The small town of Fremont faces lawsuits for its Arizona-style ordinance
By MARGERY A. BECK, The Associated Press
Salon
Jul 21, 2010
Two civil-rights groups filed separate federal lawsuits Wednesday against a small Nebraska city to stop its new ordinance that bans people from hiring or renting homes to illegal immigrants.
The lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, also known as MALDEF. Both lawsuits said the ordinance amounted to discrimination.
"This law encourages discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign-born, including U.S. citizens," said Amy Miller, legal director of ACLU Nebraska. "We're going to do all we can to make sure this extreme law, which would lead to individuals losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and language ability, never goes into effect."
Fremont City Attorney Dean Skokan said Wednesday he had not seen the lawsuits and could not comment on them. Officials anticipated challenges to the ban.
"We expect a minimum of about three lawsuits," Skokan said.
The ban, which was approved by voters in June, is set to go into effect on July 29. It put Fremont on the list with Arizona and a few other cities in the national debate over immigration regulations. Arizona's sweeping law also takes effect July 29 and requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they think is in the country illegally.
"Nebraska doesn't need a law on its books that, like Arizona's, is completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality," Miller said.
Both lawsuits charge that Fremont's law is at odds with the constitutional mandate imposing a uniform federal immigration enforcement system. The suits also contends the ordinance violates the federal Fair Housing Act and the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, among other things.
Fremont's ban has divided the community of about 25,000 that's 35 miles northwest of Omaha. The city's seen its Hispanic population surge in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel plants.
Supporters argued the measure was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents said it could fuel discrimination.
The measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check whether the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a rent license. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.
MALDEF has fought similar ordinances, including a ban on renting to illegal immigrants in Farmers Branch, Texas. A federal judge in March found that the Farmers Branch ordinance was unconstitutional.
Fremont officials have been watching that Texas town and others across the country that have passed similar bans. Fremont officials cited Farmers Branch in a list of estimated legal costs that other cities have racked up in defending their bans. Fremont officials have estimated that its costs of implementing the ordinance -- including the legal fees, employee overtime and improved computer software -- will average $1 million a year.
http://www.salon.com/news/2010/07/21/us_nebraska_immigration
Showing posts with label Laws Against Deportations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laws Against Deportations. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Seven Latin American Nations Join Mexico In Arizona Immigration Lawsuit
The Huffington Post
July 19, 2010
PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.
A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.
Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.
The law is to take effect July 29. It requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they're in the country illegally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/seven-latin-american-nati_n_652440.html
July 19, 2010
PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.
A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.
Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.
The law is to take effect July 29. It requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they're in the country illegally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/seven-latin-american-nati_n_652440.html
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Franken introduces bill to aid children of ICE raids
By Andy Birkey
The Minnesota Independent
6/24/10
Sen. Al Franken introduced legislation Tuesday to ensure that the children of undocumented workers caught up in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids are not left abandoned. In a press release about the bill, Franken and fellow sponsor Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, offered several stories from Minnesota raids where children were left to fend for themselves — at times for a week or more — after their parents were arrested.
“One second-grader in Worthington came home that night to find his two-year old brother alone and his mother and father missing,” the senators wrote. “For the next week, the second-grader stayed home to care for his brother while his grandmother traveled to Worthington to meet them.”
Franken said that those children are often U.S. citizens and deserve to be looked after.
“Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one undocumented immigrant parent,” said Franken. “Forty-thousand of those children live in Minnesota. They should not have to live in fear that one day their parents will simply not come home. They deserve much better than being abandoned without explanation.”
The HELP Separated Children Act would beef up a response system for state agencies in the event of a raid, to allow nonprofits to locate at-risk children, to give detainees confidential ways to communicate and make arrangements for their children and to ban the use of children’s testimony in ICE interrogations. It also directs ICE to look out for the best interests of children.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/60599/franken-introduces-bill-to-aid-children-of-ice-raids
The Minnesota Independent
6/24/10
Sen. Al Franken introduced legislation Tuesday to ensure that the children of undocumented workers caught up in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids are not left abandoned. In a press release about the bill, Franken and fellow sponsor Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, offered several stories from Minnesota raids where children were left to fend for themselves — at times for a week or more — after their parents were arrested.
