Friday, August 31, 2012

Immigration waivers leave some behind – USATODAY.com

Immigration waivers leave some behind – USATODAY.com

Column: Immigration waivers leave migrant children behind

Any American who has turned on the news lately could watch many young immigrants taking a first step toward the American dream. The Department of Homeland Security began taking applications on Aug. 15 for "deferred action for childhood arrivals," temporary relief from deportation for unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the USA as children.
  • Laura Sanchez, left, with help from her sister Nancy, applies for immigration waivers on Aug. 15 in Langley Park, Md.
    By Jose Luis Magana, AP
    Laura Sanchez, left, with help from her sister Nancy, applies for immigration waivers on Aug. 15 in Langley Park, Md.
By Jose Luis Magana, AP
Laura Sanchez, left, with help from her sister Nancy, applies for immigration waivers on Aug. 15 in Langley Park, Md.
But what you did not see in the stories of thousands lining up in Chicago or packing churches in New York were the many children who should benefit but won't. Deferred action is intended for children who are "American" in everything but legal status, but the program's idea of "American" is unlikely to include the children who picked the oranges for your juice or the tomatoes on your hamburgers.
It is common knowledge that the U.S. agricultural industry depends on immigrant labor. What is less well-known is that hundreds of thousands of children, often starting full-time at age 11 or 12, are working in the fields. Under federal law, children can legally work in agriculture at younger ages, for longer hours and under more hazardous conditions than other working children. Many of them are U.S. citizens, but there are also plenty of unauthorized migrant children.
We learned, for example, of Ingrid Perez, a 17-year-old migrant farmworker who is unlikely to benefit from deferred action. To be eligible, applicants must be in school, have graduated from high school or have a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran. But Ingrid, an honor roll student, dropped out of school to work. Children who move with their parents from state to state with planting and harvest change schools, on average, three times a year. They are also often under financial pressure to help support their families. As a result, child farmworkers drop out at four times the national average.
Applicants must also prove they have been in the country since June 15, 2007, but the usual ways of proving "continuous presence" through utility bills and leases will be difficult for children who live in migrant housing. Child farmworkers in rural areas are less likely to find lawyers who can help them with the application, especially because federally funded legal services organizations are barred from serving unauthorized immigrants.
Even getting identification, proof of who they are, can be challenging in rural communities. Ingrid has been trying to enroll in a GED course but can't without identification, which she does not have as an unauthorized migrant. She could apply for a passport at the Guatemalan Embassy in Washington, D.C., but that would mean a trip she cannot afford.
Some of these barriers might be addressed through administrative decisions on evidentiary requirements for deferred action. But what is clear is the program of deferred action was not designed for child farmworkers who, like many immigrants throughout U.S. history, live very different lives than middle-class, suburban kids.
Given the tenor of debate over illegal immigration, it's not surprising that the Obama administration designed a program for the best and the brightest immigrant children. But the fact that deferred action will probably exclude many farmworker children underscores how much immigration law is out of sync with the reality of an economy that depends on unauthorized immigrants and American families whose loved ones are unauthorized.
The children who help feed this country have American dreams, too. Congress should create the immigration system these children deserve.

USATODAY OPINION

Columns
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.
Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.
We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.
Grace Mengis a U.S. researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of the report "Cultivating Fear: The Vulnerability of Immigrant Farmworkers in the U.S. to Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment."

