Saturday, August 13, 2011
Photo Courtesy of My Boxing Fans
ESPN reports that Professional boxer Alfredo Angulo, who has ImmigrationProf noted last year had immigration problems in the United States and has been unable to fight for more than a year, has signed with a new promoter -- Oscar de la Hoya's Golden Boy Promotions -- and will be fighting in Mexicali soon.
On Thursday night, the Republican candidates for President debated in Iowa. Here is the full transcript from Fox News.
The candidates who participated in the debate included former Senator Rick Santorum; businessman Herman Cain; Congressman Ron Paul; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney; Congresswoman Michele Bachmann; former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty; former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman; and former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
A couple questions focused on immigration. Here is the portion of the debate with the various candidate responses to those questions. Download Republican Presidential Debate -- Immigration. The responses were not surprising. Nobody could claim "shock" with the unanimous support for increased border enforcement and fervent opposition to "illegal" immigration (and any "amnesty").
I was struck with how Mitt Romney sounded so much like President Obama on immigration. Don't these words from Romney sound like they could have come from the President?
"Look, we — we are a nation of immigrants. We love legal immigration. But for legal immigration to work, we have to secure the border, and we also have to crack down on employers that hire people who are here illegally. I like legal immigration. I’d have the number of visas that we give to people here that come here legally, determined in part by the needs of our employment community. But we have to secure our border and crack down on those that bring folks here and hire here illegally."
Romney may be the best of the current bunch of the Republican candidates on immigration. With him we can expect more "enforcement now, enforcement forever" policies on immigration from the U.S. government. Activists have proclaimed that any GOP victory in the President's race in 2012 would be the death knell of immigration reform.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) has filed a federal class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for unlawfully detaining immigrants and U.S. citizens identified through local law enforcement agencies.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of DHS’s use of immigration detainers, which instruct police to continue to detain individuals after the local police’s authority has expired, until DHS officers arrive to take the individuals into custody. Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a U.S. citizen who has been held on an immigration detainer since March 2011 following his arrest in Rockford, Illinois. As a U.S. citizen, the man cannot be deported from the United States.
“DHS detainers deprive thousands of men and women of basic constitutional due process rights,” said NIJC Executive Director Mary Meg McCarthy. “This expansive use of detainers harms U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, families, and communities, and betrays American ideals of fairness and justice.”
The detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments because DHS fails to establish probable cause before issuing the detainers, does not notify individuals that detainers have been issued against them, and provides no means by which individuals can challenge their extended detention. Additionally, DHS’s use of detainers violates the 10th Amendment because it requires state and local governments to implement federal law.
Detainers have become an important immigration enforcement tool for the Obama administration, allowing DHS to vastly increase deportations while passing the cost on to local law enforcement agencies. Under the Secure Communities program, when local police make an arrest, they must send fingerprint information to a federal immigration database, which frequently triggers detainer requests. DHS issued about 271,000 immigration detainers in fiscal year 2009 and more than 201,000 detainers through the first 11 months of fiscal year 2010.
Read more about the plaintiffs and the lawsuit here.
The National Day Laborer Organizing Network along with other groups, including NALACC member organizations such as Centro Presente, plan to mobilize actions during the following ICE community hearings.
Protest against S-Comm in Tucson, Arizona.
Protest Against S-comm in SF, march to SF ICE Field Office 11:00am meet at Montgomery Bart Plaza, 11:30 March to ICE Building.
Contact: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Los Angeles protest and hearing against S-Comm.
Contact: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Release of Shadow Report asking to end S-Comm.
To do a local release contact: email@example.com
Chicago Illinois rally and hearing against S-Comm.
Portland Oregon Press Conference Against S-Comm.
Oakland, CA Community forum on S-Comm.
Boston Forum on S-Comm and Immigration Enforcement.
For more information contact Sarahi Uribe at firstname.lastname@example.org
After hitting a record 1 MILLION deportations, the Obama administration just did the unthinkable: Forcing states and police departments to comply with a controversial program called Secure Communities or S-Comm – a move guaranteed to deport many more millions of people.
S-Comm is a highly criticized federal program that is deporting immigrants who have done nothing wrong, encouraging racial profiling, devastating communities around the country, and making us all less safe. In fact, under S-Comm authorities can deport a woman reporting domestic violence, instead of protecting her.1 Huge immigrant states like Illinois and New York opted out of the program because it breeds distrust of the police – and now President Obama is forcing them to comply.
We need a massive outcry—and fast—if we are to stop this disastrous program. Clicking below will automatically add your name to the petition asking President Obama to end S-Comm.
