RSS RSS

A nation’s spirit uprooted by conservative focus on “anchor babies”

The 14th amendment, established in 1868 as a major gain from the Civil War, united a nation that was once half-slave and half-free. Today, some Republicans wish to revisit the debate of 1868 and revoke its notion of birthright citizenship in order to help prevent undocumented immigration. Instead of focusing on reforming the immigration system, these Republicans focus on punishing immigrants and Americans alike by altering an amendment that continues to carry so much of our national spirit.

The 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”. It also forbids states from denying anyone “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or “denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has led the proposal to debate the amendment, arguing that it induces undocumented immigration and the desire to have a baby to claim citizenship, calling such a baby by the derogatory term, “anchor baby.” Arizona’s Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect of SB 1070, agrees. He said,

“When [the 14th Amendment] was ratified in 1868, the amendment had to do with African-Americans; it had nothing to do with aliens. It’s got to be fixed.”

Anti-immigration activists often claim that their real concern is to prevent law-breaking. But the Washington Post puts it best,

Revoking birthright citizenship would turn hundreds of thousands of infants into ‘criminals’ – arriving, not across a border, but crying in a [U.S.] hospital. A whole class of people would grow up knowing they are hunted aliens, through no fault of their own. This cannot be called the rule of law. It would be viciousness and prejudice on a grand scale.

Even Lou Dobbs, known for an anti-immigration stance in many respects, spoke out against changing the 14th amendment.

I believe that the 14th amendment – particularly in its due process and equal protection clause – is so important; it lays the entire foundation for the Bill of Rights being applied.

Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter immigration. In fact, immigration activists say that birthright citizenship is not even a significant driver of immigration, because a child has to reach age 21 to petition for permanent legal residency for his or her parents.

In even more charged reasoning, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) warned that birthright citizenship was a national security issue – involving a diabolical 30-year-long plot by some very patient terrorists. He said,

I talked to a retired FBI agent who said that one of the things they were looking at were terrorist cells overseas who had figured out how to game our system. And it appeared they would have young women, who became pregnant, would get them into the United States to have a baby… And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.

If birthright citizenship was revoked on the premise of fearing terrorists, our nation would embark on an even uglier journey of racial profiling. Moreover, on a practical level, revoking the 14th Amendment would affect those Americans who “look immigrant”, leading to an ugly ladder of bureaucracy to  prove citizenship.

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) has gone even further and said we should deport existing natural-born citizen children if their parents are illegal immigrants. This retroactive stripping of citizenship is completely unconstitutional.

We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now. We’re not being mean. We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen.

The solution – to criminalize millions of babies who are born in this country is unacceptable. Denying these babies the 14th Amendment is the same as denying African-American slaves the 14th Amendment 150 years ago. Abolishing the birthright to citizenship is a movement not about the legality of immigrants, but about the stripping away of human rights.

The real anachronism standing here is these senators who want to take us back to the times before the Civil War. When the president of FAIR said, “We should not allow language from 1868 enslave our thinking…in the 21st Century,” Masao Suzuki, writer for Fight Back News Service, urges us to respond by saying, “We are not going to be enslaved ever again.”

Graham’s notion to debate the 14th amendment had a mixed reception even from groups that back tougher enforcement of the nation’s border restriction. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, for one, supports stronger enforcement and, yet, refuses to endorse Graham’s suggestion. Instead, he suggested looking into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the U.S. in order to win their children U.S. citizenship. Many Democrats also refuse to endorse Graham’s suggestion, but they resist stronger enforcement as a solution, stressing the urgency for comprehensive immigration reform. While President Obama’s push for immigration reform is considered dead, some Democrats are pushing for a scaled-back bill to move this fall.

Given the controversial nature of Graham’s proposal, successfully amending the Constitution would be considered unlikely. Many understand that the 14th Amendment made the Constitution what it is today: a document that guarantees the equal rights of all Americans and to which individuals and groups who feel they are being denied equality can appeal. As the 19th-century Republican editor George William Curtis wrote how it was part of a process that changed the U.S. government from one “for white men” to one “for mankind.” Since the Reconstruction era, the amendment had not stopped short of protecting African-Americans. Those who lived during the civil rights era had sought its protection, as well. Even today, the Supreme Court has used it to expand the rights of aggrieved Americans, as it did in Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 overturned a state law criminalizing homosexual acts.