Monday, August 20, 2012

How The Deferred Action Immigration Program Went From Dream To Reality

How The Deferred Action Immigration Program Went From Dream To Reality

How The Deferred Action Immigration Program Went From Dream To Reality

Posted: Updated: 08/19/2012 1:26 pm
Deferred Action
Hundreds of undocumented immigrants line up to get help with documents and filing for the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals application in Maryland on Aug. 15. The Obama administration's program could expand the rights of more than 1 million young illegal immigrants.
When President Obama addressed the National Council of La Raza at its annual convention last summer, he laid out his efforts to enforce the nation's "flawed" immigration laws in a "humane" fashion, and then followed with what was supposed to be a laugh line: "Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own --"
Before Obama could finish, someone shouted, "Yes you can." Soon, more than a dozen others joined the chorus to rhythmic applause. For a few seconds, the president said nothing. He offered a weak, irritated smile to this group of mostly Latino community organizers, civil rights activists, policy wonks and political operatives.
After campaigning on a pledge to overhaul the nation's immigration system in the first year of his presidency, Obama not only failed to deliver on that promise. His administration also deported more undocumented immigrants than any other in U.S. history.
But the spontaneous outbursts from the civil rights group's convention audience proved prophetic, or perhaps instructive. This week, the Obama team initiated what some immigrant activists and Obama critics alike have called the most significant change in the nation's immigration system in nearly 25 years. Across the country, as many as 1.7 million young undocumented immigrants, brought to the country illegally as children, were expected to apply for temporary, renewable immigration relief and work permits, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis. The administration announced the deportation policy shift in June.
Why did Obama come around?
PRESSURING THE PRESIDENT
The White House insists that the deferred action directive is part of a long-running effort to operate an effective and efficient deportation apparatus while Congressional gridlock remains. After establishing deportation priorities and giving immigration enforcement field offices greater discretion about which undocumented immigrants to let go, officials discovered that low-risk undocumented immigrants continued to clog the system. This prompted the Obama team to settle on a temporary, administrative solution, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The deferred action directive eventually took shape thanks to a confluence of conditions, according to activists, undocumented immigrants, elected officials and political operatives contacted by The Huffington Post. These included the president's electoral concerns, the potent political threat embodied by outspoken Florida Tea Party Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and Obama's awareness of the ongoing suffering of undocumented immigrants in America.
Under the terms of what immigration officials have dubbed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, beginning this week, federal officials will consider applications that could grant certain young undocumented immigrants, sometimes referred to as Dreamers, renewable two-year deportation reprieves and a permit needed to work legally. In order to qualify, they must be 31 or younger, have arrived in the country before their 16th birthday and meet other education, military service and criminal record requirements.
Dreamers are young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. The term is derived from the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, a bill first introduced as the Dream Act in 2001 by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch. In most of its various forms the Dream Act has called for some sort of path to either legal immigrant status or citizenship and eligibility for in-state tuition rates, and in a few of the many attempts to get the bill passed since 2001, access to state financial aid.
If the long lines and testimonials collected at application assistance clinics in Chicago, Miami, New York, Houston, Los Angeles and several other cities this week offer any indication, some Dreamers hope the program will help them to come out of the often-referenced shadows of American life. Many say they manage daily fears of deportation and pressure to stop attending school, and navigate exploitative and illegal work and living conditions or manipulative personal relationships.
Several people told The Huffington Post that pressure for immigration reform -- albeit sometimes low-volume -- has been applied to the Obama administration since he took office, by Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez and various organizations, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, America's Voice and the Center for American Progress.
UPTICK IN DEPORTATIONS
It was a challenging time for the administration. Tea Party Republicans won so many House Seats in the November 2010 elections that any hope of comprehensive reform and pursuing many other priorities in the next session was dead. The election outcome and the short clock left on the lame duck session expanded the ranks of immigrant advocates ready to champion the Dream Act, said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat. Until then, many of immigration reform's senior statesmen -- people connected to most of the nation's large Latinos civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations -- had been fixated on more sweeping, comprehensive immigration reform, he said.
The next month, the bill narrowly failed in a procedural vote. It died just 14 votes short.
A few days before Christmas, Gutierrez and other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus went to see the president. Gutierrez had already been arrested outside the White House protesting the absence of federal immigration reform and state-level attempts at immigration enforcement.
"When we left that meeting, the president said let's put on our thinking caps over the holidays and see what we can come up with," Gutierrez said.
The caucus decided to ask for administrative action that would protect the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen kids and Dreamers with a policy similar to the one that governs Cuban refugees who make it to U.S. shores. The relief that the caucus called for would be limited to people already inside the U.S. Earlier that year, a group of Dreamers had made a similar request of the president in a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.
But, after the holidays, Obama made a series of speeches declaring Congress had the sole authority to change immigration law and protect Dreamers. Reform advocates also were alarmed by a clear uptick in deportations.
The Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency annual deportation report revealed that in fiscal year 2010, ICE removed 392,862 undocumented immigrants from the United States, a nearly 50 percent spike from the last portion of the Bush administration in fiscal year 2008.
So in March 2011, when ICE Director John Morton began issuing new orders in a series of memos, immigrant advocates thought tangible relief was in sight, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, an immigrant advocacy organization.
