By ROSS RAMSEY
The New York Times
January 15, 2011
Ross Ramsey, the managing editor of The Texas Tribune, writes a regular column.
Three reasons Gov. Rick Perry declared sanctuary cities an “emergency item” for the Texas Legislature: A nativist electorate, a reluctance to mimic Arizona on immigration law and the closing commercial in his campaign for re-election last year.
Here’s one more: The first 60 days of a legislative session offer the governor a moment of control over the agenda, and he has decided to point the spotlight, for now, on immigration and property rights, the second issue he declared to be an emergency. He hasn’t done it yet, but passing voter photo ID is a good bet for the next act in the center ring.
The governor is, in effect, alone on the stage. Lawmakers can’t deliberate on bills for the first 60 days of the 140-day session unless he says so, by declaring emergencies. They don’t have to be emergencies, necessarily, but the process allows lawmakers to handle pressing business, while letting the governor drive the agenda during the session’s first weeks. For Mr. Perry, it’s a chance to deal with immigration matters before the budget, redistricting and other issues claim the limelight.
Mr. Perry’s focus on sanctuary cities — those that do not allow their police officers to enforce federal immigration laws — could offer him safe passage through the contentious immigration debate. Arizona wants its police to question the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. Mr. Perry wouldn’t require police to ask, but would allow it.
It’s a fine distinction for a Republican Party trying to win favor with Hispanics while quelling a rebellion from nativist conservatives. Mr. Perry wants to answer the anger of the second group without stoking it in the first.
In the governor’s race, he and Bill White battled over whether Houston was a sanctuary city while Mr. White was mayor. Houston never had an official edict from its City Council or mayor, but the police followed a general order against asking about the citizenship of people who hadn’t been arrested (they did run immigration checks after arrests).
Some, including many police chiefs, argue that asking for papers all the time gets in the way of regular police work and makes it harder for officers to win the trust of citizens whose help is needed to fight crime. Mr. Perry hit that note in a statement last April, rejecting the Arizona standard because “some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe.” The Texas Department of Public Safety’s policy under Mr. Perry is remarkably similar to Houston’s and other big cities in the state.
The argument stopped there, for a while. Then Mr. Perry closed his campaign with a television ad featuring Sgt. Joslyn Johnson, a Houston police officer whose husband, Rodney, also a police officer, was killed by an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. This being a political ad, it blamed Mr. White’s policies as mayor for that death.
While Mr. Perry doesn’t want to copy Arizona’s immigration law, he said during the campaign that he understood the sentiment that led to it, and that Texas should step in and protect its borders if the federal government won’t. So the policy and the politics don’t exactly match up. He has got to do something — he campaigned on it — but doesn’t want to do what Arizona did.
If he doesn’t jump in, the Legislature surely will. By the end of the week, lawmakers had already filed 30 bills with the word “immigration” in them, including legislation that would require police officers to inquire into the immigration status of people they’ve arrested. That’s before you get to the goodies like anchor babies, state services for non-citizens, immigration records of public school students and sanctuary cities; this, along with the budget and redistricting, is front and center this session.
Mr. Perry and his aides can’t or won’t name any sanctuary cities, but the governor said he was going to make it illegal to be one. He said last week that there were cities that had “made decisions to be havens for those who are either in conflict with federal immigration laws, or state laws, and we’re going to prohibit that.
“We’ll have a good and open discussion about what we’re going to prohibit,” he said, “and if the shoe is fitting you, then you might not want to be wearing it.”
It’s a potentially treacherous issue, and for now, that’s as specific as he’s going to get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16ttramsey.html
Showing posts with label Sanctuary Cities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sanctuary Cities. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Chicago aldermen urge moratorium on ‘cruel deportations’
By FRAN SPIELMAN
Chicago Sun Times
Jan 14, 2011
The Chicago City Council on Thursday turned up the heat on President Obama on the volatile issue of immigration reform that Illinois’ native son promised — but so far has failed — to deliver.
Aldermen unanimously approved a resolution urging Obama to use his executive powers to call an immediate halt to deportation of undocumented workers that separate them from families that include either a U.S. citizen or a child who would be covered by the so-called “DREAM Act.”
The DREAM Act would have established a path to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but it fell two votes short of passage in the frenzied hours before Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now, aldermen want Obama to take matters into his own hands to stop a deportation policy they called “inhumane” and said is separating 1,100 families each day.
The resolution was championed by Hispanic aldermen and by Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th), who represents a majority Hispanic ward.
