Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Immigration Article of the Day: Entering the Trump Ice Age: Contextualizing the New Immigration Enforcement Regime by Bill Ong Hing
During the early stages of the Trump ICE age, we seem to be witnessing and experiencing an unparalleled era of immigration enforcement. But is it unparalleled? Didn’t we label Barack Obama the “Deporter-in-Chief?” Wasn’t it George Bush who used the authority of the Patriot Act to round up nonimmigrants from Muslim and Arab countries and didn’t his ICE commonly engage in armed raids a factories and other worksites? Aren’t there strong parallels that can be drawn between Trump enforcement plans and actions and those of other eras?
What about the fear and hysteria that seems to really be happening in immigrant communities? Is the fear unparalleled? Why is there so much fear? Is the fear justified? Why do things seem different, in spite of rigorous immigration enforcement that has occurred even in recent years?
This article begins with a comparison of what the Trump administration has done in terms of immigration enforcement with the enforcement efforts of other administrations. For example, I compare (1) the attempted Muslim travel bans with post-9/11 efforts by George W. Bush and Iranian student roundups by Jimmy Carter, (2) the Border Wall proposal with the Fence Act of 2006 and Operation Gatekeeper in 1994, (3) restarting Secure Communities (fingerprint sharing program) with Obama’s enforcement program of the same name, (4) expanding INA § 287(g) agreements with Bush efforts under the same statute, (5) the threat of raids by an ICE deportation army with Bush gun-toting raids, (6) extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees with what already existed under Bush and Obama, (7) threatening to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities with the prosecution of sanctuary workers in the 1980s, (8) prioritizing “criminal” immigrants with Obama’s similar prioritization, and (9) expedited removal in the interior with Bush and Obama expedited removals along the border. Then I turn to the fear and hysteria in immigrant communities that has spread throughout the country. I ask why that fear has occurred and whether the fear has a reasonable basis. I close with a personal reflection on the parallels I have seen and experienced since I began practicing immigration law as a legal services attorney in 1975 and contemplate why enforcement and the resulting fear are different today.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
STOP REPEATING HISTORY: Children of Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, and Fred Korematsu File Amicus Brief in Travel Ban Case
The children of Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, and Fred Korematsu today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Executive Order No. 13780, the Trump administration’s travel ban on nationals from six Muslim-majority nations, pointing to the unjust incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII as an urgent warning against presidential powers run amok.
“Rather than repeat the injustices of the past,” states the brief, the Court “should heed the lessons of Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui: Blind deference to the Executive Branch … is incompatible with the protection of fundamental freedoms.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Jay Hirabayashi, Holly Yasui, and Karen Korematsu by the Fred. T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at Seattle University School of Law in partnership with the legal teams that gained exoneration of the three men in historic coram nobis petitions in the 1980s. Attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP provided pro bono counsel.
Numerous prominent civil rights organizations stand with Hirabayashi, Yasui, and Korematsu on the brief, including Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hispanic National Bar Association, Japanese American Citizens League-Honolulu Chapter, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, National Bar Association, and South Asian Bar Association of North America.
In defending the travel ban, the government asserts that “federal courts may not second-guess the political branches’ decisions.” Invoking national security, the government seeks near complete deference to the President’s decision to deny visas and suspend the entry of refugees from six Muslim-majority nations.
Today, the children of these iconic Supreme Court litigants remind the Supreme Court that during World War II, its near complete deference to the executive branch and corresponding failure to scrutinize another Executive Order – Presidential Executive Order 9066 – resulted in upholding the constitutionality of 120,000 Americans being forcibly incarcerated because of their racial ancestry, a decision now universally condemned as a civil liberties disaster.
By choosing not to question the executive branch, the Court essentially “rubber-stamped” the government’s bald assertion that the mass-round up was reasonable and necessary, and in doing so, abdicated its critical role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms.
In contrast, both the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeals this year ruled that it is the duty of the judiciary to hold the President accountable to the requirements of the law and the Constitution—and that unfounded claims about threats to national security cannot justify the wholesale infringement of civil liberties.
