NEW YORK – Just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s split decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law, a new education campaign is being launched today to deal with local fears surrounding enforcement on Long Island of federal immigration rules, particularly the Se Communities immigration program, known as S-com. Ted Hesson, online editor for Long Island Wins, says that for now the portion of the Supreme Court ruling that upholds the “show me your papers law” applies to Arizona police, but his group is concerned because there have been plenty of copycat laws around the nation. “Whereas S-com is sort of de facto authorizing police to act as immigration agents on the local level, this is actually requiring the police who are out there to be doing this as part of their job.” The Supreme Court ruled that the remaining three provisions of Arizona’s immigration law violate the Constitution.
A major reason for holding a Justice GA in Arizona has always been so that participants could learn how to take lessons home to confront anti-immigrant measures wherever they live. Sarahi Uribe At an education session Thursday titled “Confronting Arizonification in Our Own Backyard” Sarahi Uribe, Angie Junck, and the Rev. Craig Roshaven shared strategies for doing just that. Uribe is with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Junck with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Roshaven is director of the UUA’s Witness Ministries staff group. Roshaven noted the UUA is developing a campaign to challenge the federal government’s Se Communities program, which deports many people including some who are arrested for minor law violations.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision that allowed a portion of SB 1070 (Section 2B) to stand included the measure empowering the state to require local law enforcement to check the immigration status of suspects who are detained. If an officer stops someone for a non-immigration related reason and suspects that the person may be undocumented, story Arizona law enforcement agents have to determine the immigration status of the person being held. Immigration advocates have argued that this particular provision of SB 1070 has a similar effect to the Obama administration’s Se Communities program, there which deputizes local law enforcement to act in an immigration capacity. And because of the continued expansion of the Se Communities (S-Comm) and notice that participation in federal program is mandatory, the lines between the Arizona law and the Obama policy have become blurred.
Young illegal immigrants, saying President Obama has done little to diminish the threat of deportations they face despite repeated promises, have started a campaign to press him to use executive powers to allow them to remain legally in the country. The campaign is led by the United We Dream Network, the largest organization of young immigrants here illegally who would be eligible for legal status under a proposal in Congress known as the Dream Act. The young people are among the most visible activists in a growing immigrant movement. Their push to focus pressure on the White House reflects deep frustration with Congress for its lack of action on the legislation and with the administration for continuing to deport illegal immigrant students, although Mr. Obama says he supports them.
La súbita expansión del programa federal Comunidades Seguras a todos los condados de Colorado ha causado preocupación entre los dirigentes pro inmigrantes, porque la medida deja sin efecto leyes estatales que hasta ahora protegían a personas indocumentadas víctimas de ciertos delitos. Hasta el pasado martes, mind Comunidades Seguras funcionaba solamente en tres condados de Colorado. Desde el miércoles, sin embargo, los departamentos de Policía y oficinas de alguaciles de los 64 condados de este estado podrán y deberán cooperar con las autoridades federales de Inmigración para detectar y arrestar a presuntos indocumentados convictos de crímenes. Aunque la implementación completa de esa colaboración llevará varias semanas, las consecuencias de la expansión de Comunidades Seguras se sentirán inmediatamente, advirtió Alan Kaplan, portavoz de la Coalición de Colorado por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes (CIRC).
‘TRUST Act 2.0′: Amended CA bill would only let cops hold convicted criminals for ICE | Multi-American
A year ago, order a bill was moving through the California state legislature that aimed to make optional counties and cities’ participation in the controversial Se Communities immigration enforcement program. At the time, California was one of several states in which some state and law enforcement officials had come out against the federal program, store which allows the fingerprints of people booked at local jails to be shared with immigration officials. The bill was rendered moot last August, after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement rescinded state agreements with the agency allowing Se Communities to operate. The decision essentially made the program mandatory, leaving states no choice but to go along. As a counter to that, the same California lawmaker behind last year’s bill is now pushing an alternative dubbed TRUST Act 2.0.
The Obama administration claims that it is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants while focusing on those with criminal records. But new data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement shows that the number of deportation orders has declined dramatically since last summer and non-criminals comprise a growing percentage of those expelled from the country. That wasn’t supposed to happen under a policy of “prosecutorial discretion” announced by ICE director John Morton last June. The goal of the policy, patient announced with much fanfare in the Spanish language media, was to spare “longtime lawful residents” from deportation and to focus on criminals. Since then, the adminstration has deported many fewer non-criminal aliens. But non-criminals remain the vast majority of those deported. And those with no criminal record now actually comprise a slightly larger percentage of those forced to leave the country than they did before Morton’s announcement.
Jose Barahona says that he would have been killed had he refused to open his door when the armed guerillas occupying his town demanded he let them use his kitchen and sleep on his floor. He says that’s what happened to his father. Dead. And he says it was because of the fear of death during the war raging between the FMLN guerillas and the Salvadoran government that at the age of 24, with his new wife and baby boy, he left his Salvadoran mountain village and came to the United States where the couple would have two more children and where he’d spend the next two and half decades. He thought he’d left all the violence behind. Twenty six years after that departure, on March 22nd 2011, now 51-year-old Barahona was shuttled from a Virginia immigration detention center to an immigration court
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of President Barack Obama’s most vocal critics on immigration, was sitting at dinner with his family a couple of weeks ago when his youngest daughter began talking about the president’s “terrible” deportation record. “If they invite us to the White House, I won’t go,” the 24-year-old said, according to Gutierrez. His wife, though, summed up the family’s mixed feelings on the president and immigration. “Yes — but you should clarify that notwithstanding that, we’re all voting for him,” his wife said, according to the congressman. “We can be angry, but we cannot vote for” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee. To many supporters of immigration reform, Obama has been a major disappointment.
The expected Democratic candidates for mayor may have their differences, there but they are unified in their opposition to New York City’s participation in Se Communities, there a controversial fingerprinting program meant to identify illegal immigrants. Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that they planned to extend the program across New York and Massachusetts on Tuesday, despite opposition from the governors of both states. The program requires the fingerprints of anyone arrested by the local or state police to be checked against databases of the Department of Homeland Security, which include immigration violations. If someone is found to be in the country illegally, immigration officials may ask the police to hold the person to be picked up by federal agents.