Birthright citizenship has continued to protect all sorts of people outside the legacy of slavery, thereby rejecting any claim that it is anachronistic and requires amending.

Posted by Priya on August 19th, 2010 in Blog, Due Process, Human Rights, Immigration, Race, Racial Profiling | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Federal Judge rules racism out of Arizona’s controversial immigration law

Yesterday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction on some of the toughest portions of Arizona’s anti-immigration law SB1070 including the power for police to detain anyone “suspected” of being in the country illegally.

Federal Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling came hours before the law was to take effect in response to a lawsuit filed by the Obama administration and to nationwide protests.

Her amendments block the portion of the law that requires an officer to make an attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion he is in the country illegally. They block the portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers,” as well as the portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.) This ruling also obstructs the portion of the law that allows for a person’s arrest without warrant whenever there is a probable cause to believe he has committed a public offense that makes him removable from the U.S.

Bolton’s decision marks a victory for many in the movement who feel that the law would lead to racial profiling and fear mongering.

Many praise her amendments which significantly weaken “reasonable suspicion” as the basis for presuming someone is in the country unlawfully, and for stopping, detaining, or arresting him or her. Like Bolton, many opponents point to America’s fundamental principle that avers that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and argue that the original SB 1070 had turned the presumption of innocence on its head.

Bolton’s decision to eradicate “reasonable suspicion” removes the original bill’s form of discrimination, which invited racial profiling from officers who are likely to rely on the way people look in forming any “suspicion” that they are not in this country legally. Many argue that such vague and undefined enforcement policies called for U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to carry papers on them at all times. These tactics are the hallmarks of a “police state,” more often associated with totalitarian regimes. Opponents to SB1070 claim that the injustices of racial profiling were evident in the police departments’ massive sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and the targeting of Latinos for minor, misdemeanor offenses, often with no follow-up prosecution under those minor offenses. They expressed that the original bill did not present legitimate grounds for forming such suspicion, so they refused to refer to it as a workable standard in Arizona. Bolton has responded to these arguments with her amendments, leaving many satisfied.

She, a Clinton appointee, articulated in her decision:

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.

Many top law enforcement officials, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, had also acknowledged that the original SB 1070 would significantly harm the public trust which law enforcement officials need in order to protect the people of Arizona and would alienate police officers from the communities they serve. Last week, we reported on Arizonan officer Paul Dobson’s recorded confession of his own similar concerns for the law. Officials argued that the original law would force police officers to devote scarce resources to investigating false threats rather than solving serious crimes. They further asserted that the original law had compromised the criminal justice system because crime victims were more vulnerable, and therefore, unwilling to report crimes, and because witnesses were afraid to cooperate out of fear that they would be targeted. Local cops said that the original bill had placed officers and victims alike in a difficult position.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Matt Chandler issued the following statement yesterday in response to Bolton’s decision. He said:

The court’s decision to enjoin most of SB1070 correctly affirms the federal government’s responsibilities in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. Over the past eighteen months, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as well as continue to secure our border.

ICE works every day with local law enforcement across the country to assist them in making their communities safer and we will continue do so in Arizona. At the same time, we will continue to increase resources in Arizona by complementing the National Guard deployment set to begin on Aug. 1 with the deployment of hundreds of additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement personnel that will aid in our continuing efforts to conduct outbound inspections, patrol challenging terrain, and interdict illicit smugglers. We are focused on smart effective immigration and border enforcement while we work with Congress toward the type of bipartisan comprehensive reform that will provide true security and establish accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level.

Even as debates about the law in Arizona continue, the death toll for those immigrants crossing the desert soars. According to an article in The New York Times, the bodies of 57 border crossers have been brought in during July so far, putting it on track to be the worst month for such deaths in the last five years. A record of 150 people suspected of being illegal immigrants have been found dead since the first of this year.

