Wednesday, July 28, 2010
MPR News reports that the northern Twin Cities suburb of Lino Lakes has become the first Minnesota city to adopt English as its official language. The city council Monday night approved a controversial measure barring the local government from translating official city actions and documents into other languages.
While Minneapolis-St. Paul has some of the largest populations of Hmong and Somalis in the country, Lino Lakes is much more homogeneous -- and wealthier. ImmigrationProf is told that that the town never seems to have translated any documents into other languages.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
From the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Jusice (the division that took responsibility for challenging SB1070 on behalf of the Department of Justice):
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice has been working hard to protect the civil rights of people across this nation. In order to keep interested parties informed of the Division’s work, we are now offering e-mail updates on a variety of topics. If you are interested in receiving updates, you can sign up to receive bulletins about all of the Division’s work, or choose specific issue areas, including:
· Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons
· Fair Lending
· Hate Crimes
· Human Trafficking
· International/Human Rights
· LGBT Issues
· Law Enforcement Misconduct
· Limited English Proficiency
· Post 9/11 Backlash
· Religious Discrimination
· Service Members
· Title VI
· Women's Rights
· Fair Housing Press Releases
· Disability Rights
· Fair Housing
· Immigrant Rights and National Origin Discrimination
If you would be interested in receiving e-mail updates about the Division’s work, please visit the Division’s website at www.justice.gov/crt, and click on Sign Up for E-mail Updates.
Stanford University Press has published Taking Local Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and States, edited by Monica Varsanyi (Associate Professor of Political Science in the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York). Here is an abstract: While state and local immigration policy activism in the U.S. has received widespread attention in the popular media, the scholarly literature has been dominated by studies of immigration policy at the federal level. This volume aims to fill the gap by offering perspectives from political scientists, legal scholars, sociologists, and geographers at the leading edge of this emerging field. Drawing on high profile case studies, the contributors seek to explain the explosion in state and local immigration policy activism, account for the policies that have been considered and passed, and explore the tensions that have emerged within communities and between different levels of government as a result. This timely entrant into the study of state and local immigration policy also illuminates the significant challenges and opportunities of comprehensive immigration reform, highlights the range of issues at stake, and charts a future research agenda that will more deeply explore the impacts of these policies on immigrant communities.
People born in other countries are a growing presence in the U.S. labor force. In 1994, 1 in 10 people in the U.S. labor force was born elsewhere, but in 2009, 1 in 7 was foreign born. About 40 percent of the foreign-born labor force in 2009 was from Mexico and Central America, and more than 25 percent was from Asia. This document updates the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) November 2005 paper The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market. That earlier report included data through 2004; this update, the first of several on various aspects of immigration, incorporates data through 2009. It focuses on the growing number of foreign-born workers, the countries from which they have come, their educational attainment, the types of jobs they hold, and their earnings. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, nonpartisan analysis, this report makes no recommendations.
USCIS yesterday announced the results of its public survey that launched the agency’s Policy Review in April. The results helped USCIS select the first ten issue areas to address in the agency-wide review. Both the quantitative and qualitative feedback from the surveys, along with operational and programmatic needs, were taken into account to select the first 10 issue areas for the USCIS Policy Review to examine. These areas include:
National Customer Service Center
Nonimmigrant H-1B (specialty occupations)
Naturalization and Citizenship
Employment-Based Adjustment of Status
Family-Based Adjustment of Status
Employment-Based Immigrants Preference Categories 1, 2 (priority workers, professionals and holders of advanced degrees) and 3 (skilled workers and professionals)
Refugee and Asylum Adjustment of Status
Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility)
General Humanitarian Programs
Employment Authorization and Travel Documents
More details on the results of the survey can be found on this website: Policy Review Survey Report
CNN has an interesting video on a U.S. citizen who was deported to Jamaica and was exiled from the United States for 10 years: "Researchers say that every day, an American is wrongfully deported, and some worry the problem could get worse." Professor Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) comments on the repeated removals of U.S. citizens.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System
A new report by Huamn Rights Watch, "Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System," says that immigrants with mental disabilities are often unjustifiably detained for years on end, sometimes with no legal limits. The report documents case after case in which people with mental disabilities were prevented from making claims against deportation - including claims of US citizenship - because they were unable to represent themselves. Some of the people interviewed for the report did not know their own names, were delusional, could not tell time, or did not know that deportation meant removal from the United States.