“One second-grader in Worthington came home that night to find his two-year old brother alone and his mother and father missing,” the senators wrote. “For the next week, the second-grader stayed home to care for his brother while his grandmother traveled to Worthington to meet them.”
Franken said that those children are often U.S. citizens and deserve to be looked after.
“Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one undocumented immigrant parent,” said Franken. “Forty-thousand of those children live in Minnesota. They should not have to live in fear that one day their parents will simply not come home. They deserve much better than being abandoned without explanation.”
The HELP Separated Children Act would beef up a response system for state agencies in the event of a raid, to allow nonprofits to locate at-risk children, to give detainees confidential ways to communicate and make arrangements for their children and to ban the use of children’s testimony in ICE interrogations. It also directs ICE to look out for the best interests of children.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/60599/franken-introduces-bill-to-aid-children-of-ice-raids
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
When parents are detained in immigration raids, who thinks of the children?
By Lauren Knobbe
MinnPost.Com
Published Tue, Jun 22 2010 4:09 pm
WASHINGTON — Sen. Al Franken today introduced a bill aimed at helping the children of those swept up in immigration raids to avoid falling through the cracks as their parents face possible deportation.
The bill would require the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to create guidelines for dealing with children who have been separated from their parents and consider the children’s best interests in proceeding. Franken emphasized that immigration laws must be followed but enforcement has consequences for the children of illegal immigrants that also need to be addressed.
"Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one undocumented immigrant parent," Franken said, with 40,000 of them in Minnesota. "They should not have to live in fear that one day their parents will simply not come home. They deserve much better than being abandoned without explanation."
The measure is a response to raids like a 2006 one at a Worthington meat-packing plant. Following that December raid, a second-grader and 2-year-old were left by themselves for a week until their grandmother arrived to care for them. Their parents had been detained.
According to Franken's office, more than 100,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the last 10 years. Upon deportation, these children have no way to find their parents and frequently experience neglect.
Franken’s legislation would establish the following guidelines for dealing with children who have been separated from their parents:
* Require enforcement authorities to inform state and local authorities of enforcement actions so they are aware of the children involved;
* Allow child welfare agencies to screen detainees to identify parents and locate at-risk children;
* Permit parents to conduct confidential phone calls to find care for their children;
* Protect children from seeing their parents interrogated;
* Entitle parents to have daily calls and "regular visits" with their children.
The bill is supported by the First Focus Campaign for Children and the Women’s Refugee Commission and co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. A similar bill was introduced in the House last July but has so far failed to clear committee.
Lauren Knobbe is an intern in MinnPost's D.C. bureau.
http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/06/22/19145/when_parents_are_detained_in_immigration_raids_who_thinks_of_the_children
MinnPost.Com
Published Tue, Jun 22 2010 4:09 pm
WASHINGTON — Sen. Al Franken today introduced a bill aimed at helping the children of those swept up in immigration raids to avoid falling through the cracks as their parents face possible deportation.
The bill would require the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to create guidelines for dealing with children who have been separated from their parents and consider the children’s best interests in proceeding. Franken emphasized that immigration laws must be followed but enforcement has consequences for the children of illegal immigrants that also need to be addressed.
"Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one undocumented immigrant parent," Franken said, with 40,000 of them in Minnesota. "They should not have to live in fear that one day their parents will simply not come home. They deserve much better than being abandoned without explanation."
The measure is a response to raids like a 2006 one at a Worthington meat-packing plant. Following that December raid, a second-grader and 2-year-old were left by themselves for a week until their grandmother arrived to care for them. Their parents had been detained.
According to Franken's office, more than 100,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the last 10 years. Upon deportation, these children have no way to find their parents and frequently experience neglect.
