America's Voice Blog

Posted 11/14/11 at 04:44pm By Mahwish Khan

NYT: Obama Adminstration’s New Deportation Policy “Applied Very Unevenly”

Over the weekend, The New York Times' Julia Preston reported on the Obama administration's new deportation policy. And, her article echoed concerns we've been hearing:  

A new Obama administration policy to avoid deportations of illegal immigrants who are not criminals has been applied very unevenly across the country and has led to vast confusion both in immigrant communities and among agents charged with carrying it out.

Since June, when the policy was unveiled, frustrated lawyers and advocates have seen a steady march of deportations of immigrants with no criminal record and with extensive roots in the United States, who seemed to fit the administration’s profile of those who should be allowed to remain.

But at the same time, in other cases, immigrants on the brink of expulsion saw their deportations halted at the last minute, sometimes after public protests. In some instances, immigration prosecutors acted, with no prodding from advocates, to abandon deportations of immigrants with strong ties to this country whose only violation was their illegal status.

The full article is worth a read. The conclusion struck a chord with us:

Still, uncertainty about the policy among agents appeared more widespread than outright rejection did. That was the experience of Shamir Ali, a 24-year-old student born in Bangladesh, who was detained Oct. 19 when the police raided a Miami car rental agency where he worked, looking for someone else. Mr. Ali seemed to fit within the discretion guidelines: he had no criminal record and had been brought by his parents to the United States when he was 7. But immigration agents denied his first requests to be spared from deportation.

Then student groups staged protests on Mr. Ali’s behalf in eight cities. On Oct. 28, agents freed Mr. Ali on an order of supervision, also allowing him to apply for a work permit. For Mr. Ali, like Mr. Bartsch, that permit would be life-changing, since it would allow him to obtain a driver’s license and to enroll at resident rates in a state college.

Mr. Ali said he felt deeply grateful to the immigration agency. But he wondered: “If I didn’t have all that support, what would have happened to me?”

We often get involved in END (Education Not Deportation) cases for this very reason. What would happen without it?

Over the weekend, 450 DREAMers from around the country attended United We DREAM's Annual Congress in Dallas. On Saturday morning, they staged a protest outside of a nearby ICE office. You can see photos from the protest here. And, watch this amazing speech by DREAMer Nicole Anonuevo, delivered during the "open mic":

Posted 11/03/11 at 11:19am By Mahwish Khan

“The Border Patrol Has Become a Rogue Agency”

Border PatrolVery powerful op-ed in The Hill, written by Professor Randall McGuire about the Border Patrol titled, Border Patrol abuses of human rights must be stopped. McGuire analyzes the report, A Culture of Cruelty: Abuse And Impunity In Short-Term U.S. Border Patrol Custody," which was issued earlier this year by the group, No More Deaths. We wrote about the report, when it was released in September, here.

Professor McGuire cuts right to the problem with Border Patrol. It's a "rogue agency":

Rather than these abuses being the work of a few rogue agents, the Border Patrol has become a rogue agency. The report draws on interviews with almost 13,000 deportees conducted over 2.5 years. Deportees consistently report the same abuses. Some shared José Miguel’s experiences of physical injury, verbal abuse, and the withholding of food, water and medical care. Many others reported being separated from their families, being endangered in the desert by Border Patrol’s aggressive “dusting” tactic, not having credentials and money returned to them, being repatriated at night in a dangerous city, and being housed in unsanitary, overcrowded holding pens. Increasingly, deportees report psychological abuses that meet the definition of torture under international law.

Existing policies under the Department of Homeland Security for the treatment of individuals in custody and an international agreement between the United States and México concerning the treatment of Mexican deportees forbid these abuses.  Despite this fact, inadequate procedures exist within the Border Patrol for identifying and correcting systematic abuse.

The abuses continue as part of United States border policy. 

McGuire is right: "the Border Patrol has become a rogue agency." Who is going to rein it in?

Posted 11/02/11 at 02:54pm By Mahwish Khan

ARC Report: 5,100 Children of Deported Parents Now In Foster Care

Families SplitWe know that deportations can have a destructive impact on immigrant families. A new report from the Applied Research Center, Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System, found that over 5,000 children of deported parents are now stuck in the foster care system. 