COURTESY OF DAVID BACON
New America Media allows Teresa Mina, a San Francisco janitor and member of Service Employees Union Local 87, to tell her story. She was fired because the company said she didn't have legal immigration documents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told her employer to fire 463 workers because they lack legal immigration status. She told her story to David Bacon the day before she returned to Mexico.
These are the kinds of noncitizens who the Obama administration is targeting in "silent raids" of workplaces through increased audits. As the administration and its "enforcement now, enforcement forever" mentality aims to set another removal record of over 400,000 this year (10% more than President Bush's record in 2008), real people like Teresa Mina will suffer.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had just signed SB 1070; 44-year-old U.S. citizen, Juan Varela, was watering chile plants in his front yard when a neighbor shot him to death. The defeandant has been charged with a hate crime. For analysis of whether it was a hate crime or not, click here for the L.A. Times story. to police documents.
Unfortunately, hate crimes against Latinos long have been linked to anti-immigrant rhetoric -- and few could deny that Arizona has seen much of that kind of rhetoric in the last few months. Marcelo Lucero and Luis Ramirez (Shenandoah, PA) are two extreme examples from recent memory.
As Americans continue to debate immigration reform, border enforcement and Arizona’s recent legislation, experts from The University of Texas at Austin are offering their views on these issues through a series of online videos. Each week, “Border Views” will showcase a different faculty member discussing such topics as the history of illegal immigration, the unusual political alliances that have developed around this debate and the media’s role in covering it. To commence the series, Cecilia Balli, an anthropology professor, in three videos, Balli discusses the complicated relationship between the U.S. and Mexican governments and recent economic, social and political forces that have contributed to the current climate along the border.
Video 1: Balli discusses the forces that have brought immigration, violence and enforcement issues to a head this year.
Video 2: Balli discusses how the U.S. and Mexican governments are united — but also divided — over immigration and border enforcement.
Video 3: Balli discusses the new models of Mexican manhood and how they contribute to violence.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild announces the 2010 recipient of its Carol Weiss King Award for excellence in the pursuit of social justice through organizing, litigating, and teaching. This year’s award will go to Barbara Hines, one of the National Immigration Project’s most dedicated allies in the struggle for immigrant rights. Ms. Hines will be presented with her award on Saturday, September 25, 2010, at the annual National Lawyers Guild Convention at Hotel Monteleone in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dinner banquet tickets and convention information available at www.nlg.org
Barbara Hines directs the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law. Professor Hines was a two-time Fulbright scholar in Argentina, researching Argentine immigration law and also teaching U.S. immigration law, respectively. She served as the first Co-Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of Texas, Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Immigration Project. Ms. Hines has litigated extensively in federal and immigration courts on the constitutional and statutory rights of immigrants. She frequently lectures and writes on immigration law, and is the recipient of numerous awards for excellence in her work.
In nominating Ms. Hines, her colleagues and former students wrote “Few of us can aspire to having such an ambitious career that includes community education and organizing, litigation, and teaching. Barbara has excelled in all of those areas and continues to be an inspiration to us to all."
The National Immigration Project is pleased to honor her outstanding contributions with the 2010 Carol Weiss King award. Prominent U.S. lawyer Carol Weiss King (1895-1952) specialized in immigration law and the defense of the civil rights of immigrants. She was a founding member of the National Lawyers Guild.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Be Aware of the Restrictionist Use of "Clean" Environmental Arguments for "Enforcement Now, Enforcement Forever" Policies
Bill Hing posted a story about the Center for New Community's new report Apply the Brakes: A Report on Anti-immigrant Co-optation and the Environmental Movement, which explores how anti-immigrant forces have corrupted the dialogue on population and the environment, and examines the anti- immigrant environmentalist network that has influenced the environmental movement. For those of you who have been suspicious of the restrictionist infiltration of the environmental movement, this is the report for you. The Federation for American Immigration Reform frequently makes environmental arguments for new immigration restrictions. Recall the debate in the Sierra Club a few years ago over immigration. Environmentalism is often used by restrictionists to attempt to sanitize and legitimize their restrictionist rhetoric and ends.