Human rights groups confirm that it is the government’s sustained crackdown on human smuggling that has led to more deaths. Tougher enforcement measures have pushed smugglers and illegal immigrants to take their chances on isolated trails through the deserts and mountains of southern Arizona, where they must sometimes walk for three or four days before reaching a road. Omar Candelaria, the special operations supervisor for the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, said the surge in discoveries of bodies this year might also owe something to increased patrols.

The more that you militarize the border, the more you push the migrant flows into more isolated and desolate areas, and people hurt or injured are just left behind, said Kat Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the Coalición de Derechos Humanos in Tucson.

Breakthrough is encouraged by the temporary hold on Arizona’s law but believes much more needs to be done to restore fairness to the immigration system. The opposition is already planning efforts to overturn Bolton’s injunction.

The time is now. We DO NOT want Arizonas do not sprout all over the country.  Write to President Obama and your Members of Congress to take action on immigration now.

Photo courtesy of www.thehindu.com

Posted by Priya on July 29th, 2010 in Blog, Enforcement, Human Rights, Immigration, Race, Racial Profiling | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Arizonan police officer speaks up against SB 1070 “Nazis”

(From our b-listed blog.) As human rights groups focus our attention on those affected by Arizona’s harsh immigration law (SB 1070), we begin to sympathize with the racially oppressed and the numerous accounts of deportation. Cuentame, a Latino political advocacy non-profit, attempts to shift our focus by filming a direct enforcer of the law – Arizonan police officer Paul Dobson. Dobson’s testimony in the video feels like a confession for all officers, as we learn that SB 1070 has been unjustly silencing them, too.

Dobson, a Squaw Peak Precinct patrolman with 20 years on the force, said in the three-minute clip posted to Cuentame’s Facebook page:

This law will make me feel like a Nazi out there.  I have a great deal of contempt for it; I’m very emotional about it.

Dobson is actually the only Arizonan to have answered Cuentame’s request for a video of anyone affected by the law.

Alex Caballero, co-creator of the video for Cuentame’s “Do I look Illegal?” campaign, said:

It was amazingly striking.  I didn’t think he would use that strong of language because of the cautiousness (around the issue).

Dobson faces the consequences, as expected. He is being investigated for sharing his thoughts publicly without the permission of a supervisor and faces a written reprimand or a minor form of discipline, police told the Arizona Republic.

Despite the consequences, Dobson uses this video as an opportunity to confess that he does not tolerate SB 1070. After all, the state of Arizona leaves officers like Dobson to do the dirt work – that is, arrest those believed to be illegal immigrants based on “reasonable suspicion.” Dobson paints for the viewers of his emotional video a disturbing portrait of his life post July 29, when SB 1070 went into effect.

He said:

As a law enforcement officer, I am required to serve and protect.  So, under SB 1070, I know that people will not call officers in a case of a real emergency. It’s horrifying. It violates our calling to serve and protect.

In addition to investigating Dobson, Phoenix’s police union, which supports the new law, wants the city’s police chief, Jack Harris, investigated for his federal testimony in opposition to SB 1070.

Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman, said:

The allegation here is not comparable.  To think that an organizational leader doesn’t have the right to represent the organization is absurd.

Two months ago, police chiefs around the U.S. expressed their concerns over the law to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, saying the law will strain relationships between officers and citizens and drain resources trying to enforce the law.

There are seven lawsuits pending against Arizona over SB 1070, including one filed by the Department of Justice.

Despite these legal challenges, SB 1070 continues to survive as it silences both police officers, whose freedom of speech is limited, and immigrants, whose right to equal protection under the law is imperiled. In June, Arizona began training its police officers to enforce the new law. A video which officers are required to watch emphasizes that SB 1070 does not condone racial profiling.

Dobson ignores any backlashes from the police units. Cuentame’s Ofelia Yanez notes this officer’s bold exposure of the truth.

She writes on a blog:

I asked him multiple times if he would like me to change his name, blur his face, or alter his voice in concern of his safety back home. Every time he thanked me for my offer and re-assured me that he didn’t need me to protect him. He admitted to being afraid of a backlash, but not surprisingly he then said one simple sentence that gave me chills: ‘Bring it on.’

