America's Voice Blog

Posted 02/01/12 at 11:08am By Mahwish Khan

Action Needed: Stop the GOP’s Plan to Target and Punish Immigrant Families

tax formsThis week, The New York Times blasted the latest GOP scheme to punish immigrant families:

House Republicans have hit upon a noxious scheme to help pay for an extension of the payroll tax cut: a tax increase on millions of poor working families. A bill passed by the House and now in conference seeks to deny cash refunds under the child tax credit to those who file tax returns using “individual taxpayer identification numbers” issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Only those using Social Security numbers would be eligible.

The refundable portion of the child tax credit is a life-saver for the working poor. Families that would be cut off by this policy change make an average of $21,000 per year, according to the Treasury Department. They would lose an average of $1,800. About 80 percent of those families are Hispanic. The taxpayer identification numbers are used frequently, though not exclusively, by unauthorized immigrants to pay the taxes because they are not eligible for Social Security numbers. The I.R.S. accepts their tax payments and allows families to claim the child tax credit regardless of immigration status. This policy is an effective antipoverty tool that protects children, most of whom are American-born citizens.

The Republicans who have flatly rejected tax increases on the rich have settled instead on limiting this refund, which kept about 1.3 million children from falling into poverty in 2009.

America's Voice is joining with our allies to stop this from happening. We need your help. Here's the action alert from the National Immigrant Law Center:

Though 2012 has just begun, Congress is right now considering a tax change that will hurt children in mixed status families.  Legislators have proposed funding a payroll tax break extension by denying critical tax credits for children in the lowest income immigrant families – even as millionaires are protected.  

Under the House of Representatives’ proposal, a taxpayer or spouse must have a Social Security Number to be eligible for the Child Tax Credit – a tax credit that is designed to keep working families from falling into poverty.  This means that millions of  working immigrant families who file using the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number will effectively receive tax increases.  It is expected that these families will lose on average $1,800 of much-needed tax credits, forcing immigrant parents to cut back on essential items for their children.

We need you to help us fight this change! On Wednesday and Thursday, NILC and other organizations are organizing a national call-in day to protect working immigrant families. Please call (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected with House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and members of the tax package conference, and  your representative to tell them that you OPPOSE funding the payroll tax credit on the backs of working families. (emphasis added)

Together, we must tell our legislators to live up to their pledge of fairness and equality and reject any changes to eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.  

Please call (202) 224-3121. It really matters. 

Posted 01/31/12 at 11:27am By Mahwish Khan

In Wake of Federal Indictment of Four Officers, East Haven Police Chief Resigns

new haven officeFallout from the federal investigation of the East Haven, Connecticut police force continues. Yesterday, the Police Chief, Leonard Gallo, resigned. East Haven Mayor Joseph "I might have Tacos" Maturo, Jr. accepted the resignation calling it a "selfless act": 

Maturo told a Town Hall press conference packed with local, regional and national media that the decision, which Gallo informed him of on Friday, was “a selfless act designed to assist in the healing process” with the Latino community, some of whom police are accused of mistreating.

Gallo’s retirement provides “an opportunity for the town to move forward with the healing that is necessary given recent events, and most importantly an opportunity for the entire East Haven community to move forward as a unified group to embrace the changes that will follow,” Maturo said.

The New York Times provided reaction from activists and allies, including America's Voice Board Chair Henry Fernandez, who are more than happy to see Gallo go: 

Chief Gallo “cultivated a racist and dishonest police force,” said the Rev. James Manship, a priest at St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church, whose efforts to document police behavior helped prompt the federal investigation.

Father Manship called for the local prosecutor, Michael Dearington, to review the convictions of people who had been arrested by the four indicted officers, and to seek to vacate those convictions that were “tainted by racial bias or other unconstitutional conduct.”

Local and national immigration groups also had strong comments.

“This is a real victory for racial understanding and a clear indication of the power of our community,” said Henry Fernandez, a spokesman for Reform Immigration for America, an advocacy group. He said the mayor should seek strong representation from the Latino community on the search committee for a new chief.

Though Mr. Maturo said the search process would be transparent, Mr. Fernandez said, “we would go further and demand that the Latino community should be involved in the selection process and the U.S. Department of Justice should participate as well.”

Posted 01/05/12 at 01:33pm By Adam Luna

Bullying for Political Reasons is A-Ok?

Crossposted at Jack & Jill Politics

Just read a disturbing post by Jillian Rayfield at TPM about new legislation in Tennessee which would amend the state’s anti-bullying law to exempt bullying for political reasons just as long as the victim’s person or property aren’t damaged.  It is being denounced for aiming to give a green light to the harassment of gay kids in school, which it is.

But it sure seems to me that a bully could be let off the hook for lashing out at a kid because of their political beliefs about immigration, welfare, affirmative action or any of the other stuff we’ve heard a million times.  I’ve recently been spending a lot of time in Alabama in the aftermath of the passage of the nation’s most extreme anti-immigrant law and can tell you bullying as “political expression” is in full effect there.

Jillian points to an article by the Chattanooga Times Free Press where former State Senator Don Fowler, a leading proponent of the bill, explains the proposal:

People should “never encourage slurs,” Fowler noted, “but the purpose of bullying statutes is to prevent persons or the property being harmed — not their mere sensibilities of being offended. That’s where common sense has to rein.”

This, after he explained away the suicide of a gay teenager who had been the subject of vicious bullying for years by saying that the suicide note didn’t mention bullying and that, in fact, any bullying he may have experienced was just a matter of his feelings being hurt.

Fowler’s group objected to gay activists tying the bill to Rogers’ death, saying “the young man had numerous emotional problems and because he was also open about his homosexual conduct was also often made fun of at school.”

It said the notes Rogers left behind mentioned “his mother leaving him, his alcohol and drug abuse and an eating disorder. But nothing about bullying.”

In Alabama, the civil rights leaders who were there in the 50s and 60s see the new anti-immigrant law there for what it is.  I’ve heard them say that it’s about a discriminatory policy AND about giving the green light to intimidation from anyone.

I was at an ad-hoc hearing of Members of Congress in Birmingham last month where Mary Bauer, from the Southern Poverty Law Center testified that:

A father called to report that his U.S. citizen daughter came home weeping from school after other students told her she did not belong there and needed to go back to Mexico—a country she had never visited.

Of course, the bullies didn’t touch her or steal her lunch money so they were simply expressing their political beliefs.  I can’t tell you how many other stories I’ve heard like this.  A guy in a park being approached by a screaming woman to get out, taunts at a gas station pump – all just expressing a political belief.

Think Progress has an excerpt from the proposal itself:

“Creating a hostile educational environment” shall not be construed to include discomfort and unpleasantness that can accompany the expression of a viewpoint or belief that is unpopular, not shared by other students, or not shared by teachers or school officials.

The policy shall not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views; provided, that such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or damage to a student’s property.

Reading all of this made me think of that iconic photo of fifteen year old Elizabeth Eckford trying to walk into Little Rock Central High in 1957.  The mob of kids shouted her down and threatened to lynch her but they didn’t touch her – just were expressing their political beliefs.  “I’m sorry if my words offended anyone.” 

I know that I shouldn’t be surprised but sometimes I’ve got to put my usually jaded attitude aside and be outraged and amazed for a minute.  The conservatives will try to make this latest bill all about religion but it’s as clear as day that they’re just still pissed that they can’t shout us into the shadows anymore.

 

Posted 01/05/12 at 11:06am By Web Team

“Defiant” Joe Arpaio Says He Will Cooperate with DOJ Discrimination Investigation

joe arpaio

Yesterday was the deadline for Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio to indicate whether he would cooperate with the United States Department of Justice. On December 15 2010, DOJ released the findings of a three-year study of racial discrimination in Arpaio's department, which found evidence of what we've long known.  Arpaio has "engage[d] in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing"  and "a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations." 

Well, Arpaio did respond -- in typical Sheriff Joe fashion with some bravado and attitude:

It was a pledge for cooperation with a dose of confrontation when Sheriff Joe Arpaio told the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division that he would cooperate with the federal government's efforts to resolve allegations of widespread discrimination in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's letter to the Department of Justice

Arpaio's promise Wednesday to cooperate came with a detailed 29-page request for more than 100 pieces of information that U.S. Department of Justice investigators compiled during the years-long probe of the Sheriff's Office, including the identity of sheriff's employees interviewed during the course of the investigation and the names of Latino residents against whom Arpaio's deputies have allegedly discriminated.

The Phoenix News Times Blog has more, noting Arpaio's continued "whining" -- and a prediction that this will end up in court:

A defiant sheriff, however, also says he "will not cower to the threat of litigation" -- the DOJ says it plans to take the sheriff to court if he fails to cooperate.

Arpaio says his cooperation is contingent on the fed's ability to "play ball" -- he's demanded the DOJ produce evidence of all the allegations it's made against the MCSO before the sheriff will consider cooperating. He's given the DOJ until January 18 to cough up the proof.

From the sound of the sheriff's letter -- which includes more whining about the DOJ's "political witch hunt," and griping about the timing of the announcement of the fed's report -- it seems like Arpaio and the feds are destined to find themselves in a courtroom, which will cost taxpayers even more community coin defending America's priciest sheriff.

We'll continue to watch how this plays out. Arpaio can talk tough and be defiant, but he may have finally met his match in Tom Perez and the US Department of Justice.

Posted 12/01/11 at 04:21pm By Web Team

Rep. Steve King to Former Police Chief and US Army Vet Art Venegas: Show Me Your Papers

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held yet another hearing on immigration. Titled, "Is Secure Communities Keeping Our Communities Secure?," the hearing provided another opportunity for Republicans on the Committee to burnish their ugly anti-immigrant credentials. And, true to form, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the leading anti-immigrant voice in the GOP, exhibited egregious behavior during his questioning of former Sacramento Police Chief Art Venegas, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Huffington Post's Elise Foley reported on the stunning interaction:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took a moment on Wednesday to question a congressional witness about how he moved to the United States from Mexico, after the former police chief mentioned in his testimony that he is an immigrant. At the same hearing, Democrats on the House immigration subcommittee pushed for immigration officials to add safeguards against racial profiling in immigration enforcement.

"You said you're likely the only immigrant on the panel," King said to Arturo Venegas, who was testifying in front of the House immigration subcommittee. "I wonder if you could tell us how was it you were inspired to come to the United States."

Venegas, a former Sacramento police chief, responded by telling King that his U.S.-born mother brought him to the country after he was born in Mexico. "Can you just tell us what year and what visa, then, Mr. Venegas?" King asked.

King never followed up with a reason for his questions, which came after Venegas testified about his experiences as Sacramento, Calif., police chief and his service on a task force to reform Secure Communities, a key immigration enforcement program.

One of our colleagues who attended the hearing, "To witness it was just surreal."

We caught up with Venegas today to talk to him about his interaction with King. He told us:

It took me by surprise. Why did he even ask the question? What kind of a visa I came on? After serving as a police chief and in the Vietnam war, it was insulting to have my legality, my legitimacy questioned.  After my 40 years of public service, I never assumed I’d have to worry about that. I’ve probably been in public service longer than he has.  When he asked me what intention my parents and grandparents had in coming here, I wish I had said they were the same interests as his ancestors had.

King doesn't even try to hide his anti-immigrant views. They were on full display yesterday. There's a painful pattern here. Just this week, King authored a "Dear Colleague" letter, which outlined his opposition to HR 3012, Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, a (rare) bipartisan immigration bill. The bill passed by an astounding margin of 389 -15. King, one of the 15 nay votes, wrote:

H.R 3012 moves our American culture in a direction away from assimilation and grows ethnic enclaves among the nationalities of the largest immigrant populations who are the slowest to assimilate. Open borders proponents of the bill have demanded and received an expansion of family-based visas which do nothing for skill shortages and instead consume visas that highly skilled immigrants could otherwise use....H.R. 3012 increases the number of immigrants coming to the United States from a handful of countries such as China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines and will exacerbate the problem of chain migration. 

"Ethnic enclaves" and "chain migration" are classic code words among the anti-immigrant crowd -- and just what we'd expect from one of their leaders: Steve King. Again, the bill passed 389 - 15. 

Also, at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing, King appeared to intimate that racial profiling is legal.  He asked the witnesses whether any federal law prohibits racial profiling, noting that Congress actually hasn’t enacted a law on this subject. Art Venegas reminded King about the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution, specifically the 4th and 14th amendments.. 

Every time we think King has reached a new low, he outdoes himself. Attacking former police chief and vet Art Venegas was another embarrassing and despicable action from the GOP's leading messenger on immigration.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

Posted 11/18/11 at 11:12am By Mahwish Khan

As Economic Fallout From HB 56 Mounts, Calls Grow to Repeal Alabama’s Anti-immigrant Law

The American Dream Is OverEarlier this week, Mooncat (Sherry) at Left in Alabama reported on the Economic Fallout from Beason-Hammon Immigration Law:

Now the economic fallout from Beason-Hammon is hitting the fan.

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, which announced earlier this year its plans to build a $100 million plant in Thomasville, "is having second thoughts" about Alabama in light of the controversial law, according to David Bronner, chairman and chief executive of the Retirement Systems of Alabama. 

"They’re not happy," said Bronner, citing conversations with Golden Dragon executives. "They have expressed their concerns to me on numerous occasions."

...  Bronner, who oversees the state’s $29 billion public pension fund, first voiced his concernsabout the immigration law in an interview with the Birmingham News, saying it had caused the Spanish owners of BBVA Compass to cancel plans for an $80 million bank tower in Birmingham.               

That's some serious fallout, especially in these harsh economic times. This is just one of the many consequences from HB 56. Remember, this law is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing according to State Senator Scott Beason, Congressman Mo Brooks, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and anti-immigrant leader Mark Krikorian.

No wonder there are growing calls, even from some GOP Senators, to change HB 56.  The Anniston Star says that Alabama should just get rid of it altogether:

While politicians talk jobs, jobs, jobs, the state’s economy will contract by nearly $40 million if only 10,000 undocumented workers leave because of the bill. How will changes now help Alabama recover that revenue? (Don’t say unemployed Alabamians will take these jobs, because they won’t, as the latest edition of Bloomberg Businessweek makes clear.)

How will these changes help farmers whose crops were not harvested because there was no labor, or help the family that has to pay more at the grocery?

And will these changes assure China’s Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group that Alabama is not a hostile environment and that it should go ahead with the $100 million plant for south Alabama? Rival states that hope to lure the industry are using this illegal-immigration law to their advantage. Will these changes undermine that strategy?

Unfortunately, what Dial supports will not be enough. Making the law less of a burden on Alabamians can’t make up for the damage done to the state’s economy and reputation. The best thing the GOP can do is admit it was a bad idea, apologize for problems the law caused and repeal it. Anything less will do little to undo the real damage.

Posted 11/16/11 at 11:08am By Mahwish Khan

Alabama State Senator Scott Beason Stripped of Powerful Committee Chairmanship

scott beasonAlabama State Senator Scott Beason (R) has been getting a lot of attention lately. None of it good. He was one of the architects of the state's viciously anti-immigrant law, HB 56. Yesterday, Beason was in the news again. From the Montgomery Advertiser:

Alabama state Senate leadership pushed Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, out of the chairmanship of a powerful committee Tuesday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia Hills, will serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, which determines which bills come to the Senate floor for debate.

The Birmingham News reports that Beason's replacement is already talking about making changes to the anti-immigrant law. 

Key Republican senators say they are compiling a list of changes that need to be made to Alabama's new immigration law, described as the nation's toughest.

Sen. Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia Hills, who on Tuesday replaced immigration bill sponsor Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, as chairman of the powerful Senate Rules Committee, said there is wide agreement the bill had several "unintended consequences" that need to be addressed.

"We are looking at different fixes," he said.

There need to be a lot of fixes. Repealing the law would be a good start.

Columnist Joey Kennedy, who broke the news about Beason losing his job on Twitter yesterday, also has some thoughts on why it happened:

-- Beason wore a wire during the FBI's investigation of the bribes-for-gambling scandal in the Legislature. He regularly recorded his own colleagues without their knowlege.

-- On that wire, Beason is overheard making racially insensitive remarks, calling the mostly black patrons of Greenetrack, a bingo casino, "aborigines." Beason eventually apologized for the remarks.

-- U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, in a court order, basically called the FBI's star witnesses, Beason and a former state representative, Ben Lewis of Dothan, racists because of their recorded comments and said they were acting out of racial and political motivations, not because they wanted to expose corruption. Thompson said they were not credible as witnesses.

-- It probably didn't bother the Senate leadership all that much, but Beason, one of the sponsors of the state's bullying immigration law, has been a cruel, insensitive spokesperson. At one time, Beason said where undocumented residents are concerned, we should "empty the clip." Beason's racially insensitive comments carry over in the rhetoric on immigration. He has been an embarrassment to Republicans.

-- Beason also embarrassed the Senate leadership by not being a team player on some issues, including a move to block Jefferson County from replacing the revenue it lost when the county's occupational tax was ruled void.

Also, hard to argue with this sentiment from an editorial in the Birmingham News:

State Sen. Scott Beason, it seems, was more trouble than he was worth.

Posted 11/15/11 at 10:44am By Mahwish Khan

NBC’s Rock Center on the “Huge Controversy” in Alabama Caused by HB 56

Last night, on NBC's "Rock Center With Brian Williams," reporter Kate Snow did a segment on what Williams called the "huge controversy" in Alabama caused by the passage of HB 56. 

Snow's report showed the dire impacts of HB 56 on Alabama's Latino families and the state's farmers.

In his national interview, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley defended the law from criticisms from farmers. Bentley told Snow that he doesn't want to be "the face of an anti-immigrant sentiment," though it might be a little too late for that. FYI: He also wanted us to know that he's not a racist. 

This is definitely worth watching. 

Posted 11/01/11 at 12:18pm By Mahwish Khan

DOJ Files Suit Against South Carolina’s Anti-immigrant Law

Stop Targeting Immigrants South CarolinaThe United States Department of Justice is seeking to block South Carolina's anti-immigrant law. This marks the third challenge to a state immigration law by DOJ. The others are Arizona and Alabama. From yesterday's DOJ press release:

The Department of Justice challenged South Carolina’s recently passed immigration law, Act No. 69, in federal court today.

In a complaint, filed in the District of South Carolina, the department states that certain provisions of Act No. 69, as enacted by the state on June 27, 2011, are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.” South Carolina’s law clearly conflicts with the policies and priorities adopted by the federal government and therefore cannot stand. 

South Carolina’s law is designed to further criminalize unauthorized immigrants and, like the Arizona and Alabama laws, expands the opportunity for police to push unauthorized immigrants towards incarceration for various new immigration crimes by enforcing an immigration status verification system. Similar to Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Alabama’s H.B. 56, this law will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as terrorism, drug smuggling and gang activity, and those with criminal records. In addition, the law’s mandates on law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status. 

“Today’s lawsuit makes clear once again that the Justice Department will not hesitate to challenge a state’s immigration law, as we have in Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina, if we find that the law interferes with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “It is understandable that communities remain frustrated with the broken immigration system, but a patchwork of state laws is not the solution and will only create problems. We will continue to monitor the impact these laws might have on our communities and will evaluate each law to determine whether it conflicts with the federal government’s enforcement responsibilities.”

And, we learn via The State that South Carolina is going to be fighting hard to preserve its discriminatory and racist law:

State Attorney General Alan Wilson has vowed to defend the state’s immigration laws to Supreme Court if necessary. On Monday, his office said the attorney general could not comment on the justice department’s lawsuit because it had not received it.

South Carolina’s immigration law, which was signed by Gov. Nikki Haley in June, requires all police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone they detain whether it is for a speeding ticket or a murder charge. The law also creates a statewide Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit under the supervision of the S.C. Department of Public Safety, which also oversees the highway patrol.

Last week, FOX News Latino reported that the new SC law also impacts U.S. citizens and legal residents:

South Carolina's new immigration law, SB 20, which faces a lawsuit from pro-immigrant organizations, will not only affect undocumented foreigners but also U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Puerto Rico-born Carolina Belen de Paguada is concerned about the possible entry into force of the controversial law, which was inspired by Arizona's SB 1070 legislation.

Married to an undocumented Honduran, Belen says that even she is in danger of being penalized with a fine of up to $5,000 for transporting a foreigner without authorization to be in the country, or even for giving a neighbor a ride to church.

"My husband is the supporter of the family. I have a 4-month-old baby. If they deport him, I don't know what we're going to do. The situation is terrible for everyone," the 20-year-old told Efe.

Posted 10/20/11 at 01:22pm By Mahwish Khan

In Alabama, Widespread Pain and Problems from HB 56’s “Attrition Through Enforcement”

no juan crow signPowerful editorial in today's NY Times about the impact of HB 56 on people across Alabama. The new harsh law is impacting everyone, not just its intended target of immigrants. It's exactly what the proponents wanted:

Alabama’s law is the biggest test yet for “attrition through enforcement,” a strategy espoused by Mr. Kobach and others to drive away large numbers of illegal immigrants without the hassle and expense of a police-state roundup. All you have to do, they say, is make life hard enough and immigrants will leave on their own. In such a scheme, panic and fear are a plus; suffering is the point.

The pain isn’t felt just by the undocumented. Legal immigrants and native-born Alabamans who happen to be or look Hispanic are now far more vulnerable to officially sanctioned harassment. Many of those children being kept home from school by frightened parents are born and bred Americans.

The problems do not stop there. Farmers are already worrying that with the exodus, crops will go unpicked. Like much of the rest of the country, Alabama needs immigrant labor, because too many native-born citizens lack the skill, the stamina and the willingness to work in the fields — even in a time of steep unemployment.

The new law has also added frustrating layers of paperwork for Alabamans who must now prove legal status when enrolling schoolchildren, signing leases and interacting with government. After the law went into effect, the lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles in Birmingham grew so long that officials had to bring in portable toilets.

Alabama’s reputation has also taken a huge hit just when it is trying to lure international businesses. No matter how officials may try to tempt foreign automakers, say, with low taxes and wages, the state is already infamous as a regional capital of xenophobia.

Again, this is what Mr. Kobach and his ilk wanted.

 1 2 3 >  Last »