At Colorlines, Seth Freed Wessler provides an overview:

In a yearlong investigation, the Applied Research Center, which publishes Colorlines.com, found that at least 5,100 children whose parents are detained or deported are currently in foster care around the United States. That number represents a conservative estimate of the total, based on extensive surveys of child welfare case workers and attorneys and analysis of national immigration and child welfare trends. Many of the kids may never see their parents again.

These children, many of whom should never have been separated from their parents in the first place, face often insurmountable obstacles to reunifying with their mothers and fathers. Though child welfare departments are required by federal law to reunify children with any parents who are able to provide for the basic safety of their children, detention makes this all but impossible. Then, once parents are deported, families are often separated for long periods. Ultimately, child welfare departments and juvenile courts too often move to terminate the parental rights of deportees and put children up for adoption, rather than attempt to unify the family as they would in other circumstances.

Wessler provides several examples of families that have been ripped apart. They are gut-wrenching, and the Secure Communities Program plays a role in this problem:

Local immigration enforcement is metastasizing through initiatives like the 287(g) agreements and, most significantly, through a controversial program called Secure Communities, which allows ICE access to data on every person booked into a county jail. As the federal government shifts its deportation tactics away from high-profile workplace raids and toward enforcement that’s silently tied to the day-to-day functions of local police departments, a growing number of long-time residents with families and deep ties to the U.S. are deported. The program is turning jurisdictions around the country into deportation hotspots. We have identified at least 22 states where children in foster care face barriers to reunifying with their detained or deported mothers and fathers.

Whatever the state of the debate, or rancor, over who should and should not be allowed to live in the U.S., the moral and bureaucratic fallout of deporting 400,000 people a year are accumulating to toxic levels. Child welfare caseworkers say that in the face of an opaque detention system, they are helpless to reunify families. And although federal law requires child welfare departments to make diligent efforts toward family reunification, when parents are detained that’s basically impossible.

The report provides a window into yet another problem with our broken immigration system. As Nancy Pelosi once said, "Taking parents from their children ... that's un-American."

Posted 11/02/11 at 10:10am By Mahwish Khan

US DOJ Reminds Alabama: Denying Education to Kids Is Unconstitutional

Thomas PerezLast month, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez spoke about the impact of HB 56 at a Town Hall hosted by the NAACP. Among the many issues, he addressed the impact of HB 56 on education:

Specifically, Perez emphasized that the law limits a child's right to an education, saying "one of the rights that exists in the United States -- that was a right established and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court almost 30 years ago -- is the right for every person who is present in the United States to attend public school.

Perez has continued the focus and the pressure. Yesterday, Perez wrote to Alabama school districts reminding them of their constitutional obligations:

The Justice Department sent a letter to school districts in Alabama on Tuesday reminding them that they can’t deny a child access to public education due to his or her immigration status.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez’s letter comes after he expressed concern that Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law was keeping children out of school because their parents are scared about the impact of the law. A federal judge has blocked portions of the harsh anti-illegal immigration measure.

As Markos Moulitas wrote a post titled, Feds tell Alabama not to screw over kids, noting, "It should be self-evident, but not in Alabama.

The full text of the letter from Perez, via the Department of Justice, is after the break.

Click here to read more.
Posted 10/26/11 at 03:12pm By Pili Tobar

Five Years After Bush’s Border Fence, Enforcement-Only Measures Are Still Not the Answer

border fenceThis October 26th marks the fifth anniversary of President George W. Bush’s signing the law to build a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. Five years later the “border security first” approach has gotten us nowhere. Yet, it’s still the number one response from GOP Presidential candidates when asked about immigration.

During the GOP Presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library on September 7th, Telemundo reporter Jose Diaz Balart asked GOP candidates what they would do to address the 11 million undocumented people in this country. The candidates’ overwhelming response was (and continues to be) that we need to secure the border before we can have that discussion.

The truth of the matter is the border is more secure today than it has been in the past. The border security budget has increased to $17 billion a year. There are now almost 21,000 boots on the ground and border apprehensions have fallen more than 70%. Yet for the GOP presidential candidates this isn’t enough - nothing ever will be. And they keep using that as an excuse to avoid having a broader discussion and introducing a real plan that will address our broken immigration system.

In the meantime states like Alabama are passing patchwork legislation that is leading to the suffering of many families – filled with citizens, legal residents, and yes, undocumented immigrants. The idea that we can enforce our way to a reformed immigration system has lead to a civil and human rights crisis that will only get worse without federal leadership.

The solution is not to build an electrified fence, as Herman Cain so graciously put it. It’s not to make life impossible for undocumented immigrants or anyone who “looks foreign” either.

Elected officials and candidates must address immigration reform and stop using border security as an excuse to ignore other vital aspects they don’t want to deal with.  The true challenge is not border security, but to find a comprehensive solution that will reform our visa programs and offer a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented people that are already in this country and contributing to our economy every day.

President Bush’s 700 mile fence was not the solution then, and a border security first approach is not the solution now. Border enforcement is only part of the comprehensive plan we need to address our broken immigration system. GOP presidential candidates need to stop hiding behind this excuse and give a real answer. We need sensible, humane immigration reform and we need candidates that have the guts to talk about it. Otherwise, five years from now we’ll find ourselves still stuck in the same place. 

Posted 10/21/11 at 01:05pm By Mahwish Khan

We Need Truth In Advertising Laws To Govern DHS When It Comes To New Deportation Numbers

Truth IN advertisingThe Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the latest deportation numbers this week. As FDL's David Dayen reports:

The news that the Obama Administration deported 400,000 undocumented immigrants in the last fiscal year, setting another record, did not come as welcome news to immigration advocates.

That's right. 

This week, DHS announced another record-breaking year in immigration enforcement, deporting just under 400,000 immigrants in FY 2011.  According to DHS, they are targeting the “worst of the worst,” an assertion they tout by highlighting the fact that 55%, or 216,698, of those deported were so-called “criminal aliens.”   In the announcement, DHS indicated that 40% of criminal deportees had committed one of four types of offenses.  That’s 87,547 of the nearly 400,000 deportees.  However, for the other 60% of “criminals” that made up the majority of deportees last year, DHS gives no explanation as to what sort of “crime” they committed.  Why would DHS release specific categories on some of the “criminal” deportees, but leave the majority of them without explanation?

We can look to the Secure Communities program – one of the key programs feeding the deportation pipeline – as an important example of DHS’ tendency to overstate what a “criminal” looks like.  We already know that nearly 60% of all deportees under Secure Communities either had no criminal convictions or had only been convicted of minor crimes or traffic violations.  A new report analyzing Secure Communities confirms this fact.  Clearly, a large number of “criminals” deported by DHS would not be considered serious offenders by any common sense definition of the term. 

In the report released Wednesday, experts from the Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law examined Secure Communities and found that the majority of people identified for deportation through this “criminal” program were not being deported for criminal reasons.  Only 27% were in deportation proceedings for having committed crimes, including 8% being deported because of aggravated felonies.  The rest were simply being deported because of immigration violations.    

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice Education Fund put it like this:

DHS has to come clean about its deportation numbers.  How many of the "criminals" it is deporting are actually dangerous people?  And how many are just fathers on their way to work, pulled over by police who think it’s their job to determine who is legal and who isn’t?  This new report from the Warren Institute and Cardozo Law School is just the latest round of evidence to show that Secure Communities is badly missing the mark, sweeping up hard-working immigrants who haven’t committed any real crime instead of zeroing in on the "worst of the worst."

 The Warren Institute-Cardozo study identified a number of other troubling facts about Secure Communities that confirm what immigrant advocates have been saying for years.  Despite DHS’ claims that Secure Communities is a “neutral” program, it is clearly being fed via racial profiling.  While 77% of the undocumented population in the United States is Latino, 93% of those detained through Secure Communities are Latino.  They are also disproportionately young and male, making it clear that “driving while young, male, and Latino” is, in fact, a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.  Community policing is suffering because local cops are now deportation agents, and immigrants are afraid to go to the police.  And, as many as 3,600 U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE in the three years the program has been in operation, a chilling statistic the Department should be forced to explain and correct for the future. 

Despite insisting that they are focusing deportations on the "worst of the worst," a large number of people being deported by the Obama Administration are not high priority criminals.  And, despite claiming that Secure Communities targets only criminals, fresh evidence shows that’s just not the case.  Clearly, we need truth in advertising laws to govern DHS when it comes to its deportation numbers and programs.

Access New Warren Institute Report on Secure Communities here.

Posted 10/19/11 at 04:25pm By Pili Tobar

On Immigration, Romney Has No Soul, Republicans Have No Game, and DHS Has No Clue

Last night, there were two television options for people interested in immigration reform. PBS premiered a documentary, "Lost in Detention," which was produced by Maria Hinojosa, which "examine[d] the Obama administration’s controversial get-tough immigration policy." Meanwhile, CNN broadcast another GOP presidential debate, this one from Las Vegas. "Lost in Detention" exposed our controversial immigration policy while the GOP debate showed the ugly side of immigration politics. Both could impact the 2012 elections.

The sprint to the right by the Republican presidential candidates, which was on display yet again at last night's debate, should be helpful to President Obama's reelection. It should be. But, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to undercut his Latino outreach efforts.

Last night’s debate, as expected, featured more fireworks over the issue of immigration and turned into a contest of who could talk tougher on the issue.  Governor Rick Perry (TX) launched an attack on Governor Mitt Romney's (MA) employment of undocumented workers. In an attempt to defend his record, Romney tried explained why he insisted his workforce be legal by saying: 

I'm running for office for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals.

Watch part of Romney's exchange with Governor Perry here:

 

Click here to read more.
Posted 10/17/11 at 10:40am By Mahwish Khan

Meet Derrick Cotterel, Seeking Political Asylum. Hindered by the System and His Stutter

derrick cotterelThe Associated Press introduces us to Derrick Cotterel. His story is wrenching -- and says so much about the failings of the immigration detention system in the U.S.:

Derrick Cotterel was a farmworker who came to the United States from Jamaica, picking citrus in Florida and apples in West Virginia for 10 years, before a pay dispute with a landscaping employer led to his arrest last year on robbery charges.

Given his long-expired visa, the arrest landed Cotterel in immigration custody in York, Pa. But judges there struggled for nearly a year to understand his request for political asylum.

Cotterel, 42, speaks a Jamaican patois, or Creole, that might alone be difficult for Americans to grasp. But his speech is further compromised by a severe stutter that makes him nearly impossible to understand.

Nor can he read or write. So many of his thoughts remain trapped inside of him.

The full article warrants a read to get a better understanding of how broken the immigration detention system is. Cotterel's case provides a glimpse.

Cotterel fears death if he's returned to Jamaica--he was injured and scarred in a 1998 machete attack. But, so far, deportation is his fate. An appeal is underway:

York immigration lawyer Craig R. Shagin is frequently asked to take cases pro bono, but can only take a few, and chooses those he thinks have merit. He recently agreed to help Cotterel — who lost his asylum bid — with his appeal. He believes his client could be killed if he returns to Jamaica.

"These types of cases, you basically have death-penalty consequences while employing traffic-court procedures. It's very frightening," Shagin said.

Very frightening, indeed. 

Posted 09/16/11 at 01:00pm By Mahwish Khan

Former Sacramento Police Chief Venegas Resigns From S-COMM Task Force; Report Shows Flawed Program

Art Venegas, former Sacramento police chiefThe final report from the Task Force studying the controversial Secure Communities (S-COMM) Program was issued this week. The report's release generated its own controversy when several of the panel's members resigned. The first to walk away, former Sacramento, CA Police Chief Arturo Venegas, noted:

While there are many strong components to the report issued today to the Homeland Security Advisory Council by the Task Force, I believe it does not go far enough in making specific and enforceable recommendations that would repair the damaged relationship between immigrants and local police. In good conscience, I am unable to endorse this report and respectfully resign from the Task Force. 

I believe that Secure Communities is a deeply flawed program and that, in its current form, it is undermining public safety. 

Venegas' letter is posted here.

The headline of an article on the Task Force report in the New York Times notes S-COMM "sows mistrust." It also identifies many other problems:

A task force advising an Obama administration deportation program has sharply criticized immigration officials for creating confusion about its purposes and has found that the program had an “unintended negative impact” on public safety in local communities.

In a report on the program, known as Secure Communities, the task force said that the program had eroded public trust by leading to the detention of many immigrants who had not committed serious crimes, after officials said its aim was to remove “the worst of the worst” immigrant criminals from the United States. The task force report was completed Wednesday.

The report also said that immigration officials had created tensions with local authorities by making inconsistent statements on whether states and cities were required to participate.

In the most significant of its recommendations, the task force said that fingerprint identifications through the program should no longer lead federal agents to deport immigrants arrested by local police officers for minor traffic violations.

So, in those first few paragraphs describing the Task Force report, we've get these descriptions of Secure Communities:

  • "creating confusion"

  • "unintended negative impact"

  • "eroded public trust"

  • "created tensions with local authorities"

  • Plus, "sows mistrust"

While the report acknowledges much of what is wrong with S-Comm, the recommendations on how to fix it just don’t measure up.  We agree wholeheartedly with Chief Venegas’ assessment:

Unfortunately, the recommendations contained in the task force report fall far short of these principles.  If the scheme recommended by the task force is implemented, individuals simply arrested for minor violations, including traffic violations, will still be put through the system.  The federal government will decide whether they are candidates for deportation, based on enforcement priorities that include people whose only “crime” is a prior civil immigration violation.  I believe that many people with minor infractions, such as driving without a license, will still be put into deportation proceedings based on the scheme recommended by the task force.  Immigrants will continue to fear that contact with the police could lead to deportation, crimes will go unreported, and criminals will remain free to prey on others.  Civil immigration enforcement will continue to trump crime control in our communities.  

What’s more, immigrants charged with more serious offenses, but never convicted, have no protection in the task force report.  It seems we are agreeing to turn the long-stand principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head for certain groups of people.  If you are an immigrant, and you are charged with a more serious offense, you are “guilty until proven innocent” and you will be referred for deportation.  As an immigrant myself, and as an American, I cannot support that differing standard.

Posted 09/08/11 at 02:54pm By Mahwish Khan

Did Border Patrol Agents Miss the Memo on the New Immigration Policy—or Are They Ignoring It?

Woman in HandcuffsA lot of our attention has been focused on the practices of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency -- and rightly so. But lately, we've been hearing a lot more stories about the harsh tactics employed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. We were led to believe that the enforcement priorities of ICE and CBP would change in light of the new deportation policy announced last month by the Obama administration, but an article by Julian Aguilar at Texas Tribune raises more concerns about how the agency is complying with the new directive. The full article is a must read. Here's an excerpt: 

Lara, originally from Delicias, Chihuahua, is five months pregnant and the mother of two U.S. citizen children. She is in the country illegally because she overstayed a visa. Her attorney says she’s the “poster child” for leniency under the June directive. 

Instead, Lara was detained and processed by immigration authorities in Anthony, N.M., last week after she admitted to having expired documents when local police and U.S. Border Patrol agents came to the door looking for her sister.

It means the “left hand isn’t aware of what the right hand is doing,” said Carlos Spector, Lara’s El Paso-based attorney. "I think it’s important to note that this [directive] has not reached the lowest levels of ICE ... because [Border Patrol agents] are still picking up pregnant women."

In the June directive, ICE Director John Morton told prosecutors to evaluate several factors when determining which illegal immigrants to place in deportation proceedings, part of a plan to concentrate ICE’s finite resources on removing the most dangerous criminal aliens. These factors included immigrants' health, their children’s immigration status, how long they had been in the country, and whether or not they were “low profile” — the government’s term for nonviolent, nonessential deportees. That memo was followed last month by an announcement that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection, would review the cases of the 300,000 people currently in deportation proceedings to determine if any should be released and subsequently allowed to apply for work authorization.

Lara was released from detention, but not until she was hospitalized after becoming panic stricken and physically ill during her stay. She says an agent threatened to deport her to Ciudad Juárez, where drug cartel violence is widespread.

It's difficult to see how Roxann Lara is a high priority for the Department of Homeland Security. Clearly, there's much work to be done to educate the agents on the front line:

“The most critical part of this policy is going to be how they monitor it in the field,” [Director of the Migration Policy Institute at the NYU School of Law Muzaffar] Chishti said. “How are you going to notify people ... and what is the accountability if an officer chooses not to exercise the discretion on the basis of the guidelines?"

Lara’s case indicates that, at least in certain Border Patrol sectors, the jury is still out. 

The jury is still out. We and other immigrant activists will keep watching ICE and CBP to see if they're following the new policy.

 1 2 3 >  Last »