Please watch this powerful video and join Paul Dobson in this fight for human rights and dignity.

Photo courtesy of www.nydailnews.com

Posted by Priya on July 22nd, 2010 in Blog, Enforcement, Human Rights, Immigration, Racial Profiling | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

End Racial Profiling Act is introduced as NAACP calls on the Tea Party to reject racism

When the NAACP called on the Tea Party to reject the racism that exists within its ranks, Tea Party activists were outraged and denied that racism is a part of their movement — despite a clear pattern of bigotry and hate. Instead, Mark Williams, the public face of the Tea Party Express, attacked the NAACP as being a “racist” organization, saying “they make more money off of race than any slave trader, ever.”

In Mark Williams’ blog post, written in the form of a “mock letter” to President Abraham Lincoln, he says:

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

Had enough? He goes on to say:

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government ‘stop raising our taxes.’ That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Color of Change is challenging Tea Party leaders to reject Williams’ statements and remove him from his position at the Tea Party Express. Because if Tea Party leaders want to have any credibility on race, they need to start by taking a stand against Mark Williams. Even though some perceive the Tea Party as a fringe movement, the reality is that they are attempting to build political power, and if that is the case, it’s important that they do not embrace the kind of racism that Mark Williams represents. If they choose to do so, then it’s important to make clear to all Americans that they are a home for racism and bigotry.

A few months ago, Tim Wise, a prominent anti-racist activist, wrote a widely circulated article called, “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black “ which challenged America to take a close look at the hypocrisy of the Right Wing. Rapper Jasiri X molded the piece into a Hip Hop music video of the same name. Its opening lines:

The main principle political voice coming from the Right, right now, is the Tea Party. Even though you have a Tea Party that is very angry, racist-messaged, and armed, often times, they’re portrayed as just being patriotic and just wanting to do what’s best for their country.  And I ask myself the question: what if the Tea Party was black?

The good news is that legislation has been introduced in Congress to combat such forms of bigotry and hate. Yesterday, Congressman John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler introduced the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 (ERPA) – a critical legislation that will eliminate law enforcement practices of singling out people for heightened scrutiny, based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. As a product of years of extensive consultation with both the law enforcement and civil rights communities, this legislation represents the most comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. As Congressman Conyers said,

The recent passage of Arizona’s new immigration law has crystallized the terms of the profiling debate and demonstrates that the combination of racial discrimination and law enforcement represents a volatile mix across all strata of the minority community.

This was supported by Congressman Nadler.

Racial profiling…simply is not an effective way to identify and apprehend criminals. What’s more, focusing on people exhibiting these immutable characteristics easily distracts and diverts the attention of law enforcement in ways that can prove disastrous to public safety.

Sign a petition to stop racial profiling. In the era of Williams and his Tea Party movement, we must ensure that such racism does not affect the making of our nation’s laws and break down the trust between communities and law enforcement.

Photo courtesy of www.teapartypatriots.org.

POLL: Is the NAACP right in calling on the Tea Party to reject racism?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Posted by Priya on July 16th, 2010 in Blog, Family, Human Rights, Immigration, Race, Racial Profiling | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Sites of Conscience revive history and value of immigration

Arizona’s new immigration law has triggered intense debates on racial profiling and discrimination, reflecting a long-rooted anxiety about immigration issues in the United States.
But these debates aren’t restricted to the U.S. alone, with immigration-related controversies dividing countries including France, Belgium and Spain. Taking steps to ban the wearing of burqas in public, these countries have fueled divisive debates on religious freedom, discrimination and xenophobia. It’s a moment to look back and learn from the lessons from history. The Immigration Sites of Conscience, a network of 14 immigration history museums across the United States and Europe, are seeking to do exactly that, by remembering past struggles for justice and applying these to to understand today’s debates.

This is a crucial moment in time, and to prevent a backslide from democratic progress, the Sites of Conscience are offering unique opportunities for constructive dialogue by developing new public dialogues on community immigration issues at each of the sites through exhibitions, workshops, and public talks.

