More than 160,000 immigrants signed so-called stipulated removals, many of them without legal representation or understanding the documents, according to the National Immigration Law Center and legal experts.
By Paloma Esquivel
The Los Angeles Times
September 9, 2011
The U.S. has deported more than 160,000 immigrants, the vast majority of whom had no legal representation — and signed documents they may not have understood — under a program that carries severe penalties should they reenter the country, a report released Thursday said.
According to the National Immigration Law Center and professors at Stanford Law School and Western State University College of Law, immigrants often signed the so-called stipulated removals because they believed it was the only way to avoid prolonged detention. But by agreeing to the removal order, immigrants can be barred from returning to the U.S. and be subject to criminal prosecution for illegal reentry.
"All they hear is that they face more time in detention, often far away from family and friends, unless they agree to their own removal," said Jennifer Lee Koh, an assistant professor at Western State.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Nicole Navas said in a statement that the agency had not had a chance to fully review the study. But, she wrote, "an alien's decision to accept a stipulated removal is strictly voluntary. Before an alien agrees to such an order, ICE procedures require that the process be fully explained to the individual, through an interpreter if necessary."
However Karen Tumlin, managing attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said she interviewed more than a dozen detainees who signed stipulated removal orders at the Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster — none of whom understood what they had agreed to.
"They didn't know what a stipulated order of removal was," she said. "They had absolutely no idea what the legal consequences were."
Some, Tumlin said, thought they were waiting to take their cases before an immigration judge.
The report was based on interviews and a review of more than 20,000 pages of documents made public in a lawsuit filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act. According to those records, nearly 96% of the immigrants selected for stipulated removal in the last decade did not have lawyers. Immigrants who are unrepresented have to rely heavily on information made available to them by officers inside detention facilities.
One document, a two-page script to inform immigrants about stipulated removal, is written in ungrammatical Spanish and says inaccurately that only people who are married to a U.S. resident or citizen, or whose parents or siblings are residents or citizens, can fight deportation.
"Only these three groups can make an application to fix their papers!" the script reads. "You are completely within your right to see the judge but I want you to be aware that this process will take from 6 months to 3 years."
Claudia Valenzuela, an attorney representing an 18-year-old Florida man who recently was deported to Mexico after signing a stipulated removal order, said she was working to get the case reopened and the order rescinded.
The man, who came to the U.S. when he was 4, has a daughter who was born in the U.S. He might have been eligible for some type of relief had he not signed the removal, Valenzuela said.
"From the time he was detained to the time he was ordered removed and physically deported from the country, four days went by," she said. "He did not understand he was waiving away all his rights."
The authors of the report made several recommendations to improve due process protections for immigrants facing stipulated removal, including issuing protocols for using certified interpreters where needed and allowing detainees to attend legal rights presentations before they are offered the removal option.
paloma.esquivel@latimes.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Showing posts with label Deportation in CA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deportation in CA. Show all posts
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Controversial bills put deportations on hold
By Michael Doyle
Fresno Bee
May 07, 2011
Fresno Bee
May 07, 2011
Fresno resident Nayely Arreola was a high school junior in 2003 when a U.S. senator first protected her from deportation.
Arreola is now 25, newly married and a graduate of Fresno Pacific University.
She and her family remain protected, thanks to special congressional bills that need not pass to exert influence.
As she has done regularly since 2003, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in March reintroduced a so-called private bill on behalf of the Arreola family. It effectively blocks deportation, even without final approval from Congress.
Private bills, though controversial in some circles, have become a part of Feinstein's arsenal.
Feinstein this year has introduced 13 private bills to block deportations, more than any other member of Congress. The entire House and Senate introduced 64 private bills this year, records show.
Each bill would grant specific individuals legal U.S. residency. To balance the immigration books, each bill correspondingly reduces the number of visas available to others. All told, Feinstein's 13 bills would grant 28 illegal immigrants U.S. residency.
Once introduced, the bills essentially freeze immigration-enforcement actions.
Consequently, the reintroduced private bills amount to permanent ad hoc solutions.
"It's been a huge blessing to have these bills," Arreola says.
Annual worry
Nayely Arreola Carlos works as an admissions counselor at Fresno Pacific while she is studying for a master's in business administration.
The private bills, she said, have opened opportunities, including her undergraduate scholarship.
Arreola's father, Esidronio, first entered the United States illegally in 1986 as a migrant farmworker.
Feinstein said "poor legal representation" by a subsequently disbarred attorney cost Esidronio and his wife, Maria Elena, a conventional shot at legal residency.
Even under the private bill shield, though, Arreola acknowledged anxiety. Every year, her family is reinvestigated.
The future brings uncertainty.
"Not knowing what happens if Sen. Feinstein is no longer in office," Arreola said, describing her big looming concern.
Fresno truck driver Ruben Mkoian and his family have likewise stayed in the United States with the help of private bills repeatedly introduced by Feinstein.
So has a Reedley family originally from Mexico and a Bay Area couple from Laos and Taiwan, among others.
Practice criticized
Critics call the private bills a bad habit.
Last year, reflecting in part the congressional discomfort, only two private bills were signed into law. In 2009, no private bill became law.
"Private bills should only be used for very extraordinary circumstances, not just because someone is a good student," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
While acknowledging that "there is a potential role" for rare private bills, Krikorian warned that "the danger is that they become a goodie you can give to friends and supporters." Choosing beneficiaries can also become very subjective, he cautioned.
Gregory Chen, advocacy director for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, added that private bills require "particularly compelling circumstances."
Different people can have different ideas of what qualifies, he stressed.
Noting that "California is a state of 38 million residents," Feinstein said she has introduced private bills "on rare occasions ... for cases that were compelling, for one reason or another."
Private immigration bills were once common, with hundreds passing annually.
The Congressional Research Service noted private bills began to decline after the 1970s following "a series of corruption scandals ... involving payoffs for the sponsorship of private immigration laws."
Feinstein: Delivering justice for families
When she introduces them, Feinstein casts the private bills as justice for families filled with high-achievers and hard-workers.
Ruben Mkoian, for instance, was a police officer in Armenia who was reportedly attacked when he blew the whistle on corruption.
He, his wife, Asmik Karapetian, and their 3-year-old son, Arthur, fled to the United States in the early 1990s but eventually were denied political asylum.
Arthur, who was the 2008 Bullard High School valedictorian, is now a junior at the University of California at Davis, studying chemistry.
"The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California," Feinstein said.
In a similar vein, Feinstein in 2004 first introduced a private bill to aid the family of Ana Laura Buendia, a straight-A student at Reedley High School.
Later this year, still protected by the latest private bill, Buendia is expected to graduate from the University of California at Irvine.
"The Buendias," Feinstein said, "have shown that they are committed to working to achieve the American dream."
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/05/07/2380220/private-bills-put-deportation.html
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Secure Communities destroys public trust
By Michael Hennessey
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, May 1, 2011
As the sheriff of San Francisco for more than 30 years, I know that maintaining public safety requires earning community trust. We rely heavily on the trust and cooperation of all community members - including immigrants - to come forward and report crimes, either as victims or as witnesses. Otherwise, crimes go unreported - and this affects everyone, citizens and noncitizens alike. It also leads to "street justice," in which residents who are too afraid to go to the police decide to take justice into their own hands, often with deadly result.
San Francisco has always been a city of immigrants. We are proud of our diversity. We value the contributions of immigrants to our community. Law enforcement and other civic leaders work hard to serve all of our residents in an effort to promote the health and safety of our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's controversial Secure Communities program violates this hard-earned trust with immigrant residents. Under this program, the fingerprints of everyone booked into a county jail are conveyed electronically to ICE, which checks them against its own database to see if deportation should be considered. This applies to even a minor matter, such as having no driver's license in one's possession in a traffic stop.
This is not an exaggeration or a hypothetical: It happened here in San Francisco just a few months ago to a man with no criminal record whatsoever who was placed in federal detention and since has been deported.
The use of fingerprints to initiate immigration scrutiny is of particular concern to victims of domestic violence. In a recent case in San Francisco, a woman called 911 to report domestic violence, but the police arrested both her and her partner. Although no charges were ever filed against the woman, she is now fighting deportation. There should be no penalty for a victim of a crime to call the police.
All it takes is a fingerprint.
It does not matter if the person is innocent because the fingerprints are transmitted to ICE at arrest, prior to criminal court proceedings. ICE's own data show that 29 percent of people deported because of Secure Communities are classified as non-criminals. The result is often that a child is taken from a parent, or an individual raised since childhood in the United States is deported to the country where he was born but where he has no family and doesn't even speak the language.
This fear of the arbitrary use of immigration laws is only reinforced when you have a high-ranking ICE official telling law enforcement, "If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear." This is a quote from James Pendergraph, the former executive director of the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination, who was speaking in 2008 to the Police Foundation's national conference on immigration issues.
My main criticism of Secure Communities is that it casts too wide a net and scoops up the fingerprints of everyone not born in the United States whether or not they pose a criminal risk. My department has consistently reported felons to ICE for more than a decade, and ICE typically picks up close to 1,000 people from the San Francisco County Jail each year. But I don't think people should be deported for a traffic ticket or for operating a tamale cart in the Mission.
For these reasons, I have repeatedly asked ICE to allow the San Francisco Sheriff's Department to opt out of Secure Communities. ICE has not been forthright or truthful in its responses. First, ICE officials said a local community could "opt out" and even prescribed a procedure. When it became clear that San Francisco, Santa Clara and other jurisdictions were interested in opting out, the ICE officials then reversed course and declared that no one could opt out. ICE also refuses to inform local authorities if the agency has released back into the community those previously arrested.
It is vitally important for San Francisco law enforcement to create a bond of trust with all the city's residents. After all, a majority of San Franciscans are of either Asian or Hispanic descent. This is why I testified in support of the TRUST Act (AB1081, authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco) in Sacramento last week. This legislation would allow local jurisdictions to choose to not participate in Secure Communities by modifying California's Secure Communities agreement with ICE. Local jurisdictions cannot and should not be lied to and coerced into doing the work of the federal government. Let the feds enforce national immigration laws and leave local law enforcement out of it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/01/INB81J8OCL.DTL
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, May 1, 2011
As the sheriff of San Francisco for more than 30 years, I know that maintaining public safety requires earning community trust. We rely heavily on the trust and cooperation of all community members - including immigrants - to come forward and report crimes, either as victims or as witnesses. Otherwise, crimes go unreported - and this affects everyone, citizens and noncitizens alike. It also leads to "street justice," in which residents who are too afraid to go to the police decide to take justice into their own hands, often with deadly result.
San Francisco has always been a city of immigrants. We are proud of our diversity. We value the contributions of immigrants to our community. Law enforcement and other civic leaders work hard to serve all of our residents in an effort to promote the health and safety of our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's controversial Secure Communities program violates this hard-earned trust with immigrant residents. Under this program, the fingerprints of everyone booked into a county jail are conveyed electronically to ICE, which checks them against its own database to see if deportation should be considered. This applies to even a minor matter, such as having no driver's license in one's possession in a traffic stop.
This is not an exaggeration or a hypothetical: It happened here in San Francisco just a few months ago to a man with no criminal record whatsoever who was placed in federal detention and since has been deported.
The use of fingerprints to initiate immigration scrutiny is of particular concern to victims of domestic violence. In a recent case in San Francisco, a woman called 911 to report domestic violence, but the police arrested both her and her partner. Although no charges were ever filed against the woman, she is now fighting deportation. There should be no penalty for a victim of a crime to call the police.
All it takes is a fingerprint.
It does not matter if the person is innocent because the fingerprints are transmitted to ICE at arrest, prior to criminal court proceedings. ICE's own data show that 29 percent of people deported because of Secure Communities are classified as non-criminals. The result is often that a child is taken from a parent, or an individual raised since childhood in the United States is deported to the country where he was born but where he has no family and doesn't even speak the language.
This fear of the arbitrary use of immigration laws is only reinforced when you have a high-ranking ICE official telling law enforcement, "If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear." This is a quote from James Pendergraph, the former executive director of the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination, who was speaking in 2008 to the Police Foundation's national conference on immigration issues.
My main criticism of Secure Communities is that it casts too wide a net and scoops up the fingerprints of everyone not born in the United States whether or not they pose a criminal risk. My department has consistently reported felons to ICE for more than a decade, and ICE typically picks up close to 1,000 people from the San Francisco County Jail each year. But I don't think people should be deported for a traffic ticket or for operating a tamale cart in the Mission.
For these reasons, I have repeatedly asked ICE to allow the San Francisco Sheriff's Department to opt out of Secure Communities. ICE has not been forthright or truthful in its responses. First, ICE officials said a local community could "opt out" and even prescribed a procedure. When it became clear that San Francisco, Santa Clara and other jurisdictions were interested in opting out, the ICE officials then reversed course and declared that no one could opt out. ICE also refuses to inform local authorities if the agency has released back into the community those previously arrested.