Burke noted that in the 1850s, the City Council voted to prohibit law enforcement officials from cooperating with U.S. marshals then tracking down fugitive slaves. The immigration issue is a similar issue of “compassion and morality,” Burke said.
“It is just unfathomable that the federal government persists in this cruel and unusual punishment to innocent members of our society,” Burke said at a City Hall news conference Thursday. “If Illinois can have a moratorium on the death penalty, the U.S. ought to have a moratorium on these cruel deportations.”
Ald. Roberto Maldonado (26th) noted that the pace of deportations during the Bush administration has more than doubled under Obama.
“And this is supposed to be a friend of the Latino community?” Maldonado said. “This is the president [who] promised the Latino community and the immigrant community that he was gonna send a bill for immigration reform within the first 90 days of his administration. He’s just about to embark on his re-election campaign for his second term, and we’re still waiting.”
The City Council has been a frequent champion of immigration issues to appease Chicago’s fast-growing Hispanic population. In 2006, aldermen demanded a moratorium on immigration raids while Congress debates immigration reform, calling federal sweeps a “scare tactic” designed to intimidate “the new civil rights movement.”
Three years later, the council voted to champion the cause of Rigo Padilla, a straight-A student facing imminent deportation. The resulting news coverage helped Padilla win a temporary reprieve.
On Thursday, activist-pastor Emma Lozano held mayoral challenger Rahm Emanuel responsible for blocking immigration reform during his nearly two-year stint at White House chief of staff.
“He was recommending to the president not to move on this issue. . . . [Emanuel] said that we would not even attempt to look at this issue until the second term of a Democratic president. That is telling us that every day, 1,100 families are gonna continue to be destroyed, mostly Latino families,” Lozano said.
In an apparent attempt to counter allegations that he was a roadblock to immigration reform, Emanuel on Thursday proposed a local version of the DREAM Act. He vowed to work with business and civic leaders to launch a so-called, “DREAM of College Fund” that would offer low-interest loans to children with DREAM status.
To qualify, students would be required to: be between the ages of 12 and 25; have moved to Chicago before age 16; lived in the city for at least five straight years before application; be a student in good standing at a public or private elementary or high school in Chicago and be a law-abiding Chicagoan.
Pressed on why immigration reform didn’t happen under his watch as chief of staff, Emanuel told the Chicago Sun-Times last fall, “I don’t deserve all the credit for children’s health care. I don’t deserve the credit single-handedly on universal health care happening. Nor does any one individual deserve the blame if something didn’t happen.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/3295280-418/immigration-aldermen-obama-reform-chicago.html
Chicago Sun Times
Jan 14, 2011
The Chicago City Council on Thursday turned up the heat on President Obama on the volatile issue of immigration reform that Illinois’ native son promised — but so far has failed — to deliver.
Aldermen unanimously approved a resolution urging Obama to use his executive powers to call an immediate halt to deportation of undocumented workers that separate them from families that include either a U.S. citizen or a child who would be covered by the so-called “DREAM Act.”
The DREAM Act would have established a path to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but it fell two votes short of passage in the frenzied hours before Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now, aldermen want Obama to take matters into his own hands to stop a deportation policy they called “inhumane” and said is separating 1,100 families each day.
The resolution was championed by Hispanic aldermen and by Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th), who represents a majority Hispanic ward.
Burke noted that in the 1850s, the City Council voted to prohibit law enforcement officials from cooperating with U.S. marshals then tracking down fugitive slaves. The immigration issue is a similar issue of “compassion and morality,” Burke said.
“It is just unfathomable that the federal government persists in this cruel and unusual punishment to innocent members of our society,” Burke said at a City Hall news conference Thursday. “If Illinois can have a moratorium on the death penalty, the U.S. ought to have a moratorium on these cruel deportations.”
Ald. Roberto Maldonado (26th) noted that the pace of deportations during the Bush administration has more than doubled under Obama.
“And this is supposed to be a friend of the Latino community?” Maldonado said. “This is the president [who] promised the Latino community and the immigrant community that he was gonna send a bill for immigration reform within the first 90 days of his administration. He’s just about to embark on his re-election campaign for his second term, and we’re still waiting.”
The City Council has been a frequent champion of immigration issues to appease Chicago’s fast-growing Hispanic population. In 2006, aldermen demanded a moratorium on immigration raids while Congress debates immigration reform, calling federal sweeps a “scare tactic” designed to intimidate “the new civil rights movement.”
Three years later, the council voted to champion the cause of Rigo Padilla, a straight-A student facing imminent deportation. The resulting news coverage helped Padilla win a temporary reprieve.
