The tongue-in-cheek “Take our Jobs” campaign addresses the myth that our country’s unemployment rate is rising because undocumented immigrants are “taking jobs” away from U.S. citizens. Because of the obvious racist sentiment in such a myth, there are almost no safeguards for thousands of undocumented people that work on U.S. farms. And yet, much of the food we eat, in restaurants, stores and at home, comes to us from the hard labor of these very workers.
“Take our Jobs” calls on unemployed U.S. citizens to apply for farm worker jobs and harvest the summer’s lettuce, peach and grape crops. Americans can fill out an online application form entitled “I want to be a farm worker”.
Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application.
Currently, about 1.8 million people work on farms in the U.S. According the the Department of Labor, about three-fourths of them are foreign-born, and approximately 50% of them are undocumented. And when it comes to working in the fields though, the proportion of undocumented workers is even greater. If all these workers were to be deported, as is the argument proposed by those opposed to immigration, the union holds that the result would be a huge increase in food prices in the country, the rotting of crops, and an increase in imports. the campaign is thus a segue into the need for immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for these workers that form the backbone of this country’s agricultural economy. As the head of UFW’s union Arturo Rodriguez says, “If we asked all the undocumented immigrants to leave the country, the agriculture industry would die.”
Since its launch, the campaign website have received 2 million views. 5300 people have filled out the application form, but once they find out about the low pay and extremely difficult working conditions, most applicants withdraw their application. Only 3 people out of all those that applied are actually working in the fields.
Talk show host Stephen Colbert had teamed up with the union to promote the campaign. Colbert interviewed Arturo Rodriguez last night on his popular talk show and signed on to be a farm worker, following up his commitment with the question, “It will be air-conditioned, right?” The hysterical interview addressed Arizona’s new law SB1070, growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and invited Americans to take the jobs that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has called one of the top ten most dangerous jobs in the nation. Their exchange went like this (skip to timecode 16:41 on the video) -
Stephen Colbert- You are the 2nd President of the UFW union. What are you working on right now?
Arturo Rodriguez- We are working on improving the lives of farm workers.
SC- Why do we need to improve the rights of farm workers? Don’t get me wrong, you seem like a nice guy, but they’re mostly illegal immigrants correct?
AR- This, is true, but…
SC-So they’re taking our jobs?
AR- Not really…
SC- Yes, really.
AR- No
SC- Those jobs belong to American farm workers.
AR- Americans do not want to work in the fields. It’s very difficult work, it requires a lot of expertise and the conditions are horrid…
SC- In summer, California is the salad bowl of the country. In winter, salad is grown in Arizona. Are these workers going to go to Arizona if SB1070 gets passed?
AR- If it is enforced, it will be very difficult for them to go, yes…
SC- So is there a chance I won’t have my lettuce?!
AR- There’s a chance that lettuce prices would sky rocket….!
Colbert highlighted how unlikely it was that American workers would be lining up to pick grapes for pay as low as $8 an hour. But in an honest attempt to open up the sector to citizens, the campaign addresses the argument that American workers are harmed by immigration.
It is essential to pass immigration reform that provides due process and fairness to everyone who is crucial to the growth of our country. Because when we deny due process to some, we deny rights to all. Let President Obama and Congress know they must restore fairness to our broken immigration system NOW!
In the short time since Arizona passed SB 1070 into law, it has become one of the strongest and most controversial symbols of our nation’s debate on immigration. SB 1070 requires the police to stop anyone that has a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented but once enacted, it is believed that may well lead to unconstitutional racial profiling and a breakdown of trust between police and the communities they protect. But SB 1070 is also emblematic of the frustration that many have with our broken immigration system, a sign that states have decided to take immigration into their own hands as Congress remains in a deadlock over immigration reform. The latest catalyst for this debate - a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice brought against the state of Arizona and SB1070 on July 6th, 2010.
Analysis over the implications of the lawsuit are rife in the media. Many are looking at the lawsuit and its potential for setting a new precedent with regards to the tussle between the federal government and state laws around immigration. Previous precedent shows a tendency for federal courts to side with the federal government on cases when states and cities pass laws that conflict with federal immigration law. An article in the Wall Street Journal traces this precedent back to laws in the 1880s aimed at limiting Chinese immigration. While the dispute could go either way, some analysts hold that that the federal court could only block sections of the law, while allowing some others to be enforced.