It is vitally important for San Francisco law enforcement to create a bond of trust with all the city's residents. After all, a majority of San Franciscans are of either Asian or Hispanic descent. This is why I testified in support of the TRUST Act (AB1081, authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco) in Sacramento last week. This legislation would allow local jurisdictions to choose to not participate in Secure Communities by modifying California's Secure Communities agreement with ICE. Local jurisdictions cannot and should not be lied to and coerced into doing the work of the federal government. Let the feds enforce national immigration laws and leave local law enforcement out of it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/01/INB81J8OCL.DTL
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Noncriminals swept up in federal deportation program
Secure Communities, a federal program launched in 2008 with the stated goal of identifying and deporting more illegal immigrants' convicted of serious crimes,' has netted many noncriminals or those who committed misdemeanors
By Lee Romney and Paloma Esquivel
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 2011
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles—More than once, Norma recalls, she yearned to dial 911 when her partner hit her. But the undocumented mother of a U.S.-born toddler was too fearful of police and too broken of spirit to do so.
In October, she finally worked up the courage to call police — and paid a steep price.
Officers who responded found her sobbing, with a swollen lower lip. But a red mark on her alleged abuser's cheek prompted police to book them both into the San Francisco County Jail while investigators sorted out the details.
With that, Norma was swept into the wide net of Secure Communities, a federal program launched in 2008 with the stated goal of identifying and deporting more illegal immigrants "convicted of serious crimes."
But Norma was never convicted of a crime. She was not charged in the abuse case, though the jail honored a request to turn her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation.
"I had called the police to help me," said Norma, 31, who asked that her last name not be used because she fears that speaking out may jeopardize her case. "I think it's unjust…. Even with a traffic ticket we can now be deported."
Under the program, fingerprints of all inmates booked into local jails and crossed-checked with the FBI's criminal database are now forwarded by that agency to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be screened for immigration status. Officials said the new system would focus enforcement efforts on violent felons such as those convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping.
But Secure Communities is now mired in controversy. Recently released ICE data show that nearly half of those ensnared by the program have been noncriminals, like Norma, or those who committed misdemeanors.
In addition, hundreds of ICE emails released in response to litigation by immigrant and civil rights groups show the agency knowingly misled local and state officials to believe that participation in the program was voluntary while internally acknowledging that this was not the case.
U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) on Friday accused ICE officials of lying to local governments and to Congress and called for a probe into whether ICE Director John Morton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the agency, were aware of the deception.
San Francisco and Santa Clara counties are among those jurisdictions that sought to prevent fingerprint data from being automatically routed to ICE. Although that data will still be forwarded to immigration authorities, both counties are now crafting policies that would deny ICE hold requests for inmates booked on minor infractions.
There is still much confusion over what legal authority states have to change their participation agreements with ICE, which now says they are unnecessary.
A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) to be heard in committee Tuesday would require California to modify its agreement with ICE so that only fingerprints of convicted felons are run through the immigration database. The bill also contains protections for domestic violence victims and juveniles and would make the program optional for counties.
"With punitive methods that sweep them all up, there's no trust," said Ammiano, noting that with 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, the policy should be specifically tailored to dangerous criminals. "We have had children come home from school and their parents are not there. That is not an enlightened policy."
A similar bill is pending in Illinois, while Colorado managed to negotiate a modified agreement that includes some protections for domestic violence victims. Washington recently became the first state to refuse to join the federal program, and Washington, D.C., withdrew altogether.
Federal officials now contend that all states and counties must participate in Secure Communities by 2013. They said Washington, D.C., was allowed to temporarily terminate its agreement only as a courtesy.
But the program's legality remains an open question. Homeland Security officials say they need no approval from counties or states because Secure Communities is merely "an information-sharing program between federal partners." Lofgren and other critics, however, question the federal government's right to impose the program on local jails. Backers of Ammiano's bill say that ICE has exceeded its authority and plan to move forward with proposed changes to California's agreement.
ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas said that the Secure Communities program resulted in the deportation of 72,000 convicted criminals last year, more than at any time in agency history. Of those, 26,000 had committed major violent offenses.
"By removing criminal aliens more efficiently and effectively, ICE is reducing the possibility that these individuals will commit additional crimes in U.S. communities," she said.
Some who appear in the data to be noncriminals or low-level offenders have gang affiliations, were arrested for drunk driving or were previously deported and returned, she said. Of California's fingerprint matches, 22% to date are fugitives who had ignored deportation orders or were expelled and returned illegally, data shows.
Norma, for example, had left the country voluntarily after an immigration arrest in 2002 but returned the same year, ICE officials said.
In 2009, California signed one of the earliest agreements with ICE to participate in Secure Communities. The program is now in 41 states and 1,211 local jurisdictions, including all California counties.
Critics say the program discourages immigrants from reporting crimes and encourages racial profiling because officers might book individuals on minor infractions knowing that their fingerprints will be screened by ICE. They point out that the program does not screen out those arrested but never charged with a crime.
A Homeland Security official said the department has hired a criminologist to examine arrest statistics for signs of racial profiling and is looking to "enhance the decision-making process" to reduce the number of noncriminals being deported. The department also will soon unveil a policy for domestic violence victims.
Supporters applaud Secure Communities for replacing ad hoc immigration enforcement with a nationwide effort that targets criminals.
"Before what was happening was the local officers had no way of knowing or had to take special steps to find out if the people they arrested were potentially removable from the community," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for tougher immigration enforcement. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca also supports the program.
But Lofgren and others are upset over what they see as the deception with which the Secure Communities program was implemented.
The congresswoman was most angered by the hundreds of ICE internal documents recently released by order of a federal judge. A review of the correspondence reveals an agency that misled local and state officials as it struggled to defuse what one email called "a domino effect" of political opposition.
As early as November 2009, Secure Communities Acting Director Marc Rapp declared in an email that "voluntary" meant "the ability to receive the immigration response" about fingerprint matches, not the ability to decline to provide the data in the first place.
But for nearly a year that was not made clear to local agencies. "They said, 'You set up a meeting and you opt out.' That's why we're pretty unhappy," said Santa Clara County Counsel Miguel Marquez.
San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey also unsuccessfully sought to opt out of the program last summer. Hennessey is developing a policy that would honor ICE detainer requests only for felons and misdemeanants whose crimes involve "violence, guns, and certain sex offenses." Santa Clara County is exploring a similar policy.
In July, Lofgren wrote Napolitano and U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder seeking "a clear explanation of how local law enforcement agencies may opt out of Secure Communities by having the fingerprints they collect … checked against criminal, but not immigration databases." In September, she received letters back stating that locals need only submit the request in writing to state and federal officials.
ICE officials knew the language was misleading. "I like the thought. But reading the response alone would lead one to believe that a site can elect to never participate should they wish," an FBI staffer wrote to ICE colleagues in an August email exchange about the draft. In October, Napolitano and Morton finally held a news conference to clarify that opting out of Secure Communities is not possible.
A Homeland Security official said Friday that "Secure Communities is not voluntary and never has been. Unfortunately, this was not communicated as clearly as it should have been to state and local jurisdictions."
Meanwhile, Norma is preparing to testify on behalf of Ammiano's bill. She attends a domestic violence support group and cares for her 3-year-old son, Brandon, in a rented room while wearing a bulky ankle monitor.
"Now that I know my rights, I want to fight," said Norma, who recently graduated from a leadership program to help other abuse victims.
Immigration visas are available for domestic violence victims who meet specific criteria. If she loses her case, Norma said, she will return to Mexico.
"This strength they've given me, this sense of security, this I will carry with me anywhere I go."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-secure-communities-20110425
By Lee Romney and Paloma Esquivel
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 2011
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles—More than once, Norma recalls, she yearned to dial 911 when her partner hit her. But the undocumented mother of a U.S.-born toddler was too fearful of police and too broken of spirit to do so.
In October, she finally worked up the courage to call police — and paid a steep price.
Officers who responded found her sobbing, with a swollen lower lip. But a red mark on her alleged abuser's cheek prompted police to book them both into the San Francisco County Jail while investigators sorted out the details.
With that, Norma was swept into the wide net of Secure Communities, a federal program launched in 2008 with the stated goal of identifying and deporting more illegal immigrants "convicted of serious crimes."
But Norma was never convicted of a crime. She was not charged in the abuse case, though the jail honored a request to turn her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation.
"I had called the police to help me," said Norma, 31, who asked that her last name not be used because she fears that speaking out may jeopardize her case. "I think it's unjust…. Even with a traffic ticket we can now be deported."
Under the program, fingerprints of all inmates booked into local jails and crossed-checked with the FBI's criminal database are now forwarded by that agency to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be screened for immigration status. Officials said the new system would focus enforcement efforts on violent felons such as those convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping.
But Secure Communities is now mired in controversy. Recently released ICE data show that nearly half of those ensnared by the program have been noncriminals, like Norma, or those who committed misdemeanors.
In addition, hundreds of ICE emails released in response to litigation by immigrant and civil rights groups show the agency knowingly misled local and state officials to believe that participation in the program was voluntary while internally acknowledging that this was not the case.
U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) on Friday accused ICE officials of lying to local governments and to Congress and called for a probe into whether ICE Director John Morton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the agency, were aware of the deception.
San Francisco and Santa Clara counties are among those jurisdictions that sought to prevent fingerprint data from being automatically routed to ICE. Although that data will still be forwarded to immigration authorities, both counties are now crafting policies that would deny ICE hold requests for inmates booked on minor infractions.
There is still much confusion over what legal authority states have to change their participation agreements with ICE, which now says they are unnecessary.
A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) to be heard in committee Tuesday would require California to modify its agreement with ICE so that only fingerprints of convicted felons are run through the immigration database. The bill also contains protections for domestic violence victims and juveniles and would make the program optional for counties.
"With punitive methods that sweep them all up, there's no trust," said Ammiano, noting that with 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, the policy should be specifically tailored to dangerous criminals. "We have had children come home from school and their parents are not there. That is not an enlightened policy."
A similar bill is pending in Illinois, while Colorado managed to negotiate a modified agreement that includes some protections for domestic violence victims. Washington recently became the first state to refuse to join the federal program, and Washington, D.C., withdrew altogether.
Federal officials now contend that all states and counties must participate in Secure Communities by 2013. They said Washington, D.C., was allowed to temporarily terminate its agreement only as a courtesy.
But the program's legality remains an open question. Homeland Security officials say they need no approval from counties or states because Secure Communities is merely "an information-sharing program between federal partners." Lofgren and other critics, however, question the federal government's right to impose the program on local jails. Backers of Ammiano's bill say that ICE has exceeded its authority and plan to move forward with proposed changes to California's agreement.
ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas said that the Secure Communities program resulted in the deportation of 72,000 convicted criminals last year, more than at any time in agency history. Of those, 26,000 had committed major violent offenses.
"By removing criminal aliens more efficiently and effectively, ICE is reducing the possibility that these individuals will commit additional crimes in U.S. communities," she said.
Some who appear in the data to be noncriminals or low-level offenders have gang affiliations, were arrested for drunk driving or were previously deported and returned, she said. Of California's fingerprint matches, 22% to date are fugitives who had ignored deportation orders or were expelled and returned illegally, data shows.
Norma, for example, had left the country voluntarily after an immigration arrest in 2002 but returned the same year, ICE officials said.
In 2009, California signed one of the earliest agreements with ICE to participate in Secure Communities. The program is now in 41 states and 1,211 local jurisdictions, including all California counties.
Critics say the program discourages immigrants from reporting crimes and encourages racial profiling because officers might book individuals on minor infractions knowing that their fingerprints will be screened by ICE. They point out that the program does not screen out those arrested but never charged with a crime.
A Homeland Security official said the department has hired a criminologist to examine arrest statistics for signs of racial profiling and is looking to "enhance the decision-making process" to reduce the number of noncriminals being deported. The department also will soon unveil a policy for domestic violence victims.
Supporters applaud Secure Communities for replacing ad hoc immigration enforcement with a nationwide effort that targets criminals.
"Before what was happening was the local officers had no way of knowing or had to take special steps to find out if the people they arrested were potentially removable from the community," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for tougher immigration enforcement. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca also supports the program.
But Lofgren and others are upset over what they see as the deception with which the Secure Communities program was implemented.
The congresswoman was most angered by the hundreds of ICE internal documents recently released by order of a federal judge. A review of the correspondence reveals an agency that misled local and state officials as it struggled to defuse what one email called "a domino effect" of political opposition.
As early as November 2009, Secure Communities Acting Director Marc Rapp declared in an email that "voluntary" meant "the ability to receive the immigration response" about fingerprint matches, not the ability to decline to provide the data in the first place.
But for nearly a year that was not made clear to local agencies. "They said, 'You set up a meeting and you opt out.' That's why we're pretty unhappy," said Santa Clara County Counsel Miguel Marquez.
San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey also unsuccessfully sought to opt out of the program last summer. Hennessey is developing a policy that would honor ICE detainer requests only for felons and misdemeanants whose crimes involve "violence, guns, and certain sex offenses." Santa Clara County is exploring a similar policy.
In July, Lofgren wrote Napolitano and U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder seeking "a clear explanation of how local law enforcement agencies may opt out of Secure Communities by having the fingerprints they collect … checked against criminal, but not immigration databases." In September, she received letters back stating that locals need only submit the request in writing to state and federal officials.
ICE officials knew the language was misleading. "I like the thought. But reading the response alone would lead one to believe that a site can elect to never participate should they wish," an FBI staffer wrote to ICE colleagues in an August email exchange about the draft. In October, Napolitano and Morton finally held a news conference to clarify that opting out of Secure Communities is not possible.
A Homeland Security official said Friday that "Secure Communities is not voluntary and never has been. Unfortunately, this was not communicated as clearly as it should have been to state and local jurisdictions."
Meanwhile, Norma is preparing to testify on behalf of Ammiano's bill. She attends a domestic violence support group and cares for her 3-year-old son, Brandon, in a rented room while wearing a bulky ankle monitor.
"Now that I know my rights, I want to fight," said Norma, who recently graduated from a leadership program to help other abuse victims.
Immigration visas are available for domestic violence victims who meet specific criteria. If she loses her case, Norma said, she will return to Mexico.
"This strength they've given me, this sense of security, this I will carry with me anywhere I go."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-secure-communities-20110425
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Bakery raid sheds light on border-crossing cards
By Morgan Lee
San Diego Union Tribune
Monday, November 22, 2010 at 11 a.m.
A line at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on Friday, Nov. 19, 2010.
In culminating a year of investigative work using wiretaps and informants, immigration officers led away 45 unauthorized workers from an industrial warehouse in Otay Mesa.
The extraordinary effort to prosecute the people who hired these employees — the owner and certain supervisors of S & S Bakery — also uncovered a more commonplace violation: Of all Mexicans detained by immigration authorities, half were working illegally in the United States after entering the country using a border-crossing card issued by U.S. consulates in Mexico.
These cards are scannable 10-year visas issued to qualified Mexican nationals living along the U.S.-Mexico border. They allow an unlimited number of temporary visits to the U.S. for business or pleasure, but not for regular employment.
“It’s quite a benefit to have it,” said Mike Carney, a special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego.
During October, such cardholders accounted for more than 711,000 crossings into the United States through the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports of entry, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The State Department issued more than 700,000 of the cards last year; it said people who abuse them by working in the U.S. constitute a small minority.
Immigration officials who conduct audits and raids in San Diego County typically find that about 30 percent of unauthorized employees have the border-crossing card, Carney said.
S & S Bakery’s proximity to the border may explain why it had so many workers with border-crossing cards, he added.
For visitor visas such as the border-crossing card, the State Department focuses on making sure candidates have a compelling reason to leave the U.S. once their permission period expires. Applicants might need to prove that they have a permanent residence, bank accounts, other assets and family members in Mexico. The department rejects about one in 10 Mexicans seeking a border-crossing card.
It’s up to agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether a cardholder has violated the law by working in the United States.
Overall, immigration authorities said, the special dynamics of the U.S.-Mexico border economy can complicate their enforcement efforts.
Some companies hire illegal Mexican workers because they can pay them lower salaries, while the employees see the wages as still higher than what they can earn in their own country. They live in Tijuana, Mexicali and other border cities, where housing is relatively cheaper than in the U.S., and use their border cards to get to work.
Mexicans with the border card generally are subject to the same restrictions imposed on other U.S. visas. However, they don’t have to file entry and exit forms unless they travel more than 25 miles north of the border or stay for 30 days or longer.
Those exemptions make it quicker for cardholders to visit family, go to the beach, shop and conduct special business in San Ysidro, Chula Vista and farther north. They’re also designed to help U.S. authorities focus on security and law-enforcement priorities, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington.
“The general tendency in the U.S. and around the world is to recognize that facilitating legal flows will enhance security,” he said. “Someone who goes back and forth 100 times a year ought to pass quickly so that authorities can look for the bigger priority.”
Raids such as the Oct. 13 sweep of Otay Mesa’s S & S Bakery have grown less frequent as the Obama administration focuses on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records and using business audits to discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants.
Prosecutors have accused the bakery’s owner, Jesse William Fadick, and four of his employees of running an extensive scheme to employ illegal immigrants and evade detection by immigration authorities. Fadick pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday to a felony charge of knowingly hiring at least 10 illegal immigrants, and a hearing was set in anticipation of a new plea.
The unauthorized workers arrested in the bakery raid have signed voluntary deportation agreements or been referred to an immigration judge for likely deportation.
More than a dozen were released on their own recognizance as material witnesses in the federal court case against Fadick and others.
Those who had border-crossing cards and were deported are unlikely to get them back, authorities said. Material witnesses can eventually reapply after leaving the country.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/22/bakery-raid-sheds-light-on-border-crossing-cards
San Diego Union Tribune
Monday, November 22, 2010 at 11 a.m.
A line at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on Friday, Nov. 19, 2010.
In culminating a year of investigative work using wiretaps and informants, immigration officers led away 45 unauthorized workers from an industrial warehouse in Otay Mesa.
The extraordinary effort to prosecute the people who hired these employees — the owner and certain supervisors of S & S Bakery — also uncovered a more commonplace violation: Of all Mexicans detained by immigration authorities, half were working illegally in the United States after entering the country using a border-crossing card issued by U.S. consulates in Mexico.
These cards are scannable 10-year visas issued to qualified Mexican nationals living along the U.S.-Mexico border. They allow an unlimited number of temporary visits to the U.S. for business or pleasure, but not for regular employment.
“It’s quite a benefit to have it,” said Mike Carney, a special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego.
During October, such cardholders accounted for more than 711,000 crossings into the United States through the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports of entry, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The State Department issued more than 700,000 of the cards last year; it said people who abuse them by working in the U.S. constitute a small minority.
Immigration officials who conduct audits and raids in San Diego County typically find that about 30 percent of unauthorized employees have the border-crossing card, Carney said.
S & S Bakery’s proximity to the border may explain why it had so many workers with border-crossing cards, he added.
For visitor visas such as the border-crossing card, the State Department focuses on making sure candidates have a compelling reason to leave the U.S. once their permission period expires. Applicants might need to prove that they have a permanent residence, bank accounts, other assets and family members in Mexico. The department rejects about one in 10 Mexicans seeking a border-crossing card.
It’s up to agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether a cardholder has violated the law by working in the United States.
Overall, immigration authorities said, the special dynamics of the U.S.-Mexico border economy can complicate their enforcement efforts.
Some companies hire illegal Mexican workers because they can pay them lower salaries, while the employees see the wages as still higher than what they can earn in their own country. They live in Tijuana, Mexicali and other border cities, where housing is relatively cheaper than in the U.S., and use their border cards to get to work.
Mexicans with the border card generally are subject to the same restrictions imposed on other U.S. visas. However, they don’t have to file entry and exit forms unless they travel more than 25 miles north of the border or stay for 30 days or longer.
Those exemptions make it quicker for cardholders to visit family, go to the beach, shop and conduct special business in San Ysidro, Chula Vista and farther north. They’re also designed to help U.S. authorities focus on security and law-enforcement priorities, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington.
“The general tendency in the U.S. and around the world is to recognize that facilitating legal flows will enhance security,” he said. “Someone who goes back and forth 100 times a year ought to pass quickly so that authorities can look for the bigger priority.”
Raids such as the Oct. 13 sweep of Otay Mesa’s S & S Bakery have grown less frequent as the Obama administration focuses on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records and using business audits to discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants.
Prosecutors have accused the bakery’s owner, Jesse William Fadick, and four of his employees of running an extensive scheme to employ illegal immigrants and evade detection by immigration authorities. Fadick pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday to a felony charge of knowingly hiring at least 10 illegal immigrants, and a hearing was set in anticipation of a new plea.
The unauthorized workers arrested in the bakery raid have signed voluntary deportation agreements or been referred to an immigration judge for likely deportation.
More than a dozen were released on their own recognizance as material witnesses in the federal court case against Fadick and others.
Those who had border-crossing cards and were deported are unlikely to get them back, authorities said. Material witnesses can eventually reapply after leaving the country.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/22/bakery-raid-sheds-light-on-border-crossing-cards
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Supervisors continue support of screening immigration status of immigrants
By Troy Anderson Staff Writer
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Posted: 10/19/2010
Despite complaints about deportations of illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes, the Board of Supervisors has renewed an agreement with federal immigration officials to screen inmates' immigration status in Los Angeles County jails.
The supervisors first approved the controversial program on a 3-2 vote in January 2005. Since that time, sheriff's custody assistants have interviewed more than 52,000 inmates and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has placed deportation holds on more than 20,000, county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said.
"Even though I was hesitant about this at first, this program has operated for the most part fairly effectively and eliminated many of the criminal aliens who prey on people," Supervisor Gloria Molina said. "At this point, I think it merits our support."
But immigrant advocates said they were disappointed by last week's vote. The program has resulted in the deportation of many immigrants who have not been convicted of any crimes, the said.
"We submitted evidence to the supervisors that this program is deporting individuals who have not been convicted of a crime," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "What we've found is a lot of individuals were turned over to ICE for infractions and misdemeanors, like driving without a license or vending without a license."
Gladys Limon, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the vote will continue to create a rift between law enforcement officials and local communities.
"That relationship, trust and confidence is critical to the success of law enforcement generally and for the protection and safety of our communities," Limon said.
The supervisors' vote to renew the agreement came after ICE asked agencies across the nation to sign revised agreements that improve oversight and management of the program. Under the agreement with ICE, deputies question inmates about their immigration status and refer those about to be released to ICE for possible deportation.
A Police Assessment Resource Center study found 28 percent of those referred to ICE had been charged with misdemeanors or infractions, such as joy-riding, fare evasion or driving without a license.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_16378056
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Posted: 10/19/2010
Despite complaints about deportations of illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes, the Board of Supervisors has renewed an agreement with federal immigration officials to screen inmates' immigration status in Los Angeles County jails.
The supervisors first approved the controversial program on a 3-2 vote in January 2005. Since that time, sheriff's custody assistants have interviewed more than 52,000 inmates and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has placed deportation holds on more than 20,000, county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said.
"Even though I was hesitant about this at first, this program has operated for the most part fairly effectively and eliminated many of the criminal aliens who prey on people," Supervisor Gloria Molina said. "At this point, I think it merits our support."
But immigrant advocates said they were disappointed by last week's vote. The program has resulted in the deportation of many immigrants who have not been convicted of any crimes, the said.
"We submitted evidence to the supervisors that this program is deporting individuals who have not been convicted of a crime," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "What we've found is a lot of individuals were turned over to ICE for infractions and misdemeanors, like driving without a license or vending without a license."
Gladys Limon, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the vote will continue to create a rift between law enforcement officials and local communities.
"That relationship, trust and confidence is critical to the success of law enforcement generally and for the protection and safety of our communities," Limon said.
The supervisors' vote to renew the agreement came after ICE asked agencies across the nation to sign revised agreements that improve oversight and management of the program. Under the agreement with ICE, deputies question inmates about their immigration status and refer those about to be released to ICE for possible deportation.
A Police Assessment Resource Center study found 28 percent of those referred to ICE had been charged with misdemeanors or infractions, such as joy-riding, fare evasion or driving without a license.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_16378056
Monday, June 21, 2010
ICE Raids Throughout Imperial County
KYMA News
June 20, 2010
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents raided homes in the Imperial Valley today.
This was a special section of ICE -- the Violent Criminal Alien Section of the Criminal Alien Program.
The Agents began the early morning with a 5:30 a.m. briefing. They reviewed each fugitive and possible challenges.
The first raid was in Calexico. The suspect was convicted of battery. No one answers the door. A neighbor tells Agents' the family went to Mexicali.
Agent Miguel Munoz explains to News 11 that they send a "lookout" to the Port of Entry officials. This way, they will be detained on their way back into the United States.
But at the second home, Agents had better luck. Truck driver Joaquin Leon Urquiza is there. Urquiza was convicted of negligent discharge of a homemade firearm.
With the suspect's permission, Agents enter the apartment. They take extra precaution because a child is home.
Agents don't enter with their weapons drawn. To the contrary, they do their best to keep the situation calm.
The Agents went to two more homes in Brawley, but the suspects were not home. However, the Agents gave the person home a business card -- a last effort for the suspects to turn themselves in.
The final stop is in Westmorland. It's for a 62 year old man who was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1985. He was also arrested for drug trafficking in 1991, but those charges were dismissed.
For more than 20 years, Anadeto Angulo has been trying to fight the courts and stay in the United States instead of return to Mexico.
However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave him a final notice to leave the U.S. or else he would be arrested.
That's exactly what happened.
Angulo and Urquiza were processed. They will be given a notice to appear in court and/or be deported.
http://www.kyma.com/slp.php?idN=3667
June 20, 2010
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents raided homes in the Imperial Valley today.
This was a special section of ICE -- the Violent Criminal Alien Section of the Criminal Alien Program.
The Agents began the early morning with a 5:30 a.m. briefing. They reviewed each fugitive and possible challenges.
The first raid was in Calexico. The suspect was convicted of battery. No one answers the door. A neighbor tells Agents' the family went to Mexicali.
Agent Miguel Munoz explains to News 11 that they send a "lookout" to the Port of Entry officials. This way, they will be detained on their way back into the United States.
But at the second home, Agents had better luck. Truck driver Joaquin Leon Urquiza is there. Urquiza was convicted of negligent discharge of a homemade firearm.
With the suspect's permission, Agents enter the apartment. They take extra precaution because a child is home.
Agents don't enter with their weapons drawn. To the contrary, they do their best to keep the situation calm.
The Agents went to two more homes in Brawley, but the suspects were not home. However, the Agents gave the person home a business card -- a last effort for the suspects to turn themselves in.
The final stop is in Westmorland. It's for a 62 year old man who was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1985. He was also arrested for drug trafficking in 1991, but those charges were dismissed.
For more than 20 years, Anadeto Angulo has been trying to fight the courts and stay in the United States instead of return to Mexico.
However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave him a final notice to leave the U.S. or else he would be arrested.
That's exactly what happened.
Angulo and Urquiza were processed. They will be given a notice to appear in court and/or be deported.
http://www.kyma.com/slp.php?idN=3667
Sunday, May 23, 2010
350 immigrants held more than 6 months while fighting deportation, U.S. says
ACLU sought detainees' names as part of a class-action lawsuit seeking their release until the cases are resolved.
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
May 20, 2010
More than 350 immigrant detainees in the Los Angeles area have been held behind bars longer than six months while fighting deportation, according to a list recently released by the federal government.
The list of names was turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California late last month as part of a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The ACLU is battling for the right of detainees held for six months or more to have hearings on whether they can be released from custody while their cases are pending.
The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on the lawsuit. The department opposed releasing the names but was ordered to do so by a federal judge. Its lawyers are continuing to oppose the bond hearings.
Ahilan Arulanantham, who directs the immigrants' rights and national security program for the ACLU of Southern California, said he was shocked that so many immigrants were being held in detention for longer than six months.
"That number just dwarfs the number we expected," he said.
There are about 1,400 immigrant detainees in the area. There is generally no limit on the length of time immigrants are detained as long as their cases are not yet resolved. In addition, few detainees are guaranteed a right to a bond hearing.
The team of attorneys is sending letters to its clients. Many of the class members are seeking asylum and some have been held for years. At least 30% were never represented by an attorney, Arulanantham said.
Arulanantham, who filed the suit along with the Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic and the law firm of Sidley and Austin, said lawyers chose the six-month mark based on other case law on detention and due process rights.
One of the class members, Damdin Borjgin, a Mongolian man seeking asylum in the United States, has been in custody at Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster since November 2007. Borjgin said he has never had a hearing to see if he would be eligible for release.
"I didn't think I would be locked up in the jail for this much time," Borjgin said through an interpreter in a recent interview. "I am living here as a prisoner. My rights are limited."
Borjgin, 49, first came to the United States in 1999 on a visitor's visa, overstayed that visa and then returned to his native country in 2007 because his father was ill. Borjgin said he discovered possible corruption at the national bank where he worked and reported it to police. As a result, Borjgin said, he was detained and pressured to withdraw the case because it was "damaging the reputation of a high-ranking political official."
Afraid for his safety, he said he obtained a false passport and came to the United States, where he was detained at Los Angeles International Airport and taken to the detention center.
Borjgin, who has a wife and two grown children in Mongolia, said he cannot return to his native country. "It's a danger to my life," he said.
Borjgin, who did not have an attorney, lost his case in Immigration Court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals. The case now is pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Arulanantham said Borjgin should be entitled to a hearing and released from detention because he has not committed a crime and is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. Instead, he said, the government could require him to wear an electronic ankle bracelet or have him regularly check in with immigration officials.
Currently, only certain immigrant detainees are entitled to bond hearings. If foreigners are arrested upon arrival in the United States, they cannot request a bond hearing. Detainees who have committed certain crimes or who have lost their cases and have final orders of deportation are also not eligible for bond hearings. Detainees who cannot be deported within six months of the conclusion of the case may be entitled to be released.
Arulanantham said that the irony is that under the revamped detention system, Borjgin might have never been placed behind bars in the first place. Immigration officials now release arriving asylum seekers from detention if they have a credible fear of persecution, prove their identity and pose neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
"ICE's detention capacity is not unlimited," said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We want to ensure we're using our detention resources to keep criminals and other dangerous aliens in custody while we seek their removal from the country."
The change was part of an overhaul of the detention system announced last year. John Morton, the chief of the immigration agency, said he would make immigration detention less reliant on prisons and jails and more specifically designed for civil detainees.
Since the announcement, the agency has reduced the number of detention facilities nationwide from 341 to 270 and canceled contracts at 10 sites because of reported problems. Visitation, recreation and legal access also have been expanded at more than 20 facilities.
latimes.com
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
May 20, 2010
More than 350 immigrant detainees in the Los Angeles area have been held behind bars longer than six months while fighting deportation, according to a list recently released by the federal government.
The list of names was turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California late last month as part of a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The ACLU is battling for the right of detainees held for six months or more to have hearings on whether they can be released from custody while their cases are pending.
The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on the lawsuit. The department opposed releasing the names but was ordered to do so by a federal judge. Its lawyers are continuing to oppose the bond hearings.
Ahilan Arulanantham, who directs the immigrants' rights and national security program for the ACLU of Southern California, said he was shocked that so many immigrants were being held in detention for longer than six months.
"That number just dwarfs the number we expected," he said.
There are about 1,400 immigrant detainees in the area. There is generally no limit on the length of time immigrants are detained as long as their cases are not yet resolved. In addition, few detainees are guaranteed a right to a bond hearing.
The team of attorneys is sending letters to its clients. Many of the class members are seeking asylum and some have been held for years. At least 30% were never represented by an attorney, Arulanantham said.
Arulanantham, who filed the suit along with the Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic and the law firm of Sidley and Austin, said lawyers chose the six-month mark based on other case law on detention and due process rights.
One of the class members, Damdin Borjgin, a Mongolian man seeking asylum in the United States, has been in custody at Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster since November 2007. Borjgin said he has never had a hearing to see if he would be eligible for release.
"I didn't think I would be locked up in the jail for this much time," Borjgin said through an interpreter in a recent interview. "I am living here as a prisoner. My rights are limited."
Borjgin, 49, first came to the United States in 1999 on a visitor's visa, overstayed that visa and then returned to his native country in 2007 because his father was ill. Borjgin said he discovered possible corruption at the national bank where he worked and reported it to police. As a result, Borjgin said, he was detained and pressured to withdraw the case because it was "damaging the reputation of a high-ranking political official."
Afraid for his safety, he said he obtained a false passport and came to the United States, where he was detained at Los Angeles International Airport and taken to the detention center.
Borjgin, who has a wife and two grown children in Mongolia, said he cannot return to his native country. "It's a danger to my life," he said.
Borjgin, who did not have an attorney, lost his case in Immigration Court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals. The case now is pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Arulanantham said Borjgin should be entitled to a hearing and released from detention because he has not committed a crime and is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. Instead, he said, the government could require him to wear an electronic ankle bracelet or have him regularly check in with immigration officials.
Currently, only certain immigrant detainees are entitled to bond hearings. If foreigners are arrested upon arrival in the United States, they cannot request a bond hearing. Detainees who have committed certain crimes or who have lost their cases and have final orders of deportation are also not eligible for bond hearings. Detainees who cannot be deported within six months of the conclusion of the case may be entitled to be released.
Arulanantham said that the irony is that under the revamped detention system, Borjgin might have never been placed behind bars in the first place. Immigration officials now release arriving asylum seekers from detention if they have a credible fear of persecution, prove their identity and pose neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
"ICE's detention capacity is not unlimited," said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We want to ensure we're using our detention resources to keep criminals and other dangerous aliens in custody while we seek their removal from the country."
The change was part of an overhaul of the detention system announced last year. John Morton, the chief of the immigration agency, said he would make immigration detention less reliant on prisons and jails and more specifically designed for civil detainees.
Since the announcement, the agency has reduced the number of detention facilities nationwide from 341 to 270 and canceled contracts at 10 sites because of reported problems. Visitation, recreation and legal access also have been expanded at more than 20 facilities.
latimes.com
Thursday, April 22, 2010
SoCal bistro charged with hiring illegal workers
By ELLIOT SPAGAT Associated Press Writer
San Jose Mercury News
04/22/2010
SAN DIEGO—Criminal charges against the owner of a popular catering company for hiring illegal immigrants show the perils that employers face when they ignore government notices that workers' names do not match their Social Security numbers.
The French Gourmet Inc., a San Diego institution known for its wedding cakes, received so-called "no-match" letters in 2005 and 2006 from the Social Security Administration.
Businesses have long complained that the letters lack guidance for employers, but immigration experts say the case underscores that they should be treated as a red flag. The owner and a manager pleaded not guilty Wednesday to illegal hiring.
"You shouldn't just do nothing," Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles immigration attorney not involved in the case, said Thursday.
Shusterman advises employers to demand that workers clear up discrepancies or get fired. Some employees have legitimate explanations—a marriage or divorce, or an error on the government's part—but those who are in the country illegally usually disappear when confronted, he said.
It is rare for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to build cases against employers on no-match letters.
Josie Gonzalez, a Pasadena immigration attorney who is not involved in the case, said the government has used the letters as evidence in other cases. But the employer's response to the letters is much more critical, including whether employees were paid in cash or without a Social Security number after getting the letters, she said.
"Some employers take a more laissez-faire approach and leave it up to the employee to clear up the discrepancy," Gonzalez said. "Other employers are more proactive and demand that the employee clear it up in a given time frame or get fired."
According to the indictment, The French Gourmet began paying one employee in cash after he was flagged in a no-match letter and instructed him to get a new Social Security number. His paychecks resumed after he came up with another name and number.
A manager allegedly told another employee "to get a new identity" after he was named in a no-match letter.
The no-match letters became a flashpoint in the national immigration debate in 2007 when the Bush administration proposed that employers be required to fire immigrant workers whose names don't match. The policy failed to survive legal challenges from business and immigrant advocacy groups.
Eugene Iredale, an attorney for The French Gourmet and owner Michel Malecot, said the Social Security no-match letters are "extremely confusing" because they do not go beyond pointing out the discrepancy.
"You'd think it would say don't hire this person, fire this person," he said Wednesday. "All they're saying is, 'We don't have this person on file but we're not telling you what to do. You take whatever action you think is right.'"
Malecot, 58, and manager Richard Kauffmann, 57, are charged with conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens and false attestation.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14935075?nclick_check=1
San Jose Mercury News
04/22/2010
SAN DIEGO—Criminal charges against the owner of a popular catering company for hiring illegal immigrants show the perils that employers face when they ignore government notices that workers' names do not match their Social Security numbers.
The French Gourmet Inc., a San Diego institution known for its wedding cakes, received so-called "no-match" letters in 2005 and 2006 from the Social Security Administration.
Businesses have long complained that the letters lack guidance for employers, but immigration experts say the case underscores that they should be treated as a red flag. The owner and a manager pleaded not guilty Wednesday to illegal hiring.
"You shouldn't just do nothing," Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles immigration attorney not involved in the case, said Thursday.
Shusterman advises employers to demand that workers clear up discrepancies or get fired. Some employees have legitimate explanations—a marriage or divorce, or an error on the government's part—but those who are in the country illegally usually disappear when confronted, he said.
It is rare for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to build cases against employers on no-match letters.
Josie Gonzalez, a Pasadena immigration attorney who is not involved in the case, said the government has used the letters as evidence in other cases. But the employer's response to the letters is much more critical, including whether employees were paid in cash or without a Social Security number after getting the letters, she said.