From the Center for New Community:
Apply the Brakes: A Report on Anti-immigrant Co-optation and the Environmental Movement
This report is intended to explore how anti-immigrant forces have corrupted the dialogue on population and the environment, and will examine the anti-immigrant environmentalist network that has influenced the environmental movement for the last 14 years. In 2009, an article in the Population Special Issue of the Earth Island Journal mentioned a new organization and website named Apply the Brakes (ATB hereafter). A few months later, the Center for Immigration Studies — an anti-immigrant organization known to trade in racism — cited ATB in a memorandum denouncing Sierra Club leadership for not addressing the issue of immigration. At a time when more people of color, labor and human rights organizations are engaging in environmental concerns such as climate change and “green jobs,” ATB could very well threaten those fragile coalitions.
Allegedly the “result of a meeting of long-time conservationists held in Western Oregon in the spring of 2006,” ATB has kept a very low public presence outside of environmental circles, but its mission is clear: ATB concerns itself with “domestic population growth” and has a pronounced anti-immigration focus. Click here for more on the report and a link to the acutal report.
From the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics:
The Office of Immigration Statistics has recently restructured its website. After reviewing user feedback, OIS implemented a new design that organizes reports and data by subject area, as opposed to product type and that allows users more efficient access to immigration reports and data. We anticipate that the redesign will provide a better overall user experience and will continue to serve as a reliable resource for policymakers, researchers, and the public.
Check out the new website here.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Arizona Gov. Brewer’s Mexican Nightmare in the Future by Alvaro Huerta, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of City & Regional Planning (UC Berkeley) Visiting Scholar, Chicano Studies Research Center (UCLA) Visiting Lecturer, Dept. of Urban Planning (UCLA)
The year is 2030. Not being able to sleep, former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer finds herself alone in a strange, white room.
“Where am I?” she asks herself, as she experiences a recurring nightmare about Mexicans, before going back to sleep.
Always looking for a scapegoat for Arizona’s woes, even in her twilight years, Brewer’s dream places the burden of the state’s economic woes on individuals of Mexican decent, instead of the credit crises, housing bubble, banking deregulation policies, Wall Street greed and great recession.
Here’s goes a rough sketch of Brewer’s Mexican nightmare.
It has been over 20 years since she led
Thanks to Brewer, a new term has been added to the American lexicon: Latino flight.
Gone are the Four C’s that have sustained
and mainstream communities alike, such as restaurants, construction companies, bakeries, local markets and clothing stores.
Apart from brown people fleeing this racist state in mass, the numerous lawsuits and national boycotts eventually took a toll on the state’s tourism sector, including retirement communities and long-term care facilities. This includes the loss of out-of-state business and trade with
Consequently, the state government filed for bankruptcy, finding itself at the mercy of the federal government and President Antonio Villaraigosa.
The decline of
Contrary to the official story, where Mexican immigrants labored in the U.S. agricultural industry following WW II to meet labor shortage demands, this program was conceived by rural Mexicans as part of their plan to abandon their families, material possessions and personal dreams for a bigger goal: the browning of American society.
Instead of returning to
Once settled, the rural Mexicans—most of whom lacked formal education—met and organized at parks, churches and baseball games for decades without being detected. They disguised their covert activities during their Quinceñeras, weddings and funerals.
The Mexicans’ master plan against the American way of life consisted of a three-pronged attack: linguistic, demographic and employment.
First, learning from the French in
Also, the Mexican nannies (and house cleaners) all agreed to speak only in Spanish to the American children in their care. Refusing to be paid extra for the Spanish lessons, the domestic workers created a linguistic wedge between the American children and their monolingual parents.