By bringing a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, the Obama administration (via the Justice Department) has taken a strong stand against the law. But an article in the Washington Post discusses further implications of this stand. The article quotes the Democratic strategist who spoke about the implications of the lawsuit for the Democrat party -
There is probably some short term pain politically given how popular the law is…But considering the demographic changes the country is undergoing, long term, there is a lot of upside in advocating for Latinos and comprehensive immigration reform.
While the Obama administration is advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, the Democrat party has continued to play safe so as not to alienate the large electoral base that supports the Arizona law and other enforcement heavy approaches to immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans, who support the law and an enforcement heavy approach, continue to emphasize a secure border-then reform approach, a rhetoric that leads to little progress on the issue. Republicans such as Senator John McCain,who previously argued for comprehensive reform, have abandoned their support of an immigration overhaul in the face of resentment and anger from within the party as well as from anti-immigrant groups such as the Tea Party Movement.
In a much anticipated move, the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Arizona’s SB1070 today, retaliating against the harsh anti-immigrant law that requires local police to detain suspected of being undocumented. The law, slated to begin on July 29th, is the subject of national controversy coming under fire from civil rights advocates for giving racial profiling the green light.
The Department of Justice accuses the state of Arizona of crossing “the constitutional line” by interfering with the federal government’s authority to create and enforce immigration law. The lawsuit, with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona as defendants, argues that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country”, drawing on the “preemption” doctrine which works off the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a clause that gives federal law precedence over state statues.
In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests… Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws…Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.
The lawsuit also challenges the anti-immigrant law saying that if enforced it will lead to the diversion of precious resources away from targeting those who have committed serious crimes. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the lawsuit-
Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns…But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety… Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.
The brief also calls out the law on humanitarian grounds arguing that making the enforcement of law mandatory for the police will inevitably result in the unjust harassment and detention of foreign visitors, legal permanent citizens, and citizens who might not be able to immediately prove their legal status. Accompanying the lawsuit were declarations from many police chiefs, including from Tucson and Phoenix, who have said that if implemented, SB 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively police their communities.
Late last month Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Department of Justice was preparing to sue the state of Arizona over SB 1070, sending waves through the media and political networks. President Obama has spoken out against the law.
…the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.
The federal lawsuit joins five other lawsuits against SB 1070, including a class action suit field by the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment, encourages racial profiling, and interferes with the jurisdiction of the federal government. The government has asked for a preliminary injunction and delay in the enforcement of SB 1070 until the case is resolved. A hearing to decide this will take place on July 22nd in a Federal courthouse in Phoenix.
SB 1070 is a shocking example of what goes wrong when the need for comprehensive immigration reform is not addressed. When we allow our government to deny due process and fairness to some, we put all of our human rights at risk. The Arizona law has already resulted in copycat legislation in other states, which if allowed to continue unchecked will add more chaos to a broken system and further marginalize vulnerable groups.
How fitting it is that the day after President Obama delivered his first speech devoted entirely to the issue of immigration reform, 150 people are being sworn in as naturalized U.S. citizens on Ellis Island. In an address at American University, President Obama vowed not to “kick the can down the road” on immigration reform, restating his desire to fix a broken immigration system.
In his speech, the President asserted the need for a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people currently residing in the U.S. who do not have legal status, while stressing that the U.S. government secures the border, and businesses face consequences for hiring undocumented workers and keeping wages depressed. Calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive plan to fix an immigration system that is “fundamentally broken,” President Obama tackled the issue that has been the subject of contentious political debate in these months leading up to the mid-term November elections. He spoke about the “…estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States” and said that “the overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.” The President cautioned against rounding up and deporting the undocumented immigrants that are an intrinsic part of American society and economy, and against a blanket amnesty for all that he said would be “unwise and unfair…would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision,” and “could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. ” Instead, he advocated for a solution that eschewed both polar extremes of the debate in favor of rational middle ground. He said-
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values.
