www.ImmigrationImpact.com
DEC 18
Greyhound Lines, Inc. Accused of Racially Profiling Latino Passengers
Traveling home for the holidays might not be as cheerful as you may think if you plan on taking a Greyhound bus. According to a recent article in the Contra Costa Times, an immigrant rights group in San Bernardino, CA, is accusing Greyhound Lines, Inc. of racially profiling their Latino customers. The rights group, Immigration Raids Response Network, alleges that Greyhound Lines Inc. targets Latino riders by allowing Border Patrol agents--along with Greyhound employees--to "conduct immigration checks of passengers upon their arrival at the San Bernardino Greyhound bus station." The rights group is now urging Latinos not to ride Greyhound buses nationwide.
DEC 17
The BIA Has the Chance to Prevent the Wrongful Deportation of Immigrant Children
While there is no question that Congress needs to step up to the plate and repair our broken immigration system through legislative reform, there are some fixes that can be made now without waiting for Congressional action. If the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) would stop narrowly interpreting existing immigration law, many noncitizens would be eligible to complete applications for legal status in the manner Congress intended.
DEC 16
ICE Will Halt Detention of Asylum Seekers
According to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration said today that it will no longer detain asylum seekers who, in addition to other criteria, have displayed a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. According to the article, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton says asylum seekers can temporarily enter the U.S. if they meet certain criteria. They must establish their identities, they cannot be dangerous or a flight risk, and they must have a credible fear of persecution or torture."
DEC 16
Shenandoah is a Cautionary Tale for How to Debate Immigration Reform
This week a police chief and two of his officers were charged with obstruction of justice in connection with their investigation of the beating death of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, PA, last year. The two teenagers acquitted of his murder were also indicted on federal hate crime charges. While some measure of justice may eventually be served in the Ramirez case, this tragedy should serve as a cautionary tale as we move into 2010 and gear up for a new round of immigration reform debates. Policy makers and the media must understand that when the debate devolves from reasoned, fact-based discussions into fear and hate-mongering the consequences can be dire.
DEC 15
Congressman Luis Gutierrez Introduces Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009
On Tuesday, in a room filled with supporters and shouts of "Si, Se Puede," Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) held a press conference to introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP). Congressman Gutierrez introduced the immigration reform bill--which at last count had 89 original co-sponsors including the Congressional Hispanic, Black, Progressive, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses--before Congress heads home for the holidays "so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year."
DEC 14
Restrictionists Build Anti-Immigrant Agenda on Backs of American Workers
While perpetuators of the myth that "immigrants take jobs away from hard working Americans" are busy exploiting both immigrants and native-born workers, a new report by America's Voice Education Fund shines a much needed light on the restrictionist lobby's real agenda--deportation at any cost. Released last week, the report takes a closer look at the "anti-worker" voting records of supposedly "pro-worker" Congressional Members who, "aided by a shadow coalition of groups with an anti-immigrant agenda," have consistently built a "deport them all" agenda on the backs of American workers.
Immigration Enforcement Fuels Rise in U.S. Cases
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: December 21, 2009
Federal prosecutions reached a record high in the 2009 fiscal year, with the surge driven by a sharp increase in cases filed against immigration violators.
The 169,612 federal prosecutions were a jump of nearly 9 percent from the previous year, according to Department of Justice data analyzed by a research center at Syracuse University in a new report. Immigration prosecutions were up nearly 16 percent, and made up more than half of all criminal cases brought by the federal government, the report said.
Much of the spike, immigration experts say, arises from Bush administration efforts to increase immigration enforcement and to speed prosecutions. The administration greatly increased the number of Border Patrol agents and prosecutors, and also introduced a program known as Operation Streamline that relied on large-scale processing of plea deals in immigrant cases in some parts of the country.
The relatively simple cases have become the low-hanging fruit of the federal legal system: Immigration prosecutions, from inception to court disposal, are lightning quick, according to the report. While white-collar prosecutions take an average of 460 days and narcotics cases take 333, the immigration cases are typically disposed of in 2 days.
And while federal prosecutors decline to prosecute about half of the white-collar cases that are referred to them by law enforcement agencies, they prosecute 97 percent of the immigration cases, according to the Syracuse group.
The speed-up in federal immigration prosecutions, however, has run afoul of the federal courts presiding over Arizona, which processed more than 22,000 immigration cases in the fiscal year, nearly a quarter of those cited in the report. This month, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the process of mass pleadings violates the federal rule that protects the accused from being forced into a guilty plea.
Michael A. Olivas, an immigration expert at the University of Houston Law Center, said he was not surprised to find immigration prosecutions “No. 1 with a bullet” on the Syracuse list. “I would have been astounded if it wasn’t one or two,” Mr. Olivas said. “We’re simply pushing the cattle through the chutes.”
The fact that immigration prosecutions remained high “shows that this administration is serious about enforcement to some degree,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy group in Washington that favors restricting immigration. “This administration understands that it needs to appear tough on enforcement if it’s going to make a credible case for legalization,” or amnesty programs, he said.
David Burnham, who is co-director of the Syracuse research group, known as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, said that for whatever reason, “the policy of Bush appears, from the data, to have continued and maybe accelerated.”
The rise in federal immigration enforcement figures has occurred as crime has dropped over all. According to new statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, also released Monday, violent crimes reported to the bureau’s Uniform Crime Program dropped 4.4 percent over the previous year, the third straight decline. Murder was down 10 percent, and property crimes dropped by 6.1 percent, according to the report.
Published: December 21, 2009
Federal prosecutions reached a record high in the 2009 fiscal year, with the surge driven by a sharp increase in cases filed against immigration violators.
The 169,612 federal prosecutions were a jump of nearly 9 percent from the previous year, according to Department of Justice data analyzed by a research center at Syracuse University in a new report. Immigration prosecutions were up nearly 16 percent, and made up more than half of all criminal cases brought by the federal government, the report said.
Much of the spike, immigration experts say, arises from Bush administration efforts to increase immigration enforcement and to speed prosecutions. The administration greatly increased the number of Border Patrol agents and prosecutors, and also introduced a program known as Operation Streamline that relied on large-scale processing of plea deals in immigrant cases in some parts of the country.
The relatively simple cases have become the low-hanging fruit of the federal legal system: Immigration prosecutions, from inception to court disposal, are lightning quick, according to the report. While white-collar prosecutions take an average of 460 days and narcotics cases take 333, the immigration cases are typically disposed of in 2 days.
And while federal prosecutors decline to prosecute about half of the white-collar cases that are referred to them by law enforcement agencies, they prosecute 97 percent of the immigration cases, according to the Syracuse group.
The speed-up in federal immigration prosecutions, however, has run afoul of the federal courts presiding over Arizona, which processed more than 22,000 immigration cases in the fiscal year, nearly a quarter of those cited in the report. This month, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the process of mass pleadings violates the federal rule that protects the accused from being forced into a guilty plea.
Michael A. Olivas, an immigration expert at the University of Houston Law Center, said he was not surprised to find immigration prosecutions “No. 1 with a bullet” on the Syracuse list. “I would have been astounded if it wasn’t one or two,” Mr. Olivas said. “We’re simply pushing the cattle through the chutes.”
The fact that immigration prosecutions remained high “shows that this administration is serious about enforcement to some degree,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy group in Washington that favors restricting immigration. “This administration understands that it needs to appear tough on enforcement if it’s going to make a credible case for legalization,” or amnesty programs, he said.
David Burnham, who is co-director of the Syracuse research group, known as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, said that for whatever reason, “the policy of Bush appears, from the data, to have continued and maybe accelerated.”
The rise in federal immigration enforcement figures has occurred as crime has dropped over all. According to new statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, also released Monday, violent crimes reported to the bureau’s Uniform Crime Program dropped 4.4 percent over the previous year, the third straight decline. Murder was down 10 percent, and property crimes dropped by 6.1 percent, according to the report.
Immigration Reform Group Charges GOP Hypocrisy on Labor Votes
By Jennifer Bendery
December 10, 2009
http://www.rollcall.com/news/41424-1.html
Groups seeking a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are accusing Republican critics of hypocrisy for voting against bills aimed at helping American workers. The new line of attack aims to undermine GOP claims that legalizing illegal immigrants will take jobs away from unemployed Americans.
The America's Voice Education Fund said Thursday in a new report that lawmakers opposed to immigration reform on the grounds that it would hurt American workers also voted against wage hikes and equal pay measures.