Secondly, the Mexicans unanimously agreed to have a lot of babies. Over time, the Mexican population growth rate in the
Also, the Mexicans, meeting in maternity wards, decided to select the same baby names, such as Jose and Maria, to confuse the Americans. This allowed the Mexicans to easily exchange birth certificates, driver licenses and jobs.
“This is perfect,” one Mexican said at the original meeting. “Not only do we all look alike, we can exchange identities with each other.”
Lastly, the Mexicans initiated a long-term campaign of stealing manual labor jobs from American workers. Not only did the Mexicans take away these dead-end, low status jobs from American citizens, they also insisted on working for low wages without benefits.
“No Mr. Smith,” said Jose at one meeting, “I refuse to work at the federal minimum wage. Please pay me in cash and don’t worry about any of that overtime and health coverage stuff.”
By doing so, the Mexicans created a lazy
Suddenly, Brewer awakes from her nightmare, finding herself in the same strange, white room. This time, however, she finds herself with company.
“Who are you all and where am I?” asks Brewer.
“I’m your doctor,” says the first person. “My name is Dr. Maria Gomez and you’re in a long-term care facility in
“Hello,” says the second person. “My name is Jose Gonzalez and I’m your nurse.”
“Good morning,” says the third person. “My name is Maria Cruz and I will care for all of your hygienic needs.” “I want to go home,” pleads Brewer.
“This is your new home,” says Dr. Gomez. “Your family couldn’t care for you anymore and they brought you here since
“Don’t worry,” Maria say, “In
Without uttering another word, Brewer begins to weep.
Once again, I turned on the computer this morning and can only wonder what the heck is going on in the world of U.S. immigration law and enforcement. The nation continues to pursue the massive deportation of "criminal aliens," many of whom are long term lawful permanent residents convicted of relatively inconsequential crimes. A court criticizes the U.S. government for failing to recognize the compelling evidence that an ethnic Korean woman would likely be tortured if returned to China.
I refuse to turn on the television news for I am likely to see some wacky Arizona legislator criticizing the federal government for challenging SB 1070 on federal preemption grounds and railing on the feds, immigrants, and immigrant-lovers.
I think that I will avoid using any more electricity today and go take a walk!
After the two hearings for preliminary injunction against Arizona's AB1070, the federal district court judge apparently did not disclose which way she is leaning. Here is some of the dialogue that took place yesterday:
Plaintiffs in the morning hearing sought injunctions to prevent each of Arizona's 15 county sheriffs and 15 county attorneys - all of whom were named personally in the suit - from using the new powers provided by 1070 to detain and investigate immigration status.
Nina Perales, an attorney with MALDEF, sued the counties, along with the ACLU and National Immigration Law Center, on behalf of over 20 humanitarian and nonprofit groups.
"SB 1070 effectively criminalizes being here without permission. By failing to carry registration documents your subject to prosecution or jail time," she told the court.
"Many law enforcement agencies are ramping up traffic stops and relying on them for immigration reform," Perales told Judge Susan Bolton when asked to provide evidence the new provisions will result in unreasonable roadside stops. "Somebody can do something to commit a crime inadvertently."
Thomas Liddy, representing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who was not present at the hearing), argued that the claims against the state and county were inappropriate in federal district court.
"The proper forum is for the Department of State and the U.S. Congress," he said.
Bolton later asked ACLU attorney Omar C. Jadwat, "Who am I to tell the state of Arizona that they can't enforce existing powers granted by the federal government?"
Jadwat said SB 1070 poses a threat to civil rights and imminent harm because the language could extend to passengers in vehicles, witnesses to accidents, victims of crime, those seeking asylum, or anyone who came into contact with an officer investigating any claim of any incident.
The training materials provided by AZPOST tells police to not inquire into the status of victims, witnesses and those riding in vehicles, but that distinction is not made in the law itself.
U.S. Deputy Solicitor Edwin S. Keedler made the case against Brewer, who was present for the hearing.
"This is a nation of immigrants. There's a (national) policy of welcoming immigrants, visitors, trade, there are humanitarian concerns for people who come here without permission initially," Keedler told Bolton. "Enforcement itself provides a broad range of possibility of prosecution."