In Navigating Difference, a new interactive installation and program, the Sites of Conscience are taking this conversation transnational. At New York’s Ellis Island Immigration Museum, Italy’s Mu.MA/Galata Museo del Mare and Belgium’s Le Bois du Cazier, each museum will trace different paths that migrants have journeyed through time, simultaneously inviting visitors to answer a common question “Does immigration benefit my community?”. Through the installation, visitors will learn history, share their opinions, and see responses from both within their communities and from the sites in other countries. Beginning with this simple question, the new program will engage visitors in conversations that can be the first step in ‘navigating differences’ on immigration in Europe and the United States.

Join this incredible journey by become a part of this growing world-wide network and support historic sites inspiring social consciousness and action.

Photo courtesy of ellisisland.org

Posted by Priya on July 15th, 2010 in Blog, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Start a conversation that says no to racial profiling

In a recent USA Today poll, 71% of people said that they were in favor of racial profiling at airports. It is time to face the truth; racial and ethnic profiling at airports does not work.  In fact it makes us less safe. And moving away from airports, racial profiling occurs all over the country, targeting a number of communities including the Native American, African American, Latino, Arab, Muslim and South Asian communities.

We think it is time to Face the Truth about racial profiling and speak out against it. Participate in a conversation against racial profiling and join the Rights Working Group for the launch of their campaign that seeks to drive home the message that racial profiling does not work. In fact, it makes our communities feel humiliated and degraded, in addition to making us feel less safe rather than more secure.

Racial profiling is an illegal, ineffective and degrading practice that violates constitutional protections and human rights.  While many have struggled with the consequences of being profiled, including being incarcerated and deported, communities rarely have the opportunity to deepen our understanding of the facts, stories and realities of these events.

In order to educate individuals and communities across the country about the faces of racial profiling, why it is ineffective and what can be done to put an end to it, join into the Night of a 1,000 Conversations from February 22nd-28th to spread awareness and inspire action.

Why is the simple act of conversation so important. Here is an example of a testimonial from a previous conversation,

“None of the participants who were not born in the U.S. would commit to doing anything remotely political – write letters, make phone calls, etc.  Their fear of deportation was too great.  They viewed the evening’s activity as a safe space and while they were comfortable enough to share their thoughts on political climate re: immigration/detention/deportation, anything beyond personal conversation was not realistic.”

To get started, host a conversation or find one near you and join in. Visit www.nightof1000conversations.org for a toolkit, conversation resources and more to kick you off!

Photo courtesy of Rights Working Group.

Posted by ishita on February 24th, 2010 in Blog, Enforcement, Family, Human Rights, Immigration, Racial Profiling | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

U.S. Department of Justice announces probe into racial profiling allegations against East Haven police

EastHavenpoliceIn March 2009, the members of St. Rose of Lima Church in East Haven, Connecticut submitted an official racial-profiling complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that the local law enforcement agency, the East Haven Police Department (EHPD), had been engaging in a pattern of race-based violence against Latinos in and around East Haven. After considering the complaint, the Department of Justice announced on Wednesday, December 3rd, that they were launching a federal investigation based on the allegations of harassment against the EHPD.

Angel Fernandez, a parish leader from Fair Haven’s St. Rose of Lima Church, made the announcement at a vigil held in East Haven on Wednesday, and was met with a thunderous burst of applause from the crowd that was assembled. The audience included New Haven’s Ecuadorian Consulate, parishioners from St. Rose, and Father James Manship, a priest that was arrested in February while trying to videotape an incident of racial harassment taking place in a store in East Haven.

While the complaint traces stories of racial-profiling by the East Haven police beginning in June 2008, the EHPD’s discrimination against Latinos is part of a much longer history of police abuse of racial minorities in East Haven. The Latino community in this otherwise predominantly white area now accounts for about 6 percent of the population,  and while Latino-owned businesses and shops line the town’s streets, they have consistently been faced with suspicion and hostility from local law enforcement. From the complaint:

Since June 2008, the EHPD has targeted the Latino community in improper stops, searches and seizures, false arrests, and the use of excessive force in ordinary encounters with Latino residents and motorists. Latinos are pulled over without reasonable suspicion while driving, arrested without probable cause and in some cases, severely beaten by law enforcement officials. As a consequence, Latinos in East Haven now live in daily fear of harassment and retaliation by East Haven police officers.