On Thursday, activist-pastor Emma Lozano held mayoral challenger Rahm Emanuel responsible for blocking immigration reform during his nearly two-year stint at White House chief of staff.
“He was recommending to the president not to move on this issue. . . . [Emanuel] said that we would not even attempt to look at this issue until the second term of a Democratic president. That is telling us that every day, 1,100 families are gonna continue to be destroyed, mostly Latino families,” Lozano said.
In an apparent attempt to counter allegations that he was a roadblock to immigration reform, Emanuel on Thursday proposed a local version of the DREAM Act. He vowed to work with business and civic leaders to launch a so-called, “DREAM of College Fund” that would offer low-interest loans to children with DREAM status.
To qualify, students would be required to: be between the ages of 12 and 25; have moved to Chicago before age 16; lived in the city for at least five straight years before application; be a student in good standing at a public or private elementary or high school in Chicago and be a law-abiding Chicagoan.
Pressed on why immigration reform didn’t happen under his watch as chief of staff, Emanuel told the Chicago Sun-Times last fall, “I don’t deserve all the credit for children’s health care. I don’t deserve the credit single-handedly on universal health care happening. Nor does any one individual deserve the blame if something didn’t happen.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/3295280-418/immigration-aldermen-obama-reform-chicago.html
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Deportation numbers up in Minnesota, upper Midwest
by Sasha Aslanian
Minnesota Public Radio
July 6, 2010
St. Paul, Minn. — In the first four months of 2010, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deported 3,127 people from the five-state region that includes Minnesota -- on pace to be one-third higher than last year.
The federal agency routinely visits county jails to determine which inmates are in the United States illegally.
Although federal immigration authorities say their top priority is deporting criminals, fewer than half of the people returned to their home countries had any criminal convictions. That troubles immigrant advocates, who complain that immigration officials are focusing too much on people without criminal records.
DAILY VISITS TO JAILS
Immigration agents visit the Hennepin and Ramsey County jails daily, looking through booking sheets for people who might be in the country illegally.
They can see which inmates self-report a country of origin other than the United States. They can meet with inmates to ask followup questions, and place holds on them. Inmates can be transferred to federal custody once local law enforcement finishes processing them.
Hennepin County has had a jail screening agreement in place for a number of years, and it has delivered results, pointing federal immigration agents to hundreds of people.
"Over the last three years, I've seen the number as high as 800," said Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who runs the jail. "I think even through the first quarter of this year we're on pace for about 650, maybe 700 folks who will self-report that they are in this country illegally."
Criminal Alien Program charges and deportations
Stanek said illegal immigrants account for nearly 2 percent of the 37,000 to 40,000 people booked into the jail each year. The Hennepin County Jail receives about $100,000 a year from the federal government to cover the administrative costs of the program.
The Ramsey County Jail in St. Paul also receives daily visits from federal immigration agents. Ramsey County Undersheriff Ryan O'Neill said he was contacted in 2007 by ICE's assistant field office director to set up the program. The agency's agreements with jail administrators do not require any county approval.
"Prior to that, I don't think we were doing much with folks that they may be interested in," said O'Neill. "We didn't have anything in place to regularly contact them about folks that we, for whatever reason, would think were here illegally."
O'Neill estimates that immigration agents find up to 15 inmates a day at his facility, but neither he nor ICE could provide annual numbers.
In greater Minnesota, jail deputies can notify ICE when they suspect an inmate may be in the United States illegally, and the agency can pick them up when the jail is ready to release them.
In Austin, Minn., Mower County Sheriff Terese Amazi estimated her staff contacts ICE a few times every week. "About half our jail population is illegal," Amazi said.
A decade ago, immigrants not legally in the country made up only 10 percent of the Austin jail population, Amazi said. Jail personnel recognize some inmates as people who have already been deported twice before.
CASTING A WIDER NET
Through May 24, jail screenings helped immigration officials identify and deport 2,738 people from the five-state area that includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska. Of the people deported, 1,359, or fewer than half, had been convicted of a crime.
Two of the deportees were family members of a 43-year-old temp worker from Minneapolis. Marcelina has seen five family members deported since last year. MPR News has agreed not to use her last name because she too is in the country illegally and fears deportation. Earlier this year, her 25-year-old daughter and 22-year-old sister were stopped while driving home from work.
"My sister was pulled over and since she didn't have a license or any sort of ID, she was arrested," Marcelina said. "My daughter was also in the car and was arrested, and then they were deported."
Traffic stops that lead to deportation are increasingly common.