According to Keedler, Congress has never criminalized the mere presence of an undocumented person in the United States and left the ultimate discretion to enforce immigration law to the federal government as a way to balance competing interests.
"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests," read the Justice motion for an injunction.
Keedler did not raise any civil rights issues but maintained that Congress specifically allowed for a federal regulation of immigration to make sure that no state can cause disruptions in foreign relations.
He argued instead that Arizona violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which specifically reserves immigration enforcement for the federal government.
Keedler said the criminal statutes Arizona cited in SB 1070 to establish its authority were intended to prosecute smugglers, not non-violent persons residing in the state without documentation.
Brewer has been unable to substantiate her public claims that most illegal aliens crossing Arizona's borders are drug smugglers or other criminals.
Keedler argued that federal authorities will not have the resources to respond to Arizona's request to investigate the immigration status of a suspected undocumented person.
"Can you really say that this is pre-emptive because you're going to receive too many calls?" Bolton asked.
She pressed Keedler to provide reasons beyond the supremacy clause and previous rulings as to why she should halt the law.
"The problem comes from the state mandating how officers will assist in carrying out federal law," Keedler responded.
Bouma argued in both hearings that the federal government's failure to curb illegal immigration in Arizona warrants the state's participation in the process.
"Congress isn't doing it, but Congress hasn't told us we can't do it," Bouma told Bolton. "Congress said they want one, national, uniform system and we have one. They haven't done anything to stop the states."
Here is more from Brian Mori of the Tucson Sentinel.
Free shipping on all orders prior to July 31:
Hardship in Immigration Law: How to Prepare a Winning Case in Waiver & Cancellation of Removal Cases—11th Edition
$165 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $120 (Non-profit)
This uniquely useful manual, designed as a toolbox, is an essential reference tool for immigration practitioners. Practical and informative, it breaks down the elements that the BIA and federal courts have identified as relevant to claims of hardship, and demonstrates how to work with clients to elicit the information that will best present their hardship claims.
The U Visa: Obtaining Status for Immigrant Victims of Crime—2nd Edition
$150 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $115 (Non-profit)
The U Visa Manual will guide you through the entire process of handling an immigration case for a U visa applicant—from eligibility screening through adjustment of status to assisting eligible family members. In addition to providing a thorough explanation of the requirements and process, it also provides numerous sample materials to help you in handling your client’s case. These include the immigration forms you will need, sample checklists, declarations, receipt notices and other correspondence you can expect to receive from USCIS, motions to submit to the immigration court, and more.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and Other Immigration Options for Children & Youth—3rd Edition
$175 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $115 (Non-profit)
In addition to having a special focus on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, this manual also provides information on other immigration options for children and youth including: U Nonimmigrant Status, Violence Against Women Act protection, asylum, family-based immigration options, citizenship, and others. It also addresses specialized issues, such as working and representing child clients, immigration consequences of delinquency, and detention. The manual contains many useful items for practitioners, including sample screening intake forms, sample application forms, motions, court orders, and other papers that can be presented to the juvenile court, immigration court, and immigration authorities.
Inadmissibility & Deportability—2nd Edition
$100 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $75 (Non-profit)
Inadmissibility & Deportability is a practical and easy to use manual for beginning immigration attorneys, paralegals, non-profit community based organizations and other advocates on the grounds of inadmissibility, deportability and waivers. Written in plain English and filled with explanatory examples, charts, tips, samples and practical suggestions, this guide covers the essential topics for representing immigrant clients.
Defending Immigrants in the Ninth Circuit—10th Edition Case Update CD-ROM
$75 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $40 (Non-profit)
Two-volume manual with Case Update CD-ROM: $300 (Private Attys/Gov’t); $260 (Non-profit)
This resource shows step-by-step how to identify, analyze, and defend against the adverse immigration consequences of charges, using a combination of user-friendly charts, summaries, and practice aids, and in-depth discussion of defense strategies. It includes extensive discussion of California offenses, including new defense strategies for assault, domestic violence, drugs, sexual crimes with minors, other commonly charged offenses, and much more.