The complaint documents more than twenty detailed accounts of race-based violence and harassment suffered by shopkeepers and residents of East Haven and its neighboring towns, and classifies the accounts into the following broad categories: ‘Race-Based Violence and Excessive Force,’ ‘Harassment and Intimidation,’ ‘The Department’s Tacit Approval,’ and ‘Police Retaliation and Lack of Redress.’ In his speech announcing the investigation last Wednesday, Fernandez recounted some of the personal stories that lie at the center of the complaint and called it  “a victory for the brave men and women who risked retaliation to tell their stories of abuse to the public for the first time.”

One of the accounts tells of four men, Guillermo, Juan, Jorge and Juan, who were driving to a restaurant and were followed and stopped by Officer Dennis Spaulding. Without telling them why they were being stopped, the officer asked to see the license of two of the men, even though one of them, Juan, was a passenger and not the driver. On finding that Juan’s was not a Connecticut license, the officer threw it on the ground, and when Juan tried to pick it up, he was arrested. When Jorge inquired as to why his friend was being arrested, he, too, was arrested. By this point, five other squad cars had gathered and were all witnessing this. In a few minutes, all four men had been arrested, frisked, and put in different cars. During the course of the evening, they were punched, pepper-sprayed, and subject to racial epithets and verbal abuse as they spent the night in the police station.

The complaint also contains numerous accounts of race-based traffic stops, harassment and abuse by the police, often in the police station and in full view of senior police officers. A number of the Latino store owners told of how the police would set up check-points directly outside their stores and stop Latino customers as they were exiting the parking-lot, asking them for their license and registration. One shop owner, Lazaro, often came to work and found the police and a tow truck in his parking lot. When he asked them to leave, the officer threatened to come every day. Lazaro asked him, “What, you don’t like Hispanics?” and the officer replied, “No, I don’t.” After this incident, the police began to come into Lazaro’s store and harass the customers for their ID and car papers. Lazaro has seen a significant drop in customers and has made it difficult for him to pay his rent and monthly bills.

Police officers have repeatedly denied allegations of racial profiling, and have being caught lying about incidents since members of the community took to filming confrontations taking place in stores and checkpoints. Tafari Lumumba, a Yale student attorney who helped draft the complaint gave an idea of the possible outcomes of the investigation by the Department of Justice.  Siting a similar probe of the LAPD, he said that a possible outcome could be a consent decree covering the East Haven police department, that would require the department to track the race of people being arrested and stopped for traffic violations. Further requirements could include additional training for the officers and the implementation of a new citizen complaint system.

On the note of race-based violence, a town hall meeting will be held in Miami, Florida on December 10th, Human Rights Day, to talk about racial profiling. Organized by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, ‘Racial Profiling: Face the Truth‘ will be a meeting of national and local activists and people who want to share their personal stories of racial profiling. Panelists include Chandra Bhatnagar, Marleine Bastien, Subhash Kateel, Muhammed Malik and Jumana Musa. For more information, click here.

Photo courtesy of www.newhavenindependent.org

Posted by ishita on December 8th, 2009 in 287G, Blog, Detention, Due Process, Enforcement, Family, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Immigration reform is on the horizon but what about fair and just enforcement policy?

napolitano_featureThe past fortnight witnessed numerous developments on the immigration front, and almost all roads seem to be pointing to the pressing need for immigration reform that ensures fair and just enforcement.

The November 18th Families, Freedom and Faith telephonic town hall featuring Members of Congress Luis Gutierrez, Raul Grijalva, and Nydia Velazquez, was a huge success with more than 60,000 reform supporters calling in from 1,009 house parties in 45 states. During the event, which took the form of a massive conference call with more than 16,000 active telephone lines, organizers urged listeners to demand immigration reform by texting and calling Members of Congress. Congressman Gutierrez laid out a comprehensive vision for immigration reform and called on supporters to hold their leaders accountable.  In his words,

We need everyone on this call to take action with your churches, your families and your organizations so that we can deliver a strong message to President Obama and Congress that, hey, it has been a year…We want you to keep your promise to our families.  We’ll be watching on the State of the Union to make sure you keep your promise.