The Morton memos identified priorities. ICE agents were supposed to focus on detecting and deporting undocumented immigrant criminals, people who had recently entered the country without permission and those who had repeatedly done so. Morton directed agents to let people go if they met ICE's low-priority standards, such as those who have U.S. citizen children under 18 and have lived in the country for 10 years or more. They also included undocumented immigrants who have filed a labor or civil rights complaint -- a measure designed to provide due process to undocumented immigrants and to avoid creating a perverse incentive to exploit them.
"We thought this was going to be phenomenal," Sharry said.
Despite objections by the ICE officer's union, as far as the administration was concerned, the Morton memos worked. In fiscal year 2011, the number of total deportations grew just slightly to 396,906 people, a 1 percent jump over the previous 12-month period. More criminals were being deported than ever before.
But included in that list of criminals deported were people caught driving without a license and apprehended for other minor offenses. Dreamers were getting deported in some cities and not in others, said Gutierrez. Easy-to-catch but low-risk undocumented immigrants -- mothers driving a few miles over the speed limit, workers locked in disputes with bosses who refused to pay wages -- were still clogging the system.
'WE WERE ANGRY WITH OBAMA'
In November, Sharry, of America's Voice; Gaby Pacheco, a well-known Dreamer; and representatives from a number of immigrant advocacy, civil and labor rights groups gathered in Washington and concluded that prosecutorial discretion was a failure.
"There were people at that event who were incensed," Sharry said. "The president was either being deliberately mislead or he is choosing to be. Advocates and people like Dick Durbin were telling him what was happening and he was choosing to believe his bureaucrats."
DHS declined to comment on the claim. Durbin could not be reached for comment.
DHS had agreed in August to review a backlog of about 300,000 cases pending in immigration court (many of which were initiated during the Bush administration), but by early 2012, less than two percent were allowed to stay in the country as a result of the review, Sharry said.
DHS officials say that figure ultimately rose to about 9 percent, or 28,000 individuals, by the end of May.
Sharry and Pacheco; members of Congress such as Gutierrez, Menendez, Durbin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); and others continued a series of meetings with White House staff, including Jarrett and Cecilia Muñoz, a one-time National Council of La Raza staffer and now director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.
But immigrant advocates were worried about the effect of pushing Obama publicly on the contentious issue in the midst of his re-election campaign, Sharry said.
"Truthfully, we were angry with Obama but we're terrified of Romney," he said. "At this point he had pretty much emerged as the frontrunner and said that he would veto any Dream Act that reached his desk."
Many activists weren't sure what to do, Sharry said. America's Voice decided to lean on the administration publicly.
In the spring, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano raised the question of administrative relief with the White House, a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity. Napolitano had already asked her staff for a variety of options. She may have been prompted to do so because of a confrontational meeting she had with Congressional Democrats a few months earlier. Napolitano came prepared to talk budget. But, according to Gutierrez, the conversation quickly turned to stories of real people who were being deported although they met the government's low-priority criteria.
The White House began examining the law.
Just as the Obama team was digging into the idea of administrative action, Sen. Rubio, the Tea Party Republican from Florida, began floating a Dream Act-like proposal with reporters.
White House officials contacted Pacheco and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The message: Rubio should not be trusted, both Pacheco and Gutierrez said.
Rubio had no cosponsors, and no other Republican said publicly that they would support the bill. He had not even introduced it to the Senate. And, Rubio drew a difficult-to-parse distinction. His bill would not prevent Dreamers from becoming citizens, but included no pathway to citizenship, either. Backing a Rubio bill might hurt the prospects of a far-reaching Dream Act in the future, Muñoz and Jarrett told activists.
"No one came right out and said don't work with Rubio, you're going to hurt us," Pacheco said. "It was a lot more subtle than that."
The White House and Sen. Reid, without question, worried that Rubio might swoop in and become the "white knight" of immigration reform, said Sharry.
Neither Rubio nor his staff responded to requests for comment.
Dream Activists outside Washington, meanwhile, hatched a pressure plan of their own.
On June 5, a group of Dreamers staged a sit-in protest inside an Obama for America office in Colorado. Within weeks, Dreamers who wanted to confront the administration in public ways staged sit-ins -- or attempts at sit-ins -- in Obama campaign offices in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, California and North Carolina. The group was gearing up for sit-ins in swing states.
Campaign staffers told the protesters they had been instructed not to call police, said Timothy Farrell, who handles communications for Dream Activists Ohio. Instead, in Obama for America offices where protesters showed up, campaign staff and volunteers retreated to back rooms, turned off Internet access or closed the office completely for a few days, Farrell said.
When Farrell asked the campaign for a statement, he said, the response came from the Chicago Obama for America office, national campaign headquarters.
"I can't say with certainty the president knew about the sit-ins," Farrell said. "But someone very close to him certainly did."
Then the White House received a letter signed by 96 legal scholars, most of them law school professors like Obama.
"In it, they basically said, the question isn't can you do this, but why haven't you," Pacheco said.
On June 11, administration officials sat down to make a final decision, Sharry said. That morning, the Washington Post ran a front-page story about a young undocumented immigrant living in the Virginia suburbs outside the nation's capital. Instead of preparing for graduation, the student and her mother were getting ready for their scheduled deportation.
Sharry asked a White House staffer about the story. They had seen it.
"I think the president sees these things, I think, if no one else, Michelle [Obama] probably brings them to his attention. She gets his legacy as the black president. But has the president had the full and complete personal evolution on immigration that he has on, say, gay marriage? I don't know."
On June 15, Obama stood behind another podium. This time, he spoke in the White House Rose Garden, and announced the deferred action directive.
"Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity," he said. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope."
Related on HuffPost:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
1 of 10
Alamy