Clicking here will sign your name to the petition asking President Obama to end S-Comm
Our petition reads: Your decision to force all localities to enroll in Secure Communities (S-Comm) is anti-democratic, and will further devastate our communities by placing innocent immigrants in deportation and breaking trust between police and immigrants. We demand that you terminate the S-Comm program immediately!
Under the Obama Administration, ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities.2 And despite rhetoric about supporting fair immigration reform and relief for our communities, their actions are speaking much louder than their words.
Now they are poised to force local officials to make this situation even worse. Until recently, the Obama Administration used to sign agreements with states, cities, and towns regarding whether or not these localities wanted to enroll in S-Comm. But when local governments started to say they didn’t want the program, the Obama administration changed their own rules. Last Friday, they ended agreements with 42 states, claiming that local permission wasn’t needed to force every local police department into the program by 2013.3
If we don’t do something about it, S-Comm will come to every neighborhood in the country—including yours! The Obama administration has already deported more than 1 MILLION people, more than any other administration in history.4 S-Comm will bring about even more devastating consequences. Click below to automatically add your name to the petition asking President Obama to end S-Comm.
Clicking here will sign your name to the petition asking President Obama to end S-Comm
We’ll start by compiling these signatures and delivering them to the President and the media. We’ll work with immigrant rights organizations, state-based groups, and law enforcement to educate the public and help organize a major pushback on the administration’s dangerous move.
When local police start enforcing federal immigration law, local communities lose trust in their officers, and that makes us all less safe. Tell Obama that you don’t want S-Comm in your community and that it’s not right for him to force this program on us.
Click here to automatically sign your name to the petition asking President Obama to end S-Comm
Thanks & ¡Adelante!
Favianna, Kyle, Felipe, Roberto and everyone else from the Presente.org team.
Green Card Stories is a coffee table style book that depicts 50 recent immigrants with permanent residence or citizenship in artful written profiles and photos. Each story in Green Card Stories includes a written narrative of about 1,000 words, accompanied by artistic photos by an award-winning photographer. Each story is as old as the foundation of this immigrant nation, but also reflects the global trends and conflicts of the 21st century: a couple from France who immigrated to the United States on an EB-5 green card to open a successful bakery; the aspiring dentist who fled war-torn Sudan with just three T-shirts and a pair of shoes; the Japanese hip-hop dancer whose life was changed by Michael Jackson; the Caribbean-born orthopedic surgeon facing deportation; and a former Mexican farm worker and school dropout turned school principal. Arriving from all corners of the globe, coming for work, love, to study, or escape persecution, they all share a steely resourcefulness and a fierce love for America.
Green Card Stories tells the true story of our nation: E pluribus unum, out of many, one. You can see a slideshow of some of the book's profilees.
he team behind Green Card Stories includes photographer Ariana Lindquist. Ariana was first place winner in the 2008 World Press Photo competition); writer Saundra Amrhein (long time immigration feature writer for the St. Petersburg Times); and immigration lawyers Laura Danielson; and Steve Yale-Loehr.
The publisher is Umbrage, a high quality photography book publisher. See http://www.umbragebooks.com/.
Call for Papers -- Conable Conference in International Studies Refugees, Asylum Law, and Expert Testimony: The Construction of Africa & the Global South in Comparative Perspective
Call for Papers -- Conable Conference in International Studies Refugees, Asylum Law, and Expert Testimony: The Construction of Africa & the Global South in Comparative Perspective April 12-15, 2012 Rochester Institute of Technology
Specialists are increasingly invited to comment on the petitions of asylum seekers and refugees from Africa and the comparative Global South. Commentary may take a variety of forms, including consultation, written reports, formal affidavits and ‘live’ oral testimony and cross-examination in court. The 2012 Conable Conference – convened jointly by Rochester Institute of Technology and Cornell University – proposes exploring new research situated at the dynamic interdisciplinary intersection of law, scholarship and activism pertaining to African asylum petitions and refugee status determination in a comparative international context. Asylum petitions and refugee status determinations are rich documentary archives tethered to discrete legal contexts – variously, immigration tribunals, courts of appeal, panels of experts or citizen-subjects, according to jurisdiction – by knowledge and expertise. Embedded within asylum and refugee narratives, and their successive iterations in rulings, judgments, country of origin (COI) information, appeals and precedents, are analytical categories, constructed identities, and personal narratives of fear, trauma and violence. And a paradoxical relationship is unfolding, insofar as new knowledge is produced, but it emerges in Westerns courts and rarely in the Global South. Expert testimony in support of, and occasionally in opposition to, asylum petitions and refugee status determination, features prominently in North American and European courts and elsewhere. It is well known in the legal community that petitions and appeals accompanied by expert reports have a significantly greater likelihood of success. And just as courts are increasingly drawing upon expert testimony in judicial deliberations about asylum seekers and refugees, expertise is emerging as an academic “niche industry” with attendant standards, protocols and guidelines, mirroring those of legal fields with a longer tradition of expertise, such as patent, copyright and intellectual property. Moreover, while experts may often postulate from a disciplinarily locus, the venues featuring and authorities drawing upon expertise increasingly expose scholarship to the interdisciplinarity of law, activism and social justice. We are interested in new research exploring the construction of expertise and the emergence of ideas and the production of knowledge about Africa and the comparative Global South in the context of asylum petitions and refugee status determinations. We seek empirical, analytical, and theoretical scholarship from any disciplinary, cross-disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective exploring how experts and legal fora construct or have historically constructed Africa, and expertise pertaining to Africa and the Global South in comparative perspective. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: the construction of ethnic, religious, racial, national, age, (dis)ability, gender, health, sexual and other identities; the emergence of analytical and social categories, such as female genital ‘mutilation’, domestic violence, trafficking and ‘re-trafficking’; forced marriage; the role of precedent; the place of history and memory; the role of customary law; the emergence of and constitutionality of new legal venues for asylum and refugee status; the concept of legal convergence; the legal basis of credibility and/or plausibility; the determination of and granting of standing as an expert; mediation by the non-governmental sector; physiological, medical and psychiatric expertise; substantiation and proof of torture claims; competing modes of governance; historical patterns in the deployment of expertise in history; the emergence of specialized industries and new academic sub-disciplines, including, but not limited to ‘forensic linguistic’ analysis, country of origin research, and nationally-mandated research directorates; the pedagogy and clinical practice of asylum, refugee, and immigration law; and issues pertaining to human subject protocols, including confidentiality, consent, discovery, and disclosure. We welcome any additions to possible topics. This conference has five goals: (1) to bring together into conversation scholars, practitioners, and activists producing expertise in the context of refugee and asylum law as it pertains to Africa and the Global South; (2) to explore new scholarship and research pertaining to the emergence of categories and identities deployed in refugee determinations and asylum petitions; (3) to publish an interdisciplinary collection of critical and rigorous scholarship on the emergence of categories and identities in asylum and refugee law; (4) to facilitate networking and interaction of conference participants and harness the potentials of collaboration for legal strategy, knowledge transfer and learning; (5) to inspire pedagogical and curricular development towards problem-solving competencies pertaining to asylum applicants and refugees from Africa and beyond.
Abstracts of proposed papers of 1-2 pages and a CV for review by the multidisciplinary steering committee are due by September 1, 2011 by email to BNL@RIT.EDU. Papers may not be published or accepted for publication elsewhere. Prospective participants should indicate any and all sources of funding for travel and accommodation. Limited financial assistance is available and will be prioritized for those from the Global South. Decisions will be made in October 2011. Short drafts of 10 pages for consideration and comment by the consulting committee are due by December 1, 2011. Papers of 25-35 pages for pre-circulation among all participants are due by February 1, 2012. Registration is required of all participants.
Make your voices heard!
Last Friday, ICE/Deptartment of Homeland Security announced that they were rescinding all their agreements with the states regarding their implementation of the "S-COMM" Program, and that they would REQUIRE the states to implement it, even if they didn't want to! "S-COMM" is an ICE/DHS program which automatically sends fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE. Thousands of people in California have been reported to ICE under "S-COMM," most of them charged with minor crimes and infractions or weren't charged with any crime at all!
ICE / DHS is upset that states like Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and soon California when the TRUST Act (AB1081) passes our state legislature, have chosen not to implement "S-COMM" in our states. Now, ICE is trying to impose it on us, even though it is not federal law.
ICE / DHS, PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND CONGRESS NEED TO HEAR FROM US! NO MORE "S-COMM!" NO MORE DEPORTATIONS! KEEP OUR FAMILIES TOGETHER!
MARCH AND RALLY to END "S-COMM" NOW!
Friday, August 12, 11 am, Meet at Montgomery BART, on Market St., in San Francisco.
March to DHS Building, 630 Sansome St., San Francisco.
Organized by many different immigrant rights, faith-based, labor groups.