This speech was influenced by a number of recent developments in the immigration issue. Most notably, Arizona’s harsh anti-immigrant law that has set a precedent for states around the country taking the enforcement of immigration law into their own hands. Since April 23rd, when Arizona Gov. Brewer signed off on the law, its unconstitutional statutes that give a green light to racial profiling, have catapulted the immigration issue and the Federal government’s inaction on it, into center stage. The controversial “show me your papers” law, which is currently under review by the Department of Justice, has “fanned the flames of an already contentious debate,” Mr. Obama said. President Obama acknowledged the frustration that has led to Arizona and the 20 other states that are in the process of implementing similar laws as “understandable,” but stated that it was “ill- conceived” and that it “put huge pressure on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.” Referring to the police chiefs that have stood in opposition to SB1070, he said that laws such as these make communities less safe by “driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.” He criticized this “patchwork of local immigration laws” for having “the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.”
In his undeniably political speech, President Obama stressed the necessity for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He took Republicans to task for the lack of movement on immigration reform in Congress, specifically calling out the 11 Republicans Senators who had shown support for a comprehensive reform bill in 2006, and subsequently withdrawn this support, with the Republican party now unanimously calling for a “border security first” approach and balking at a comprehensive reform bill. Obama argued that the process has been “held hostage” by “political posturing, special-interest wrangling and . . . the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.” Referring to his recent b0lstering of border security by sending 1200 troops to the border, he said that the border was now more secure than it had been in 20 years, and that crime along the border was at a record low. Moreover, he dismissed the “border security first” approach saying that the systemic problems were too vast to be fixed with “only fences and border patrols.”
And even as President Obama waits for bipartisan consensus on immigration reform, families continue to be torn apart, immigrant youth live in fear of being deported, violations in detention continue to grow and local and state police armed with immigration powers bring fear to communities. Many of these problems can be tackled be administrative measures, but there was little spoken of in the speech. No action was pledged on any of the bills already in Congress though he did mention support for the DREAM Act that would give undocumented students a chance to live in the U.S. And even with a forum for an announcement on whether the federal government is going to sue the state of Arizona, no mention was made on the issue. Many groups have decided to take action into their own hands.
Following on the heels of President Obama’s address, leading law enforcement officials shared their concerns about programs that require enforcement of immigration laws by state or local law police, a trend that continues in absence of a federal solution. With the country’s foremost police chiefs and sheriffs speaking out against such enforcement that undo decades of progress in community policing, Presente.org in collaboration with the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Trail of DREAMs is launching an ambitious new campaign calling on the President to use his power to create real change, starting with ending the deeply problematic 287g program.
Reform Immigration for America is asking people to write to Senate Republicans, asking them to”stop holding up the process and hurting families” America’s Voice is asking people to support the DREAM Act, “a stepping-stone to broader reform that we can pass right now” to support “youth who would qualify to earn citizenship under the DREAM Act who are future valedictorians, nurses, computer programmers, and soldiers.”
While we are encouraged by the President’s speech and commitment to the issue of immigration, and reminded of our nation’s proud immigrant heritage, there is a deep need for bipartisan action as peoples lives hang in the balance.
UPDATE- Good news! Just as the National Immigrant Justice Center petitioned to the United Nations to intervene in Carlyle Leslie Owen Dale’s case, a federal appeals court overruled Mr. Dale’s deportation order. Following this, he was released from ICE custody on Wednesday, June 30th, and for the first time in 5 years, he was be at peace with his family. In a settlement with his lawyers from the justice center, federal officials freed him and let him board a greyhound bus to Orlando, Florida, where he was reunited with his family. On Friday, as he woke up listening to the voices of his grandchildren he told the New York Times in a phone interview, “I want to tell you how good it feels to be back in my America — the America that I love and that loves me.” Claudia Valenzuela, the lawyer that represented Mr. Dale in his detention case, said that his case was highly indicative of the arbitrariness of the current immigration detention system.
Carlyle Leslie Owen Dale is a 61 year old legal permanent resident who has lived in New York for thirty years, working his way through college as a gas station attendant and a taxi driver, marrying and having children, and finally, opening a business of his own, The Safe Housing Project, which operated halfway houses for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. For the past five years though, Mr. Dale has been in immigration detention, and is likely to die of grave medical neglect if nothing is done to redress his awful situation.