Friday, August 17, 2012

When 'America's Toughest Sheriff' Met The Caravan For Peace

When 'America's Toughest Sheriff' Met The Caravan For Peace

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Meets Javier Sicilia And The 'Caravan For Peace With Justice And Dignity'

Posted: Updated: 08/17/2012 2:11 pm
Javier Sicilia's "Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity" arrived in Phoenix, Arizona, yesterday and visited Sheriff Joe Arpaio's infamous Tent City in order to denounce the failed War on Drugs which has claimed tens of thousands of innocent lives in Mexico.
As reported by Univision in the video above, Sicilia -- a Mexican poet whose own son was 'brutally killed by drug traffickers' in March 2011 -- and other civic leaders met with 'America's Toughest Sheriff' for an hour, advocating for the humane treatment of immigrants in his custody, and asking for his support of greater collaboration between U.S. law enforcement and their Mexican counterparts to curb the flow of weapons into Mexico.
Sheriff Arpaio is currently embroiled in a civil case stemming from charges filed by "five Hispanics who say they were stopped by deputies because they were Latino," and is also facing a federal lawsuit following allegations of civil rights abuses.
The "Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity" is on a mission to "Bring to the American people's conscience their shared responsibility for the thousands of dead, missing and displaced in the drug war."

Related on HuffPost:
DOJ Lawsuit Allegations Against Arpaio
1 of 7
AP

Watch Sicilia's interview on Democracy Now!
FOLLOW LATINO VOICES

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Tea Party House Candidate Calls For Troops Along Arizona Border To 'Start Shooting' | ThinkProgress

Tea Party House Candidate Calls For Troops Along Arizona Border To 'Start Shooting' | ThinkProgress

Tea Party House Candidate Calls For Troops Along Arizona Border To ‘Start Shooting’

Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher
Samuel Wurzlbacher — known to most as Joe the Plumber — made an appearance at a fundraiser for a Republican Arizona State Senator candidate over the weekend, and told the audience that the way to solve the country’s immigration problem is to station troops along the border and have them “start shooting.” The comment was first made at a Friday evening fundraising dinner for Lori Klein, the Republican candidate for her state senate district:
“For years I’ve said, you know, put a damn fence on the border going to Mexico and start shooting. I’m running for Congress and that should be a bad thing to say. But you know what, it’s how I feel…I want my borders protected, I’m very very adamant about that.”
The dinner attracted both Wurzelbacher, who is running for Congress in Ohio, and infamous conspiracy theorist Sheriff Joe Arpaio, along with 125 supporters. His comment was met with nervous laughter, as seen in a video shot by local news outlet Prescott eNews.
Lest anyone think that Wurzelbacher somehow misspoke, he repeated the outrageous comment the following morning at another campaign event for Klein, an outdoor “Patriot rally” in Prescott:
“I’m running for Congress. How many congressmen or people running for Congress have you heard, put a fence up and start shooting? None? Well you heard it here first. Put troops on the border and start shooting, I bet that solves our immigration problem real quick.”
Wurzelbacher’s comments were swiftly condemned by his Democratic opponent, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH). “Joe the Plumber’s comments have no place in a civil society…He should take back his words and apologize to everyone who respects life, the Constitution and the rule of law,” she said in a statement obtained by the Huffington Post.
Watch it:
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed. - News - Standard Speaker

Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed. - News - Standard Speaker


Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed.


Article Tools
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Our Social Networks
Facebook Twitter
Facebook
Sign Up newsletter