Carl Rusnok, director of communications for ICE's central region, said the agency aims to make sure criminal aliens aren't released back into the streets. But agents have discretion on who they detain, he said.
"If our resources permit, there may be other people that we take into custody," Rusnok said. "We can place detainers on anybody who is actually deportable from the United States. If you're illegally in the country, then you're deportable."
ICE became much more methodical in its jail screenings nationally in 2007. An internal reorganization helped boost the program and send more resources to jails across the country.
SANCTUARY CITIES, NOT JAILS
The arrangement federal immigration authorities have with county jails can conflict with efforts by local police who are trying to work with immigrant communities.
Minneapolis and St. Paul have what are called "separation ordinances." Their beat cops don't ask about immigration status.
That's good policing, Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan said. He needs witnesses, and crime victims to be willing to talk with his officers without fear of deportation. But he often gets grief from people who wish he would crack down on immigrants without legal status.
"I get more hate mail on this subject than anything I've ever gotten in my life," Dolan said. "We're not being soft on crime. We're telling you right now the premise that these individuals are causes for increases in crime or violent crime -- that's not true."
Anyone Dolan's officers arrest and book into the Hennepin County jail can have their immigration status checked by ICE.
Dolan has worked with the Mexican consulate to expand what forms of identification his officers can accept. Mexicans can show an ID card issued by the consulate. They would still face a penalty for driving without a license, but could avoid the trip to jail.
"We're not looking to fill jails with people for traffic violations," said Dolan. "We would love to be able to fill our jails with felons and people that should be there."
Staying out of jail is also the message coming from the Mexican consulate. Mexican Consul Ana Luisa Fajer receives daily notifications about Mexican nationals in custody. Fajer said her message to the community is prevention -- follow all the laws and don't get picked up.
"Don't have the music up loud, have your proper lights, have your cars in good shape, don't drink and drive. All the time! The focus is prevention, because when they are in immigration we cannot do anything and this is very sad," Fajer said. "There are very sad stories about the separation of families."
Nonetheless, Fajer said she receives three times as many notifications of Mexicans being detained by immigration, compared to when she started a year and a half ago. She hears complaints that local authorities are increasingly stopping people who look like they don't belong here.
"Profiling, yes. Racial profiling, it is there," Fajer said. "This is happening. I'm telling you this because the community is telling me all the time."
BEHIND THE NUMBERS
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo to field agents leaked to the Washington Post earlier this year detailed stiff quotas for deportations, and suggested ways for field officers to boost non-criminal deportations. In response, ICE announced that it had withdrawn the memo and that the agency does not set quotas.
John Keller, executive director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, is concerned about oversight. He wonders if federal immigration authorities are focused on deporting criminals or if they have focused too much on those without criminal records.
Keller also questions whether the agency has effective complaint procedures to address when its enforcement efforts go too far. His office has defended U.S. citizens who have been caught up in deportation proceedings and held in custody for months.
"What we think is happening is that ICE itself is continuing to want to show an increase in the number -- the raw number -- of people that it's removing from the United States," Keller said. "And the only way they can do that is by getting the easiest people that fall into their laps."
Keller wants the agency to provide data on how many of the people being deported from the five-state region are serious criminals. An ICE spokeswoman said the agency does not have that information readily available.
Local jails can decide whether to participate in the agency's screening program. But Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security a much bigger net to find criminal aliens.
By 2013, fingerprints from every person booked into a U.S. jail will automatically go into a Department of Homeland Security database. Almost 400 jurisdictions nationwide are already using the Secure Communities program. Minnesota has not yet been scheduled.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/06/ice-jail-screenings/
Minnesota Public Radio
July 6, 2010
St. Paul, Minn. — In the first four months of 2010, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deported 3,127 people from the five-state region that includes Minnesota -- on pace to be one-third higher than last year.
The federal agency routinely visits county jails to determine which inmates are in the United States illegally.
Although federal immigration authorities say their top priority is deporting criminals, fewer than half of the people returned to their home countries had any criminal convictions. That troubles immigrant advocates, who complain that immigration officials are focusing too much on people without criminal records.
DAILY VISITS TO JAILS
Immigration agents visit the Hennepin and Ramsey County jails daily, looking through booking sheets for people who might be in the country illegally.
They can see which inmates self-report a country of origin other than the United States. They can meet with inmates to ask followup questions, and place holds on them. Inmates can be transferred to federal custody once local law enforcement finishes processing them.
Hennepin County has had a jail screening agreement in place for a number of years, and it has delivered results, pointing federal immigration agents to hundreds of people.