For more info: Renee Saucedo, email@example.com, (415) 553-3404.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is seeking a policy analyst or staff attorney In D.C. to help advance a national agenda on immigration enforcement issues that will protect the civil and constitutional rights of low income immigrants. This position offers a unique opportunity to work on a complex range of areas related to federal, state, and local immigration enforcement issues. Read more...
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
California Democrats, determined to reinforce their dominant party influence in the state, have launched ambitious voter registration drives in a move to win more legislative seats and fend off costly initiative challenges by conservatives in next year's election.
Democratic Party activists are engaged in unprecedented efforts to gain footholds in GOP strongholds in the Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside counties by taking advantage of Republicans' weakness among Latino voters, the state's fastest-growing electorate. Read more...
Susan Eaton has a fascinating story in The Nation about the meaning, and possible response to, the spate of state immigration laws like Arizona's S.B. 1070:
"Richard Nixon pioneered the old Southern strategy, through which Republicans pandered to racism and won over Southern white Democrats disaffected after desegregation and civil rights legislation. Now, though, Latinos’ growing presence and electoral clout in the South and other regions, coupled with the moral authority of civil rights, has yielded a new game plan. This one depends not on racial and cultural division but on unity. In Mississippi, a methodically constructed alliance of African-Americans, immigrants and their supporters has grown downright formidable and, Evans suggests, “can help show the country a better way, a path to higher ground.” It hardly happened overnight. But in the past few years, Mississippi activists’ formula of visible black and immigrant partnership, within a “workers’ rights/civil rights” frame, abetted by dogged labor organizing, has added up to visible success."\
A three-judge (Circuit Judge Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge and District Judges Urbina and Collyer) in the District of Columbia has upheld a federal bar on campaign contributions by certain noncitizens Download Dc court. So much for the First Amendment!
ABSTRACT: Sport supplies useful terrain on which to explore meanings of loyalty and identity. At the international level, the preferences of consuming publics break down along national lines. In perhaps no other context are states and their citizens as unified as they are with respect to international competition, overcoming political, social, and cultural cleavages. The Olympic Games represents an apex of this national solidarity.
This paper describes the hybrid public/private regime of Olympic nationality, the baseline of which requires athletes to be citizens of the countries for which they compete. The regime obstructs transfer of Olympic nationality in important respects. This regime has been justified as a shield against instrumental naturalization and lax state naturalization regimes, and ostensibly works to maintain some correlation between an athlete’s organic national identity and the flag for which she competes. But eligibility requirements relating to eligibility are easily gamed. They create barriers to movement and discriminate against naturalized citizens inconsistent with human rights norms. The paper argues that nationality requirements should be abandoned. Olympic competition should move to a club sports model in which athletes can play for any national team that will have them. This change would not detract from the quality of Olympic competition nor would it diminish sentimental attachment to national teams.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Julia Preston writes for the NY Times:
Leaders of the nation’s major Hispanic organizations, issuing their first progress report on their priority issues, gave C grades on Wednesday to President Obama and to Congress for their performance over the last two years. But they warned that even the small gains Hispanics have seen are at risk of being erased in negotiations by the bipartisan committee that will recommend ways to reduce the federal deficit.
The progress report was released by the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, which includes N.C.L.R. (also known as the National Council of La Raza), the Hispanic Federation, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and about two dozen other Hispanic organizations. It examined action, or lack of it, on a blueprint of policy recommendations the leadership group published in 2008.
For Latinos, the lack of movement toward an immigration overhaul to give legal status to undocumented immigrants overshadowed progress on other issues, Hispanic leaders said. Read more...
Every so often, ImmaigrationProf has shared shared lists of immigration songs with its readers. (for example, click here and here). Immigration attorney Merrill Clark has a list of his favorite immigration songs on his website. All of the songs are accessible on youtube.com.
1. "Mojado" por Ricky Arronja
2. "Nuestro Himno" por unas estrellas
3. "Papeles Mojados por Chamao"
4. "El Extranjero" por Enrique Bunbury
5. "De Paisano a Paisano" por Los Tigres de Norte
6. "Espaldas Mojadas" por Tam Tam Go!
7. “Cruzando la Frontera Prohibida” por Aaron Valez
8. “Cancion de Inmigrante” por Delmarce
9. "Gracias America sin Frontera" por Los Tigres de Norte
1. "Coming to America" by Neil Diamond
2. "New Immigration Law" by Cocoa Tea
3. “I want to be in America” by Leonard Bernstein from the movie “West Side Story”
4. “Deportee” by Arlo Guthrie
Immigration Article of the Day: "Should I Stay or Should I Go: Why Immigrant Reunification Decisions Should Be Based on the Best Interest of the Child" by MARCIA ANNE YABLON-ZUG
"Should I Stay or Should I Go: Why Immigrant Reunification Decisions Should Be Based on the Best Interest of the Child" Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming MARCIA ANNE YABLON-ZUG, University of South Carolina School of Law.
ABSTRACT: Last month, Emily Ruiz, a four-year-old American citizen boarded a plane from Guatemala to return home to New York. She was accompanied by her grandfather, but when he was denied entry into the United States due to a twenty-year-old immigration violation, Emily’s family was faced with a dilemma: should Emily return with her grandfather to Guatemala, should they allow her to be taken into state custody, or should her parents, both undocumented immigrants, risk deportation by attempting to pick her up from US immigration authorities? Emily’s parents chose to have her return with her grandfather. The reaction to the story of Emily Ruiz was immediate. Pro-immigrant supporters expressed outrage at what they termed the “deportation” of an American citizen. Others were furious that Emily had citizenship at all, calling her an “anchor baby” and the perfect example of why birthright citizenship must be eliminated. Emily’s story and the passionate reactions it has created highlights the virulent debate raging in this country over the meaning of citizenship. This paper focuses on the most important part of that debate, which is how birthright citizenship, combined with the massive crack down on illegal immigration, threatens the future of American democracy.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
From the Bookshelves: American Immigration After 1996: The Shifting Ground of Political Inclusion by Kathleen R. Arnold
Few topics generate as much heated public debate in the United States today as immigration across our southern border. Two positions have been staked out, one favoring the expansion of guest-worker programs and focusing on the economic benefits of immigration, and the other proposing greater physical and other barriers to entry and focusing more on the perceived threat to national security from immigration. Both sides of this debate, however, rely in their arguments on preconceived notions and unexamined assumptions about assimilation, national identity, economic participation, legality, political loyalty, and gender roles.
In American Immigration After 1996, Kathleen Arnold aims to reveal more of the underlying complexities of immigration and, in particular, to cast light on the relationship between globalization of the economy and issues of political sovereignty, especially what she calls “prerogative power” as it is exercised by the U.S. government.
Kathleen R. Arnold is currently Visiting Professor at DePaul University in Chicago. She is the author of America's New Working Class: Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in a Biopolitical Age (Penn State, 2007).
ImmigrationProf for years (here, here, here. here, here, here, etc.) has reported on the continuing deaths along the U.S./Mexico border for many years. The deaths, which number in the thouusands, are directly attributable to the dramatic increase in border enforcement that began during the early years of the Clinton administration.
For an NPR story on how the deaths on the border continue, click here.
Is there anyone out there who cares?
The state of Arizona's deadline for filing for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Arizona is today. Gov. Jan Brewer was disappointed with the Ninth Circuit decision striking down four critical immigration provisions of the controversial Arizona law S.B. 1070. Stay tuned!
As previously announced, Paul Clement, Solicitor General under President George W Bush who has emerged asthe Supreme Court advocate for conservative causes, is Counsel of Record for the State of Arizona. Ruth Robson on the Constitutional Law Professors blog thoughtfully outlines the arguments in the cert peition.
I must say that, especially given that the Counsel of Record on thr petition was a former Solictor General, the brief seems strident and a bit over-the-top in its shots at the majority of the Ninth Circuit. Here are a few examples:
Petition, p. 18: "[T]he Ninth Circuit held that state efforts to facilitate enforcement or impose parallel prohibitions on conduct prohibited by federal immigration law are verboten." (empohjasis added). But how could this broad, unqualified statement be true? The Ninth Circuit did hold that four sections of S.B. 1070 went to far but left large portions of the law intact. Nor did anything in the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Arizona do anything to Arizona's other recent law designed to combat undocumented immigration, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.
Petition, p. 16: "The Ninth CIrcuit has completely forceclosed Arizona's effort to address the disproportionate impact of unlawful immigration in a State with a 370-mile border with Mexico." Again, the Arizona business licensing law upheld in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting remains intact as does most of S.B. 1070. How then did the Ninth Circuit "completely foreclose" the concerted effort of Arizona to decrease undocumented immigration?
Petition, p. 27; "The Ninth Circuit's rule -- that States may not take any investigative or enforcement action against aliens based on their civil violations of the immigration laws without an express permission slip from Congress -- directly conflicts with the approach of [numerous] Circuits." (emphasis added). But what about actions taken pursuant to INA § 287(g) agreements, teh Secure Communities Program, etc., etc.? Once again, the Petition's hyperbole, no doubt designed to grab the Supreme Court's attention, undercuts the force of its arguments and should make teh Court pause.