immigration Litigation
01 year ago
State Legislators for Legal Immigration member, State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA)
Yesterday, a group of state legislators gathered in a small room in Washington, D.C. to present their plan for reinterpreting the 14th Amendment—the amendment which states that all persons born in the U.S., and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of U.S. and the states in which they reside. Although the legislators proclaimed a desire to “protect the states” and to “love” the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to the American-born children of freed slaves, you wouldn’t know it listening by to their blatant disregard for the American taxpayer—upon whom they plan on sticking costly litigation fees. Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, Congressman Steve King (R-IA), also introduced a bill in the new Congress to end constitution citizenship.
A group of state legislators, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, presented two measures intended to prevent the American-born children of undocumented immigrants from automatically becoming citizens—a state compact requiring states to issue two different types of birth certificates (one for those considered “natural-born U.S. citizens” and another singling out those whom the state does not consider a citizen) and a bill defining “state citizenship” which excludes the American-born children of undocumented immigrants.
Yet, as the New York Times reports, the legislation isn’t intended to have a “practical effect” any time soon. The legislators, who plan on introducing the measures in 14 states, admit that these measures are intended to spur costly legal challenges so that the Supreme Court will take up the case and issue a decision—which is exactly what is so irritating about their claim to “protect the states.” Who’s protecting their states from costly litigation fees?
As we’ve reported before, cities and states that have already attempted to pass restrictive immigration legislation are still paying the price. Hazleton, Pennsylvania, currently faces $2.4 million in legal fees; Farmers Branch, Texas, has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006; Fremont, Nebraska estimates the annual cost of defending their immigration ordinance to be about $750,000. And in Arizona, where their immigration law SB1070 was challenged by the DOJ, residents must be feeling the economic consequences of the tourism boycott, which the Center for American Progress estimates in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Is this really the job of state legislators? Or should they, instead, be working on ways to bring additional revenue into the state, like state Rep. Luz Robles of Utah who introduced an immigration bill that provides undocumented immigrants already here a legal avenue to work, which would in turn generate additional tax revenue for the state? With many states facing a budget deficit, many are urging their state lawmakers to prioritize jobs and economic growth.
And besides, as Lucas Guttentag of the ACLU points out, “no amount of legislative grandstanding can change what the Constitution says and requires. It’s hard to imagine a more anti-American proposal than one that would judge a person or baby by the status of their grandparents or great grandparents [...] That is not America. That is not permitted under the Constitution. That is not what has made this country great.”
Photo by PA State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
New Report Describes Peril Immigrant Women Face in U.S. Food Industry
01 year ago
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released a new report called Injustice on our Plates: Immigrant Women in the U.S. Food Industry which looks at the conditions under which immigrant women work. It documents and personalizes the stories of women who have made the dangerous journey to the U.S. seeking a better life for themselves and their families, only to end up working long hours under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.
Entering the U.S. surreptitiously is extremely difficult for anyone, but particularly for vulnerable women crossing alone or with small children. According to SPLC, some academics and humanitarian organizations estimate that as many as six out of 10 women and girls experience some sort of sexual violence during the journey. Some do not make it at all. In the five-year period from FY2000 to FY2004, border officers recovered the remains of an average of 61 migrant women a year along the 1,952-mile Southwestern border. In the latest five-year period — from FY2005 to FY2009 — that number jumped to 77.
Many of the women who make it to the U.S. safely are confronted with the horrendous working and living conditions made possible because of the existence of a group of vulnerable, desperate, and disposable workers. Many of the women interviewed complained about the difficulty supporting their families when they make minimum wage, or even less, and wage theft is common. To earn their meager wages, immigrant women perform hard physical labor and have few rights or protections.
Working in the fields can be backbreaking, and workers are exposed to dangerous pesticides. An interview with Isabel, who picked strawberries, revealed:
Working in these fields takes a physical toll. At times, Isabel must spend whole days hunched over. In addition, we “have a lot of hand movement and use big scissors to cut the little branches and cutters for the big branches.” At the end of the day, the pain can be numbing, Isabel says. “Sometimes I don’t feel my hands. I feel like an animal bit me. I have a pulsing in my arms, and I feel the pain when I sleep. It’s like biting me. It’s intolerable the pain, from using the scissors so much.” She also suffers from headaches from the pesticides. “It’s such a strong smell,” she says. “When I start to breathe that in, my head starts to hurt, and I feel nauseated.”