"Some employers take a more laissez-faire approach and leave it up to the employee to clear up the discrepancy," Gonzalez said. "Other employers are more proactive and demand that the employee clear it up in a given time frame or get fired."
According to the indictment, The French Gourmet began paying one employee in cash after he was flagged in a no-match letter and instructed him to get a new Social Security number. His paychecks resumed after he came up with another name and number.
A manager allegedly told another employee "to get a new identity" after he was named in a no-match letter.
The no-match letters became a flashpoint in the national immigration debate in 2007 when the Bush administration proposed that employers be required to fire immigrant workers whose names don't match. The policy failed to survive legal challenges from business and immigrant advocacy groups.
Eugene Iredale, an attorney for The French Gourmet and owner Michel Malecot, said the Social Security no-match letters are "extremely confusing" because they do not go beyond pointing out the discrepancy.
"You'd think it would say don't hire this person, fire this person," he said Wednesday. "All they're saying is, 'We don't have this person on file but we're not telling you what to do. You take whatever action you think is right.'"
Malecot, 58, and manager Richard Kauffmann, 57, are charged with conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens and false attestation.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14935075?nclick_check=1
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Protesters target immigration reform with rally at congressman's office
By Rachel McGrath
Ventura County Star
Thursday, December 10, 2009
About three dozen people paraded Thursday outside the Westlake Village office of Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, in an interfaith rally calling for immigration reform.
Singing “Feliz Navidad” and carrying signs saying “Legalazacion si, deportacion no” and “We demand the light of hope,” the group — led by dignitaries from several religious faiths — gathered near the building on Townsgate Road.
“This is not really just about Gallegly, but simply to say that he is a visible symbol of our government, and so it seemed like a good location to be here just to raise the issue for our entire government,” said the Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford, minister of the Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. “We just feel very strongly that the immigration laws in this country are broken and, in particular, in relation to the separation of families.”
Stapleford chairs the board of Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, or CLUE, which organized the event. Leaders said it was part of a series of nationwide actions by the Shine A Light From Coast to Coast movement, which will culminate on International Migrants Day on Dec. 18.
Alicia Flores, executive director of La Hermandad, attended the rally and had strong words for President Barack Obama, who was in Europe on Thursday to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
“I believe he should be ashamed to receive it and talk about human rights because our children are being terrorized,” Flores said. “With the Obama administration, we’ve been seeing more deportations and more separation of the families. It’s a shame because Obama promised a change that we haven’t seen.”
Gallegly issued a written statement responding to the group’s demands.
“My first duty as an elected official is to be compassionate to those who have a legal right to live and work in the United States,” Gallegly said in the statement. “With unemployment at a 26-year high and hard-working Americans losing their homes, Congress must concentrate on ensuring every person with a legal right to work in the United States has the opportunity for a job and does not have to compete against illegal immigrants to provide for their families. We must put American families first.”
Organizers said Thursday’s interfaith vigil was an adaptation of the Posada, a traditional Latin American Advent celebration that commemorates the Christian story of Mary and Joseph searching for an inn in Bethlehem.
The Rev. Sandy Liddell, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Santa Paula, opened the event with a prayer in which she described the current immigration laws as “a blight casting a shadow on our nation.”
Rabbi Lisa Hochberg-Miller of Temple Beth Torah in Ventura lit the candles on a Menorah, saying it represented the need to “illumine our world to the need to respond humanely to the issue of immigration reform.”
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/dec/10/protesters-target-immigration-reform-with-rally/
Ventura County Star
Thursday, December 10, 2009
About three dozen people paraded Thursday outside the Westlake Village office of Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, in an interfaith rally calling for immigration reform.
Singing “Feliz Navidad” and carrying signs saying “Legalazacion si, deportacion no” and “We demand the light of hope,” the group — led by dignitaries from several religious faiths — gathered near the building on Townsgate Road.
“This is not really just about Gallegly, but simply to say that he is a visible symbol of our government, and so it seemed like a good location to be here just to raise the issue for our entire government,” said the Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford, minister of the Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. “We just feel very strongly that the immigration laws in this country are broken and, in particular, in relation to the separation of families.”
Stapleford chairs the board of Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, or CLUE, which organized the event. Leaders said it was part of a series of nationwide actions by the Shine A Light From Coast to Coast movement, which will culminate on International Migrants Day on Dec. 18.
Alicia Flores, executive director of La Hermandad, attended the rally and had strong words for President Barack Obama, who was in Europe on Thursday to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
“I believe he should be ashamed to receive it and talk about human rights because our children are being terrorized,” Flores said. “With the Obama administration, we’ve been seeing more deportations and more separation of the families. It’s a shame because Obama promised a change that we haven’t seen.”
Gallegly issued a written statement responding to the group’s demands.
“My first duty as an elected official is to be compassionate to those who have a legal right to live and work in the United States,” Gallegly said in the statement. “With unemployment at a 26-year high and hard-working Americans losing their homes, Congress must concentrate on ensuring every person with a legal right to work in the United States has the opportunity for a job and does not have to compete against illegal immigrants to provide for their families. We must put American families first.”
Organizers said Thursday’s interfaith vigil was an adaptation of the Posada, a traditional Latin American Advent celebration that commemorates the Christian story of Mary and Joseph searching for an inn in Bethlehem.
The Rev. Sandy Liddell, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Santa Paula, opened the event with a prayer in which she described the current immigration laws as “a blight casting a shadow on our nation.”
Rabbi Lisa Hochberg-Miller of Temple Beth Torah in Ventura lit the candles on a Menorah, saying it represented the need to “illumine our world to the need to respond humanely to the issue of immigration reform.”
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/dec/10/protesters-target-immigration-reform-with-rally/
Thursday, October 22, 2009
San Francisco Alters When Police Must Report Immigrants
By JESSE McKINLEY
The New York Times
October 21, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco board of supervisors voted Tuesday to overturn a city policy that has been at the center of a national debate over offering illegal immigrants sanctuary.
The policy, ordered by Mayor Gavin Newsom last summer, requires the police to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement whenever they arrest a juvenile on felony charges who they suspect is in the United States illegally. Since the policy took effect last summer, more than 100 undocumented minors have been turned over to federal immigration authorities.
Mr. Newsom has said the ordinance is necessary to prevent young criminals from using the city’s so-called sanctuary policy, which prevents the use of city money for immigration enforcement.
“Sanctuary city was never designed to protect people who commit crimes,” said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom.
But under the changes approved Tuesday, referrals would be required only after juveniles were convicted of crimes, instead of after their arrest. Immigration advocates say that referrals upon arrest have resulted in the deportation of innocent youths, the breakup of families and a fear among immigrants of contacting the police when they are the victims of crime.
“We recognize that there’s a need to do some reporting” of illegal juveniles, said David Campos, the supervisor who sponsored the new ordinance. “But we’re trying to strike a balance.”
Tuesday’s meeting was filled to capacity, with hundreds of supporters of Mr. Campos’s bill filling the board’s chambers and two overflow rooms. Simultaneous translation of supervisors’ comments were offered in Mandarin and Spanish, and when the bill was passed, by 8 to 2 with one absentee, cheers erupted in the chambers, with chants of “Yes We Can” in English and Spanish echoing through the ornate City Hall.
Supporters continued chanting as they filed out past a bust of Harvey Milk, the trailblazing San Francisco supervisor and gay rights advocate whose name was invoked by supporters of Mr. Campos’s bill.
The vote was a sharp rebuke to Mr. Newsom, a Democrat who is running for governor and who has promised to veto it, though supporters seem to have enough votes to overturn that.
San Francisco adopted its sanctuary policy in 1989, and has long refused to refer minors in police custody to the federal authorities, although adults accused of felonies have always been referred. Some of these minors were later flown to their home countries at taxpayer expense rather than being turned over to immigration authorities. Mr. Newsom learned of those flights last May and ordered them stopped.
Mr. Newsom’s policy was also a response to a series of embarrassing revelations in The San Francisco Chronicle, including that the city, rather than turning a group of young Honduran crack dealers over to ICE, sent them to a group home in Southern California, from which they walked away.
The city was also shocked by a June 2008 triple murder, which prosecutors say was committed by Edwin Ramos, a suspected gang member and an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who had been picked up as a juvenile by the San Francisco police but not referred to immigration authorities.
The fate of the sanctuary policy may well be decided in court.
An August memorandum from the office of the city attorney, Dennis Herrera, to Mr. Newsom said that while federal and state law concerning sanctuary cities was “not settled,” the ordinance that passed Tuesday could also “adversely affect” the city’s position in several pending cases concerning its sanctuary policy, including a criminal investigation by the United States attorney’s office in San Francisco.
Mr. Ballard, Mr. Newsom’s spokesman, echoed this, saying the supervisors’ vote, which will be formalized at a final reading of the bill next week, could invite a federal legal challenge to the entire sanctuary city policy.
“The supervisors did a foolish thing today by passing this bill that moves one step closer to imperiling the entire sanctuary city ordinance,” Mr. Ballard said.
But Mr. Campos, the supervisor and a naturalized citizen who emigrated — illegally — from his native Guatemala when he was 14, said the vote to change Mr. Newsom’s policy was necessary to maintain the city’s reputation as a safe haven for illegal residents.
“We went from being one of the most enlightened cities,” Mr. Campos said, “to be a place many steps backward to where the rest of the country is.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/us/21sanctuary.html?_r=1&ref=us
The New York Times
October 21, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco board of supervisors voted Tuesday to overturn a city policy that has been at the center of a national debate over offering illegal immigrants sanctuary.
The policy, ordered by Mayor Gavin Newsom last summer, requires the police to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement whenever they arrest a juvenile on felony charges who they suspect is in the United States illegally. Since the policy took effect last summer, more than 100 undocumented minors have been turned over to federal immigration authorities.
Mr. Newsom has said the ordinance is necessary to prevent young criminals from using the city’s so-called sanctuary policy, which prevents the use of city money for immigration enforcement.
“Sanctuary city was never designed to protect people who commit crimes,” said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom.
But under the changes approved Tuesday, referrals would be required only after juveniles were convicted of crimes, instead of after their arrest. Immigration advocates say that referrals upon arrest have resulted in the deportation of innocent youths, the breakup of families and a fear among immigrants of contacting the police when they are the victims of crime.
“We recognize that there’s a need to do some reporting” of illegal juveniles, said David Campos, the supervisor who sponsored the new ordinance. “But we’re trying to strike a balance.”
Tuesday’s meeting was filled to capacity, with hundreds of supporters of Mr. Campos’s bill filling the board’s chambers and two overflow rooms. Simultaneous translation of supervisors’ comments were offered in Mandarin and Spanish, and when the bill was passed, by 8 to 2 with one absentee, cheers erupted in the chambers, with chants of “Yes We Can” in English and Spanish echoing through the ornate City Hall.
Supporters continued chanting as they filed out past a bust of Harvey Milk, the trailblazing San Francisco supervisor and gay rights advocate whose name was invoked by supporters of Mr. Campos’s bill.
The vote was a sharp rebuke to Mr. Newsom, a Democrat who is running for governor and who has promised to veto it, though supporters seem to have enough votes to overturn that.
San Francisco adopted its sanctuary policy in 1989, and has long refused to refer minors in police custody to the federal authorities, although adults accused of felonies have always been referred. Some of these minors were later flown to their home countries at taxpayer expense rather than being turned over to immigration authorities. Mr. Newsom learned of those flights last May and ordered them stopped.
Mr. Newsom’s policy was also a response to a series of embarrassing revelations in The San Francisco Chronicle, including that the city, rather than turning a group of young Honduran crack dealers over to ICE, sent them to a group home in Southern California, from which they walked away.
The city was also shocked by a June 2008 triple murder, which prosecutors say was committed by Edwin Ramos, a suspected gang member and an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who had been picked up as a juvenile by the San Francisco police but not referred to immigration authorities.
The fate of the sanctuary policy may well be decided in court.
An August memorandum from the office of the city attorney, Dennis Herrera, to Mr. Newsom said that while federal and state law concerning sanctuary cities was “not settled,” the ordinance that passed Tuesday could also “adversely affect” the city’s position in several pending cases concerning its sanctuary policy, including a criminal investigation by the United States attorney’s office in San Francisco.
Mr. Ballard, Mr. Newsom’s spokesman, echoed this, saying the supervisors’ vote, which will be formalized at a final reading of the bill next week, could invite a federal legal challenge to the entire sanctuary city policy.
“The supervisors did a foolish thing today by passing this bill that moves one step closer to imperiling the entire sanctuary city ordinance,” Mr. Ballard said.
But Mr. Campos, the supervisor and a naturalized citizen who emigrated — illegally — from his native Guatemala when he was 14, said the vote to change Mr. Newsom’s policy was necessary to maintain the city’s reputation as a safe haven for illegal residents.
“We went from being one of the most enlightened cities,” Mr. Campos said, “to be a place many steps backward to where the rest of the country is.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/us/21sanctuary.html?_r=1&ref=us
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Novato Family Fights Deportation
By Jim Welte
Contra Costa Times
10/11/2009
As a boy, Gilbert Mejia-Perez of Novato went to work with his father Salvador, a carpenter. He learned the tools of the trade, but as Mejia-Perez got older, he developed higher aspirations. Instead of helping to build and remodel homes, he wanted to design them himself. Now 18 and in his first semester at Santa Rosa Junior College, Mejia-Perez is on his way to fulfilling his dream.
But barring an unforeseen reversal from immigration officials, Mejia-Perez will be pursuing that dream in Guatemala, the country he left with his parents when he was 1 year old.
Despite a community letter-writing campaign to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Mejia-Perez's parents are set to be deported at the end of this month. The parents were granted a last-minute delay from their original Oct. 13 deadline in order to testify at their son's deportation hearing Oct. 22.
When they leave the United States, the parents will take their two other children, Helen and Dulce, both of whom were born in Marin and are U.S. citizens.
Marc Van Der Hout, a San Francisco immigration attorney who has handled the Novato family's case, said that while families deal with deportation all the time in California, their situation was an exception.
"An immigration judge found that the family met the very high standards of showing that it would be an exceptional hardship to have the parents deported," he said. "This extraordinary finding sets it apart from almost all of the other cases."
Salvador Mejia and Elida Perez, along with 1-year-old Gilbert, crossed the Mexican border more than 17 years ago; Salvador was looking for opportunity as a carpenter and Elida as a housekeeper and caregiver. They ended up in the Canal area of San Rafael, and in 2002, they bought a home on Alameda del Prado in Novato.
"We are honest people, we are hard workers and we have children who need to stay here," Perez said. "My kids are very good students and their dreams are to finish school and go to college and university. We own a house here. We've made our life here."
But to Immigration and Customers Enforcement officials, the family's case is clear cut: They have been in the U.S. illegally the entire time, and have never acquired green cards to become permanent legal residents. In order to do that, they would have had to be petitioned for a green card by an employer or close relative or seek asylum or refugee status.
"Mejia-Reyes had ample access to due process," an ICE spokesman said in a statement regarding Salvador's case. "His immigration case has undergone exhaustive review by judges at all levels of our legal system and the courts have consistently held that the couple does not have a legal basis to remain in the United States. É If the immigration courts find that a person has no legal basis to be in this country, it is ICE's responsibility to see that the court's decision is carried out."
The family's saga began in March 2007, when federal agents raided their home in a case of mistaken identity. Although they were looking for someone else, they determined that the parents and Gilbert Mejia-Perez were in the U.S. illegally. They detained Salvador Mejia and initiated removal proceedings for his wife and son.
In October 2007, an immigration judge in San Francisco granted the parents "cancellation of removal," which would have provided them permanent residence status. The judge determined that their deportation would impose too great a hardship on their daughters, Helen, 13, and Dulce, 4. The family said that Dulce is chronically underweight and has trouble swallowing food, while Helen was diagnosed with depression- and anxiety-related disorders after the 2007 raid.
The Department of Homeland Security appealed the immigration judge's decision, and in March 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the original decision. The family's subsequent appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed in May 2009.
Since then Mejia, 39, Perez, 40, and 18-year-old Gilbert have had to wear ankle bracelets that monitor their whereabouts. The trio must make thrice-weekly trips to the ICE office in San Francisco to check in, and an agency official visits them at their home once a week.
"They treat you like a criminal," Elida Perez said. "We haven't made one mistake."
As the Oct. 13 deadline approached, Van Der Hout sought to have Feinstein draft private legislation that would provide amnesty for the family. But Feinstein reviewed the case last week and decided against doing so, her office confirmed. Feinstein's office declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
Feinstein's decision came despite an extensive letter-writing campaign to her office organized by friends and family. Michelle DeBerge, a women's divorce and breakup coach, has employed Perez as a housekeeper for several years.
"She's like family to me," she said. "I can't believe this is happening. I just feel like crying. We've tried so hard and it's been wonderful the amount of support we've gotten. It's so disheartening and heartbreaking that Senator Feinstein is not willing to sign a private bill for them. But I'm not giving up hope."
Van Der Hout worked on a separate strategy, trying to get immigration officials to delay the parents' deportation. Mejia-Perez's lawyer subpoenaed the parents to appear at his deportation hearing, convincing immigrations officials to delay their deportation to allow them to testify. But the family has yet to attain anything more than a delay of the inevitable.
"We're hoping that Senator Feinstein and Immigration and Customs Enforcement change their mind," Van Der Hout said. "We're not giving up complete hope, but it is looking most likely that they will have to leave."
In the meantime, the family is preparing for the worst. Perez said that they don't intend to sell their home, but will pass power of attorney status onto a family friend in order to possibly rent it out while they sort out their legal options. With his parents' fate all but determined, Gilbert Mejia-Perez said he plans to speak out at his own deportation hearing.
"I will tell the judge that I have the right as a human to pursue my dreams and goals and that every person has the right to pursue happiness," he said. "I am attending college right now and I have a lot of things going on that I can't leave behind."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13542300
Contra Costa Times
10/11/2009
As a boy, Gilbert Mejia-Perez of Novato went to work with his father Salvador, a carpenter. He learned the tools of the trade, but as Mejia-Perez got older, he developed higher aspirations. Instead of helping to build and remodel homes, he wanted to design them himself. Now 18 and in his first semester at Santa Rosa Junior College, Mejia-Perez is on his way to fulfilling his dream.
But barring an unforeseen reversal from immigration officials, Mejia-Perez will be pursuing that dream in Guatemala, the country he left with his parents when he was 1 year old.
Despite a community letter-writing campaign to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Mejia-Perez's parents are set to be deported at the end of this month. The parents were granted a last-minute delay from their original Oct. 13 deadline in order to testify at their son's deportation hearing Oct. 22.
When they leave the United States, the parents will take their two other children, Helen and Dulce, both of whom were born in Marin and are U.S. citizens.
Marc Van Der Hout, a San Francisco immigration attorney who has handled the Novato family's case, said that while families deal with deportation all the time in California, their situation was an exception.
"An immigration judge found that the family met the very high standards of showing that it would be an exceptional hardship to have the parents deported," he said. "This extraordinary finding sets it apart from almost all of the other cases."
Salvador Mejia and Elida Perez, along with 1-year-old Gilbert, crossed the Mexican border more than 17 years ago; Salvador was looking for opportunity as a carpenter and Elida as a housekeeper and caregiver. They ended up in the Canal area of San Rafael, and in 2002, they bought a home on Alameda del Prado in Novato.
"We are honest people, we are hard workers and we have children who need to stay here," Perez said. "My kids are very good students and their dreams are to finish school and go to college and university. We own a house here. We've made our life here."
But to Immigration and Customers Enforcement officials, the family's case is clear cut: They have been in the U.S. illegally the entire time, and have never acquired green cards to become permanent legal residents. In order to do that, they would have had to be petitioned for a green card by an employer or close relative or seek asylum or refugee status.
"Mejia-Reyes had ample access to due process," an ICE spokesman said in a statement regarding Salvador's case. "His immigration case has undergone exhaustive review by judges at all levels of our legal system and the courts have consistently held that the couple does not have a legal basis to remain in the United States. É If the immigration courts find that a person has no legal basis to be in this country, it is ICE's responsibility to see that the court's decision is carried out."
The family's saga began in March 2007, when federal agents raided their home in a case of mistaken identity. Although they were looking for someone else, they determined that the parents and Gilbert Mejia-Perez were in the U.S. illegally. They detained Salvador Mejia and initiated removal proceedings for his wife and son.
In October 2007, an immigration judge in San Francisco granted the parents "cancellation of removal," which would have provided them permanent residence status. The judge determined that their deportation would impose too great a hardship on their daughters, Helen, 13, and Dulce, 4. The family said that Dulce is chronically underweight and has trouble swallowing food, while Helen was diagnosed with depression- and anxiety-related disorders after the 2007 raid.
The Department of Homeland Security appealed the immigration judge's decision, and in March 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the original decision. The family's subsequent appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed in May 2009.
Since then Mejia, 39, Perez, 40, and 18-year-old Gilbert have had to wear ankle bracelets that monitor their whereabouts. The trio must make thrice-weekly trips to the ICE office in San Francisco to check in, and an agency official visits them at their home once a week.
"They treat you like a criminal," Elida Perez said. "We haven't made one mistake."
As the Oct. 13 deadline approached, Van Der Hout sought to have Feinstein draft private legislation that would provide amnesty for the family. But Feinstein reviewed the case last week and decided against doing so, her office confirmed. Feinstein's office declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
Feinstein's decision came despite an extensive letter-writing campaign to her office organized by friends and family. Michelle DeBerge, a women's divorce and breakup coach, has employed Perez as a housekeeper for several years.
"She's like family to me," she said. "I can't believe this is happening. I just feel like crying. We've tried so hard and it's been wonderful the amount of support we've gotten. It's so disheartening and heartbreaking that Senator Feinstein is not willing to sign a private bill for them. But I'm not giving up hope."
Van Der Hout worked on a separate strategy, trying to get immigration officials to delay the parents' deportation. Mejia-Perez's lawyer subpoenaed the parents to appear at his deportation hearing, convincing immigrations officials to delay their deportation to allow them to testify. But the family has yet to attain anything more than a delay of the inevitable.
"We're hoping that Senator Feinstein and Immigration and Customs Enforcement change their mind," Van Der Hout said. "We're not giving up complete hope, but it is looking most likely that they will have to leave."
In the meantime, the family is preparing for the worst. Perez said that they don't intend to sell their home, but will pass power of attorney status onto a family friend in order to possibly rent it out while they sort out their legal options. With his parents' fate all but determined, Gilbert Mejia-Perez said he plans to speak out at his own deportation hearing.
"I will tell the judge that I have the right as a human to pursue my dreams and goals and that every person has the right to pursue happiness," he said. "I am attending college right now and I have a lot of things going on that I can't leave behind."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13542300
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
California convicts soon to be deported to Baja California
By Mariana MartÃnez
La Prensa San Diego
Featured Sep 11, 2009
One of the most heated issues in current public debate has been the jail system, mainly because far from being a place of rehabilitation it has been a place of overcrowding, violence and steep public spending both in California and Baja California.
With more than 150 thousand inmates, the California Jail system is maxed out, and the governor is pushing the idea of freeing 40 thousand non-violent inmates not only to reduce overcrowding, but also to save the state 1.2 billion dollars a year.
Many of those ex-convicts would soon be deported to Baja California because of their immigration status; most of them belong to violent jail gangs, have violent pasts, are addicted to drugs and despite their emigration status, have never been to Mexico in their adult lives.
The prospect of such deportations have worried residents and authorities alike, because the mass deportation of inmates comes at a critical time where the Baja Penitentiary system is 35% overcrowded, arrests are up and a major legal system overhaul is scheduled for the beginning of 2010.
“This decision of liberating inmates in California will definitely have an impact in the public safety conditions along the border, where we already have a very complex scenario” said Baja California Attorney General, Rommel Moreno Manjarrez.
His California counterpart, Jerry Brown acknowledged the fact the deportation of ex-convicts could impact security in both sides of the border, and agreed to work with Rommel to create a plan to mitigate such impact.
The plan includes working together in a system to share information about deportations and inmates, including a fingerprint data base for future reference.
A jail system at a crossroad
Baja California has a jail population of 18,600 inmates in 5 state penitentiaries; some, like La Mesa in Tijuana and Mexicali have an overcrowding so severe, inmates are housed 26 to a cell designed for 6 people.
About 80% of inmates are addicted to drugs and 55% of them come from other states in Mexico, -Sinaloa, Sonora and Michoacán mainly-, making it hard for them to have visits or even contact their families.
Currently there are just a few work programs that allow inmates to work and earn a living; one of them is in Hongo penitentiary close to Tecate, where there are office furniture and textile factories that employ 500 out of the 3,500 inmates.
The lack of activities and overcrowding, interact with other factors such as the rampant corruption among the guards; constant complaints of spoiled food and physical punishments and abuse, that have lead to a series of riots in jails across the state.
The deadliest riot series where held a year ago, September 13 and 17th, after prison guards brutally murdered a 19 year-old inmate at the Tijuana penitentiary.
After the news spread across the 9 thousand inmates held in the jail, riots erupted, 23 people where killed and some buildings where put on fire.
Since then, the Hongo Penitentiary has been expanded, in search of lowering jail overcrowding to 22%, the new buildings include 12 spaces for factories in order to attract companies to employ inmates.
There is a proposal to send inmate to their states of origin and Public Safety Secretary Daniel de la Rosa Anaya announced 220 new guards have joined the state ranks.
But authorities are reluctant to address or even admit the series of documented abuses in state jails.
“In regards to [allegations of abuse] we have to remember many of them [inmates] are against law and order, and they argue abuse in hopes of gaining privileges and status and that is just not going to happen” said De La Rosa.
Human rights activist and SDSU professor VÃctor Clark Alfaro, considers lack of access to justice and human rights abuses the very center of the rioting behavior, both issues need to be addressed along with the decongesting of state jails.
“The abuse and mistreatment of inmates is a determining factor in these cases” said Clark, “you can have an overcrowded jail but if the director and guards have a decent treatment inmates will respond to that. But you have severe overcrowding and you add torture, corporal punishment and rotten food, and authorities are feeding the fire that leads to a riot”.
http://laprensa-sandiego.org/featured/california-convicts-soon-to-be-deported-to-baja-california/
La Prensa San Diego
Featured Sep 11, 2009
One of the most heated issues in current public debate has been the jail system, mainly because far from being a place of rehabilitation it has been a place of overcrowding, violence and steep public spending both in California and Baja California.
With more than 150 thousand inmates, the California Jail system is maxed out, and the governor is pushing the idea of freeing 40 thousand non-violent inmates not only to reduce overcrowding, but also to save the state 1.2 billion dollars a year.
Many of those ex-convicts would soon be deported to Baja California because of their immigration status; most of them belong to violent jail gangs, have violent pasts, are addicted to drugs and despite their emigration status, have never been to Mexico in their adult lives.
The prospect of such deportations have worried residents and authorities alike, because the mass deportation of inmates comes at a critical time where the Baja Penitentiary system is 35% overcrowded, arrests are up and a major legal system overhaul is scheduled for the beginning of 2010.
“This decision of liberating inmates in California will definitely have an impact in the public safety conditions along the border, where we already have a very complex scenario” said Baja California Attorney General, Rommel Moreno Manjarrez.
His California counterpart, Jerry Brown acknowledged the fact the deportation of ex-convicts could impact security in both sides of the border, and agreed to work with Rommel to create a plan to mitigate such impact.
The plan includes working together in a system to share information about deportations and inmates, including a fingerprint data base for future reference.
A jail system at a crossroad
Baja California has a jail population of 18,600 inmates in 5 state penitentiaries; some, like La Mesa in Tijuana and Mexicali have an overcrowding so severe, inmates are housed 26 to a cell designed for 6 people.
About 80% of inmates are addicted to drugs and 55% of them come from other states in Mexico, -Sinaloa, Sonora and Michoacán mainly-, making it hard for them to have visits or even contact their families.
Currently there are just a few work programs that allow inmates to work and earn a living; one of them is in Hongo penitentiary close to Tecate, where there are office furniture and textile factories that employ 500 out of the 3,500 inmates.
The lack of activities and overcrowding, interact with other factors such as the rampant corruption among the guards; constant complaints of spoiled food and physical punishments and abuse, that have lead to a series of riots in jails across the state.
The deadliest riot series where held a year ago, September 13 and 17th, after prison guards brutally murdered a 19 year-old inmate at the Tijuana penitentiary.
After the news spread across the 9 thousand inmates held in the jail, riots erupted, 23 people where killed and some buildings where put on fire.
Since then, the Hongo Penitentiary has been expanded, in search of lowering jail overcrowding to 22%, the new buildings include 12 spaces for factories in order to attract companies to employ inmates.
There is a proposal to send inmate to their states of origin and Public Safety Secretary Daniel de la Rosa Anaya announced 220 new guards have joined the state ranks.
But authorities are reluctant to address or even admit the series of documented abuses in state jails.
“In regards to [allegations of abuse] we have to remember many of them [inmates] are against law and order, and they argue abuse in hopes of gaining privileges and status and that is just not going to happen” said De La Rosa.
Human rights activist and SDSU professor VÃctor Clark Alfaro, considers lack of access to justice and human rights abuses the very center of the rioting behavior, both issues need to be addressed along with the decongesting of state jails.
“The abuse and mistreatment of inmates is a determining factor in these cases” said Clark, “you can have an overcrowded jail but if the director and guards have a decent treatment inmates will respond to that. But you have severe overcrowding and you add torture, corporal punishment and rotten food, and authorities are feeding the fire that leads to a riot”.
http://laprensa-sandiego.org/featured/california-convicts-soon-to-be-deported-to-baja-california/
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Pizzeria owner admits hiring illegal workers, but felony case dropped
By Matt O'Brien
Contra Costa Times
08/31/2009
HAYWARD — Prosecutors have dropped felony charges against a pizzeria owner they had accused of harboring illegal immigrants at his Hayward restaurant.
Glenio Silva, owner of the Pizza House, pleaded guilty Thursday to the lesser charge of hiring illegal workers.
Judge Jeffrey White compared the case to an elephant that was downgraded to a mouse, and sentenced Silva to two weeks in jail and a $2,500 fine. Silva also faces five years of probation.
"The government thought they had this huge alien smuggler in Mr. Silva," said Steve Gruel, the restaurateur's lawyer. "Basically, they got it wrong."
Federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided Silva's restaurants in Hayward and San Francisco in June 2007. They arrested him and some of his employees who were Brazilians living and working in the country illegally.
Silva let some of the workers live above his restaurants, which he attributed to his generosity but authorities said showed he was exploiting an illegal workforce.
The agency accused Silva of paying the workers cash to conceal their illegal employment and to avoid paying payroll taxes.
The investigation was sparked by tips by Silvano Santos, a former manager at Monterey Pizza restaurant in San Francisco. Silva had recently fired Santos, who is also an illegal immigrant, after accusing him of stealing money.
Gruel said many of Santos' claims were wrong. Gruel said Silva had nothing to do with the bogus documents that illegal workers acquired to find work at his business.
Although Silva is a legal immigrant, the five felony charges against him could have jailed him for years and led to deportation.
Prosecutors felt the plea agreement was appropriate, said Jack Gillund, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gruel, a former federal prosecutor, portrayed the raids as unfair, since illegal immigrants are employed by small and large-scale businesses throughout the region and rarely are the employers saddled with federal investigations.
"I hope we see a fairer application of the law as opposed to going for the low-hanging fruit," Gruel said. "Mr. Silva was an easy target."
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration promised crackdowns on employers who profit from keeping illegal workers, but prosecutors often find pursuing criminal cases against employers difficult.
The raid on Silva's restaurants was one of a handful of high-profile raids in recent years targeting Bay Area workplaces that employ illegal immigrants.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/crime/ci_13240818?nclick_check=1
Contra Costa Times
08/31/2009
HAYWARD — Prosecutors have dropped felony charges against a pizzeria owner they had accused of harboring illegal immigrants at his Hayward restaurant.
Glenio Silva, owner of the Pizza House, pleaded guilty Thursday to the lesser charge of hiring illegal workers.
Judge Jeffrey White compared the case to an elephant that was downgraded to a mouse, and sentenced Silva to two weeks in jail and a $2,500 fine. Silva also faces five years of probation.
"The government thought they had this huge alien smuggler in Mr. Silva," said Steve Gruel, the restaurateur's lawyer. "Basically, they got it wrong."
Federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided Silva's restaurants in Hayward and San Francisco in June 2007. They arrested him and some of his employees who were Brazilians living and working in the country illegally.
Silva let some of the workers live above his restaurants, which he attributed to his generosity but authorities said showed he was exploiting an illegal workforce.
The agency accused Silva of paying the workers cash to conceal their illegal employment and to avoid paying payroll taxes.
The investigation was sparked by tips by Silvano Santos, a former manager at Monterey Pizza restaurant in San Francisco. Silva had recently fired Santos, who is also an illegal immigrant, after accusing him of stealing money.
Gruel said many of Santos' claims were wrong. Gruel said Silva had nothing to do with the bogus documents that illegal workers acquired to find work at his business.
Although Silva is a legal immigrant, the five felony charges against him could have jailed him for years and led to deportation.
Prosecutors felt the plea agreement was appropriate, said Jack Gillund, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gruel, a former federal prosecutor, portrayed the raids as unfair, since illegal immigrants are employed by small and large-scale businesses throughout the region and rarely are the employers saddled with federal investigations.
"I hope we see a fairer application of the law as opposed to going for the low-hanging fruit," Gruel said. "Mr. Silva was an easy target."
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration promised crackdowns on employers who profit from keeping illegal workers, but prosecutors often find pursuing criminal cases against employers difficult.
The raid on Silva's restaurants was one of a handful of high-profile raids in recent years targeting Bay Area workplaces that employ illegal immigrants.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/crime/ci_13240818?nclick_check=1
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Students Sent to Mexico Return to U.S.
Border Patrol: Teens "not deported but given an option to voluntarily go back to Mexico"
By GREG BLEDSOE
Jun 17, 2009
NBC San Diego
The students' temporary visas will expire after a judge decides whether to send them back to Mexico or allow them to stay with documentation.
Three local high school students are back home after being separated from their families for nearly a month.
Students Sent to Mexico Return to U.S.
Border Patrol: Teens 'not deported but given an option to voluntarily go back to Mexico'
It's where they call home that will keep their ordeal going. It all started last month during what the Border Patrol called a routine check of the trolley in Old Town. It ended with 21 people sent back to Mexico, three of them teenagers on their way to school.
The Border Patrol said the students were not deported but given an option to voluntarily go back to Mexico when no legal guardian could come forward. At least some of their family members are in the United States illegally.
Wednesday was an emotional day for three teenagers, including Stephanie Jiminez, who said she was glad to be back with her parents.
"No matter where you stand on the issue of immigration, I think we all have to agree that kids should be with their parents, and it should be a judge that should determine what happens to their case," said immigration activist Christian Ramirez of the American Friends Service Committee.
At the trolley stop last month, border agents questioned and detained 21 passengers, including the three teenagers, who, officials said, admitted they were in the country illegally. That was a question they never needed to answer, according to former U.S. Attorney Pete Nunez.
"They don't have to answer the questions, but if you do, you're stuck with what you gave them," Nunez said.
The students are now back in the U.S. on temporary visas.
Mauricio Villanueva was also on his way to school the day he was detained.
"I could see by the acts they were trying to be racist," Villanueva said.
Despite accusations that agents are using racial profiling, agents have every right to be on the trains, Nunez said, and are likely choosing those areas for a reason.
"I'm sure the ICE, Border Patrol, transportation authorities can demonstrate that over the course of history, many people use the trolley that have just entered illegally," Nunez said.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Students-Sent-to-Mexico-Return-to-US.html
By GREG BLEDSOE
Jun 17, 2009
NBC San Diego
The students' temporary visas will expire after a judge decides whether to send them back to Mexico or allow them to stay with documentation.
Three local high school students are back home after being separated from their families for nearly a month.
Students Sent to Mexico Return to U.S.
Border Patrol: Teens 'not deported but given an option to voluntarily go back to Mexico'
It's where they call home that will keep their ordeal going. It all started last month during what the Border Patrol called a routine check of the trolley in Old Town. It ended with 21 people sent back to Mexico, three of them teenagers on their way to school.
The Border Patrol said the students were not deported but given an option to voluntarily go back to Mexico when no legal guardian could come forward. At least some of their family members are in the United States illegally.
Wednesday was an emotional day for three teenagers, including Stephanie Jiminez, who said she was glad to be back with her parents.
"No matter where you stand on the issue of immigration, I think we all have to agree that kids should be with their parents, and it should be a judge that should determine what happens to their case," said immigration activist Christian Ramirez of the American Friends Service Committee.
At the trolley stop last month, border agents questioned and detained 21 passengers, including the three teenagers, who, officials said, admitted they were in the country illegally. That was a question they never needed to answer, according to former U.S. Attorney Pete Nunez.
"They don't have to answer the questions, but if you do, you're stuck with what you gave them," Nunez said.
The students are now back in the U.S. on temporary visas.
Mauricio Villanueva was also on his way to school the day he was detained.
"I could see by the acts they were trying to be racist," Villanueva said.
Despite accusations that agents are using racial profiling, agents have every right to be on the trains, Nunez said, and are likely choosing those areas for a reason.
"I'm sure the ICE, Border Patrol, transportation authorities can demonstrate that over the course of history, many people use the trolley that have just entered illegally," Nunez said.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Students-Sent-to-Mexico-Return-to-US.html
Saturday, November 29, 2008
House of shattered dreams: US deports more Mexicans
House of shattered dreams: US deports more Mexicans
29 November 2008
Khaleej Times Online
TIJUANA - The double fence that separates Mexico from the United States near Tijuana is just a few hundred metres away from the Casa del Migrante - the migrant's house.