Photo: N/A, License: N/A
ERIC CONOVER/Standard-Speaker Lou Barletta, then mayor of Hazleton, speaks to a crowd of about 1,000 people at a pro-Illegal Immigration Relief Act rally held June 3, 2007, outside City Hall.
Photo: N/A, License: N/A, Created: 2006:07:13 20:51:19
KRISTEN MULLEN/Staff Photographer A man waves an American flag feverishly outside Hazleton City Hall upon hearing city council's decision to pass the Illegal Immigration Relief Act on July 13, 2006.
Lawyers on both sides of an immigration battle that propelled Hazleton into the national spotlight nearly six years ago will base testimony on court rulings from related disputes in Arizona and Farmers Branch, Texas, when the case resumes Wednesday in federal appeals court.
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the city of Hazleton have filed briefs and will make oral arguments before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Wednesday.
The appeals court, ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to take another look at Hazleton's case, will write the next chapter in a long-standing dispute over the city's rental registration ordinance and related Illegal Immigration Relief Act.
The laws, which were never enforced, essentially bar businesses from hiring, and landlords from harboring, illegal immigrants.
The case that has become known as "Lozano, et al. v. City of Hazleton" includes plaintiffs Pedro Lozano, Casa Dominicana of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition.
Parties on both sides of the dispute say they're confident heading into Wednesday's appearance before the appeals court.
Omar C. Jadwat, an attorney with ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, filed a 32-page brief on behalf of plaintiffs addressing the effects a Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law has on Hazleton's ordinances.
"In certain ways, they're both kind of directed at the same end - to make life miserable for people so that they leave," Jadwat contends. "The Hazleton law, in certain ways, is more direct about prohibiting basically residence of certain people in the City of Hazleton."
Kris Kobach, a lawyer who wrote Hazleton's ordinances and serves as Kansas secretary of state, believes Supreme Court rulings on similar immigration law in Arizona and Farmers Branch bolster Hazleton's chances of getting a ruling in its favor.
Similar laws
The Supreme Court in late June struck down parts of the Arizona law but upheld a portion that gave law enforcement the ability to check the immigration status of people they arrest. Federal officials who challenged the Arizona law did not contest changes made to a previous law that forces Arizona's employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm eligibility of employees and imposes penalties on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.
The latter provisions are similar to Hazleton's ordinances.
Kobach filed a brief on Aug. 1 that calls the Third Circuit Court's attention to a ruling from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court that vacates a previous panel decision regarding an immigration ordinance proposed in Farmers Branch, Texas.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit was split 2-1 on the Farmers Branch ordinance, which would require that tenants register with a building inspector who would verify their lawful immigration status.
On July 31, however, the Fifth Circuit granted a petition for a rehearing en banc in the Farmers Branch case, which Kobach said in a legal brief has "the immediate effect of vacating the panel decision in that case."
Kobach said plaintiffs in Hazleton's case argued in March that the Third Circuit court follow the now-vacated Farmers Branch opinion.
"Such reliance would be misplaced, due to the fact that the panel opinion no longer has any precedential effect," Kobach wrote. "There is now no opinion in any circuit concerning an ordinance similar to Hazleton's that can be said to offer an even indirect support for Plaintiff-Appellees's position."
Kobach cited those developments - along with the Supreme Court ordering the Third Circuit Court to revisit Hazleton's case - when saying he believes Hazleton is on solid footing.
"I think the court is recognizing that the first try wasn't correct in the eyes of the Supreme Court," he said. "With the two recent decisions from the Supreme Court … if the Third Circuit follows the Supreme Court's lead, it should sustain the ordinance. But, we'll see."
Kobach believes the plaintiffs have no argument for the employment provisions of Hazleton's ordinances, particularly because the Supreme Court upheld a similar law in Arizona.
"Most of the discussion in court next week will probably focus on the rental provisions of the Hazleton ordinance," he said.
Jadwat's brief addresses rental and housing provisions of Hazleton's ordinances, saying they dictate who must register and when, along with the type of information they must provide when registering, and also impose penalties for failing to comply with registration rules, making false statements or submitting false documents.
"The fact that the City nominally requires citizens as well as noncitizens to register does not change its intrinsic character as an immigration control measure," Jadwat wrote. "The registration scheme serves to obtain alien information, only noncitizens are required to provide information purporting to indicate their lawful presence in the United States, and only noncitizens will have their information sent to the federal government. The housing provisions therefore tread on the field occupied by federal alien registration law."
The appeals court also has directed the city to file a brief regarding the effects of Arizona's law on Hazleton's ordinances.
Attendance
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, R-11, who championed the illegal immigration ordinances while serving as Hazleton's mayor, said he has been following the case and will attend the Third Circuit hearing Wednesday.
While Jadwat believes the Arizona ruling will make for a stronger case for plaintiffs in Hazleton's case, Barletta said he's "very optimistic" the city's ordinances will stand, particularly because the business portion of Arizona's law was based on the city's ordinances.
"I think the chances are better now than ever in light of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Arizona, who used the business portion of our ordinance," Barletta said. "I feel that the Supreme Court would not be sending this down (to the appeals court) to be heard again if they didn't feel we had a case."
Hazleton Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi believes the Third Circuit panel's willingness to hear oral arguments will only benefit the city. Yannuzzi said he will also be in attendance Wednesday.
Jadwat, who will argue on the plaintiffs' behalf, doesn't believe oral arguments will benefit one party more than the other.
"It's not surprising," he said. "I think it's just part of the court trying to consider the issues fully."
Kobach, however, disagrees.
"We already argued in 2008 in the Third Circuit," he said. "It ruled against the city and the Supreme Court of the United States told the Third Circuit to, 'Try again, you got it wrong.' The court could've just revisited the case without another round of hearings."
Kobach will argue on Hazleton's behalf while Jadwat will argue for plaintiffs.
Jadwat submitted the plaintiffs' legal brief along with representatives from the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Cozen O'Connor of Philadelphia, White & Williams of Philadelphia and LatinoJustice of New York.
The outcome
Jadwat said the plaintiffs on Wednesday will seek the same outcome as in the past - having the courts suspend Hazleton's laws.
"We've won at every stage at this case - from the first filing at district court and now, we're back down in front of the (Third Circuit) court of appeals," Jadwat said. "We want to defend that injunction."
Legal fees, which exceeded $2 million as of May 2009, will also come into play at some point, Jadwat said.
As with any other municipality that engages in "unconstitutional conduct," Hazleton could face a steep bill, Jadwat said.
"That is one of the consequences for Hazleton in pursuing this path - that they are likely to find themselves on the hook for significant attorney's fees," he said. "It is, of course, and has always been possible for Hazleton to minimize and avoid these fees by abiding by the rulings of the district court."
Kobach, however, said that while the ACLU "loves to suppress cities with legal fees," their lawyers often don't disclose two key issues.
"They only get the legal fees if they win, and only if they get involved in civil rights issues," Kobach said. "Not all aspects (of Hazleton's case) are civil rights. We're a long way from seeing any fees in that manner."
sgalski@standardspeaker.com
We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.