Work in meat processing plants is also extremely dangerous, and few workers have access to safety equipment. Workers become crippled by the strenuous and repetitive motions of the work. Many of the female workers reported being restricted from using the restroom, while others spoke of sexual abuse, and discrimination against pregnancy. According to SPLC:
The women are even more vulnerable in the workplace than their male counterparts. They are often the primary caregivers for children, making them less likely to assert their rights for fear of being fired or, worse, being deported and separated from their families. And because of their fear of being reported to immigration authorities, they are reluctant to report wage violations, sexual violence or gender discrimination, or to take legal action to stop it.
How are these conditions allowed to exist in the U.S.? SPLC notes that farmworkers are the least protected workers in America. They were specifically excluded from labor laws passed during the New Deal era, and today are not eligible for workers compensation in many states, and are not entitled to overtime pay or minimum wage under federal law. They are excluded from many state health and safety laws, and even child labor laws do not apply in some cases. Furthermore, farmworkers also are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Every day, Americans are benefitting from the hard work of these immigrant women who work to put inexpensive food on our tables. In one hour “Rosa” cleans and debones enough chicken breasts to sell for $900, but she earns $6.25 for that hour of work. Another immigrant woman makes $2.50 for every tray of grape tomatoes she picks. During a good 12-hour workday, she gathers a dozen trays, about 300 pounds. That’s $30 a day – far less than minimum wage. Yet her one-day tomato harvest retails for as much as $1,000.
Americans could spend a tiny bit more on food and increase workers’ earnings. However, there is much resistance, and ultimately large companies who do not want to pay more can buy imported food rather than pay higher prices for U.S. food.
Perhaps more importantly, measures could be taken to ensure that undocumented workers receive the same protections as other workers, leaving them far less vulnerable. The SPLC report ends with recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, the Department of Labor and other federal agencies who could take actions to improve the lives of the immigrant workers who produce our food. Passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation tops the list, of course. Ultimately, all workers need to be on a level playing field which starts with obtaining legal status, and the immigration system must provide a way for needed workers to work in the U.S. legally and be protected by employment and labor laws.
Photo by PNASH.
Enforcing Your Way into the Red: Hazleton Could Learn an Expensive Immigration Lesson
01 year ago
Yet another locality learned the financial perils of passing an anti-immigrant law. Last Friday, a panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision to require the City of Hazelton, PA, to pay $2.4 million in legal fees to the Plaintiffs instead of their insurance carrier. The Plaintiffs (Pedro Lozano, Casa Dominicana of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition) accumulated legal fees when they challenged the constitutionality of the Hazleton law—a law which would have fined landlords renting to undocumented immigrants, denied businesses permits if they employed undocumented immigrants, and had the town investigate the legal status of an employee or tenant upon request of any citizen, business, or organization.
The Third Circuit panel held that Scottsdale Insurance Co. was only required to cover decisions which awarded monetary damages, not legal fees. The fight, however, is not over. First, says city solicitor Christpher Slusser, the city will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. After a decision at that level, the trial court will have to make a determination as to whether they agree with the math resulting in the $2.4 million tab requested by the Plaintiffs (a decision which could be appealed as well).
All of the questions above, however, will be irrelevant if the Supreme Court overturns the Third Circuit’s decision that the Hazelton law itself is unconstitutional. Said one of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys in 2008:
We are currently handling a high-profile case, Lozano v. Hazleton, involving a challenge to the Hazleton, PA., illegal immigration ordinances. Our team of six attorneys has dedicated thousands of hours to this case – our single largest pro bono matter to date. Lost in the rancorous debate over immigration policy is the fact that the Hazleton case does not seek to vindicate illegal immigration. Our clients simply sought to restore immigration enforcement to the federal government – where it belongs.
The City of Fremont, Nebraska, already understands the enforcement lesson Hazleton may soon learn. Fremont passed and then decided not to implement a costly anti-immigrant law which they estimated would cost the city $750,000 per year to defend. Farmers Branch, Texas, has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three ordinances. The city has budgeted $623,000 for legal expenses through the rest of the fiscal year related to the ordinance defense. Legal costs could exceed $5 million by the end of the fiscal year.
Hazelton has already spent at least $420,000 of the $430,000 it collected in contributions to defend the law, and now faces paying up to $2.4 million to the Plaintiffs as well. The Migration Policy Institute suggests that the Hazelton law, as well as many other anti-immigrant ordinances, come as a reaction to increases in the immigrant population. From 2000 to 2007, the immigrant share of the population increased from 3.7% to 14%.
Localities would do well to learn that passing immigration enforcement legislation—while perhaps making residents feel like something is being done about our immigration problems—not only proves costly to the local economy, but does nothing to actually solve our immigration problems at the national or local level. Furthermore, supporting strict enforcement legislation is also likely to alienate legal immigrants, who like it or not, contribute to their local economy.
Photo by Reuben Whitehouse
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.