The huge turnout for the telephonic town hall came hot on the heels of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano’s speech at the Center for American Progress in which she made a strong case for the need for immigration reform, positing that  now is the time to take significant strides towards a  “three-legged stool” approach – regulating the flow of immigrants, dealing with those who are already here, and beginning with “fair, reliable enforcement.” She said:

Let me emphasize this. We will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows…Making sure these people become full taxpayers and pay their fair share will both benefit our economy and make it easier to enforce the laws against unscrupulous or exploitative employers.

But with the talk of reform must also be the talk of fair and just enforcement policies. In mid-October Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced new 287(g) memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with 67 state and local law enforcement agencies – an expansion of the already  existing program that arms state and local enforcement with immigration enforcement powers. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio was one among several agencies accused of racial profiling to be granted a new MOA despite various complaints and an ongoing Department of Justice investigation. Even the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed its concerns in a letter to the Obama administration in which they outline the clear lack of progress towards ending racial discrimination in the United States, calling upon the Administration to “reconsider its policy under 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Problems with the new program are already emerging. Although the federal government has said that it was reformulating its agreements with local law enforcement to ensure that the 287(g) program was being used to detain only serious felons rather than those with misdemeanors to save precious resources, programs in places like the Sheriff’s department of Wake County, North Carolina are still operating unchanged and unchecked. Wake County Sheriff, Donnie Harrison confirmed that his department has not altered the way it implements the program. “We do the same thing if you’re charged for murder or if you’re charged with no operator’s license,” said Harrison, one of seven North Carolina sheriffs who have the program. “Nothing has changed for us.”

In Maricopa county, Alma Minerva Chacon was detained by Sheriff Arpaio’s officials while she was nine months pregnant. On the night of her arrest, Chacon went into labor and was rushed to a local hospital with her hands and legs shackled, and despite the nurses’ requests, was forced to give birth while shackled to the bed. Arpaio’s police staff did not allow Chacon to hold her baby girl and warned her that if no one came to claim the child within 72 hours, the child would be turned over to state custody. Watch Alma Minerva Chacon talking about her ordeal.

These shocking incidents only reinforce the need for the hour – immigration reform that respects fairness and due process and does not bargain one for the other.

Photo courtesy of www.reformimmigrationforamerica.org

Posted by ishita on December 1st, 2009 in 287G, Blog, Deportation, Detention, Due Process, Enforcement, Fair Day in Court, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Secure Communities Turns Immigrants into Criminals

thumbprintGuest Blogger: Sarahi Uribe from National Day Laborer Organizing Network reposted from New American Media

This month the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) celebrated one year of Secure Communities. The program, which checks the immigration status of detainees in jails by comparing their booking information to DHS’ databases, is dangerously misnamed since it actually endangers rather than improves community security.

In its press release, DHS gloated that it “identified more than 111,000 criminal aliens in local custody during its first year.” The department hailed the program as an effective way of deporting “dangerous criminals that pose a threat to public security.” So who are these alleged criminals?

A closer look reveals the program’s first fallacy: DHS includes people simply “charged” with a crime in its definition of “criminal aliens.” People are labeled criminals before they are given a chance to defend themselves in court. A cornerstone of our criminal system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet under Secure Communities, people are put into deportation proceedings even if they are innocent of criminal charges or if the arrest was simply a pretext to check a person’s immigration status.

The lack of due process sets the stage for racial profiling without any real consequences for abusive police agents. DHS maintains that since immigration checks happen electronically, the program is virtually immune to racial profiling. Consequently, DHS does not collect data that would reveal whether racial profiling is happening. The attempt to divorce police officers’ motivations for arresting individuals and DHS’ subsequent actions after the booking phase makes no sense. As the program is currently designed, a police officer can make a pre-textual arrest and later drop the charges, but an individual can still be placed into deportation proceedings.