Of the 87 House Members who received an "A" from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a prominent group opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, 71 percent voted against increasing the minimum wage and 93 percent voted against wage discrimination legislation. Eighty-two percent voted against providing parental leave for federal employees and 87 percent voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Among the groups who were represented at a Thursday press event backing the report - and action on comprehensive immigration reform - were the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Republicans targeted in the report dismissed the attacks and stood by their opposition to bills that they say amounted to government interference in business practices.
"The definition of what helps American workers is different for some people than others, so I don't buy into that definition. ... I don't see raising the minimum wage as helping American workers," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said.
"These people are leaning toward socialism or they've gone over to the other side, so they can't understand the principles of free enterprise," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said. "I'd like to take them to Econ 101 ... and drive that into their heads."
The report also noted a dramatic decrease in the number of Members ranked favorably by FAIR between the 109th and 110th Congress. FAIR scored 151 House lawmakers with an "A" grade in the 109th Congress, when Republicans were in power, but only 87 in the 110th Congress, when Democrats took control.
December 10, 2009
http://www.rollcall.com/news/41424-1.html
Groups seeking a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are accusing Republican critics of hypocrisy for voting against bills aimed at helping American workers. The new line of attack aims to undermine GOP claims that legalizing illegal immigrants will take jobs away from unemployed Americans.
The America's Voice Education Fund said Thursday in a new report that lawmakers opposed to immigration reform on the grounds that it would hurt American workers also voted against wage hikes and equal pay measures.
Of the 87 House Members who received an "A" from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a prominent group opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, 71 percent voted against increasing the minimum wage and 93 percent voted against wage discrimination legislation. Eighty-two percent voted against providing parental leave for federal employees and 87 percent voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Among the groups who were represented at a Thursday press event backing the report - and action on comprehensive immigration reform - were the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Republicans targeted in the report dismissed the attacks and stood by their opposition to bills that they say amounted to government interference in business practices.
"The definition of what helps American workers is different for some people than others, so I don't buy into that definition. ... I don't see raising the minimum wage as helping American workers," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said.
"These people are leaning toward socialism or they've gone over to the other side, so they can't understand the principles of free enterprise," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said. "I'd like to take them to Econ 101 ... and drive that into their heads."
The report also noted a dramatic decrease in the number of Members ranked favorably by FAIR between the 109th and 110th Congress. FAIR scored 151 House lawmakers with an "A" grade in the 109th Congress, when Republicans were in power, but only 87 in the 110th Congress, when Democrats took control.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion marks the Supreme Court's first use of the term 'undocumented immigrant.'
December 10, 2009
THINK PROGRESS:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court "released its first four decisions in argued cases this term," including one marking Justice Sonia Sotomayor's debut. The case concerned "whether federal trial-court rulings concerning the lawyer-client privilege may be appealed right away," to which Sotomayor said no. The New York Times notes one particularly noteworthy part of Sotomayor's opinion:
In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term "undocumented immigrant," according to a legal database. The term "illegal immigrant" has appeared in a dozen decisions.
Terms like "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are considered pejorative and offensiveby immigrants rights organizations.
THINK PROGRESS:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court "released its first four decisions in argued cases this term," including one marking Justice Sonia Sotomayor's debut. The case concerned "whether federal trial-court rulings concerning the lawyer-client privilege may be appealed right away," to which Sotomayor said no. The New York Times notes one particularly noteworthy part of Sotomayor's opinion:
In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term "undocumented immigrant," according to a legal database. The term "illegal immigrant" has appeared in a dozen decisions.
Terms like "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are considered pejorative and offensiveby immigrants rights organizations.
Secretary Napolitano Testifies Before Congress: Outlines Enforcement Program, Looks Forward to Immigration Reform
December 9, 2009
Washington D.C. - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Secretary's opening statement reiterated her view that immigration enforcement is a necessity, but that enforcement alone is not a solution for our broken immigration system. Secretary Napolitano noted, "We can no longer perpetuate a status quo that is unacceptable for workers, employers, law enforcement, faith leaders, and America as a whole. We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here."
Despite her commitment to both enforcement and legalization as part of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, some lawmakers, commentators, and activists are calling for a continuation of the same enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration that has failed to work for two decades. In the fanciful view of enforcement-only advocates, forcing 12 million unauthorized men, women, and children out of the country is not only practical, but would somehow benefit the U.S. economy. In reality, though, an intensification of the enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration would be enormously expensive and would remove productive workers, consumers, and taxpayers from the economy in the middle of a recession. One study, for instance, estimates that removing all undocumented immigrants from the country would result in the loss of roughly 2.8 million jobs and a decline in the Gross Domestic Product of $245 billion. This is not exactly a recipe for economic recovery.
"Secretary Napolitano is looking forward, but her opponents are looking backwards to tired old tactics that haven't worked," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "She is drawing upon her experience to move forward, but that entails a shift in thinking and comprehensive immigration reform. We can all agree that the current system isn't working, but some offer solutions while others offer the same old ideas."
The time is ripe for a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system that looks to the future, rather than clinging to the failed enforcement-only strategy of the past. Not only does comprehensive reform represent a practical and humane way of dealing with the large unauthorized population in our country, but it would boost our economy as well. Rather than scapegoating immigrants for our current economic woes, we should acknowledge their economic contributions and their potential to help rebuild our economy.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
Washington D.C. - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Secretary's opening statement reiterated her view that immigration enforcement is a necessity, but that enforcement alone is not a solution for our broken immigration system. Secretary Napolitano noted, "We can no longer perpetuate a status quo that is unacceptable for workers, employers, law enforcement, faith leaders, and America as a whole. We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here."
Despite her commitment to both enforcement and legalization as part of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, some lawmakers, commentators, and activists are calling for a continuation of the same enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration that has failed to work for two decades. In the fanciful view of enforcement-only advocates, forcing 12 million unauthorized men, women, and children out of the country is not only practical, but would somehow benefit the U.S. economy. In reality, though, an intensification of the enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration would be enormously expensive and would remove productive workers, consumers, and taxpayers from the economy in the middle of a recession. One study, for instance, estimates that removing all undocumented immigrants from the country would result in the loss of roughly 2.8 million jobs and a decline in the Gross Domestic Product of $245 billion. This is not exactly a recipe for economic recovery.
"Secretary Napolitano is looking forward, but her opponents are looking backwards to tired old tactics that haven't worked," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "She is drawing upon her experience to move forward, but that entails a shift in thinking and comprehensive immigration reform. We can all agree that the current system isn't working, but some offer solutions while others offer the same old ideas."
The time is ripe for a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system that looks to the future, rather than clinging to the failed enforcement-only strategy of the past. Not only does comprehensive reform represent a practical and humane way of dealing with the large unauthorized population in our country, but it would boost our economy as well. Rather than scapegoating immigrants for our current economic woes, we should acknowledge their economic contributions and their potential to help rebuild our economy.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
Historical Perspective on the Success of Immigrants and Latinos
Climbing the Socio-Economic Ladder:
An Historical Perspective on the Success of Immigrants and Latinos
December 7, 2009
Washington D.C. - As a front-page story in today's Washington Post reminds us: "Not since the last great wave of immigration to the United States around 1900 has the country's economic future been so closely entwined with the generational progress of an immigrant group." The story highlights the degree to which the children of immigrants from Latin America have become crucial to sustaining the working-age population and tax base of the nation as the 75 million Baby Boomers retire. The parents of these children most likely would not have even come to this country if not for the U.S. economy's past high demand for workers to fill less-skilled jobs; demand which was not being adequately met by the rapidly aging and better-educated native-born labor force.
The Post story also casts a spotlight on the insecurities and anxieties of commentators who feel that Latino immigrants and their descendants aren't integrating into U.S. society and moving up the socio-economic ladder "fast enough." Although these concerns are certainly understandable, they are as unjustified now as they were a century ago when they were directed at immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.
By any objective measure, the children of immigrants from Latin America are making significant progress compared with their parents. As demographer Dowell Myers points out in a 2008 report, the experience of Latino immigrants in California reveals not only the vast strides that immigrants themselves make within their lifetimes in terms of English proficiency, homeownership, and declining poverty rates, but also the degree to which the children and grandchildren of immigrants do better than "newcomers." Similarly, the National Research Council's Panel on Hispanics in the United States concluded in 2006 that "trends in wages, household income, wealth, and home ownership across time and generations point to the gradual ascension of many U.S.-born Hispanics to the middle class."
This isn't to say that the undeniable disparities in educational attainment and income between native-born Latinos and native-born non-Latinos in the United States aren't pressing social concerns. However, to effectively address these problems, they must first be accurately identified. The challenges confronting (and posed by) a poor immigrant from Mexico differ from the "Struggles of the Second Generation" Latinos whose parents are immigrants, which in turn differ from those of a poor third-generation Latino whose parents are native-born. Some of these challenges are unique to the immigrant experience, others derive from being part of a "minority" group in U.S. society, and others stem from dynamics of poverty that are not limited to any ethnic group, immigrant or otherwise.
For instance, if some third-generation Mexican Americans, like other minority groups in the United States, have encountered a "glass ceiling" in wage growth, this says more about the need for educational investment in poor communities than it does about a culturally specific lack of ambition. To treat Latinos as a homogeneous group inherently incapable of upward mobility, as some immigration restrictionists do, serves only to simplistically misidentify what are in fact a diverse range of issues. To deny the tremendous progress of Latino immigrants and their children over time is simply inaccurate.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
BREAKING DOWN THE PROBLEMS: WHAT’S WRONG WITH OUR BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM?
OCTOBER 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past two decades, America has experienced dramatic political, cultural, and scientific advances that have redefined its role in the world. From the rapid expansion of new technologies that have changed the way we communicate, to two costly and consuming wars, to drastic economic changes, it is obvious that this is not the America of the 1990s. Yet, while the country changes and evolves, our immigration system remains frozen in time, locked into legal limits on immigration that were set in 1990 and subsequently restricted by laws passed in 1996. The impact of this outdated and inefficient immigration system on American society has been far‐reaching. And as the problems have grown, so too has the level of emotion. Inflamed rhetoric often obscures the genuine problems and therefore hinders consensus on effective solutions. The first step in solving our immigration crisis is to understand the complex nature of these problems.
THE PROBLEMS
It is misleading to characterize our immigration crisis as solely a question of what to do about the 11 to 12 million unauthoried immigrants living in the United States. Our problems extend to a much broader range of issues.
For instance:
• Insufficient numbers of visas are made available to bring in either high‐skilled or less‐skilled workers at the levels needed to meet the changing needs of the U.S. economy and labor market.
• Arbitrary visa caps have created long backlogs of family members who must wait up to 20 years to be reunited with family livingin the United States.
• Wage and workplace violations by unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrant workers are undercutting honest businesses and haming all workers.
• Inadequate government infrastructure is delaying the integration of unauthorized immigrants who want to legalize and become U.S. citizens.
Furthermore, the lack of a comprehensive federal solution has created a range of lopsided, enforcement‐only initiatives that have cost the country billions of dollars, while doing little to impede the flow of unauthorized immigrants. In fact, the current immigration system’s structural failures, and the inadequate or misguided responses to these failures, have led to the largest unauthorized population in our nation’s history.
This paper, while not an exhaustive study of every problem within our immigration system, addresses several key areas and discusses issues stemming from the lack of federal response and long‐delayed immigration reform. This paper begins with an explanation of how our current immigration system functions, and then defines and discusses the problems under two broad categories: Structural Failure and Inadequate Responses.
WHY DON’T THEY JUST GET IN LINE?
Permanent Legal Immigration Is Limited and Difficult. There are few legal ways for most immigrants to come to the United States, and all are restricted to certain categories of persons. For the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants, the idea that they could be legal if they would just "get in line" is incorrect. There is no "line" for most unauthorized immigrants. If you don’t fit into one of the limited categories, you cannot qualify for permanent legal status.
STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Our nation’s immigration laws are outdated and inadequate to meet the needs of the United States in the 21st century.
Failures of the outdated immigration system have created the following issues:
• Outdated visa caps that divide families and hurt U.S. businesses.
• Deterioration of workplace conditions that harm all workers.
• Lengthy backlogs on visa and citizenship applications.
• 12 million unauthorized people living in limbo in the country.
• 4 million U.S.‐citizen children living in mixed status families with at least one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant.
INADEQUATE RESPONSES
The U.S. government has tried without success to stamp out unauthorized immigration through enforcement efforts without a correspondingeffort to address the pull of jobs and family. This approach has deepened the immigration crisis.
A lopsided response to unauthorized immigration has created the following issues:
• Despite spending billions of dollars, the problem is not going away.
• Expensive and ineffective enforcement measures are not working.
• The U.S. border has become more dangerous than ever.
This paper will be followed by a series of solutions‐oriented papers that discuss potential fixes to our nation’s immigration crisis in the areas of Legalization, Family Immigration, Employment Verification, Citizenship and Naturalization, Enforcement, and Future Flow. While addressed individually, the key to effective immigration reform lies in resolving these issues together through a comprehensive solution that serves or nation’s economic and national‐security interests.
PART I: HOW THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS
There are many misconceptions about how the legal immigration system works, leading many Americans to believe that unauthorized immigrants could be legal if they would just "get in line." However, there was never any "line" for the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants. They do not have the necessary family relationships or employment connections to apply for legal entry, and very few qualify for refugee status. Those few who might have been eligible for a visa would have faced years or even decades of waiting time.
Permanent Legal Immigration is Limited and Difficult
There are limited legal ways for immigrants to come to the United States, and all are restricted to certain categories of persons. The current numerical caps were instituted decades ago and have not been responsive to our nation’s changing economic and labr demands. There are four main ways of immigrating legally and permanently to the United States. If you don’t fit into one these categories, you cannot qualify for permanent legal status:
• Family‐based immigration. A legal, qualified family member in the United States can seek permission (by petition) to bring in certain eligible foreign‐born family members. U.S. citizens can petition for "green cards"[FN1] for their spouses, parents, children, and siblings. Legal Permanent Residents (green‐card holders) can petition for their spouses and unmarried children. No other family relationships qualify. In all cases, the legal resident or U.S.‐citizen family member must demonstrate an income level above the federal poverty line, and legally commit to support those family members brought to the United States.[FN2]
• Employment‐based immigration. People who wish to come to the United States on an employment‐based visa, and who fit into one of the employment categories, must have a job offer in the United States and an employer willing to sponsor him or her – a process that can be very expensive and time consuming. Most of the qualifying professions are high‐skilled and require high levels of education, targeting professionals like scientists, professors, and multinational executives,[FN3] and there are insufficient legal channels for low‐skilled workers.
• Humanitarian‐based immigration. Each year the U.S. government provides protection within U.S. borders to a limited number of persons who are fleeing persecution in their homelands. These individuals must prove that they have a "well‐founded fear of persecution" based on their race, religion, membership in a social group, political opinion, or national origin.[FN4]
• Other. There are other, limited ways that people may obtain a green card, such as the diversity lottery.[FN5] However, these mechanisms are highly restrictive and limited to extremely small groups of qualified individuals.
Nonimmigrant Visas are Complicated, Confusing, and Often Unavailable When Needed
People also come to the United States as "non‐immigrants" for temporary periods of time. The nonimmigrant visa category covers people like tourists, high‐skilled workers, musicians on tour, students, farmworkers, and visiting scientists. While many of these workers truly are temporary, others aspire to remain in the United States but cannot do so because of the legal limitations described above.
PART II: STRUCTURAL FAILURE
U.S. immigration laws are outdated and inadequate to meet the needs of our society in the 21st century. The following five points highlight the areas of the immigration system that are broken and need remedy within a full and comrehensive reform package.
1. Family‐based immigration backlogs mean that family members remain separated for long periods of time. Immigrants eligible to apply for family‐based visas must wait for years, even decades, to reunite with their family members. There are three reasons for the enormous backlogs:
• Demand exceeds supply. U.S. citizens are entitled to apply for visas for spouses, children, and parents without regard to overall caps, but other close family members, including children over the age of 21, must wait years to reunite with loved ones. For example, an immigrant residing in the United States legally with a green card must currently wait at least five years to receive a gree card for her minor child. A naturalized U.S. citizen from the Philippines must wait over 20 years before obtaining a green card for a brother or sister.[FN6]
• Per‐country limits create long backlogs in certain countries. In 1976, Congress created equal per‐country caps for all countries in the world, meaning that Mexico is assigned the same annual quota as Iceland or Belgium. The result is that families from high‐immigration countries—such as India, China, the Philippines, and Mexico—must wait disproportionately longer than families from low‐demand countries. For example, if the married son or daughter of a U.S. citizen is a resident of Mexico, then he or she must wait 16 years for a U.S. green card.[FN7]
• Processing delays and inconsistent policies heighten problems and create more illegal entry. In the past, lack of resources and overly rigid bureaucratic procedures have led to breakdowns in the immigration system’s ability to condut quick background checks, coordinate visa procedures between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State, or make common‐sense provisions for family reunification. While U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents wait their turn to get a green card for their family member, it is nearly impossible for that family member to receive permission even to visit the United States. Mothers, fathers, and children therefore face either years of separation or the risks inherent in entering the United States illegally.
------------------------------
CASE IN POINT
John D. Park emigrated to the United States with his family from Korea when he was ten years old. His family’s temporary visas were sponsored by a California company. While in the United States, John worked hard to learn English, and by his senior year in high school was a straight‐A student with a 4.55 grade‐point average, finishing at the top of his class. Just before college, he received word that his visa would soon expire, so he pursued the idea of having his U.S.‐born sisters sponsor him for a green card. However, he soon found out that the long sibling backlog meant at least an eleven‐year wait for a visa. By the age of 17, John had become an unauthorized immigrant. Without legal status, John would not be eligible for legal work or higher education. Returning to Korea meant living without his family in a country that he left as a child.
------------------------------
2. The employment‐based visa system is not responsive to employers’ labor needs. Each year there are 140,000 employment‐based green cards available to qualified immigrants. The number was set years ago by Congress, without regard to real labor‐market needs, and has not been updated to conform to current economic realities. The numbers of workers who are necessary to fill gaps in our labor supply changes depending on a wide range of economic factos. In times of economic recession, like now, the current limit on employment‐based green cards may be sufficient. However, the recession will end, the economy will rebound, and U.S. employers will need more workers. Some employers may need permanent workers to fill permanent jobs; others may require temporary workers to fill transitory gaps in certain industries or during particular seasons. In some cases, employers may only be able to obtain visas for temporary workers when they actually need permanent workers. Workers who arrive on temporary visas may find permanent jobs, but are unable to adjust to a permanent visa under the current system. In other words, the current system does not have the flexibility needed to respond to the country’s evolving economic needs.
Furthermore, the current visa allocation system leaves few visas for less‐skilled workers. The types of jobs most associated with unauthorized immigrants are the least likely to qualify for work visas. Each year, the number of green cards available for less‐skilled workers—such as hotel workers, landscapers, and construction workers—is limited to just 5,000 for the entire United States. The insufficient number of green cards available for these types of jobs is at the heart of the unauthorized immigration probem. Employers in restaurants, hotels, and other service‐sector jobs who want to petition for immigrant workers because the local labor pool does not meet their demand face visa backlos approaching 10 years. As a result, the immigration system provides no effective legal avenue for people abroad who wish to come to the United States to work in idustries that need them. Until there are more legal avenues for employers to hire immigrant workers to meet economic demands, unauthorized immigration will continue to fill the gap, and we will not be able to regain control over immigration.
3. Millions of unauthorized workers and other immigrants, many of whom have U.S.‐citizen families, reside in the United States with no means to become legal residents. Moreover, the lack of flexibility and discretion in existing immigration law further weakens their chance to obtain legal status. Efforts to penalize behavior such as overstaying a visa or working without authorization often produce unintended and illogicl results. Many U.S. citizens are shocked to find that their immigrant spouse is not eligible for legal status because of non‐criminal immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa (even when it happened many years in the past). In fact, there are severe consequences with few safety valves for legitimate exceptions or waivers. For example, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) created bars on admission to the United States for individuals who have been unlawfully present in the country for any period f time. Individuals who have been unlawfully present for more than 180 days, but less than one year, and who voluntarily depart, may not reenter the country for three years. People unlawfully present for an aggregate period of one year or more are subject to a ten‐year bar. Because of such laws, even people otherwise eligible for employment‐based or family‐based visas are unable to adjust their status in the United States, and if they leave the country in order to get a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, they cannot reenter the United States until the three‐ or ten‐year period has passed. This means that unauthorized immigrants in the United States who are eligible for visas are encouraged to remain here illegaly rather than risk being separated from family members for three years, ten years, or even permanently.
------------------------------
CASE IN POINT
Juan Jose Morales was married to a U.S. citizen and was eligible for a visa. However, because he had been present in the United States without authorization, he was subject to the bars on admissibility. He remained illegally in the United States, rather than leaving to obtain his visa and then being subject to a bar on re‐entry. He decided to go to Mexico to visit his mother for Mother’s Day in 2003, and used a smuggler to return to his home and his wife. Unfortunately, Morales never made it home to his family because the smuggler left him and 18 other immigrants to suffocate to death in a trailer. [FN8]
------------------------------
4. Unscrupulous employers who hire unauthorized workers in order to maximize profits are lowering wages and working conditions fr ALL workers. Lack of legal status makes unauthorized workers extremely vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous employers, and at the same time jeopardizes the competitiveness of those employers who try to follow the law. Because they have few labor protections and are often fearful of asserting their rights, joining an organizing campaign, or complaining about poor workplace conditions, unauthorized workers often endure low wages and poor, even dangerous, working conditions. Immigrant workers are often victims of wage theft by employers who pay less than minimum wage or do not pay them at all. This, in turn, is bad for all U.S. workers. When vulnerable unauthorized workers are willing to accept substandard wages and working conditions, it undermines U.S. workers in many industries, and makes it difficult for law‐abiding employers to compete with those employers who hire unauthorized workers in order to make a bigger profit.
Researchers have found that on‐the‐job death rates for Latino workers are disproportionately high. Since records were first collected in 1992, statistics have shown that Latino workers are killed in the workplace at a higher rate than workers of other ethnic or racial roups. Immigrants are especially vulnerable because they tend to work in dangerous industries such as construction and agriculture, they may not be given the same safety equipment as other workers, and their lack of English skills may mean that they cannot read safety warnings. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workplace deaths involving Latinos peaked in 2006, when 990 fatal injuries were reported.[FN9] Recently, the gap between Latino and non‐Latino workers has narrowed, but Mexican‐born workers still accounted for 42 percent of foreign‐born‐worker deaths—the most of any group—in 2008.[FN10]
------------------------------
CASE IN POINT
In one of the most egregious examples of exploitation, owners of the Agriprocessors meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa, have been accused of a range of labor‐law violations, such as sexual harassment, child labor (including 17‐hour work days), and abuse (including one incident in which a floor supervisor allegedly blindfolded an immigrant with duct tape, "then took one of the meat hooks and hit the Guatemalan with it").[FN11]
------------------------------
5. Inadequate infrastructure causes delays in the integration of immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Most Americans agree that we want immigrants to integrate into American culture, learn English, and become U.S. citizens. Immigrant integration benefits everyone because it enables immigrants to realize their full potential, contribute more to the U.S. economy, and develop deeper community ties. However, the United States has no comprehensive integration strategy. For example, despite a significant increase in demand for English classes, funding has repeatedly been cut for English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. As a result, there are currently wait lists of one to three years for adult ESL classes in most cities.[FN12]
Naturalization is a powerful sign and symbol of integration into U.S. society. In order to become a U.S. citizen, an immigrant must first reside in the United States continuously for five years as a Legal Permanent Resident (three years in the case of the spouse of a U.S. citizen), or serve for at least one year in the U.S. Armed Forces. He or she must be of "good moral character" as determined by a criminal background check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), be proficient in spoken and written English, and demonstrate a basic understanding of U.S government and history. And the would‐be citizen must take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws, and renounce allegiance to any other nation. Only by becoming a U.S. citizen can an immigrant vote in federal and most state elections, serve on a jury, run for public office, hold jobs that require a security clearance, or travel abroad for unrestricted periods of time. Moreover, only U.S. citizens can sponsor their siblings and married adult children to come to the United States, or bring their spouses, unmarried minor children, or parents here without being subjected to long waiting times.
Many immigrants are eager to demonstrate their commitment to this country by becoming U.S. citizens, but they face a costly naturalization process filled with bureaucratic obstacles and unfair delays.
• Naturalizations have been on the rise since the mid‐1980s. According to a March 2009 report by the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), the "average annual number of persons naturalizing increased from less than 120,000 during the 1950s and 1960s to 210,000 during the1980s, 500,000 during the 1990s and to 680,000 during 2000 to 2008." More than one million immigrants became naturalized citizens in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 {Figure 1}.[FN13]
• The number of naturalization applications filed with USCIS nearly doubled from 730,000 to 1,380,000 in 2007.[FN14]
• Last year, however, the number of immigrants applying to become U.S. citizens plunged 62 percent, as the cost of naturalization rose and the economy soured.[FN15]
Since the early 1990s, the federal government has repeatedly failed to allocate the resources needed to effectively process the growing number of natralization applications. The processing of applications for all immigration benefits, including naturalization, has been funded since 1988 primarily through fees paid by applicants themselves—not through direct congressional appropriations. The revenue generated by fees has not only proven insufficient to cover the costs of processing an ever‐fluctuating number of applications, but is used to pay for other administrative tasks that are not directly related to the actual processing of applications. As a result, the processing of applications for naturalization, Legal Permanent Residence, and other immigration benefits has become a perpetually underfunded operation subject to chronic backlogs and delays.[FN16] Yet the application fees continue to increase, which may prevent or delay an immigrant’s opportunity to naturalize. In addition, certain elderly and disabled immigrants have difficulty meeting the eligibility requirements. Because of the problems in the naturalization process, immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens have difficulty doing so. The result of these delays is that, for the first time in many years, the number of immigrants attempting to naturalize has gone down.
PART III: INADEQUATE RESPONSES
For more than two decades, the U.S. government has tried to stamp out unauthorized immigration through enforcement efforts at the border and in the interior of th country, but without success—and without fundamentally reforming the broken immigration system that spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place. Missing has been a corresponding effort to address the inevitable pull of jobs and family. The following five points discuss this "enforcement only" strategy which has merely deepened the crisis:
6. The United States has spent billions of dollars on ineffective border enforcement. At the same time that spending on immigration enforcement has skyrocketed, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has roughly tripled from 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 200 {Figure 2}.[FN17] (Research has shown that recent decreases in the number of unauthorized border crossings have little to do with enforcement, but are due primarily to the downturn in the U.S. economy.) Furthermore, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that between 25 percent and 40 percent of all unauthorized immigrants do not sneak across th border, but come to the United States on valid visas and then stay after their visas expire, meaning that border enforcement is irrelevant to a large portion of the unauthorized population.[FN18]
Yet, since 1992, the annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol has increased by 714 percent; from $326.2 million in FY 1992 to $2.7 billion in FY 2009 {Figure 3}.[FN19] At the same time, the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border has grown by 390 percent; from 3,555 in FY 1992 to 17,415 in FY 2009 {Figure 4}.[FN20] The Border Patrol has also increased its technological resources, ranging from fences and cameras to sensors and aircraft.
Since the creation of DHS in 2003, the budget of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the parent agency of the Border Patrol within DHS, has increased by 92 percent; from $6.0 billion in FY 2003 to $11.3 billion in FY 2009. The budget of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS interior‐enforcement counterpart to CBP, has increased by 82 percent; from $3.3 billion in FY 2003 to $5.9 billion in FY 2009 {Figure 5}.[FN21] Despite all this additional spending, the number of immigrants entering the United States without authorization has not decreased as a result of additional enforcemnt.
7. Border security without adequate legal channels for immigration has created a more dangerous border and reduced "circularity" of migration. Because of increased border enforcement, it has become much more dangerous and expensive to cross the border. Operation Blockade and Operation Gatekeeper (initiated in 1993 and 1994, respectively), and other enhanced border‐enforcement measures, have successfully closed off traditional points of entry and diverted unauthorized migrants into more dangerous areas. The probability of death or injury as a result of heat exhaustion, exposure, suffocation, or drowning has increased. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, in fact, that border deaths had more than doubled between 1995 and 2005.[FN22] Data show that the number of border deaths has increased drmatically in recent years, now reaching an average of approximately one death per day. In Arizona alone, the number of deaths increased by 20 percent during FY 2009; between October 1, 2008 and August 31, 2009, 191 immigrants died, according to the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector.[FN23] Border deaths typically increase during the hot summer months. At least 5,607 deaths occurred between 1994 and 2008, according to a report released in October 2009 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights {Figure 6}.[FN24]
Because of increased enforcement along the U.S.‐Mexico border, and the heightened risks of crossing the border, many unauthorized immigrants cannot survive the trip alone and rely on professional smugglers. Since the 1990s, migrants have paid enormous sums to smugglers to assist them and their family members in crossing the border. Smugglers charge over $2,000 to take people across the U.S.‐Mexico border.[FN25] Often, migrants are indebted to the smugglers for years after they arrive in the United States, sometimes working as indentured servants until their debts are paid. Smugglers have also turned to kidnapping the loved ones of immigrants in order to extort additional money from their cargo. "Human smugglers think nothing of engaging in hostage taking and extortion to generate more profit for their illegal activities, said John Morton, DHS Assistant Secretary for ICE.[FN26] Moreover, there have been increased reports of violence associated with rivalries between smuggling networks, affecting both immigrants and border communities.
Once in the United States, however, unauthorized immigrants are far less likely to leave than they would have been before the buildup of border enforcement in themid‐1990s. In the past, a large portion of unauthorized immigration to the United States tended to be "circular," meaning that immigrants came here to work for short periods of time and earn money, and then returned to their home countries, often repeating the cycle. However, this has changed in recent years. Research confirms that migrants who intend to return to their home countries increasingly find themselves "stuck" in the United States. According to researchers Douglas Massey, Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone, "the end result of a border buildup is typically longer trip durations, lower probabilities of return migration, and a shift toward permanent settlement."[FN27] They found that in the early 1980s, the average stay of an unauthorized immigrant was two to three years; by 1990 it was nine years. Moreover, the probability that any one unauthorized immigrant would return home had decreased.[FN28] What had been a circular flow of migration had become permanent settlement, or "reduced circularity of migration."
8. As border enforcement fails, electronic employment‐verification programs (such as E‐verify) are erroneously hailed as the next "magic bullet" to end unauthorized immigration. Over the past several years, one of the proposed "solutions" to the problem of unauthorized immigration has been expansion of the E‐Verify employment‐verification system.[FN29] E‐Verify is a federal web‐based program through which U.S. businesses can attempt to verify the work authorization of new hires. E‐Verify is a voluntary system, except where state laws require businesses to register to use E‐Verify, as well as a few other exceptions in which the federal government has made E‐Verify mandatory. There have been multiple attempts to expand E‐Verify and make it mandatory for all employers. This is despite the fact that E‐Verify is an extremely controversial program because of the high probability for database errors,[FN30] misuse of the system by employers,[FN31] and the burden it imposes on the Social Security Administration (SSA).[FN32] Furthermore, E‐Verify does not even identify unauthorized workers effectively. Some unauthorized workers are erroneously confirmed as authorized to work because E‐Verify cannot identify counterfeit, stolen, or borrowed identity documents. And E‐Verify cannot identify unauthorized workers when employers who knowingly hire them simply do not run their workers through the ystem, or when work is performed "off the books" in the underground economy.
Perhaps most importantly, while touted as an immigration‐enforcement tool, the reach of E‐Verify goes well beyond immigrants. If E‐Verify were to become a mandatory, nation‐wide program, it would affect every single person who works in the United States, including native‐born U.S. citizens. Even tiny error rates would mean big problems for large numbers of U.S. citizens and other legal workers. Under a mandatory E‐Verify, approximately 60 million new hires would have to be verified annually, and up to 3 million U.S. workers per year would have to navigate government bureaucracy to fix database errors.[FN33]
Unfortunately, many people still believe that electronic employment verification is a straightforward and simple solution to the problem of uauthorized work in the United States. However, years of experience with employer sanctions, the I‐9 system, and the E‐Verify program have proven that the devil is in the details, and that even the best intentions can result in harmful consequences for some people. Furthermore, no employment‐verification system alone can resolve the problems created by our broken immigration system. A mandatory employment‐verification system must be part of comprehensive immigration reform which requires unauthorized immigrants to legalize their satus and creates legal pathways for future workers to come to the United States.
------------------------------
CASE IN POINT
Ken Nagel, a restaurant owner in Phoenix, recently hired one of his own daughters—a native‐born U.S. citizen—to work in his restaurant. When he put her information through E‐Verify, he received a "tentative nonconfirmation," meaning the system could not verify that she was authorized to work in the United States.[FN34]
------------------------------
9. Interior immigration enforcement measures are resulting in an enforcement culture that criminalizes immigration violations an results in mistakes and civil rights violations. Immigration enforcement has consistently focused on identifying individuals for deportation, and then deporting them. One measure of our immigration‐enforcement priorities is the ICE detention system. ICE operates the largest detention and supervised‐release program in the country. A total of 378,582 immigrants from 221 countries were in custody or supervised by ICE in FY 2008; activities in 2009 remain at a similar level. On September 1, 2009, ICE had 31,075 immigrants in detention at more than 300 facilities throughout the United States and territories, with an additional 19,169 immigrants in Alternative to Detention programs.[FN35]
Since 1994, the number of detention beds available has increased six‐fold, from 6,785 to 33,400 in 2008.[FN36] At the same time, the number of crimes for which immigrants may be deported, and the categories of crimes for which immigrants may be subject to mandatory detention, have expanded. Since 2005, ICE detention bed space has increased 78 percent. During 2008 alone, ICE detained a record 378,582 persons—a 60 percent increase from 2005.[FN37] Between 2005 and 2009, the ICE budget for detention nearly doubled from $860 million to $1.72 billion.[FN38]
The ever‐expanding ICE detention program is emblematic of enforcement‐only policies which have harmful side effects that go far beyond the unauthorized population. It is important to recognize that unauthorized immigrants live in "mixed‐status" families and communities, meaning that U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, and unauthorized immigrants live in the same households and neighborhoods. Policies meant to target unauthorized immigrants also impact their family members, employers, and neighbors. A large number of the people affected are U.S.‐citizen children. Nationwide, there are approximately four million U.S.‐citizen children with at least one unauthorized‐immigrant parent, and policies that target their parents have grave effects on the children. Worksite raids, door‐to‐door raids, and other policies that lead to the detention and deportation of unauthorized immigrants separate parents from children and hubands from wives. U.S.‐citizen children are left in an untenable situation when one (or both) of their parents is deported. Furthermore, because immigration law is so complex, enforcement has led to mistakes and civil rights violations. U.S. citizens have been erroneously detained and even deported.
------------------------------
CASES IN POINT
Pedro Guzman, a U.S. citizen born in California, was deported to Mexico when the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office determined that Mr. Guzman was a Mexican national. Mr. Guzman, who is cognitively impaired, was sent to Mexico—a country where he had never lived—where he survived by eating out of trash cans for several months and bathing in rivers.[FN39]
Juana Villegas, a pregnant woman, was detained by police after being stopped for a traffic violation. On July 3, 2008, she was driving in Nashville (where local police officers have an agreement with ICE to enforce immigration laws) when she was pulled over for "careless driving." Mrs. Villegas, nine months pregnant, was forced to wait in her hot car with her three children for over an hour. Eventually, the children were allowed to leave with a family member without Villegas’s permission, and she was taken into custody. By the time Mrs. Villegas was released from the county jail six days later, she had gone through labor with a sheriff’s officer standing guard in her hospital room, where one of her feet was cuffed to the bed most of the time. County officers barred her from seeing or speaking with her husband. Up until an hour before the actual birth, Mrs. Villegas’s hand and foot remained shackled to the hospital bed. Mrs. Villegas appeared in court and was sentenced to time served for driving without a license. The charge of careless driving was dismissed.
------------------------------
10. The enforcement‐only model has pushed immigrants further underground, undermining community safety and national security. Unauthorized immigrants are often reluctant to report crimes they have witnessed or been victims of because they fear they ma be deported as a result of coming forward. When unauthorized immigrants and their family members are reluctant to cooperate with the police and report crimes, everyone in the community is less safe. The failure to come forward as witnesses and victims makes the work of the police much more difficult, and means that crimes against Americans go unsolved. Law enforcement officials themselves have stated time and time again that trust with immigrant communities is crucial to prevnting and investigating crimes, and hence essential to maintaining safe communities.[FN40] That trust cannot be gained under the current system.
In some communities, it is well known that local police are working with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws. Not only does this frighten the immigrant community and make them less willing to cooperate, but it takes resources away from crime fighting. In Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has diverted county resources away from investigating crimes and has spent them on immigration enforcement. As a result, response times to 911 calls have increased, arrest rates have dropped, and thousands of felony warrants have not been served.[FN41]
Furthermore, the current broken immigration system does not enhance our national security.[FN42] There are nearly 12 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, and billions of dollars are being spent trying to identify and deport them. Americans cannot be secure under a system that allows smugglers and traffickers, rather than the U.S. government, to decide who enters the country. Immigration reforms that bring immigrants out of the shadows, correctly identify them, and encourage people to enter the United States through legal channels would allow law‐enforcement and border‐enforcement agents to focus on people who pose a threat to national security or public safety.
------------------------------
CASE IN POINT
In 2003, the Tampa Tribune reported on the murder of a Mexican national named Petra Martinez and her son Urel Martin. The local police department believed that some members of the community had information on the case, but declined to come forward for fear of immigration‐related repercussions. Clearwater Police Department’s Hispanic Outreach Officer William Farias said he "wasn’t surprised people were hesitant to talk… cultural differences and fear of deportation often keep undocumented immigrants from coming forward."[FN43]
A 2007 headline read, "Immigrants Deported After Calling Police," after a woman in Carrollton, Georgia, was arrested when she called for help after being attacked in her home.[FN44]
------------------------------
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NECESSARY
While the U.S. immigration system appears to be fair, reasonable, and highly regulated on paper, the facts on the ground illustrate that it is badly broken and in urgent need of reform. A continuation of our "enforcement‐only" policies is not a practical or effective solution. Under the existing system, people are dying at the border, immigrants are living and working in abject conditions, families trying to reunite legally are separated for many years, employers are unable to hire the workers that they need, U.S. workers suffer from the unlevel playing field shared with exploited immigrant workers, and law‐abiding U.S. employers are in unfair competition with unscrupulous employers who increase profits by hiring cheap and vulnerable labor. Meanwhile, the United States continues to spend billions of dollars maintaining this system.
Most Americans understand that we cannot deport 12 million people or hope that they will choose to "self‐deport." It is clear that relentlessly building up enforcement resources has not worked in the past and is not a realistic solution toour current problems. The underlying flaws of the legal immigration system must be addressed first. The United States must create a fair, humane, and practical immigration system for the 21st century that is responsive to the needs of our economy and encourages legal behavior.
Endnotes
1 "Green cards" are the colloquial term for authorization to remain permanently in the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident.
2 Ruth Ellen Wasem, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, July 20, 2009).
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 The Congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program makes available 50,000 diversity visas (DV) annually, drawn from random selection among all entries to persons who meet strict eligibility requirements from countries with low rate of immigration to the United States (Pub. L. 101‐649).
6 See U.S. Department of State, Visa Bulletin.
7 Ibid.
8 John Sevigny, "Husband of U.S. Citizen Among Victims of South Texas Migrant Smuggling Tragedy," Associated Press, May 19, 2003.
9 Mariano Castillo, "Labor Report: Hispanic Workplace Deaths Decline," CNN, August 20, 2009.
10 Ibid.
11 Julia Preston, "After Iowa Raid Immigrants Fuel Labor Inquiry," New York Times, July 27, 2008.
12 Naleo Educational Fund, The ESL Logjam, October 2006.
13 James Lee and Nancy Rytina, Naturalizations in the United States: 2008 (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2009), p. 2.
14 Nancy Rytina and Selena Caldera, Naturalizations in the United States: 2007 (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, July 2008), p. 2.
15 Marisabel Torres and Olga Medina, Citizenship Beyond Reach (Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, September 2009).
16 Julia Gelatt and Margie McHugh, Immigration Fee Increases In Context (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, February 2007), pp. 3‐5.
17 See Walter Ewing, Money for Nothing: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn’t Work (Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Law Foundation, May 2008), p. 7.
18 Jeffrey S. Passel, The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S. (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, March 7, 2006), p. 16.
19 Statistics provided by U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters, Office of Public Affairs, September 25, 2009.
20 Ibid.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget‐in‐Brief for Fiscal Years 2005 (p. 13), 2006 (p. 15), 2007 (p. 17), 2008 (p. 19), 2009 (p. 19), and 2010 (p. 19).
22 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Illegal Immigration: Border Crossing Deaths Have Doubled Since 1995; Border Patrol’s Efforts to Prevent Deaths Have Not Been Fully Evaluated, GAO‐06‐770, August 2006.
23 Maria Leon, "Number of Undocumented Migrant Deaths Mount on Arizona Border," Latin American Herald Tribune, September 29, 2009.
24 Maria Jimenez, Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.‐Mexico Border (San Diego, CA: American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights, October 1, 2009), p. 17.
25 Douglas Massey, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "Securing the Borders and America’s Points of Entry, What Remains to Be Done," May 20, 2009.
26 White, Josh and Dagny Salas, "Better to be Deported Alive Than to be Dead," Washington Post, August 23, 2009.
27 Douglas Massey, Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002), p. 129.
28 Ibid, p. 133.
29 E‐Verify (formerly Basic Pilot) is one of three voluntary electronic employment eligibility verification pilot programs that were created under the Illegal Imigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Originally a pilot project in five states, E‐Verify has been expanded to a voluntary system in all 50 states. Employers transmit identity information through E‐Verify, where it is electronically checked against both Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases. The system then either confirms to the employer that the worker is employment‐authorized or it issues a "tentative nonconfirmation" (TNC) notice indicating that the databases cannot immediately confirm that the worker is employment‐authorized. If the employer receives a TNC, the worker then has eight federal working days from the issuance of the TNC to contest the finding with SSA or DHS. If the worker does not contest the finding, the TNC becomes final and the employer must terminate the worker or risk being found in violation of immigration laws. For more information, see National Immigration Law Center, The History of Basic Pilot/E‐Verify (Washington, DC: October 2008). For detailed instructions about how the program works, see Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration, E‐Verify User Manual for Employers, March 2009.
30 See Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration, Congressional Response Report: Accuracy of the Social Security Administration’s Numident File, A‐08‐06‐26100, December 2006).
31 See Westat, Findings of the Web‐Based Basic Pilot Evaluation (Rockville, MD: September 2007).
32 "The Facts on Employment Verification: Current Proposals are Unworkable for SSA, Threaten Progress in Reducing Disability Claims Backlog" (letter from Representative Michael R. McNulty and Charles B. Rangel to Democratic Colleagues, March 27, 2008).
33 Transcript of Hearing on Employment Eligibility Verification Systems (Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, June 7, 2007).
34 Ronald J. Hansen, "Economy Serves Up Unhappy Meal: Worst Lull in 2 Decades is Hurting Valley Restauranteurs," Arizona Republic, March 3, 2008.
35 Dora Shriro, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 6, 2009).
36 Don Kerwin and Serena Yi‐Ying Lin, Immigration Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities? (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, September 2009), p. 6.
37 Ibid, p. 7.
38 Ibid.
39 Paloma Esquivel, "Suit Filed Over Disabled U.S. Citizen’s Deportation Ordeal," Los Angeles Times, February 28, 2008.
40 For example, see International Association of Chiefs of Police, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement (Alexandria, VA: November 30, 2004), and Major Cities Chiefs Association, Immigration Committee Recommendations For Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local Police Agencies, June 2006.
41 East Valley Tribune, "Reasonable Doubt," July 9‐10, 2008.
42 See Coalition for Immigration Security, July 20, 2006.
43 Natashia Gregoire, "Police Appeal for Clues in Slaying of Mom, Son," Tampa Tribune, July 22, 2003.
44 Jenny Jarvie, "Immigrants Deported After Calling Police," Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2007.
A Kafkaesque Deportation
A Kafkaesque Deportation
By LINN WASHINGTON, Jr.
Julio Maldonado faces flying into an uncertain future if federal authorities succeed in deporting this former construction worker to Peru, the South American country he left 39-years-ago as a three-year-old child.
Maldonado faces deportation due to dictates of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
This law requires expulsion of both illegal immigrants and legal aliens like Maldonado who have criminal records.
Maldonado’s predicament is truly Kafkaesque from the circumstances producing his criminal record to the fact that federal authorities imprisoned him for four years based on his refusal to sign his deportation papers.
Maldonado resisted the deportation stressing he was wrongfully convicted, a claim supported by medical evidence, a jury’s verdict and a judicial ruling.
The case involving Maldonado and his cousin Denis Calderon has become a mini-controversy in Philadelphia, Pa, the city where they were convicted in 1997.
The prosecutor who convicted these cousins – Seth Williams – is widely recognized as front-runner in this year’s race to become Philadelphia’s next District Attorney. If the highly qualified Williams wins the November election as expected, he will become the first African-American elected as Philadelphia’s top prosecutor.
Williams terms the predicament of Maldonado and Calderon (who also faces deportation to Peru) “unfortunate” but Williams vigorously denies that their convictions constitute a miscarriage of justice.
“What I did in that case was stand up for the victim!” Williams said recently. “Maldonado and Calderon were found guilty.”
An advocate for Maldonado/Calderon, their cousin Maria Rolon, decries the convictions and deportation of her kin as unjust persecution. “They were the victims of a hate crime and have been discriminated against since then,” said Rolon, whose advocacy actions include creating a website http://denisandjulioandfaith.com/.
In August 1996 Maldonado and Calderon were attacked in the Oxford Circle section of Northeast Philadelphia by a crowd of drunken white males shouting racist slurs.
Maldonado, who lived in New York City at the time, was visiting Calderon who lived in Oxford Circle, the only Latino family in a predominately white area.
When the cousins walked towards a neighborhood bar to buy a beer, crowd members confronted them, shouting anti-black slurs, mistakenly thinking they were African-American.
When Calderon told crowd members that he and Maldonado were Latinos the slurs shifted from N-word based to anti-Hispanic epithets. As the cousins retreated towards Calderon’s home members of the crowd chased them, raining beer bottles on them before pouncing.
During that attack, one member of the crowd, 18-year-old Christian Saladino, collapsed and was hospitalized comatose. Police arrested the cousins after crowd members told police the cousins attacked them and pounded Saladino with metal objects.
Police did not lodge any charges against any of the drunken attackers who freely admitted using racist slurs, throwing bottles and battling with the cousins.
Calderon says one drunk slugged him as he talked with a policeman and the officer ignored that assault. Yet when Calderon sought to hit that attacker, the policeman handcuffed Calderon.
Seemingly biased police enforcement in racially charged incidents is a recurring problem in the predominately white Northeast section of Philadelphia. Rolon said police and prosecutors also ignored the intense intimidation unleashed on neighbors supportive of Calderon.
While Seth Williams currently characterizes that 1996 clash as a “street fight” between “a large crowd of white teenagers” and the two Hispanic males, Rolon says that attack by a “racist mob” forced her cousins to defend themselves.
Williams concedes the cousins had a right to self-defense but says the pair lost their right to self-defense when they escalated the fight by using weapons: a baseball bat and a ‘Club’ auto steering wheel lock.
Williams argued in court that Saladino was an innocent bystander who Maldonado maliciously struck on the base of his skull with the ‘Club.’ That blow, Williams said recent, triggered a hemorrhage that incapacitated Saladino.
Maldonado had taken the ‘Club’ from his car as attackers pummeled him.
Maldonado admitted swinging the ‘Club’ at a man he saw stabbing Calderon but testified that he merely grazed the shoulder of this assailant prosecutor Williams later championed in court as “the victim” – Saladino.
After Maldonado freed Calderon from those men bashing him, Calderon ran into his house, telling his wife to call 911. Rolon said Calderon went back outside to rescue Maldonado from the crowd, taking a bat with him because crowd members were on his porch threatening to burn the house down.
Williams says Calderon should have waited for police to arrive instead of leaving his house armed with that baseball bat.
Williams, Philadelphia’s former Inspector General, remains convinced that Maldonado blow caused Saladino’s coma.
Williams maintains this position despite no medical records specifically documenting blunt force trauma as the cause of Saladino’s collapse. For example, medical records cited in the most recent Pa appellate ruling in this case list the cause of Saladino’s collapse and subsequent coma as “unknown.”
EMT personnel who treated Saladino at the clash scene, ER doctors and CAT scans did not find any signs of blunt force trauma to Saladino’s head or body consistent with accounts from Saladino’s friends who testified later that the cousins brutally beat Saladino on the head, back and stomach with those metal objects.
Tests did prove that Saladino was legally drunk at the time of his collapse. EMT personnel suspected a drug overdose and gave an overdose countering injection. Medical tests were not performed to determine drug levels in Saladino’s body.
Rolon faults Williams for downplaying that Calderon was a hard-working family man and homeowner with “no reason to attack twenty drunks.” She also scores Williams for sidestepping Saladino’s history of arrests for violence which undercuts contentions that Saladino was a mere bystander.
One appellate ruling noted an arrest of Saladino days before the brawl for attacking a policeman. Williams says Saladino’s record was irrelevant to the fact that he was viciously beaten. Saladino collapsed in front of Calderon’s house. According to testimony, Saladino ran to the street in front of Calderon’s house after the fight started.
A Philadelphia judge convicted the cousins on assault and conspiracy charges in 1997, accepting contradictory testimony from members of that drunken, racist-slur spewing crowd. The cousins received identical 2-10-year sentences.
When Saladino died two years after the clash, prosecutors filed murder charges against Maldonado and Calderon contending the young man’s death was a direct result of the beating.