"Over the last three years, I've seen the number as high as 800," said Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who runs the jail. "I think even through the first quarter of this year we're on pace for about 650, maybe 700 folks who will self-report that they are in this country illegally."
Criminal Alien Program charges and deportations
Stanek said illegal immigrants account for nearly 2 percent of the 37,000 to 40,000 people booked into the jail each year. The Hennepin County Jail receives about $100,000 a year from the federal government to cover the administrative costs of the program.
The Ramsey County Jail in St. Paul also receives daily visits from federal immigration agents. Ramsey County Undersheriff Ryan O'Neill said he was contacted in 2007 by ICE's assistant field office director to set up the program. The agency's agreements with jail administrators do not require any county approval.
"Prior to that, I don't think we were doing much with folks that they may be interested in," said O'Neill. "We didn't have anything in place to regularly contact them about folks that we, for whatever reason, would think were here illegally."
O'Neill estimates that immigration agents find up to 15 inmates a day at his facility, but neither he nor ICE could provide annual numbers.
In greater Minnesota, jail deputies can notify ICE when they suspect an inmate may be in the United States illegally, and the agency can pick them up when the jail is ready to release them.
In Austin, Minn., Mower County Sheriff Terese Amazi estimated her staff contacts ICE a few times every week. "About half our jail population is illegal," Amazi said.
A decade ago, immigrants not legally in the country made up only 10 percent of the Austin jail population, Amazi said. Jail personnel recognize some inmates as people who have already been deported twice before.
CASTING A WIDER NET
Through May 24, jail screenings helped immigration officials identify and deport 2,738 people from the five-state area that includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska. Of the people deported, 1,359, or fewer than half, had been convicted of a crime.
Two of the deportees were family members of a 43-year-old temp worker from Minneapolis. Marcelina has seen five family members deported since last year. MPR News has agreed not to use her last name because she too is in the country illegally and fears deportation. Earlier this year, her 25-year-old daughter and 22-year-old sister were stopped while driving home from work.
"My sister was pulled over and since she didn't have a license or any sort of ID, she was arrested," Marcelina said. "My daughter was also in the car and was arrested, and then they were deported."
Traffic stops that lead to deportation are increasingly common.
Carl Rusnok, director of communications for ICE's central region, said the agency aims to make sure criminal aliens aren't released back into the streets. But agents have discretion on who they detain, he said.
"If our resources permit, there may be other people that we take into custody," Rusnok said. "We can place detainers on anybody who is actually deportable from the United States. If you're illegally in the country, then you're deportable."
ICE became much more methodical in its jail screenings nationally in 2007. An internal reorganization helped boost the program and send more resources to jails across the country.
SANCTUARY CITIES, NOT JAILS
The arrangement federal immigration authorities have with county jails can conflict with efforts by local police who are trying to work with immigrant communities.
Minneapolis and St. Paul have what are called "separation ordinances." Their beat cops don't ask about immigration status.
That's good policing, Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan said. He needs witnesses, and crime victims to be willing to talk with his officers without fear of deportation. But he often gets grief from people who wish he would crack down on immigrants without legal status.
"I get more hate mail on this subject than anything I've ever gotten in my life," Dolan said. "We're not being soft on crime. We're telling you right now the premise that these individuals are causes for increases in crime or violent crime -- that's not true."
Anyone Dolan's officers arrest and book into the Hennepin County jail can have their immigration status checked by ICE.
Dolan has worked with the Mexican consulate to expand what forms of identification his officers can accept. Mexicans can show an ID card issued by the consulate. They would still face a penalty for driving without a license, but could avoid the trip to jail.
"We're not looking to fill jails with people for traffic violations," said Dolan. "We would love to be able to fill our jails with felons and people that should be there."
Staying out of jail is also the message coming from the Mexican consulate. Mexican Consul Ana Luisa Fajer receives daily notifications about Mexican nationals in custody. Fajer said her message to the community is prevention -- follow all the laws and don't get picked up.
"Don't have the music up loud, have your proper lights, have your cars in good shape, don't drink and drive. All the time! The focus is prevention, because when they are in immigration we cannot do anything and this is very sad," Fajer said. "There are very sad stories about the separation of families."
Nonetheless, Fajer said she receives three times as many notifications of Mexicans being detained by immigration, compared to when she started a year and a half ago. She hears complaints that local authorities are increasingly stopping people who look like they don't belong here.
"Profiling, yes. Racial profiling, it is there," Fajer said. "This is happening. I'm telling you this because the community is telling me all the time."
BEHIND THE NUMBERS
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo to field agents leaked to the Washington Post earlier this year detailed stiff quotas for deportations, and suggested ways for field officers to boost non-criminal deportations. In response, ICE announced that it had withdrawn the memo and that the agency does not set quotas.
John Keller, executive director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, is concerned about oversight. He wonders if federal immigration authorities are focused on deporting criminals or if they have focused too much on those without criminal records.
Keller also questions whether the agency has effective complaint procedures to address when its enforcement efforts go too far. His office has defended U.S. citizens who have been caught up in deportation proceedings and held in custody for months.
"What we think is happening is that ICE itself is continuing to want to show an increase in the number -- the raw number -- of people that it's removing from the United States," Keller said. "And the only way they can do that is by getting the easiest people that fall into their laps."
Keller wants the agency to provide data on how many of the people being deported from the five-state region are serious criminals. An ICE spokeswoman said the agency does not have that information readily available.
Local jails can decide whether to participate in the agency's screening program. But Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security a much bigger net to find criminal aliens.
By 2013, fingerprints from every person booked into a U.S. jail will automatically go into a Department of Homeland Security database. Almost 400 jurisdictions nationwide are already using the Secure Communities program. Minnesota has not yet been scheduled.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/06/ice-jail-screenings/
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
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Immigrants Don’t Feel Safe in ‘Sanctuary City’
New America Media
News Report
By Elena Shore
April 17, 2009
Editor’s Note: Once a beacon for immigrants, San Francisco is no longer seen as a safe place to live for some families. Residents who spoke at a recent city hearing say they are under siege because of immigration raids on private homes that are tearing families apart.
San Francisco’s history as a sanctuary city for immigrants and pioneer in civil rights is being seriously undermined by recent policy changes by the mayor that are hurting a growing number of families. That was the core message at a hearing jointly held by the city’s immigrant rights and human rights commissions at City Hall on April 13 to examine the impacts of federal immigration enforcement on San Francisco communities.
“The city of San Francisco has led the nation,” said Jamal Dajani, chair of the Immigrant Rights Commission. The question now, he said, is whether it will continue to be a leader on immigrant rights.
City Supervisor David Campos noted that San Francisco had led the fight for equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. “The chair where you’re sitting is where Harvey Milk used to sit,” Campos said to one commissioner, referring to the slain city supervisor and gay rights activist. “We have a history of taking a stand. We are proud that we have been and continue to be a city of refuge.”
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City of Refuge" Ordinance, which prohibits city employees from assisting federal agents in making immigration arrests unless required by federal or state law or a warrant. It’s been known as a sanctuary city ever since.
But even in this so-called sanctuary city, immigrants say they are living in fear.
A year ago, in what immigrant rights groups saw as a step backward, Mayor Gavin Newsom changed the city’s policy toward undocumented youth. In July 2008, he began allowing undocumented minors with criminal records to be turned over to immigration authorities.
Claiming that the sanctuary city policy was not meant to protect criminals, Newsom acted after a widely publicized shooting, in which an undocumented immigrant shot and killed a father and his two sons. The incident set off a debate over the city’s sanctuary law that protects undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Since then, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has stepped up raids on private homes.
“We’ve all read about ICE raids, but they are worse than what you’ve read,” said UC Davis law professor Bill Ong Hing, at the hearing. “The fabric of the community is ruined, in many of these communities, because everyone is afraid.”
ICE’s fugitive operations program, which conducts raids on private homes in San Francisco, can now more easily go after immigrants with no criminal convictions, according to Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at UC Berkeley’s Warren Institute.
Fugitive operations teams were created in 2003 to remove fugitive aliens who posed a threat to the community. Instead, they have focused on arresting undocumented immigrants without criminal convictions, according to a report released by the Migration Policy Institute. The program’s budget went from an initial $9 million to $218 million last year.
In 2006, the annual quota for each seven-person fugitive operations team increased from 125 arrests to 1,000. And ICE removed the requirement that at least 75 percent of those arrested be criminals. As a result, 73 percent of those captured nationally between 2003 and February 2008 had no criminal conviction.
In this sanctuary city, there have been at least eight raids since May 2, 2008, affecting 54 people, not including their families, according to Francisco Ugarte, staff attorney with the San Francisco Immigrant Legal and Education Network. “I say ‘at least’,” he said, “because they are conducted in secret.”
San Francisco is now filled with stories of families that have been broken by ICE raids, and some were told at the hearing. Ivan Carreño recounted how his father, Refugio, was arrested at his home on Jan. 27 and deported to Mexico. His mother, Guadalupe Carreño Castro, will be deported in five months, leaving Ivan and two other children, all citizens, on their own.
“Please bring my dad back and don’t take my mom because I really love my parents and stuff,” Carreño said. “I don’t know what I’m gonna do without my dad.”
Ana Ruth Quintanilla says she has fallen into a deep depression since immigration authorities entered her home on Sept. 11, 2008. Quintanilla was one of six people arrested that day; three were deported, and Quintanilla and two others were released with electronic monitoring devices on their ankles. But Quintanilla isn’t sure if she is one of the lucky ones.
“Whenever I go to the grocery store,” Quintanilla said, “I’m afraid ICE is going to come deport me.”
Amos Lim, a community organizer with Out4Immigration who emigrated from Singapore in 1999, was unable to get legal status through his marriage. “I’m an immigrant and this is my husband,” he said, noting that he and his husband Mickey are one of 48,000 same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in California. But because the federal government doesn’t recognize their marriage, his husband did not have the right to sponsor him for a green card.
Things have gotten worse for immigrants in San Francisco in the last decade, says Supervisor David Chu, who practiced immigration law 10 years ago. He attributed it to a shift in the national climate.
“It is not popular to protect immigrants,” said Campos. But, supervisors noted, San Francisco’s history has been one of standing up for the rights of minorities, even when it wasn’t popular.
The Immigrant Rights Commission, which advises the mayor on issues affecting immigrants, plans to use the hearing to push for changes to enforcement practices. “We want to hear from impacted communities in order to recommend more humane federal policies,” said commission chair Dajani, “rather than waste limited resources to create division and a climate of fear.”
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=0d16cc2e654071b66a1133add7b43ae1
News Report
By Elena Shore
April 17, 2009
Editor’s Note: Once a beacon for immigrants, San Francisco is no longer seen as a safe place to live for some families. Residents who spoke at a recent city hearing say they are under siege because of immigration raids on private homes that are tearing families apart.
San Francisco’s history as a sanctuary city for immigrants and pioneer in civil rights is being seriously undermined by recent policy changes by the mayor that are hurting a growing number of families. That was the core message at a hearing jointly held by the city’s immigrant rights and human rights commissions at City Hall on April 13 to examine the impacts of federal immigration enforcement on San Francisco communities.
“The city of San Francisco has led the nation,” said Jamal Dajani, chair of the Immigrant Rights Commission. The question now, he said, is whether it will continue to be a leader on immigrant rights.
City Supervisor David Campos noted that San Francisco had led the fight for equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. “The chair where you’re sitting is where Harvey Milk used to sit,” Campos said to one commissioner, referring to the slain city supervisor and gay rights activist. “We have a history of taking a stand. We are proud that we have been and continue to be a city of refuge.”
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City of Refuge" Ordinance, which prohibits city employees from assisting federal agents in making immigration arrests unless required by federal or state law or a warrant. It’s been known as a sanctuary city ever since.
But even in this so-called sanctuary city, immigrants say they are living in fear.
A year ago, in what immigrant rights groups saw as a step backward, Mayor Gavin Newsom changed the city’s policy toward undocumented youth. In July 2008, he began allowing undocumented minors with criminal records to be turned over to immigration authorities.
Claiming that the sanctuary city policy was not meant to protect criminals, Newsom acted after a widely publicized shooting, in which an undocumented immigrant shot and killed a father and his two sons. The incident set off a debate over the city’s sanctuary law that protects undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Since then, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has stepped up raids on private homes.
“We’ve all read about ICE raids, but they are worse than what you’ve read,” said UC Davis law professor Bill Ong Hing, at the hearing. “The fabric of the community is ruined, in many of these communities, because everyone is afraid.”
ICE’s fugitive operations program, which conducts raids on private homes in San Francisco, can now more easily go after immigrants with no criminal convictions, according to Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at UC Berkeley’s Warren Institute.
Fugitive operations teams were created in 2003 to remove fugitive aliens who posed a threat to the community. Instead, they have focused on arresting undocumented immigrants without criminal convictions, according to a report released by the Migration Policy Institute. The program’s budget went from an initial $9 million to $218 million last year.
In 2006, the annual quota for each seven-person fugitive operations team increased from 125 arrests to 1,000. And ICE removed the requirement that at least 75 percent of those arrested be criminals. As a result, 73 percent of those captured nationally between 2003 and February 2008 had no criminal conviction.
In this sanctuary city, there have been at least eight raids since May 2, 2008, affecting 54 people, not including their families, according to Francisco Ugarte, staff attorney with the San Francisco Immigrant Legal and Education Network. “I say ‘at least’,” he said, “because they are conducted in secret.”
San Francisco is now filled with stories of families that have been broken by ICE raids, and some were told at the hearing. Ivan Carreño recounted how his father, Refugio, was arrested at his home on Jan. 27 and deported to Mexico. His mother, Guadalupe Carreño Castro, will be deported in five months, leaving Ivan and two other children, all citizens, on their own.
“Please bring my dad back and don’t take my mom because I really love my parents and stuff,” Carreño said. “I don’t know what I’m gonna do without my dad.”
Ana Ruth Quintanilla says she has fallen into a deep depression since immigration authorities entered her home on Sept. 11, 2008. Quintanilla was one of six people arrested that day; three were deported, and Quintanilla and two others were released with electronic monitoring devices on their ankles. But Quintanilla isn’t sure if she is one of the lucky ones.
“Whenever I go to the grocery store,” Quintanilla said, “I’m afraid ICE is going to come deport me.”
Amos Lim, a community organizer with Out4Immigration who emigrated from Singapore in 1999, was unable to get legal status through his marriage. “I’m an immigrant and this is my husband,” he said, noting that he and his husband Mickey are one of 48,000 same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in California. But because the federal government doesn’t recognize their marriage, his husband did not have the right to sponsor him for a green card.
Things have gotten worse for immigrants in San Francisco in the last decade, says Supervisor David Chu, who practiced immigration law 10 years ago. He attributed it to a shift in the national climate.
“It is not popular to protect immigrants,” said Campos. But, supervisors noted, San Francisco’s history has been one of standing up for the rights of minorities, even when it wasn’t popular.
The Immigrant Rights Commission, which advises the mayor on issues affecting immigrants, plans to use the hearing to push for changes to enforcement practices. “We want to hear from impacted communities in order to recommend more humane federal policies,” said commission chair Dajani, “rather than waste limited resources to create division and a climate of fear.”
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=0d16cc2e654071b66a1133add7b43ae1
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Immigrant Raid Undermines San Francisco's Sanctuary Status
Immigrant Raid Undermines San Francisco's Sanctuary Status
By Elena Shore, New America Media
Posted on September 17, 2008, Printed on September 18, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/99211/
SAN FRANCISCO -- Immigration agents entered a private home in San Francisco on Sept. 11, 2008, arresting six undocumented immigrants in what residents see as the most recent evidence that this is no longer a "sanctuary city."
"They say this is a sanctuary city, but they're throwing us away like garbage," says Freddie Herrera, 21, who was in the middle of dinner with his family when he heard the doorbell ring.
"Sanctuary doesn't affect ICE's efforts to enforce immigration law," explains Lori Haley, a spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "ICE officers are sworn to enforce federal law."
But Jamal Dajani, chairman of the city's Immigrant Rights Commission, disagrees. He calls the arrests last Thursday "a total violation of the sanctuary ordinance. This is exactly why the sanctuary ordinance was created," he says.
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City of Refuge" Ordinance (Sanctuary Ordinance) that prohibits city employees from helping ICE with immigration arrests unless required by federal or state law or a warrant.
The fact that ICE agents entered a private residence with nothing more than a deportation order, Dajani says, is "totally different" from entering with a warrant for a crime. "They're going into private homes, which means the city can't protect its own residents."
http://www.alternet.org/story/99211/
By Elena Shore, New America Media
Posted on September 17, 2008, Printed on September 18, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/99211/
SAN FRANCISCO -- Immigration agents entered a private home in San Francisco on Sept. 11, 2008, arresting six undocumented immigrants in what residents see as the most recent evidence that this is no longer a "sanctuary city."
"They say this is a sanctuary city, but they're throwing us away like garbage," says Freddie Herrera, 21, who was in the middle of dinner with his family when he heard the doorbell ring.
"Sanctuary doesn't affect ICE's efforts to enforce immigration law," explains Lori Haley, a spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "ICE officers are sworn to enforce federal law."
But Jamal Dajani, chairman of the city's Immigrant Rights Commission, disagrees. He calls the arrests last Thursday "a total violation of the sanctuary ordinance. This is exactly why the sanctuary ordinance was created," he says.
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City of Refuge" Ordinance (Sanctuary Ordinance) that prohibits city employees from helping ICE with immigration arrests unless required by federal or state law or a warrant.
The fact that ICE agents entered a private residence with nothing more than a deportation order, Dajani says, is "totally different" from entering with a warrant for a crime. "They're going into private homes, which means the city can't protect its own residents."
http://www.alternet.org/story/99211/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)