The second misrepresentation of the program is found in DHS’s definition of “serious crimes.” The Department highlights that 100,000 of those identifies were convicted of level 2 and 3 crimes, “including burglary and serious property crimes.” What DHS omits is that while “arson” is a level 2 offense, so are “traffic offenses.” If the controversial 287(g) program which fervently targeted people with “broken tail-lights,” is any indicator, Secure Communities is a strategy for deporting anyone DHS can get its hands on—even law-abiding people who could be months away from adjusting their immigration status.

Essentially, DHS’ message is this: Being an immigrant makes you a criminal. This dangerous conflation not only promotes abusive policing practices, such as racial profiling, but also creates divisions and distrust in communities. It hurts public safety because immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police for fear of deportation. It also disturbingly dehumanizes people who are an integral part of our communities and our national identity.

Last week Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano spoke about the need for immigration reform while trumpeting the successes of Secure Communities and other enforcement programs. But if the word “criminal” can replace “immigrant,” then her declaration that “We are a nation of immigrants” rings hollow.

Photo courtesy of www.immigrationimpact.com

Posted by guest on November 24th, 2009 in 287G, Blog, Deportation, Detention, Due Process, Enforcement, Fair Day in Court, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

A spotlight on race relations brings change in small ways

November 7th 2009 marked one year from the day that Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, was killed in the Long Island suburb of Patchogue. But rather than act as a stand-alone instance, the act of violence put a national spotlight on race relations and has emerged as one among dozens of cases of violence against Latinos in Suffolk County over the past ten years.

A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that follows hate groups across the country, found that these attacks were spurred by an atmosphere of racism and fear fostered by anti-immigrant groups and local officials.

Latino immigrants in Suffolk County live in fear…Political leaders in the county have done little to discourage the hatred, and some have actively fanned the flames…Although Lucero’s murder represented the apex of anti-immigration violence in Suffolk County to date, it was hardly an isolated incident.

In one example cited, Michael M. D’Andre, a county legislator from Smithtown, at a 2001 hearing on a bill to penalize contractors who hire undocumented workers said that if his town were “attacked” by an influx of Hispanic day laborers, “we’ll be up in arms, we’ll be out with baseball bats.” He later apologized for his remark.

On November 7th 2008, 37-year-old Marcelo Lucero was walking with a friend near Patchogue train station at midnight, when they were surrounded by a group of teens. Lucero’s friend managed to get away but he was unable to do so and after attempting to fend off the attacks with his belt, he was stabbed to death by 18-year-old Jeffrey Conroy. Lucero had lived in the U.S. for 16 years at the time of his death.

Following the arrest of the teens accused of Lucero’s death, a number of Hispanic residents from the area began to come forward with personal stories of acts of hatred and intolerance. It emerged that many of the victims were too scared of being questioned about their immigration status to come forward and tell local police about the attacks. According to a New York Times article,

Many Latino immigrants in Suffolk say they have been beaten with baseball bats and other objects, attacked with BB guns and pepper spray, and been the victims of arson. Latinos, it added, are frequently run off the road while riding bicycles or pelted with objects hurled from cars.

Two weeks ago one of the accused, Nicholas Hausch, finally admitted to participating in the assault, while also testifying against the others accused (who continue to plead not-guilty to the offense), talking about how he and his friends took part in numerous similar attacks against Hispanics. They would scour the streets of their town looking for potential targets, referring to the the “hobby” as “beaner hopping.”

Jose, Kevin and I started popping and Jose punched him so hard he knocked him out,” Anthony Hartford told police, according to prosecutors. Hartford said he didn’t do it often: “Maybe only once a week.”

The incident also allowed for dialogue to emerge around race relations. A short film “Taught to Hate” whose message is to stop hate crimes in America and all over the World was inspired by what happened to Marcelo. And a performance, “After Grief and Anger — Healing and Change” was created in an effort to promote better understanding between Latinos and non-Latinos in the area.

Photo courtesy of the New York Times

Posted by guest on November 10th, 2009 in Blog, Family, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries