America's Voice Blog

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 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 12/12/11 at 11:03am By Mahwish Khan

Even Alabama’s Governor Considering Some Changes to Anti-immigant Law

alabama ugliesApparently, even Alabama's leaders are slowly grasping the magnitude of the embarrassment that is swirling around their state because of HB 56. Last week, we reported that the State's Attorney General Luther Strange wanted to make some changes to the anti-immigrant law. 

At Firedoglake, David Dayen reports on the news that Alabama's Governor, Robert Bentley, is making noises about changing the state's harsh anti-immigrant law, which Bentley signed just a couple months ago:

[A]fter some state lawmakers and the state Attorney General acknowledged that changes need to be made to the law to avoid what they called “unintended consequences” (actually, they were entirely intended from the premise of creating a immigration police state), Governor Robert Bentley agrees.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley said on Friday he would work to revise the state’s tough new immigration law following embarrassing incidents of foreign workers being detained because they were not carrying sufficient identification.

Bentley, House Speaker Mike Hubbard and Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, said in a statement they do not plan to repeal or weaken the law, widely considered to be the toughest state immigration law in the nation.

“We recognize that changes are needed to ensure that Alabama has not only the nation’s most effective law, but one that is fair and just, promotes economic growth, preserves jobs for those in Alabama legally, and can be enforced effectively and without prejudice,” Bentley said.

Sadly, if it wasn’t for the auto executive arrests, the state leadership would still be in denial about it. The business community clearly told them to fix the law and fix it now. But as the economic consequences mount, this is likely to be a first step to either a de-fanging or just a straight repeal of the law. All it will take is one big business to leave the state and they’ll cave.

David is right. Everything that's happening as a result of HB 56 "were entirely intended." In fact, as we've noted before, vocal supporters of Alabama’s worst-in-the-nation immigration law, including bill sponsor State Senator Scott Beason (R-AL), Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), anti-immigrant leader Mark Krikorian, and immigration law architect and current Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) – think HB 56 is working exactly as they intended.  For them, damage to the state’s bottom line and reputation are mere bumps in the road on the way to creating a climate of fear and hostility aimed at forcing the entire immigrant community from the state. But, Alabama already has a well-known history of discrimination and racism. And, the controversy surrounding the state's new anti-immigrant law is just reinforcing that ugly image.  

State Senator Beason, who, as Joey Kennedy documented, has become something of an embarrassment to the state on his own, is undaunted. He wants no changes:

"My position is that I have no intention to support any measure that would weaken the anti-immigration law," Beason said.

Posted 12/02/11 at 06:23pm By Web Team

Rep. Steve King Thinks Racial Profiling Is Legal in the United States

Steve KingNothing should surprise us about Rep. Steve King. The Iowa Republican is proudly one of the leading anti-immigrant legislators in Congress. 

Yesterday, we posted about King's attack on Art Venegas, the Army Vet who served as Chief of Police in Sacramento, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Venegas is also a naturalized U.S. citizen.  King basically asked Venegas to see his papers. 

The hearing was on Secure Communities and one issue discussed repeatedly was on racial profiling. In fact, Huffington Post's article on the hearing was titled, Democrats Say Secure Communities Needs More Safeguards Against Racial Profiling.

But, guess who doesn't think there need to be safeguards against racial profiling? Rep. Steve King.

Why?

King apparently think racial profiling is perfectly legal in the United States. As we tweeted from the hearing:

Steve King bravely comes out in favor of racial profiling. "Is there a federal law prohibiting racial profiling?"

Yes, you read that right: King actually asked the witnesses whether any federal law prohibits racial profiling. And he insisted that Congress actually hasn’t enacted a law on this subject. Art Venegas challenged King's assertion, noting the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution, specifically the 4th and 14th amendments. 

King was unimpressed by the answer from Venegas. When King asked Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations
for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that same question about racial profiling, Mead replied, "I can't answer that question." Yeah, couldn't answer it.

Congress didn't pass a specific law relating to racial profiling and that's all that matters to him. Pretty clear that King wouldn't want such a law either.

 

Posted 12/01/11 at 03:32pm By Pili Tobar

DHS “Secure Communities” Program Needs Serious Scrutiny

secure communitiesOver the past several months, the controversy around DHS’ Secure Communities deportation program has grown exponentially as advocates for immigrants and victims of crime, state governors and law enforcement professionals, and even a DHS-appointed task force arrived at a serious conclusion: the program may claim to improve community safety, but is actually destroying the relationship between police and the immigrant community and undermining public safety as a result.  Despite being billed as a program focused on dangerous criminals, fully 57% of all immigrants deported through Secure Communities as of October 31, 2011 had either been convicted of low-level offenses, such as traffic violations, or had no criminal record at all.

A report published earlier this year by America’s Voice Education Fund, Public Safety on Ice: How Do You Police A Community that Won’t Talk To You?, uses examples from California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington to illustrate the damage that Secure Communities and other programs are having on community policing.  As the report states, “In order to investigate crimes, lock up criminals, and protect the public, police need the trust and cooperation of everyone in their communities.  When immigrants worry that contact with the police could lead to deportation, they are much less likely to report crimes and assist in investigations.  This makes the job of police much harder, and the ‘job’ of criminals much easier. The result: an entire community is less safe.”

Today, the House Immigration Subcommittee is holding a hearing on the program.  But if previous hearings are any indication, the Republican leadership is more likely to use it as a platform to bash the Obama Administration than to review the serious concerns raised by governors, law enforcement executives, and advocates.

The government’s own data proves that Secure Communities is not focused on dangerous criminals, but casts a wide net and ensnares thousands of immigrants who have committed no crime.  When a traffic stop leads to deportation, immigrants get the message loud and clear: avoid the police at all costs.  This makes them far less likely to report crimes they experience or witness, gives criminals a free pass, and hurts us all.

This program needs serious scrutiny, but we’re not going to get it from Reps. Gallegly, King, and Smith.  It’s clear that they are more interested in finding an opportunity to say the words ‘immigrant’ and ‘criminal’ in the same sentence, and bashing the Administration, than finding real solutions to our broken immigration system.

 For more resources, view: 

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 11/02/11 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 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 10/27/11 at 09:59am By Mahwish Khan

Alabamian & Former NYT Editor Howell Raines: “Immigration law a new embarrassment for Alabama”

Howell RainesWriting at CNN, former NY Times Editor Howell Raines, a native Alabaman, has harsh words for the state's current Governor, Robert Bentley, and HB 56, the anti-immigrant legislation that the Governor signed into law earlier this year:

The excuse that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from native Alabamians has been blown to smithereens. One state survey in neighboring Georgia, with its own harsh law, found that the state was short some 11,000 workers to harvest crops.

Alabama Gov. Bentley's response to complaints by employers and displaced workers alike was casual: "Those stories are anecdotal stories," he told the Dothan Eagle editorial board. "It'll work itself out."

With that kind of thinking, Bentley, a political unknown a year ago, is challenging George Wallace, who held office in the 1960s, in the state's endless most-embarrassing-governor sweepstakes. Wallace, of course, played to pre-existing racism. Bentley has one-upped him by attacking a problem that no one was worrying about.

As Raines points out, Bentley is continuing a long tradition of Alabama Governors who embarrass the state.

 1 2 3 >  Last »