*Free ground shipping only within the continental United States. Excludes Hawaii, Alaska, Virgin Islands, and other US Territories.
Visit www.ilrc.org/publications to see our entire list of publications
For publication questions, contact firstname.lastname@example.org or 415-255-9499 x743
Nina Bernstein in the N.Y. Times reports that, althougfh the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982) heeld that undocumented children cannot be denied a public K-12 education, many school districts in New York are requiring a child’s immigration papers as a prerequisite to enrollment, or asking parents for information that only lawful immigrants can provide. The New York Civil Liberties Union warned in a letter to the state’s education commissioner that the requirements listed by many registrars “will inevitably discourage families from enrolling in school for fear that they would be reported to federal immigration authorities.” The group has been pushing the State Education Department to stop the practices, which range from what the advocates consider unintentional barriers, like requiring a Social Security number, to those the letter called “blatantly discriminatory,” like one demanding that noncitizen children show a “resident alien card,” with the warning that “if the card is expired, it will not be accepted.” The Education Department has resisted doing anything to address the issue directly, in contrast with Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
NILC and Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Implementation of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
PHOENIX -- At a federal court hearing today in Phoenix, AZ, the National Immigration Law Center, as a member of a coalition of civil rights groups, argued that Arizona's discriminatory new law, known as SB 1070, should be blocked pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010, requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people -- both U.S. citizens and noncitizens -- to racial profiling, improper investigations, and detention.
The U.S. Department of Justice, in a separate lawsuit, will also ask the court to block SB 1070, in a hearing later today. In the civil rights coalition's case, the court will also hear arguments on the state of Arizona's motion to dismiss the case.
The civil rights coalition includes the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the ACLU, MALDEF, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) - a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the NAACP. The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.
Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Counsel for MALDEF, argued the case on behalf of the civil rights groups.
In May, the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona's extreme law, charging that it invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment, and interferes with federal law. Friday's filing seeks to halt implementation of the law while the case is litigated.
The following quotations can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.
Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"We are asking the court to block SB 1070 right now because if this discriminatory law went into effect for even one day, it would be one day too many. Any law that requires law enforcement to ask people they stop and suspect of being undocumented for their 'papers' violates the U.S. Constitution and the American values of fairness and equality. This law is a clear invitation for racial profiling, and we're confident that the court will understand the importance of preventing it from ever taking effect."
Linton Joaquin, general counsel of NILC:
"Judge Bolton heard from lawyers representing organizations ranging from small nonprofit service providers to the federal government, asking her to block the implementation of this pernicious law. Inaction on SB 1070 will lead to widespread fear and threatens the constitutional rights and societal values of all Arizonans. Unified voices of civil rights leaders, law enforcement officers and interested citizens are fighting to keep this unconstitutional law from hurting countless Arizonans and undermining our nation's values of fair treatment under the law."
Julie Su, litigation director of APALC:
"We are here today in Arizona to ensure that SB 1070 does not take effect next week, as this fundamentally unconstitutional law opens the door for law enforcement to discriminate against Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and other people of color who look or sound 'foreign.' We have faith the court understands that immigration enforcement is solely the responsibility of the federal government and that it will block this modern-day version of the Chinese Exclusion Act."
Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"While proponents of SB 1070 would have us believe that they have a monopoly on the rule of law, the federal court remains the arbiter of justice in this case. The courageous plaintiffs who have come forward to challenge this unconstitutional racial profiling law are optimistic that the judge will strike down this discriminatory law, which has already resulted in the harassment of innocent people."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
• NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri
• ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi
• MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal
• ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
• NDLON: Chris Newman
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at
More information about the Arizona law and this lawsuit can be found at
A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 400-7822; email@example.com
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; firstname.lastname@example.org
Jon O'Neill, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6007; email@example.com
Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310) 956-2425; firstname.lastname@example.org
Karin Wang, APALC, (213) 241-0234 or 999-5640; email@example.com
Marco Loera, NDLON, (602) 373-3859; firstname.lastname@example.org
Leila McDowell, NAACP, (202) 463-2940 ext. 1021; email@example.com