Owen Dale is facing deportation for a conviction of attempted assault that he received in 2000 for a shooting that took place in 1998 at a halfway house that he ran in Uniondale, New York. Mr. Dale served three and a half years in prison and paid $9000 in restitution to the resident that he shot during an argument in which he was being threatened with a knife. He pleaded guilty to the conviction, but even though his actions were in self-defense, he has been in detention, facing deportation since 2005. As per laws passed in 1996, immigrants are not able to challenge their detention or deportation. Moreover, immigration judges do not have the ability to consider the circumstances of each individual’s case. In terms of deportation, if an immigrant, including a legal immigrant, commits a crime, an immigration judge can be required to automatically deport him and cannot consider the circumstances of the case.
From 2005 to 2010, while Mr. Dale’s court appeals repeatedly came to naught, his health rapidly deteriorated as he suffered from diabetes, chronic asthma, liver disease, severe arthritis and high blood pressure. Mr. Dale has been hospitalized five times in the last 20 months for problems ranging from pancreatitis, chronic congestive heart failure, flesh-eating bacterial infection, obstructive pulmonary disease and a hernia. Doctors stated that he recently suffered “near respiratory arrest” and his complaints about detention staff that are ill-treating him have fallen on deaf ears. According to a complaint he filed, an infirmary assistant told him to stop “faking it,” removed a nebulizer mask from his face and ordered him to do push-ups. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesperson Brian Hale said that senior officials had reviewed the treatment that Mr. Dale was receiving and were satisfied that he had “unfettered access to medical treatment.”
The Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), which has been advocating for his release and argues that his detention was unjustified, learned last week that the United States Court of Appeals overruled his deportation order, saying that the Board of Immigration Appeals had made a mistake in deciding that his 2000 conviction for attempted assault made him an “aggravated felon.” Following this, the court has sent the case back to the board, asking them to review it. As it stands, it remains unclear whether Mr. Dale will be released to his family, which comprises of two sons, a daughter and grandchildren, all of whom are American citizens. Even if it were to eventually happen, given his medical condition, it might be too late.
Mr. Dale’s case has prompted the National Immigrant Justice Center to submit a petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, based in Geneva, calling for them to intervene in this case and call for his release before it is too late. This petition is an unusual move for advocates, with the UN Working Group usually receiving petitions from countries like China and Myanmar rather than the United States. The urgency of the petition represents the extreme frustration that many immigrant rights advocates are currently feeling with no sight of promised reform on the horizon. Members of the NIJC hope that bringing international attention to Mr. Dale’s case will “increase pressure on ICE to improve oversight of detention facilities, and save the lives of our client and others.” The petition makes a broad case against the inhumane conditions in immigration detention saying that “medical neglect and human rights abuses remain rife in a system that continues to detain some 400,000 people a year”.
This case has shown why it is so urgent to reform the immigration system, to fix inhumane conditions in detention and ensure alternatives to detention. It is imperative that judges are given more discretion to decide who should remain in detention and face deportation.
In countries around the world, the month of June is celebrated as LGBT Pride month, and is a time for people to come together in affirmation of the LGBT community and the movement for gay rights. June was chosen as Pride month to commemorate the Stonewall riots of 1969 which led to birth of the gay rights movement. Pride month provides us with an opportunity to recognize the successes of the movement for equal rights and to celebrate the diversity of the community, but is also a time to look at the numerous battles that are still to be won before we can all live freely and equally, irrespective of our gender and sexual orientation.
This LGBT Pride month we want to celebrate families- families like the one that Shirley and Jay, moms of twin boys, are fighting to keep together. A picture perfect family, Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado live in Pacifica, California with their thirteen year old twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, and Jay’s mother, Renee. Shirley and Jay fell in love 23 years ago when Shirley was visiting from the Philippines, and have been together ever since. Always wanting to have children, Shirley gave birth to the twins in 1997, and the couple entered into a domestic partnership under California law. Within their suburban community they are considered a “model family” in which Shirley is a typical stay-at-home soccer mom who volunteers at the boys’ school and looks after her mother-in-law while Jay works at an insurance firm. On Sundays, Jay and Shirley sing as a part of their church choir.