Franken’s legislation would establish the following guidelines for dealing with children who have been separated from their parents:
* Require enforcement authorities to inform state and local authorities of enforcement actions so they are aware of the children involved;
* Allow child welfare agencies to screen detainees to identify parents and locate at-risk children;
* Permit parents to conduct confidential phone calls to find care for their children;
* Protect children from seeing their parents interrogated;
* Entitle parents to have daily calls and "regular visits" with their children.
The bill is supported by the First Focus Campaign for Children and the Women’s Refugee Commission and co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. A similar bill was introduced in the House last July but has so far failed to clear committee.
Lauren Knobbe is an intern in MinnPost's D.C. bureau.
http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/06/22/19145/when_parents_are_detained_in_immigration_raids_who_thinks_of_the_children
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Court blocks deportation over minor drug convictions
By The LA Times
Ken Dilanian contributed to this story from Washington.
June 14, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked the government Monday from routinely deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession convictions, a decision that immigrant-rights lawyers said will spare tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding residents from being sent out of this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a Texas man who had pled guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, an anti-anxiety drug, had been wrongfully deported.
Jose Carachuri-Rosendo was taken into federal custody after he pled no contest to having the Xanax pill without a prescription. Both an immigration judge and the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans ruled he must be deported because his second drug possession conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony."
His case illustrated the potentially harsh impact of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.
The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony."
But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.
Monday's ruling marks the third time in six years that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled that these judges have gone too far.
Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's view defies common sense. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony'," he wrote.
Because of its strict wording, the 1996 law had required deportation even for legal residents who have lived in the United States for decades and served in the U.S. military. And despite the high court's ruling, immigrants convicted of drug charges still could be deported.
They will, however, have a chance to seek leniency before an immigration judge.
"Today's ruling will affect tens of thousands of immigrants, but it is hard to get a specific number," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York.
In 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 139,188 so-called "criminal aliens," but this number included both lawful residents and illegal immigrants, officials said.
The U.S. appeals court in New Orleans and Chicago were among those that said a second drug possession conviction triggered the automatic-deportation rule. Had the Supreme Court agreed with that view, it would have allowed the government to move forward with thousands of deportations, immigration experts said.
Peter Spiro, a Temple University Law Professor and former clerk at the high court, said the justices acted after waiting in vain for Congress to fix the 1996 law.
"This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court is pushing back," he said. "They are giving very clear cues they want this law defined more narrowly."
Six years ago, the court rejected the Bush administration's view that a drunk driving conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. Four years ago, the court in an 8-1 decision rejected deportation for a South Dakota man who pled guilty to cocaine possession -- a felony under state law, but a misdemeanor under federal law.
In its decision, the high court said a second drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony even if it was a repeat offense. Stevens said the common-sense use of the words "aggravated" and "felony" refer to a serious or violent crime that would be punished by more than a year in prison.
"Congress, like 'Humpty Dumpty', has the power to give words unorthodox meanings," he said, but there is no evidence that Congress meant to make minor drug offenses into aggravated felonies. He noted that drug trafficking does qualify as a felony requiring deportation.
Carachuri-Rosendo, 32, was born in Mexico and came to Texas with his parents when he was five. He became a lawful permanent resident, worked as a carpet installer, and has a wife and four children.
He served 20 days in jail for a misdemeanor marijuana charge. He spent 10 days in county jail for the Xanax pill before he was taken into federal custody and deported to Mexico.
Under Monday's ruling, he can seek to return.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-felony-drugs-20100614,0,2043153.story
Ken Dilanian contributed to this story from Washington.
June 14, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked the government Monday from routinely deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession convictions, a decision that immigrant-rights lawyers said will spare tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding residents from being sent out of this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a Texas man who had pled guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, an anti-anxiety drug, had been wrongfully deported.
Jose Carachuri-Rosendo was taken into federal custody after he pled no contest to having the Xanax pill without a prescription. Both an immigration judge and the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans ruled he must be deported because his second drug possession conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony."
His case illustrated the potentially harsh impact of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.
The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony."
But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.
Monday's ruling marks the third time in six years that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled that these judges have gone too far.
Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's view defies common sense. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony'," he wrote.
Because of its strict wording, the 1996 law had required deportation even for legal residents who have lived in the United States for decades and served in the U.S. military. And despite the high court's ruling, immigrants convicted of drug charges still could be deported.
They will, however, have a chance to seek leniency before an immigration judge.
"Today's ruling will affect tens of thousands of immigrants, but it is hard to get a specific number," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York.
In 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 139,188 so-called "criminal aliens," but this number included both lawful residents and illegal immigrants, officials said.
The U.S. appeals court in New Orleans and Chicago were among those that said a second drug possession conviction triggered the automatic-deportation rule. Had the Supreme Court agreed with that view, it would have allowed the government to move forward with thousands of deportations, immigration experts said.
Peter Spiro, a Temple University Law Professor and former clerk at the high court, said the justices acted after waiting in vain for Congress to fix the 1996 law.
"This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court is pushing back," he said. "They are giving very clear cues they want this law defined more narrowly."
Six years ago, the court rejected the Bush administration's view that a drunk driving conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. Four years ago, the court in an 8-1 decision rejected deportation for a South Dakota man who pled guilty to cocaine possession -- a felony under state law, but a misdemeanor under federal law.
In its decision, the high court said a second drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony even if it was a repeat offense. Stevens said the common-sense use of the words "aggravated" and "felony" refer to a serious or violent crime that would be punished by more than a year in prison.
"Congress, like 'Humpty Dumpty', has the power to give words unorthodox meanings," he said, but there is no evidence that Congress meant to make minor drug offenses into aggravated felonies. He noted that drug trafficking does qualify as a felony requiring deportation.
Carachuri-Rosendo, 32, was born in Mexico and came to Texas with his parents when he was five. He became a lawful permanent resident, worked as a carpet installer, and has a wife and four children.
He served 20 days in jail for a misdemeanor marijuana charge. He spent 10 days in county jail for the Xanax pill before he was taken into federal custody and deported to Mexico.
Under Monday's ruling, he can seek to return.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-felony-drugs-20100614,0,2043153.story
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Three Tyson workers file discrimination suit
By JEFF REINITZ
WCF Courier
Friday, July 3, 2009
WATERLOO --- Three workers at Tyson Fresh Meats said the company discriminated against them when they were fired because of questions over their immigration papers.
The attorney for Francisco Vilorio Correa, 61, Aida Pena del la Cruz, no age available, and Noemi Del Carmen Trinidad, 31, said in court records that Tyson Inc. axed the trio because of their national origin and race.
The three were treated differently than similarly situated white employees, according to the lawsuit filed by attorney Rockne Cole of Iowa City in Black Hawk County District Court in June.
The plaintiffs said they are all lawful permanent residents of the United States and hold citizenship in the Dominican Republic. They all live in Waterloo.
The firings began in late April 2008 following a company audit of immigration documents. Two of the plaintiffs earlier told The Courier more than 20 people were let go at the time.
This was just weeks before immigration agents raided the Agriprocessors meat packing facility in Postville in May 2008 and detained 389 undocumented workers.
Tyson Inc. spokeswoman Libby Lawson said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. But she said in an e-mail statement the company has a diverse work force with policies prohibiting discrimination.
She said Tyson uses a government database to check employment eligibility of workers.
"Our company has voluntarily used E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot, since 1998, and we have experienced very few problems with the system," the e-mailed statement from Lawson said.
"Any negatives have been far outweighed by the benefits this system has brought to our effort to ensure we are hiring properly documented workers," it said.
E-Verify is a free Internet-based system for employers put together by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.
The lawsuit said all three employees were in good standing with no prior disciplinary or performance problems.
On April 22, 2008, a human resources employee told Correa and Trinidad their documents were fake but didn't allow them to provide additional documentation, according to court records. They were let got that day.
De la Cruz was fired a short time later after a Tyson human resources employee questioned her identification documents, the lawsuit states.
Correa and Trinidad were rehired in December, the suit states. It wasn't clear if de la Cruz was rehired.
Cole said in court records that similarly situated white employees didn't have to establish the authenticity of their documents.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2009/07/03/business/local/11470674.txt
WCF Courier
Friday, July 3, 2009
WATERLOO --- Three workers at Tyson Fresh Meats said the company discriminated against them when they were fired because of questions over their immigration papers.
The attorney for Francisco Vilorio Correa, 61, Aida Pena del la Cruz, no age available, and Noemi Del Carmen Trinidad, 31, said in court records that Tyson Inc. axed the trio because of their national origin and race.
The three were treated differently than similarly situated white employees, according to the lawsuit filed by attorney Rockne Cole of Iowa City in Black Hawk County District Court in June.
The plaintiffs said they are all lawful permanent residents of the United States and hold citizenship in the Dominican Republic. They all live in Waterloo.
The firings began in late April 2008 following a company audit of immigration documents. Two of the plaintiffs earlier told The Courier more than 20 people were let go at the time.
This was just weeks before immigration agents raided the Agriprocessors meat packing facility in Postville in May 2008 and detained 389 undocumented workers.
Tyson Inc. spokeswoman Libby Lawson said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. But she said in an e-mail statement the company has a diverse work force with policies prohibiting discrimination.
She said Tyson uses a government database to check employment eligibility of workers.
"Our company has voluntarily used E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot, since 1998, and we have experienced very few problems with the system," the e-mailed statement from Lawson said.
"Any negatives have been far outweighed by the benefits this system has brought to our effort to ensure we are hiring properly documented workers," it said.
E-Verify is a free Internet-based system for employers put together by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.
The lawsuit said all three employees were in good standing with no prior disciplinary or performance problems.
On April 22, 2008, a human resources employee told Correa and Trinidad their documents were fake but didn't allow them to provide additional documentation, according to court records. They were let got that day.
De la Cruz was fired a short time later after a Tyson human resources employee questioned her identification documents, the lawsuit states.
Correa and Trinidad were rehired in December, the suit states. It wasn't clear if de la Cruz was rehired.
Cole said in court records that similarly situated white employees didn't have to establish the authenticity of their documents.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2009/07/03/business/local/11470674.txt
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Raids prove insufficient for number of illegals in U.S.
Raids prove insufficient for number of illegals in U.S.
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow -
10/3/2008 8:50:00 AM
A California-based immigration reform activist says while he's pleased that a special three-week sweep by immigration authorities resulted in the arrests of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants, it is still just a drop in the bucket.
Immigration authorities say the sweep targeted those who ignored deportation orders or returned to the U.S. illegally after being deported. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman says more than 400 of those arrested were from Los Angeles and several Southern California counties. ICE teams from San Francisco and San Diego also participated in the raid.
Rick Oltman, national spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, says the raids captured only a very tiny portion of the illegal population. "Eleven hundred and fifty people actually represent one-six-hundredth of the number of people who have been ordered deported from the [United States] but have failed to show up to deportation hearings. This is basically a no-brainer. These are the worst of the worst," Oltman contends. "These are the violent offenders and the drug traffickers and the sexual predators who have been determined unworthy to stay here, and certainly this law enforcement needs to go on. But it is not enough; it's not close to enough."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=270956
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow -
10/3/2008 8:50:00 AM
A California-based immigration reform activist says while he's pleased that a special three-week sweep by immigration authorities resulted in the arrests of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants, it is still just a drop in the bucket.
Immigration authorities say the sweep targeted those who ignored deportation orders or returned to the U.S. illegally after being deported. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman says more than 400 of those arrested were from Los Angeles and several Southern California counties. ICE teams from San Francisco and San Diego also participated in the raid.