Moreover, the Hirabayashi, Yasui and Korematsu brief argues that the government’s present position that the courts should give the executive branch extreme deference is not rooted in sound constitutional tradition, but relies on previous court decisions based on racism and xenophobia.
It bears remembering that three Justices wrote scathing dissents in Korematsu v. United States, questioning the government’s claims that the mass deprivation of civil liberties was justified by military necessity, including Justice Robert H. Jackson who referred to the majority’s decision as “a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority who could put forth a plausible claim of an urgent need.”
Justice Jackson meant that with little more than an assertion by the government that national security demands it, an entire group could be denied their fundamental freedoms.
If the Supreme Court accepts the government’s view that the courts should abdicate their constitutional role of ensuring that the President’s actions adhere to the Constitution and the law, the Court risks repeating the injustices stemming from Hirabayashi, Yasui, and Korematsu.
Without any meaningful review by the courts of government actions, it invites overreach and the potential for abuse. In this regard, the children of Hirabayashi, Yasui and Korematsu point to the misconduct that occurred in their fathers’ challenges.
Four decades after the Supreme Court ruled against these litigants, their cases were successfully reopened on the grounds that the government deceived the Court by withholding evidence that would have exonerated not only the three men, but all the Americans who were imprisoned behind barbed wire.
The evidence included intelligence reports from the Navy, FBI, and the FCC, which categorically denied that Japanese Americans had committed any wrong or posed any threat. Other Justice Department memoranda characterized the Army’s claims that Japanese Americans were spying as “intentional falsehoods.” These official reports were never presented to the Court, having been intentionally suppressed and, in one case, destroyed by burning it.
If the Court abdicates its constitutional role of asking probing questions to determine whether there is a reasonable factual basis for the Executive Order, the executive branch could use this strategy again to achieve an equally unjust outcome.
Today, President Trump argues in court and in the news media that his Executive Order is not reviewable by any court. The Trump Administration is asking the judiciary to make the same mistake it made in the 1940s, and the Appeals Courts have wisely declined.
https://coramnobis.net/brief also still works as a link.
Social media posts:
The University of California is sponsoring the first combined conference of UC’s four law schools focused on public interest. The conference, developed in partnership with Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB), California's premier legal resource provider, will bring together over 500 diverse UC law students and young professionals and is designed to expose them to the wide array of issues around the inaugural theme: Civil Rights in the 21st Century.
Stemming from the University of California's Public Service Fellowship, which provides over $4.5 million annually to students interested in public interest law at four co-hosting schools (UCI Law, UCLA Law, UC Davis School of Law, and Berkeley Law) the conference will be a capstone experience for the first group of summer and post-grad UC Presidential Fellows.
Keynote Speakers and UC panelists include Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California, Peter Neufeld, Co-Founder of the Innocence Project, Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director at the National Immigration Law Center, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean at UC Berkeley School of Law, Jennifer Mnookin, Dean at UCLA School of Law, Kevin Johnson, Dean at UC Davis School of Law, and L. Song Richardson, Interim Dean at UC Irvine School of Law. UCI Law's Prof. Goodwin, Prof. Hasen and Alisa Hartz '12 are also scheduled to speak on panels.
Eighteen breakout sessions will address vital issues like immigration, criminal justice reform, homelessness, and water rights. Multiple sessions will be offered for CLE credit. Registration, schedule, speakers list and more details here >
From July 3 to September 17, professional and emerging filmmakers are invited to submit original films on the Global Migration Film Festival theme: the promise and challenges of migration and the unique contributions migrants make to their new communities. Films that challenge negative perceptions of migrants, defy stereotypes and portray positive and welcoming actions by and toward migrants are encouraged.
Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) publishes IMM Print, which features stories, poetry, and art from immigration detention and reporting on intersectional issues. IMM Print centers voices that are less visible in mainstream media to build power among communities facing immigration enforcement and to expose and challenge the detention system.
IMM Print stories, such as the short film “Exposed” that provides an overview of the detention system, can be used in the classroom. Check out the Immigration Detention Syllabus on the site. Subscribe here. Imm Print accepts submissions on a rolling basis.
Immigration Article of the Day: Sanctuary Networks by Rose Cuison Villazor and Pratheepan Gulasekaram
The idea of “sanctuary” has headlined immigration law and policy debates for several years. To date, however, legal scholarship has focused almost exclusively on states and municipalities that limit participation in federal immigration enforcement. Accordingly, doctrinal and theoretical discussion has centered on sanctuary’s constitutional dimensions, with attention to Tenth Amendment and federalism concerns. But, always true, and ever more since the 2016 election, sanctuary has become a diverse phenomenon, incorporating a variety of public and private institutions and organizations. Local agencies, places of worship, employers, school districts, universities, private property owners, and social media groups are increasingly adopting policies that seek to mitigate federal enforcement efforts. This Article is the first to comprehensively describe and theorize these novel and wide-ranging sources of sanctuary. First, it details this breadth of sanctuary policies and institutions, noting their relative efficacy and differing legal justifications. Second, the Article contemplates how these varied sources of sanctuary work in context and in relation to each other. Borrowing from governance theories that emphasize the importance of networked public and private institutions, we argue that, as a practical matter, governance over immigration enforcement is characterized by a decentralized set of actors. This Article argues that this network of public and private institutions and organizations collectively can calibrate federal enforcement policy and instantiate a competing immigration enforcement regime. Ultimately, this emerging set of actors helps decenter the federal government as the sole locus and source of enforcement policy, and urges commentators and policymakers to move beyond federalism and sovereignty in debates over immigration enforcement policy.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Let your graduates know - the Vera Institute of Justice is looking to fill a position in its Los Angeles office. They're seeking a Senior Program Associate to work within its Center on Immigration and Justice on the National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP).
The NQRP is the first program to provide appointed counsel to detained adults in immigration proceedings with serious mental illness. Nationwide in scope, the NQRP operates in partnership with a growing network of over 30 multidisciplinary teams of holistic legal services providers.
The NQRP sits at the intersection of immigration, mental health, and criminal law, policy, practice, and program management, and offers work in a fast-paced, collaborative, creative space at the cutting edge of legal representation for a specific vulnerable population in immigration proceedings.
This is a full-time position based in Los Angeles. Apply here: http://vera.applytojob.com/apply/Ec8oexJcZU
The Vera Institute of Justice, founded in 1961, is an independent, non-partisan, nonprofit organization that combines expertise in research, technical assistance, and demonstration projects to assist leaders in government and civil society examine justice policy and practice, and improve the systems people rely on for justice and safety. Vera is an equal opportunity employer with a commitment to diversity in the workplace.
In Uganda, refugees are given a plot of undeveloped bush land to call their own as well as a machete to tame it.
The land comes from government negotiations with community landowners who hope that by giving up their undeveloped land, they'll get neighborhood schools, clinics, and roads built by international aid agencies in return.
This in-depth report from the BBC looks at the daunting task of converting bush land to farm land.
It's a unique system. One that offers the tantalizing promise of truly giving refugees a new home.
September 15 to October 15 is National Hispanic Heritage Month
The Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Gallery of Art, National Park Service, Smithsonian Institution and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum join in paying tribute to the generations of Hispanic Americans who have positively influenced and enriched our nation and society.
This article seeks to provide a lens for management of mass migration consistent with established international refugee law, human rights law, humanitarian law, and national control of immigration. It argues that the key to successful management of mass migration, consistent with international legal principle, international normative objectives, and national immigration control, is a lens to achieve the best reconciliation of what migrants in fact do, and the divergent interests of sovereignty. The article applies that lens first to "The European Refugee Crisis," and similarly to four major episodes of mass migration in recent history, to demonstrate its utility and power as an evaluative tool for future legal management of mass migration. Building on the insights of history, the article then applies this lens to address the various currently implemented and proposed strategies for international and national management of mass migration, to distinguish good and bad policy, and the best course for future international action.