Thursday, August 9, 2012

US Vows to Better Protect Detained Immigrants | Human Rights Watch

US Vows to Better Protect Detained Immigrants | Human Rights Watch


Detained Immigrants to Stay Closer to Home, Legal Counsel
August 9, 2012
After three years of work by Human Rights Watch, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has adopted a new policy that could substantially reduce the number of transfers, giving immigrants a fairer chance.
Many detained immigrants facing deportation from the US are woken up in the middle of the night and put on airplanes. Their destination: deportation centers hundreds of miles away – far from the moral support of their families and communities.
Hundreds of thousands of detainees are transferred each year, although in many cases it puts their lawyers out of reach and leaves behind their character witnesses. Commonly, detainees are transferred to states that don’t have enough immigration attorneys to take their cases.
It can make building a legal defense against deportation seem impossible.
But after three years of work by Human Rights Watch, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has adopted a new policy that could substantially reduce the number of transfers, giving immigrants a fairer chance.
Non-citizens are detained by ICE for a variety of reasons: the legality of their presence in the United States could be under dispute, or they may lack valid documentation. Legal residents can be deported after serving a criminal sentence.
With close to 400,000 immigrants in detention each year, space in detention centers, especially near cities where immigrants live, has not kept pace. As a result, ICE built a detention system relying on subcontracts with state jails and prisons that resulted in frequent transfers.
Between 1998 and 2010, the US carried out a staggering 2 million transfers involving 1 million immigrants, according to information provided to Human Rights Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Families are almost never notified of the transfer, sending parents or children into a tailspin when they can’t locate their loved ones.
By comparison, transfers in state and federal prisons are much better regulated and protective of the person’s rights.
The largest number of transferred detainees are sent to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Courts in these states are widely known for decisions that are hostile to immigrants. Collectively, these states also have the worst ratio of immigration detainees to immigration attorneys: 510 to 1.
As a result, the transfers can violate detainees’ right to fair treatment in court, slow down asylum or deportation proceedings, and prolong the time immigrants spend in detention and the overall cost of detention. In fact, Human Rights Watch found that transferred detainees spend more than three times as long in detention on average as those who remain in the same place.
To better understand the human impact of transfers, our researchers interviewed dozens of detainees, lawyers, family members, and officials. They met asylum seekers who had been separated from their families and spent years in detention, undocumented immigrants who had lost their pro bono counsel when they were transferred, and legal residents who struggled to mount a defense against deportation because their lawyer was thousands of miles away. Many couldn’t find an attorney in the remote locations to which they were transferred.
Our two reports, Locked Up Far Away and A Costly Move, garnered significant media coverage, as did our graphic analysis providing state-by-state trends in detainee transfers. Shortly after the publication of the first report, ICE pledged to change its transfer practices. We continued to meet with ICE officials as well as with members of Congress, discussing the situation in their respective states.
It took two more years of dogged advocacy until the new policy minimizing the long-distance transfer of detainees was put in place.The policy is designed to minimize the transfer of detainees who have family members in the area where they are detained, local attorneys, or pending immigration proceedings.
Going forward, Human Rights Watch will monitor transfers to ensure that ICE’s new directive is being implemented and to see how this changes the lives of immigrant detainees. We will also continue to push more broadly for better protection of immigrants’ rights. Currently, immigrants are not appointed counsel, even vulnerable immigrants like those with mental disabilities or asylum seekers. We want to ensure fair treatment of immigrants, by making sure those who need it most have adequate representation in court.