As per family unification provisions in immigration law, American citizens are able to petition for residency for their spouses. Unlike countries like France, Germany and Canada, this does not apply to same-sex partners in the United States, so although Jay Mercado is an American citizen, she is unable to sponsor Shirley. Having come to the United States to escape a traumatic and violent familial situation in the Philippines, Shirley had applied for political asylum in 1995. Her lawyer had advised the couple that they should be patient while the application was being processed. News of the denial of Shirley’s application came in the form of a rude shock that disrupted the whole family.
At 6:30 am on a winter morning last year, Jay was getting dressed to go to work and Shirley was getting ready to take the boys to school, when the doorbell rang. On opening it they were faced with two agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who showed them a 2002 letter ordering Shirley’s deportation (which she had never seen before). Minutes later she was handcuffed and taken away as Jay and her mother watched, frightened and helpless. Shirley was held in detention at the Sansome facility in San Francisco before being tagged with an electronic bracelet and returned to her family, awaiting deportation to the Philippines. Shirley describes her time in detention as one of the most traumatic ordeals of her life-
My agonizing, humiliating and tragic experience started when I got in their SUV. My partner ran to the car and saw me being handcuffed and she broke down to tears… I thought it was the lowest point of my life…I was taken like a criminal… My heart was beating so hard, my whole body was shaking and I felt so nauseated with what was happening to me.
Reporting to ICE three times a week and struggling to deal with the possibility of being separated from her wife and children, Shirley sought the support of LGBT advocates and the media to raise awareness about the case and seek justice that would prevent her family from being torn apart. As a result of this, in April 2009, California Sen. Diane Feinstien introduced a rare bill that granted Shirley a temporary reprieve from deportation, allowing her to stay in the U.S. till January 2011.
While the Tan-Mercado family are extremely grateful for the respite that Sen. Feinstein’s bill has provided them, they are worried about what will happen to them post-Janunary 2011. In a testimony that Shirley delivered to the United States Senate Committee, Shirley expressed her concerns for the future of her family-
All the while my family was first and foremost the center of everything on my mind. How would Jay work and take care of the kids if I was not there? Who would continue to take care of Jay’s ailing mother, the mother I had come to love, if I was not there? Who would be there for my family if I was not there? In an instant, my family, my American family, was being ripped away from me. And when I did return home, I had an ankle monitoring bracelet. I went to great lengths to hide it from my children. I have a partner who is a U.S. citizen, and two beautiful children who are also U.S. citizens, but not one of them can petition for me to remain in the United States with them. Because my partner is not a man, she cannot do anything to help me. Nor can my children, who keep asking why this happened to us and what will ultimately happen to our family.
The only way for Shirley to stay in the United States with her family is if gay and lesbian couples to be able to sponsor their partners. It is important that we recognize families like the Tan-Mercado’s so that families can stay together, in Pride month and beyond.
The good news is that the provision that allows for same-sex partner sponsorship has now been folded into the proposal for comprehensive immigration reform which was first introduced by Rep Gutierrez in December 2009.
Take action now to fix our immigration system and keep families together.
Please remember the millions of people around the world forced from their homes, whose only hope of return is to not be forgotten,” says Angelina Jolie, a Goodwill Ambassador with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. She has released a 30-second World Refugee Dayvideo. For this day, June 20th, she speaks on thousands who “flee from conflict and persecution [and] might be prevented from returning home for years — or forever.”
We must think of stories like those of John – the volatile North Kivu province stole the lives of this fifteen-year-old Congolese refugee’s family last year. He says he now only dreams of a mattress and the chance to learn English. With the help of the UNHCR, he has applied for an asylum in Kenya and he now lives just that much closer to a dream come true. John is one of around 50,000 registered refugees and asylum-seekers in Nairobi, Kenya, including 951 unaccompanied minors, who have escaped from the conflict in North Kivu.
There are more than 40 million uprooted people around the world. The theme, this year is “home.” John says he has no desire to return to North Kivu, where the violence has driven more than 1 million from their homes. UNHCR says, “Help us help them to find a place to call home.” It is time for us to think about what it means to be one of those millions of individual human beings. UNHCR helps John and others find new homes and new futures through resettlement, voluntary repatriation and local integration. According to the UNHCR, most refugees prefer to return to their home countries despite continuing or escalating conflict, which makes the search for homes and the return to normal living increasingly difficult.
In honor of World Refugee Day the International Detention Coalition (IDC) is urging governments to stop the detention of refugees and asylum seekers and to work together with UN and civil society to ensure their protection. They say-
There has been a disturbing and growing trend in the past year of industrialized countries funding, pressuring and providing incentives to neighboring countries to detain asylum seekers…There is evidence that detention is not an effective deterrent of asylum seekers. Punitive detention policies fail to consider the conditions that force people to flee their homes. They further traumatize refugees fleeing persecution, torture and conflict. Deterrence policies shift the burden to neighboring countries. It encourages harsh and harmful border policies that do not resolve the issue of irregular migration and people fleeing for protection. These issues must be tackled through international, regional and national cooperation, within a framework of refugee protection.
From June 18-20, the UNHCR is planning World Refugee Day events around the world to highlight the plight of refugees under its care and to advocate for the help they need. Get involved in soccer games, film festivals, photo exhibitions, food bazaars, fashion shows, concerts and sports competitions, workshops, speeches, poetry recitals and more. In addition, you can participate in the following upcoming major events: A Historic Refugee Discussion,” with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr; and “World Refugee Day performance by Marta Gomez”, which is free and open to the public. You can also organize an event in your area. In honor of World Refugee Day, the Empire State Building in NYC will light up in UNHCR blue.
UPDATE: Good news makes for good updates! U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement have said that they will not pursue the deportation of Eric Balderas. ICE spokesman Brian Hale said that Balderas has been granted deferred action, which the agency can use at its discretion to halt deportation, after reviewing the merits of a case. So Eric will be able to continue his studies at Harvard and we wish him all the best in his dream of curing cancer! In the meanwhile though, they are many others like him who might not be as lucky. Support the Dream ACT so they can all have a chance at their dreams.
Until two weeks ago 19 year old Eric Balderas was a sophomore on a full scholarship to Harvard University with a major in molecular biology and the ambition of becoming a cancer researcher. In an instant, he went from representing the promise of the country’s future to being threatened with deportation to Mexico, a country that he has no recollection of.
Eric, who is undocumented, was on his way back to Boston to start a summer research internship after visiting his family in San Antonio, Texas. When he tried to board his flight at San Antonio airport, he found himself being questioned about his immigration status by TSA officials who then alerted Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Eric was immediately handcuffed, fingerprinted and placed in immigration detention for five hours before being given an immigration hearing date and then released. Eric, who usually used his Mexican passport to board domestic flights within the U.S. had recently misplaced it, prompting him to use a Mexican consulate card and his Harvard ID on this present occasion. On a phone interview with the Associated Press he said-
I’d made it through before so I thought this time wouldn’t be any different. But once ICE picked me up I really didn’t know what to think and I was starting to break down…All I could think about was my family…
Eric told the press that he even contemplated suicide as he sat handcuffed. Shook up by his time in detention, Eric is fearful about being forced to drop out of college and return to Mexico. Eric moved to the U.S. at the age of 4, when his mother fled Mexico to escape domestic violence. As far back as he can recall, he has worked hard towards his dream of going to college and working for cancer research. Growing up, his mother worked 12-hour days packing biscuits while he babysat his younger brother and sister and juggled his homework. Speaking about his aspirations he said-
I honestly never thought I’d make it into college because of my status but I just really enjoyed school too much and I gave it a shot. I did strive for this.
Eric’s experience is a tragic example of a broken immigration system that needs fixing so that young people that have been in the country for most of their lives and are working hard to contribute to the country’s future are given a chance. Since he was detained, Eric has engendered wide support from civil rights activists, advocates and an active online community. Over the past ten days, Eric’s story has been covered by major press publications such as NPR, The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post, The Associated Press and ABC News, and he has become another poster child for the DREAM Act (Development Relief in Education for Alien Minors Act), an important piece of legislation which would provide a path to citizenship for the thousands of young people like Eric Balderas and Jessica Colotl who were brought to the U.S. as children and know no other country as home.
Universities such as Harvard, Brown and Tufts have been pushing for the passage of the legislation, which has been stalled in Congress since 2001. A year ago, Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust met with Senator Scott Brown to urge him to support the measure. Christine Heenan, Harvard’s vice president of public affairs and communications, spoke of the institution’s complete support for Eric and others like him. She said-
Eric Balderas has already demonstrated the discipline and work ethic required for rigorous university work, and has, like so many of our undergraduates, expressed an interest in making a difference in the world.
Advocates and “Dream Activists” across the country have been pushing their state senators to move the DREAM Act legislation forward. If passed, the DREAM Act would permit those who came here as children (under the age of 16), and have lived here for more than 5 years, to gain legal status after completing the necessary steps such as two years of college or military service.
Eric, who previously participated in DREAM Act actions such as the “Coming out of the Shadows” day in March has taken the opportunity to become vocal about the plight of students like him. In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, he reassured his fellow Dreamers that just as he has received massive support from people around the country, there is strength in solidarity and hope for a just solution. He said-
Just hang in there. Let others know of your problem and try and gain support for the DREAM Act, because that’s ultimately what’s going to save us all.
Let’s hope that Eric is allowed to fulfill his dreams, and that others do not have to endure what he is going through.
Martin Escobar was a lawful permanent resident who had lived in the United States for 30 years. He lived in Chicago, working for a tree care company and supporting his wife, four children and grandchildren, putting them through school and college. In the 1990′s, he plead guilty to two drug possession convictions, but never served any time in jail for these minor misdemeanors. 8 years later, an immigration judge ordered him deported on the basis on these convictions. Their family has been divided since then as Escobar and his wife left for Mexico, leaving their children behind in the U.S.
Due to immigration laws laid down in 1996, Escobar’s very minor drug offenses amounted to an “aggravated felony,” forcing the judge to deport him without being able to consider the individual circumstances of the case. Under harsh immigration laws passed in 1996, a whole range of convictions constitute “aggravated felonies” which trigger automatic deportation, but as in Escobar’s case, many of these convictions are neither aggravated nor felonies. Worse, the laws eliminated important legal rights that previously enabled an immigration judge to look at individual circumstances of each case, including the type of convictions, their history and family ties and how long ago the conviction occurred, thereby denying due process and fairness to hundreds and thousands of people deported for life for convictions ranging from shoplifting to possession of small amounts of marijuana.
In a landmark decision this Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that immigrants who are here legally in the United States cannot be automatically deported for minor drug offenses, and therefore can have an immigration judge look at their circumstances before being sentenced to permanent exile. The ruling comes in response to Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo’s case, a permanent resident of the United States who had lived here since he was 5. In 2004, Jose faced mandatory deportation for carrying a single Xanax tablet without prescription. Although it was a minor offense, being his second one, it counted as an “aggravated felony” and caused him to face deportation.
(a) 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug is at odds with the ordinary meaning of aggravated felony…Carachuri-Rosendo, and others in his position, may now seek cancellation of removal and thereby avoid the harsh consequence of mandatory removal. (But) any relief he may obtain depends upon the discretion of the attorney general.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a commonsense interpretation of the law that protects fundamental fairness for immigrants. All drug offenses subject a person to potential deportation, but this decision gives our clients a chance to fight their cases, to prove that they are rehabilitated and that their presence here is a net benefit to the country and to their families.
This ruling will impact the lives of many legal residents like Escobar, who have been labeled as “aggravated felons” and separated from their lives and families for minor offenses. It is a positive step toward fixing our country’s unfair immigration laws, and reinforces the importance of a fair day in court. Tearing families apart by deporting people who are not threats to our communities is deeply unfair and this ruling remedies this to some extent.
Speaking from Morelos, Mexico, about 100 miles south of Mexico City, Martin Escobar told Deportation Nation that “It would make me happy if I could return to Chicago. All my family is in the United States. They were born there, and now the only person who is here is myself.”
The Carachuri-Rosendo case is the most recent in a number of challenges to the harsh 1996 amendments and given that the rate of deportations is at its highest ever, it goes some way in restoring some degree of due process and fairness to the system.
In an interesting new take on Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, Arizona attorneys Maria V. Jones and Kara Hartzler give us a glimpse into just how flawed and impractical the law is. Once it gets implemented on July 29th, the lawyers claim that it has the potential to completely overwhelm the state’s court system. Jones, chairwoman of the bar association’s Immigration Law Section, referred to the law’s ambiguous and “legally onerous” clauses and said that “SB 1070′s implementation will create the legal-system equivalent of stepping into a minefield.”
The lawyers said that once enforcement of SB1070 begins, the number of civil and criminal cases in the courts could triple overnight, and while they were quick in passing the law, the government has done very little to prepare for it by way of additional funds and staff for a state court system that “already has a backlog of cases.” The Arizona attorneys were especially critical of the provision in the law that allows local residents to sue the authorities for not enforcing it properly. If they are cautious about detaining people, they could open themselves up to lawsuits claiming they failed to execute it. On the other hand, if they enforce it too aggressively, as the law enables them to do, then police could end up detaining a number of U.S. citizens, which could lead to “wrongful-arrest lawsuits,” Hartzler says. Either way, it places local law enforcement in a no-win situation that could be costly, complicated and quite counter-productive.
By placing U.S. citizens who look “reasonably suspicious” of being undocumented in danger of being detained, the implications of SB1070 would be reminiscent of the terrible consequences of the “Chandler Round-Up” of 1997, when police officers spread out across Phoenix looking for undocumented immigrants. In a terrifying 5-day crackdown that involved questioning children while they were walking home from school, dozens and dozens of legal residents and U.S. citizens were detained for speaking Spanish or looking Mexican.
This time around, we still have no guarantee that SB1070 will not lead to racial profiling. In an extremely disturbing defense of the law by Iowa Congressman Steve King, he stood by the aspects of the law that could lead police to stop people based on their appearance saying that racial profiling is an “important component” of law enforcement. Reminding us of Senator Bilbray’s comments about how trained officers could identify undocumented people based on their clothes and shoes, Rep. King said-
Some claim that the Arizona law will bring about racial discrimination profiling. First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that profiling has always been an important component of legitimate law enforcement. If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying that are violating the law…It’s just a common sense thing. Law enforcement needs to use common sense indicators…what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accident they have, um, the, the type of grooming they might have, there’re, there’re all kinds of indicators there and sometimes it’s just a sixth sense and they can’t put their finger on it.
A law that calls for police officers to detain people based on their shoes, their “grooming, what type of “accidents” they have and the officer’s “sixth sense.” Can it get worse than this? Well it just did. Arizona Republican state representative John Kavanagh announced his plans for introducing a bill that will disallow children born to undocumented parents in the United States from automatically gaining citizenship. Referred to as the “anchor baby” bill, Kavanagh’s bill has already come under direct criticism for contradicting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 1868 amendment that allowed for citizenship for freed slaves, accords citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Not surprisingly, Russell Pearce, who is the main author of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, is a key sponsor on the new legislation, which Arizona Republicans intend to introduce in this fall. According to Pearce and Kavanagh, this law only serves to preserve the 14th amendment by ensuring that it does not continue to be “hijacked” by immigrants.
It is becoming more and more apparent that these new pieces of anti-immigrant legislation are functioning as conduits for hate and racism in ways that are extremely disturbing. In the face of these developments, we must remember the core tenets of the Declaration of Independence, equality, freedom and dignity, that enable us to strive for values of fairness and due process for all, regardless of our national origin, race, religion, or citizenship.
In the short time since Arizona passed SB 1070 into law, it has become one of the strongest and most controversial symbols of our nation’s debate on immigration. SB 1070 requires the police to stop anyone that has a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented but once enacted, it is believed that may well lead to unconstitutional racial profiling and a breakdown of trust between police and the communities they protect. But SB 1070 is also emblematic of the frustration that many have with our broken immigration system, a sign that states have decided to take immigration into their own hands as Congress remains in a deadlock over immigration reform. The latest catalyst for this debate - a 
Loading ...