In February, U.S. Republican senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, with President Donald Trump, unveiled an immigration bill called the RAISE Act. It would create a “merit-based” points system for evaluating foreigners applying to come to the U.S. through an employment visa.
The senators said that in drafting it, they had looked to best practices for points-based systems like those in Canada and Australia. As Congress takes up the issue of immigration, we turned to our global network of scholars to get their perspective on how points systems work.
Immigration scholars from Australia (Alex Reilly, University of Adelaide, Australia), Canada (Mireille Paquet, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada) and the United States (yours truly) look at the RAISE ACT on The Conversation.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Kristine Phillips for the Washington Post reports that the California Senate yesterday passed Senate Bill 54, the Values Act, legislation that would limit local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from cooperating with federal immigration officials. It also forbids law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.
The California Values Act provides an expansive protection to the state’s undocumented population, estimated to be about 2.7 million, at a time when the Trump administration continues to aggressively enforce the immigration laws and challenge so-called "sanctuary cities" — communities that limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agents.
The California State Sheriff’s Association opposed the Values Act, claiming that limiting public safety agencies’ ability to cooperate with federal immigration agents places communities at risk.
he Sacramento Bee provides further information about the Values Act. Senate Bill 54 will place limitations on how state and local law enforcement officials can communicate and coordinate with federal immigration authorities. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said the measure “is needed now more than ever” in light of President Donald Trump’s decision to step up immigration enforcement and end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
“Californians will not squander precious public safety dollars to tear families apart, take ‘Dreamers’ or deport people who have helped California become the sixth largest economy in the world,” de León said. “This is a message, no doubt, to Washington, D.C., that we will protect the hardworking people of our communities.”
Saturday, September 16, 2017
New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has issued Executive Order 170 that prohibits state agencies and officers from inquiring about or disclosing an individual's immigration status unless required by law or necessary to determine eligibility for a benefit or service. Law enforcement officers will also be prohibited from inquiring about immigration status unless investigating illegal criminal activity. This prohibition against inquiring into status includes, but is not limited to, when an individual approaches a law enforcement officer seeking assistance, is the victim of a crime, or is witness to a crime.
"As Washington squabbles over rolling back sensible immigration policy, we are taking action to help protect all New Yorkers from unwarranted targeting by government," Governor Cuomo said. "New York became the Empire State due to the contributions of immigrants from every corner of the globe and we will not let the politics of fear and intimidation divide us."
The Executive Order builds on Governor Cuomo's commitment to ensure full protections for all immigrants in New York. In March, Governor Cuomo launched the Liberty Defense Project, the nation's first public-private immigrant legal defense initiative, to respond to the surge in demand for help that is overwhelming nonprofit organizations serving immigrants. The partnership is supported by more than $10 million in funding to offer legal assistance and representation to immigrants in New York, regardless of their status, through a statewide network of attorneys and advocacy organizations.
Protecting New York's Immigrants
New York State has and continues to serve as a beacon for immigrants. For the past five years, New York State, through the Office for New Americans, has helped immigrants fully participate in New York State civic and economic life through a network of 27 community-based centers around the state that provide English classes, civic education, guidance on how to start / grow a business, and naturalization assistance. ONA also has a hotline, a toll-free, multi-lingual information center, as well as a dedicated website that guides New Americans to available resources. The hotline number is 800-566-7636 (operating 9AM-8PM (ET), Monday through Friday) and the website is www.newamericans.ny.gov.
Since taking office, the Governor has taken aggressive steps to provide assistance to immigrant communities. In 2011, he signed a wide-reaching Executive Order to ensure language access across state agencies, suspended the State's participation in a federal program that required local law enforcement to help identify deportable individuals, signed legislation holding entities that defraud immigrants accountable, and established the Office for New Americans. He launched NaturalizeNY, the first public-private partnership of its kind to encourage and assist eligible immigrants in New York State with becoming U.S. citizens. As Attorney General, Governor Cuomo also worked to combat immigration fraud, having utilized general civil rights laws to successfully investigate and prosecute companies for defrauding immigrants. He also secured court judgments and settlements in excess of $23 million dollars on behalf of the state's immigrant population.