Rick Oltman, national spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, says the raids captured only a very tiny portion of the illegal population. "Eleven hundred and fifty people actually represent one-six-hundredth of the number of people who have been ordered deported from the [United States] but have failed to show up to deportation hearings. This is basically a no-brainer. These are the worst of the worst," Oltman contends. "These are the violent offenders and the drug traffickers and the sexual predators who have been determined unworthy to stay here, and certainly this law enforcement needs to go on. But it is not enough; it's not close to enough."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=270956
Monday, September 29, 2008
Protect People from Unlawful Raids
Protect People from Unlawful Raids
September 28th, 2008
Hudson Valley Press
http://hvpress.net/
On Friday, September 26th, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) proposed the “Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act” (S.3594) to establish minimum standards of treatment for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and immigrants who are impacted by immigration enforcement operations. The following is a statement by Ben Johnson , Director of the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF)—an immigration policy, litigation, and education organization in Washington , DC .
“The American Immigration Law Foundation applauds Senators Menendez and Kennedy’s efforts to reintroduce the rule of law and the basic principles of fairness and humanity to the enforcement of our country’s immigration laws with the Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act. Due process and equal treatment under the law are fundamental rights that our country has stood for and are at the heart of the Menendez-Kennedy bill.
In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has dramatically stepped up interior enforcement efforts and it’s no secret that hundreds of ICE detainees have been grossly denied not only due process protections, but also the fair treatment that every person, regardless of their immigration status, deserves. This failure to abide by the rule of law has resulted in utter chaos: U.S. citizens and lawful residents have been mistakenly detained; workers have been retaliated against for exercising their rights to organize in the workplace; and DHS officials have raided private homes without a warrant.
Immigration raids, detentions, and mass deportations terrorize workers and wreak havoc on families and entire communities with no real payoff. We can’t expect to deport our way out of our immigration problem and we can’t expect to improve wages and working conditions by simply removing a class of exploited workers. What we need is fair and practical comprehensive immigration reform that restores the rule of law through realistic regulation.
Yet in the meantime, we can’t lose sight of who we are and what America stands for. As a country, we have always valued the need for fairness, due process, and the ability and freedom to have a voice in our judicial system. However, when it comes to immigration, our nation’s noble legacy has been bluntly disregarded by federal officials. It’s encouraging that members in Congress are prepared to challenge the current administration and reaffirm our uncompromising commitment to these principles.”
http://www.hvpress.net/news/119/ARTICLE/5256/2008-09-28.html
September 28th, 2008
Hudson Valley Press
http://hvpress.net/
On Friday, September 26th, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) proposed the “Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act” (S.3594) to establish minimum standards of treatment for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and immigrants who are impacted by immigration enforcement operations. The following is a statement by Ben Johnson , Director of the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF)—an immigration policy, litigation, and education organization in Washington , DC .
“The American Immigration Law Foundation applauds Senators Menendez and Kennedy’s efforts to reintroduce the rule of law and the basic principles of fairness and humanity to the enforcement of our country’s immigration laws with the Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act. Due process and equal treatment under the law are fundamental rights that our country has stood for and are at the heart of the Menendez-Kennedy bill.
In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has dramatically stepped up interior enforcement efforts and it’s no secret that hundreds of ICE detainees have been grossly denied not only due process protections, but also the fair treatment that every person, regardless of their immigration status, deserves. This failure to abide by the rule of law has resulted in utter chaos: U.S. citizens and lawful residents have been mistakenly detained; workers have been retaliated against for exercising their rights to organize in the workplace; and DHS officials have raided private homes without a warrant.
Immigration raids, detentions, and mass deportations terrorize workers and wreak havoc on families and entire communities with no real payoff. We can’t expect to deport our way out of our immigration problem and we can’t expect to improve wages and working conditions by simply removing a class of exploited workers. What we need is fair and practical comprehensive immigration reform that restores the rule of law through realistic regulation.
Yet in the meantime, we can’t lose sight of who we are and what America stands for. As a country, we have always valued the need for fairness, due process, and the ability and freedom to have a voice in our judicial system. However, when it comes to immigration, our nation’s noble legacy has been bluntly disregarded by federal officials. It’s encouraging that members in Congress are prepared to challenge the current administration and reaffirm our uncompromising commitment to these principles.”
http://www.hvpress.net/news/119/ARTICLE/5256/2008-09-28.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)