The white church of Father Luis Kendzierski, which sits on a hill and is visible from the city centre, is always surrounded by scores of people.
The men who approach the church have often lived and worked in the United States for up to 25 years before being picked up by police, taken before US immigration authorities and deported to Tijuana.
In the migrants' home there is accommodation for up to 400 men. They can stay there for 12 days and get food and clothing, as well as being enabled to phone their relatives in Mexico, to organize their forced trip home. And then they are taken home by bus.
"For most of them this is a catastrophe. They realize here that their dream is shattered," Father Kendzierski said. "After many years of work in the United States they return, not richer but older."
The United States is not only sealing its southern border with a fence in order to stem the inflow of Mexicans and Central Americans. They have also tightened legislation in order to send back Latinos who have already reached the United States illegally.
Hundreds of thousands of people are being sent back along the 3,000-kilometre-long border. And given that the "traditional" illegal gateways near cities have become insurmountable, migrants seek out more out-of-the-way places over dangerous, mountainous pathways into the United States.
In the first nine months of this year, some 97,000 Mexicans and Central Americans were arrested and sent back from the 120-kilometre stretch in Cochise County, Arizona alone.
"This is a lot more than last year," said Gustavo Morales Cirion, the Mexican "protection consul" in Douglas, Arizona, who is in charge of migrants. In the whole Tucson sector the figure of returnees was as high as 266,000.
In southern California, in San Diego, there are some 25,000 indigenous people from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Most of them are "indocumentados," without papers. But even though they daily face the threat of deportation, over the years they have let down their guard enough to flaunt the rules and celebrate their cultural festivals out in the open.
They need something festive to make up for their dangerous crossings into the US and their illegal labour in the tomato, avocado and strawberry fields around San Diego. US farm owners, faced with immigration crackdowns, say they don't know who will harvest their crops.
With more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the US today, most of them from Latin America, it's a similar story in US construction sites, hotels and many other vibrant branches of the economy.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayarticleNew.asp?section=todaysfeatures&xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2008/November/todaysfeatures_November30.xml
29 November 2008
Khaleej Times Online
TIJUANA - The double fence that separates Mexico from the United States near Tijuana is just a few hundred metres away from the Casa del Migrante - the migrant's house.
The white church of Father Luis Kendzierski, which sits on a hill and is visible from the city centre, is always surrounded by scores of people.
The men who approach the church have often lived and worked in the United States for up to 25 years before being picked up by police, taken before US immigration authorities and deported to Tijuana.
In the migrants' home there is accommodation for up to 400 men. They can stay there for 12 days and get food and clothing, as well as being enabled to phone their relatives in Mexico, to organize their forced trip home. And then they are taken home by bus.
"For most of them this is a catastrophe. They realize here that their dream is shattered," Father Kendzierski said. "After many years of work in the United States they return, not richer but older."
The United States is not only sealing its southern border with a fence in order to stem the inflow of Mexicans and Central Americans. They have also tightened legislation in order to send back Latinos who have already reached the United States illegally.
Hundreds of thousands of people are being sent back along the 3,000-kilometre-long border. And given that the "traditional" illegal gateways near cities have become insurmountable, migrants seek out more out-of-the-way places over dangerous, mountainous pathways into the United States.
In the first nine months of this year, some 97,000 Mexicans and Central Americans were arrested and sent back from the 120-kilometre stretch in Cochise County, Arizona alone.
"This is a lot more than last year," said Gustavo Morales Cirion, the Mexican "protection consul" in Douglas, Arizona, who is in charge of migrants. In the whole Tucson sector the figure of returnees was as high as 266,000.
In southern California, in San Diego, there are some 25,000 indigenous people from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Most of them are "indocumentados," without papers. But even though they daily face the threat of deportation, over the years they have let down their guard enough to flaunt the rules and celebrate their cultural festivals out in the open.
They need something festive to make up for their dangerous crossings into the US and their illegal labour in the tomato, avocado and strawberry fields around San Diego. US farm owners, faced with immigration crackdowns, say they don't know who will harvest their crops.
With more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the US today, most of them from Latin America, it's a similar story in US construction sites, hotels and many other vibrant branches of the economy.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayarticleNew.asp?section=todaysfeatures&xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2008/November/todaysfeatures_November30.xml
Saturday, October 11, 2008
When ICE Comes to Your Town
When ICE Comes to Your Town
By Raj Jayadev
New America Media & La Prensa de San Diego
SAN JOSE – Eloy, Ariz., is nothing like San Jose. More than a thousand miles away, placed in the middle of the desert, it is a blazingly hot, desolate and an unremarkable town, roughly an hour and a half south of Phoenix. It is so secluded that Greyhound doesn’t even go there.
Eloy is also host to one of the largest immigration detention centers in the country, and for many is the last stop before deportation.
But now, a week after the largest immigration enforcement operation in California history, which brought in more than 1,000 people, and was a sort of coming out party for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s new San Jose Fugitive Operation Team, the distance from San Jose and Eloy already seems significantly shorter.
An estimated 436 people were arrested by ICE from the San Francisco Bay Area – many likely headed to Eloy – and immigrant communities here are on notice: they are in a new era of immigration enforcement, and ICE could be anywhere.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was established in 2003, as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. In order to expand ICE’s field efforts, it created Fugitive Operation Teams to locate, arrest and remove “fugitives” from the United States. ICE defines a fugitive as “an alien who has failed to report to a Detention and Removal Officer after receiving notice to do so.”
In 2003, there were eight Fugitive Operation Teams in the country. ICE now has 95 teams across the country, and expects to have more than 100 by the end of the year.
This year ICE is in the process of deploying teams in Birmingham, Ala., Columbus, Ohio, Charleston, S.C., Colorado Springs, Colo., Des Moines, Iowa, Fort Worth, Texas and two in New York City. In California, ICE is adding new teams in San Bernardino, San Diego, San Jose and Ventura County.
As of August, Fugitive Operations Teams have arrested 26,945 people this year. In 2003, they arrested less than 2,000.
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/current/ICE.101008.htm
By Raj Jayadev
New America Media & La Prensa de San Diego
SAN JOSE – Eloy, Ariz., is nothing like San Jose. More than a thousand miles away, placed in the middle of the desert, it is a blazingly hot, desolate and an unremarkable town, roughly an hour and a half south of Phoenix. It is so secluded that Greyhound doesn’t even go there.
Eloy is also host to one of the largest immigration detention centers in the country, and for many is the last stop before deportation.
But now, a week after the largest immigration enforcement operation in California history, which brought in more than 1,000 people, and was a sort of coming out party for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s new San Jose Fugitive Operation Team, the distance from San Jose and Eloy already seems significantly shorter.
An estimated 436 people were arrested by ICE from the San Francisco Bay Area – many likely headed to Eloy – and immigrant communities here are on notice: they are in a new era of immigration enforcement, and ICE could be anywhere.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was established in 2003, as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. In order to expand ICE’s field efforts, it created Fugitive Operation Teams to locate, arrest and remove “fugitives” from the United States. ICE defines a fugitive as “an alien who has failed to report to a Detention and Removal Officer after receiving notice to do so.”
In 2003, there were eight Fugitive Operation Teams in the country. ICE now has 95 teams across the country, and expects to have more than 100 by the end of the year.
This year ICE is in the process of deploying teams in Birmingham, Ala., Columbus, Ohio, Charleston, S.C., Colorado Springs, Colo., Des Moines, Iowa, Fort Worth, Texas and two in New York City. In California, ICE is adding new teams in San Bernardino, San Diego, San Jose and Ventura County.
As of August, Fugitive Operations Teams have arrested 26,945 people this year. In 2003, they arrested less than 2,000.
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/current/ICE.101008.htm
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Immigration's net; The need to reform immigration laws is highlighted by the capture of 1,700 illegals linked to crimes
Editorial, Los Angeles Times
Immigration's net; The need to reform immigration laws is highlighted by the capture of 1,700 illegals linked to crimes.
October 5, 2008
In rounding up 1,700 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes or linked to criminal gangs -- including about 400 in the Los Angeles area -- the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has made life safer for the residents of terrorized neighborhoods. But the four-month sweep, part of Operation Community Shield, also demonstrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform, including legal status for most of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally.
ICE persuasively argues that it did not overreach in arresting the vast majority of the immigrants who are now targeted for deportation before or after a criminal trial. It has been obvious for years that illegal immigrants provide much of the muscle for gangs such as MS-13 and La Mirada Loco. Most of those seized in the sweep seem to be gang members and criminals, including a notorious sex offender. Of 1,157 illegal immigrants arrested in California, 595 had outstanding deportation orders and 346 had prior criminal convictions.
The arrests apparently were surgical strikes, not a carpet bombing of communities where illegal immigrants reside peacefully or work to feed their families. Certainly they bear little resemblance to the disruptive raids on meatpacking plants, garment factories and other businesses with large, undocumented workforces. Those operations, which seem motivated by a desire to prove that the government is tough on illegal immigration, disrupt the lives of the very families that would be legalized under comprehensive reform legislation.
Gangbangers, gunmen and child molesters are obviously in a different category. Even so, their illegal status is what enables ICE to arrest and deport them. It's reassuring that so many of those seized recently have criminal records or outstanding deportation orders that in some cases followed criminal convictions. But under the law, even illegal immigrants without criminal records can be detained and deported.
That reality complicates efforts to combine law enforcement and immigration control. No doubt many of the young men arrested in the sweep deserve the designation of gang member, but the term "gang associate" is disturbingly vague. As long as the defining characteristic of those arrested is their illegal status, even the most carefully designed dragnet risks pulling in innocent friends or relatives of gang members.
The remedy is not to relax efforts to find and deport criminals and gang members from other countries. It is to enact legislation like the comprehensive measure scuttled last year in the U.S. Senate. That would legalize otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants and require ICE and other agencies to focus exclusively on truly undesirable people -- those who by their criminal acts have forfeited even a moral claim to remain in this country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-deport5-2008oct05,0,3390651.story
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Raids net 32 area illegal immigrants
Raids net 32 area illegal immigrants
Enforcement targets 'fugitives'
Tuesday Sep 30, 2008
By Shaun Bishop
Daily News Staff Writer
Nearly three dozen illegal immigrants in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have been arrested as part of the federal immigration enforcement agency's largest-ever operation in California, authorities said Monday.
A three-week enforcement surge led to 1,157 arrests of "immigration violators" statewide, according to officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Of the 436 people detained in Northern California, 22 were from San Mateo County and 10 from Santa Clara County, said Craig Meyer, assistant director of the agency's San Francisco field office.
While the enforcement teams targeted "immigration fugitives" - people who have ignored deportation orders or have returned after being previously deported - about 40 percent of those arrested were other illegal immigrants discovered during the raids.
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-9-30-all-immigration
Enforcement targets 'fugitives'
Tuesday Sep 30, 2008
By Shaun Bishop
Daily News Staff Writer
Nearly three dozen illegal immigrants in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have been arrested as part of the federal immigration enforcement agency's largest-ever operation in California, authorities said Monday.
A three-week enforcement surge led to 1,157 arrests of "immigration violators" statewide, according to officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Of the 436 people detained in Northern California, 22 were from San Mateo County and 10 from Santa Clara County, said Craig Meyer, assistant director of the agency's San Francisco field office.
While the enforcement teams targeted "immigration fugitives" - people who have ignored deportation orders or have returned after being previously deported - about 40 percent of those arrested were other illegal immigrants discovered during the raids.
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-9-30-all-immigration
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Recent ICE raids in Humboldt County
Recent ICE raids in Humboldt County
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/04/2008
Sept. 3 -- 18 Sun Valley Floral Farms workers are arrested as part of a raid on the Arcata facility, mostly for allegedly using fraudulent documentation. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Service says the action is part of a larger investigation at the company.
June 9 -- Sun Valley tells 283 workers they cannot come back to work until they correct their employment numbers after ICE informed the company the workers were not eligible.
June 2007 -- ICE begins sweeps of Fortuna, Eureka, Arcata and Rio Dell as part of a nationwide effort that began in May. ICE declines to specify how many detained during the raids were deported.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10378215
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/04/2008
Sept. 3 -- 18 Sun Valley Floral Farms workers are arrested as part of a raid on the Arcata facility, mostly for allegedly using fraudulent documentation. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Service says the action is part of a larger investigation at the company.
June 9 -- Sun Valley tells 283 workers they cannot come back to work until they correct their employment numbers after ICE informed the company the workers were not eligible.
June 2007 -- ICE begins sweeps of Fortuna, Eureka, Arcata and Rio Dell as part of a nationwide effort that began in May. ICE declines to specify how many detained during the raids were deported.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10378215
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)