The signed executive order can be viewed here, and its text is available below:
E X E C U T I V E O R D E R
STATE POLICY CONCERNING IMMIGRANT ACCESS TO STATE SERVICES
WHEREAS, New York State will remain true to the ideals that founded this country, and will continue to welcome immigrants as a source of energy, and celebrate them as a source of revitalization for our State; and
WHEREAS, New York State's residents make up one of the nation's most diverse communities, as over 4.3 million immigrants reside within the State and over twenty percent of the State's population is foreign-born; and
WHEREAS, immigrants residing in New York State are an essential part of the economic fabric of this State, as over 29% of all business owners in New York are foreign-born, such businesses generate millions of dollars in total net income, and the combined purchasing power of immigrant communities exceeds $165 billion dollars; and
WHEREAS, the reporting of unlawful activity by immigrant witnesses and victims is critical to strengthening ties between immigrants and law enforcement, reducing crime, and enhancing the State's ability to protect the safety of all of its residents; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Constitution and the New York State Human Rights Law protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of national origin in the areas of education, benefits, employment, housing, and public accommodation, and the State is committed to enforcing those protections to the fullest extent of the law; and
WHEREAS, State government has a responsibility to ensure that services are provided equally, and consistent with civil rights laws, to all individuals eligible to receive them; and
WHEREAS, access to State services is critical to the vitality and well-being of immigrant communities and their continued integration into the State's economic, civil, and cultural life; and
WHEREAS, providing State services to immigrant communities is necessary to meet the needs of the State's diverse population, to maintain public confidence in State government and its agencies, and to comply with State and Federal civil rights laws; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows:
1. "State entity" shall mean (i) all agencies and departments over which the Governor has executive authority, and (ii) all public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards, and commissions, for which the Governor appoints the Chair, the Chief Executive, or the majority of Board members, except for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
2. "Alien" shall mean any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.
3. "Illegal activity" shall mean any unlawful activity that constitutes a crime under state or federal law. However, an individual's status as an undocumented alien does not constitute unlawful activity.
B. Agency and Authority Responsibilities Respecting the Privacy of Personal Information
1. No State officers or employees, other than law enforcement officers as provided in B.3 infra, shall inquire about an individual's immigration status unless:
a. The status of such individual is necessary to determine his or her eligibility for a program, benefit, or the provision of a service; or
b. The State officer or employee is required by law to inquire about such individual's status.
2. No State officers or employees, including law enforcement officers, shall disclose information to federal immigration authorities for the purpose of federal civil immigration enforcement, unless required by law. Notwithstanding such prohibition, this Order does not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any state employee from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, as required by law.
3. No law enforcement officers shall inquire about an individual's immigration status unless investigating such individual's illegal activity, provided however that such inquiry is relevant to the illegal activity under investigation. Nothing in this section shall restrict law enforcement officers from seeking documents for the purpose of identification following arrest.
a. This prohibition against inquiring into status includes, but is not limited to, when an individual approaches a law enforcement officer seeking assistance, is the victim of a crime, or is witness to a crime.
b. Law enforcement officers may not use resources, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting and apprehending any individual suspected or wanted only for violating a civil immigration offense. Law enforcement officers have no authority to take any police action solely because the person is an undocumented alien. This includes identifying, questioning, detaining, or demanding to inspect federal immigration documents.
G I V E N under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this fifteenth day of September in the year two thousand seventeen.
BY THE GOVERNOR
Secretary to the Governor
Immigration Impact reports that President Trump earlier this week invoked a rarely-used law to impose visa restrictions on Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, declaring each country “recalcitrant” for refusing to accept the return of immigrants that the United States has ordered deported.
Three countries—Cambodia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone—were hit with relatively minor sanctions, limited to a denial of visitor visas for certain government officials and their families. However, Eritrea was sanctioned much more sternly, with the U.S. government cutting off visitor visas for all Eritreans.
Cambodia’s alleged non-compliance largely stems from U.S. efforts to deport former refugees, many of whom fled Cambodia as children during the Khmer Rouge regime. Cambodia’s objection to taking back these individuals is twofold.
In contrast, Eritreans will face far broader restrictions, as all nationals applying for a visa from within Eritrea now are barred indefinitely from receiving “B” visas for business or tourist travel to the United States. For decades, Eritrea has generally refused to accept deportees from the United States. This is because Eritrea practices a policy of only permitting “voluntary repatriations” of deportees, accepting only those who agree to be deported.
Guinea, on the other hand, does accept a small number of deportees from the United States each year. However, over the past decade, America has expressed repeated frustration over Guinea’s refusal to issue travel documents for the majority of Guinean nationals that the United States seeks to deport.
Sierra Leone, like Guinea, accepts some, but not all, deportees from the United States. It is unclear exactly why Sierra Leone was hit with sanctions, as reporting from May indicated that Sierra Leone had either been taken off the list of recalcitrant countries or been declared only “at risk” of non-compliance.
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Supreme Court will hear four oral argument in four cases in the first two weeks of the 2017 Term. And the cases raise challenging constitutional law issues that could forecever change immigration law. Watch this blog for previews of the oral arguments in the cases.
Sessions v. Dimaya, Oral Argument October 2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by the liberal lion Judge Stephen Reinhardt, held that a criminal removal provision, including the phrase "crime of violence," was void for vagueness.
Dimaya and Jennings are being re-argued, both having originally been argued before Justice Scalia. One can assume that the eight Justice Court was divided and that Justice Gorsuch may well be the tiebreaker.
The final two immigration cases are the "travel ban" cases arising out of President Trump's March Executive Order:
Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project. Oral Argument October 10.
Trump v. Hawaii. Oral Argument October 10.
The Washington Post’s Alex Horton reports that U.S. Army recruiters have abruptly canceled enlistment contracts for hundreds of foreign-born military recruits since last week, upending their lives and potentially exposing many to deportation.
Many of these enlistees have waited years to join a troubled immigration recruitment program designed to attract highly skilled immigrants into the service in exchange for fast-track citizenship.
Now recruits and experts say that recruiters are shedding their contracts to free themselves from an onerous enlistment process to focus on individuals who can more quickly enlist and thus satisfy strict recruitment targets. The Pentagon and Army Recruiting Command, which oversees policy and guidance at its recruitment centers across the country, did not answer repeated requests for comment.
Margaret Stock, a retired Army officer central to the creation of the immigration recruitment program, told The Post that she has received dozens of frantic messages from recruits this week, with many more reporting similar action in Facebook groups. She said hundreds could be affected.
Last week, Harvard Law School Professor Andrew Crespo wrote an op-ed in The Boston Globe suggesting that a private attorney should be appointed to challenge the constitutionality of former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s pardon—a suggestion that has now been formally presented to the judge in Arpaio’s case. This week, Arpaio, through his attorney, threatened to sue Professor Crespo if I did not issue a retraction. Specifically, he asserts that the following sentence in the Globe piece is “false and misleading”. Here is Professor Crespo's response on Lawfare..
You judge who is the victor in this war of words. And why did Arpaio go after Crespo? Many people have been critical of President Trump's pardon of Arpaio and have had harsh words for Arpaio's conduct.
In a ruling with national impact, a federal judge in Chicago on Friday blocked the Trump administration's rules requiring so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration agents in order to get a public safety grant.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber held that Chicago has shown a "likelihood of success" in its arguments that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority in imposing new standards governing Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants across the country. Click here for more details. Click here for the ruling.
President Trump's executive order seeking to de-fund "sanctuary cities' was enjoined by another federal court.
With the new Ken Burns' documentary on the Viet Nam war premiering on Sunday, Viet Nam is on peoples' minds. Many people from the war-torn nation came to the United States as refugees.
UC Davis Professor Carolee Tran escaped from Vietnam amidst the war as a child and is still scarred by the experience to this day. Click here for a link to a radio interview of Tran about her journey to the United States.