California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill late Sunday to make California the “anti-Arizona” on immigration enforcement, after a long fight that took the bill into the national spotlight as a possible rebuke to a program the Obama administration has made key to its effort to remove undocumented immigrants. Brown did not announce his decision on the bill until close to midnight, Pacific time, as part of a spate of bills — including one he did sign to allow driver licenses for some young undocumented immigrants — that Brown needed to address before the end of September. Even a few hours before, advocates weren’t sure which way it would go, but in the end Brown ruled it “fatally flawed.” The TRUST Act, which was originally introduced by state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, would have limited the state’s law enforcement’s interactions with federal immigration enforcement efforts. It specifically would have restricted California’s cooperation in the Se Communities program
It was nearly a month ago when the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Arizona vs. United States. In the decision, seek the Court ruled that most of Arizona’s SB1070 was unconstitutional because the enforcement of immigration law is a federal power, not a state power. In the wake of the SB1070 decision, most of the discussion in the immigrant rights community has revolved around Section (2)b of the law, which the media often refers to as the “show me your papers” provision. Section (2)b, the only section in question that the court let stand, requires Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest in their normal course of duty.
Opponents of SB1070 have launched another legal attack on the controversial bill. Last month, the Supreme Court struck down most of the law, but left the so-called “show me your papers” provision in place. It is the part of the law that requires law enforcement to ask for citizenship documentation if there is a suspicion that the person is in the c
Juana Reyes is a food vendor and mother of two who was arrested, look and detained in immigration jail for two weeks (while her children were taken away and placed in foster care) – all because she was selling tamales in front of a Sacramento Walmart. In fact, cheap she had been a food vendor for years, with no incidents. The trouble only came when a new security guard tried to remove her from the premises, and local police filed trespassing and “interfering with business” charges at her. Just like that, Juana was locked away, even though the state criminal charges were minor and eventually dropped by the local prosecutor. Juana’s story is just one of many stories that point to the civil rights and civil liberties problems created by the Department of Homeland Security’s Se Communities program, also known as S-Comm. Last week, ACLU members joined other community members in Sacramento to support Juana and to urge the passage of California’s TRUST Act (AB 1081).
A coalition of civil-rights groups filed motions in federal court Tuesday to prevent enforcement of the single contested provision of Arizona’s immigration law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The coalition, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Two years after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB1070 into law and then saw it suspended while legal appeals wound their way through the courts, the Supreme Court has finally ruled. But to our basic question of two years ago — Why haven’t the White House and Congress acted on comprehensive reform? — there has been no answer. Monday’s court ruling
Desde este viernes la Justicia estadounidense podrá ordenar la cancelación de la suspensión temporal aprobada en 2010 del polémico artículo 2(b) de la ley SB1070 de Arizona. Sin embargo, existen aún muchas dudas sobre la fecha exacta en que podría entrar en vigor esa disposición, ya que no se ha clarificado el procedimiento a seguir y, además, su a
Activistas y líderes locales a favor de las comunidades inmigrantes señalaron hoy que están cada día más fortalecidos para luchar contra el programa de Comunidades Seguras, stuff tanto a nivel estatal como nacional. Señalaron a raíz de la decisión de la Corte Suprema en el caso de Arizona decenas de localidades de todo Estados Unidos se alzaron contra los “programas nocivos de inmigración” que conectan a las autoridades locales con las de Inmigración y Aduanas. En Nueva York, order donde el programa Comunidades Seguras entró en vigor el 15 de mayo, los líderes de inmigrantes, activistas y funcionarios electos unen estrategias para denunciar sus efectos perjudiciales. “El gobernador Cuomo hizo lo correcto cuando se suspendió el año pasado el programa, y hoy seguimos pensando que este no debe funcionar en el estado de Nueva York”, dijo César Palomeque, líder de Se Hace Camino Nueva York.
The Missing Racial Profiling Argument in the Arizona Case » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
It was nearly a month ago when the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Arizona vs. United States. In the decision, the Court ruled that most of Arizona’s SB1070 was unconstitutional because the enforcement of immigration law is a federal power, click not a state power. In the wake of the SB1070 decision, most of the discussion in the immigrant rights community has revolved around Section (2)b of the law, which the media often refers to as the “show me your papers” provision. Section (2)b, the only section in question that the court let stand, requires Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest in their normal course of duty.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. United States, a closely watched case in which the federal government challenged Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070. The decision and its impact has since been dissected in both legal and media circles. Perhaps more than anything, however, the immediate aftermath of Arizona highlights the host of difficult questions around state and local immigration enforcement that the Supreme Court didn’t answer.