But a jury acquitted the cousins based largely on testimony from a forensic pathologist who provided evidence that Saladino’s rare blood disorder most likely caused his 1996 collapse.
A report prepared by that pathologist prior to the murder trial stated it was his “opinion that Christian Saladino could have collapsed as the result of either a pre-existing natural disease process or drugs of abuse. However, his medical condition was not as the result of being struck by an instrument/weapon such as a club.”
That pathologist did not testify during the assault trial.
That murder trial medical testimony caused the Philadelphia judge who initially convicted the cousins to overturn their clash related convictions.
But prosecutors appealed that judge’s ruling, securing reinstatement of those clash convictions on a technicality that contradicted their position during the assault trial of the cousins.
Prosecutors successfully argued that the failure of the pathologist to testify at the assault trial did not harm the cousin’s defense because their trial lawyers got the prosecution’s principal medical expert to admit that no records showed Saladino’s condition stemmed from external trauma like a beating.
Yes, prosecutors conceded in appellate court what they had denied in trial court: no medical records documented that the glancing blow from Maldonado and/or the alleged beating by Calderon caused Saladino’s collapse.
After Maldonado and Calderon served more than two years in prison for the clash related conviction, federal authorities initiated deportation proceedings. When the cousins refused to assist with their deportation by signing required papers, the feds imprisoned them in 2005 for failing to cooperate.
Maldonado served four years in a Pennsylvania jail contracted by federal immigration authorities. Calderon remains in an immigration prison in Pa serving the sentence for refusing to sign his deportation papers. Federal authorities re-imprisoned Maldonado shortly after his release months ago and now push for his deportation to Peru.
“My cousins are innocent and we know that once they are deported, it’s a permanent exile,” Rolon said.
“I didn’t want to go public with this. I just wanted Seth to do the right thing, acknowledge that my cousins were victims and oppose their deportation,” said Rolon, “We’ve been told that Julio was sent to Louisiana and apparently will be deported,” said Rolon said who’s petitioned Pa’s Governor Ed Rendell for a full pardon and is separately petitioning Homeland Security officials to stay her cousins deportation until Rendell decides the pardon request.
Defenders of Seth Williams say he did his job properly in prosecuting Maldonado/Calderon for assault, the later murder charge and challenging their appeals.
In a fair system prosecutors would actively seek to right wrongful convictions.
A Pa Supreme Court ruling in 1889 declared that the duty of prosecutors is to seek “justice only…and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes.”
However, in Philadelphia’s often perverted justice system, prosecutors routinely pursue justice crushing convict-at-all-costs practices that frequently involve bending or breaking the law.
Nearly two-thirds of the cases where Pa courts overturned convictions due to misconduct by prosecutors originated in Philadelphia according to an extensive investigation conducted by The Center for Public Integrity examining a 33-year period.
Compounding convict-at-all-costs practices by Philly prosecutors is their penchant for clawing to maintain tainted convictions.
Courts have faulted some famous Philly prosecutors for foul practices.
The Pa Supreme Court, in a stinging 1978 ruling, blasted a then former Philly DA Office official for “misleading” testimony in a murder case where he helped his former colleagues perpetrate “a fraud” to secure a conviction.
The name of the official specifically cited in that ruling is Ed Rendell, Pa’s Governor who served two terms as Philadelphia District Attorney.
Changing the “culture” among Philadelphia prosecutors – including eliminating convict-at-all-costs practices – is a key campaign pledge of Seth Williams…a pledge that Rolon and others wonder if Williams will fulfill.
Linn Washington Jr. is a columnist for The Philadelphia Tribune who writes frequently about justice system issues.
By LINN WASHINGTON, Jr.
Julio Maldonado faces flying into an uncertain future if federal authorities succeed in deporting this former construction worker to Peru, the South American country he left 39-years-ago as a three-year-old child.
Maldonado faces deportation due to dictates of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
This law requires expulsion of both illegal immigrants and legal aliens like Maldonado who have criminal records.
Maldonado’s predicament is truly Kafkaesque from the circumstances producing his criminal record to the fact that federal authorities imprisoned him for four years based on his refusal to sign his deportation papers.
Maldonado resisted the deportation stressing he was wrongfully convicted, a claim supported by medical evidence, a jury’s verdict and a judicial ruling.
The case involving Maldonado and his cousin Denis Calderon has become a mini-controversy in Philadelphia, Pa, the city where they were convicted in 1997.
The prosecutor who convicted these cousins – Seth Williams – is widely recognized as front-runner in this year’s race to become Philadelphia’s next District Attorney. If the highly qualified Williams wins the November election as expected, he will become the first African-American elected as Philadelphia’s top prosecutor.
Williams terms the predicament of Maldonado and Calderon (who also faces deportation to Peru) “unfortunate” but Williams vigorously denies that their convictions constitute a miscarriage of justice.
“What I did in that case was stand up for the victim!” Williams said recently. “Maldonado and Calderon were found guilty.”
An advocate for Maldonado/Calderon, their cousin Maria Rolon, decries the convictions and deportation of her kin as unjust persecution. “They were the victims of a hate crime and have been discriminated against since then,” said Rolon, whose advocacy actions include creating a website http://denisandjulioandfaith.com/.
In August 1996 Maldonado and Calderon were attacked in the Oxford Circle section of Northeast Philadelphia by a crowd of drunken white males shouting racist slurs.
Maldonado, who lived in New York City at the time, was visiting Calderon who lived in Oxford Circle, the only Latino family in a predominately white area.
When the cousins walked towards a neighborhood bar to buy a beer, crowd members confronted them, shouting anti-black slurs, mistakenly thinking they were African-American.
When Calderon told crowd members that he and Maldonado were Latinos the slurs shifted from N-word based to anti-Hispanic epithets. As the cousins retreated towards Calderon’s home members of the crowd chased them, raining beer bottles on them before pouncing.
During that attack, one member of the crowd, 18-year-old Christian Saladino, collapsed and was hospitalized comatose. Police arrested the cousins after crowd members told police the cousins attacked them and pounded Saladino with metal objects.
Police did not lodge any charges against any of the drunken attackers who freely admitted using racist slurs, throwing bottles and battling with the cousins.
Calderon says one drunk slugged him as he talked with a policeman and the officer ignored that assault. Yet when Calderon sought to hit that attacker, the policeman handcuffed Calderon.
Seemingly biased police enforcement in racially charged incidents is a recurring problem in the predominately white Northeast section of Philadelphia. Rolon said police and prosecutors also ignored the intense intimidation unleashed on neighbors supportive of Calderon.
While Seth Williams currently characterizes that 1996 clash as a “street fight” between “a large crowd of white teenagers” and the two Hispanic males, Rolon says that attack by a “racist mob” forced her cousins to defend themselves.
Williams concedes the cousins had a right to self-defense but says the pair lost their right to self-defense when they escalated the fight by using weapons: a baseball bat and a ‘Club’ auto steering wheel lock.
Williams argued in court that Saladino was an innocent bystander who Maldonado maliciously struck on the base of his skull with the ‘Club.’ That blow, Williams said recent, triggered a hemorrhage that incapacitated Saladino.
Maldonado had taken the ‘Club’ from his car as attackers pummeled him.
Maldonado admitted swinging the ‘Club’ at a man he saw stabbing Calderon but testified that he merely grazed the shoulder of this assailant prosecutor Williams later championed in court as “the victim” – Saladino.
After Maldonado freed Calderon from those men bashing him, Calderon ran into his house, telling his wife to call 911. Rolon said Calderon went back outside to rescue Maldonado from the crowd, taking a bat with him because crowd members were on his porch threatening to burn the house down.
Williams says Calderon should have waited for police to arrive instead of leaving his house armed with that baseball bat.
Williams, Philadelphia’s former Inspector General, remains convinced that Maldonado blow caused Saladino’s coma.
Williams maintains this position despite no medical records specifically documenting blunt force trauma as the cause of Saladino’s collapse. For example, medical records cited in the most recent Pa appellate ruling in this case list the cause of Saladino’s collapse and subsequent coma as “unknown.”
EMT personnel who treated Saladino at the clash scene, ER doctors and CAT scans did not find any signs of blunt force trauma to Saladino’s head or body consistent with accounts from Saladino’s friends who testified later that the cousins brutally beat Saladino on the head, back and stomach with those metal objects.
Tests did prove that Saladino was legally drunk at the time of his collapse. EMT personnel suspected a drug overdose and gave an overdose countering injection. Medical tests were not performed to determine drug levels in Saladino’s body.
Rolon faults Williams for downplaying that Calderon was a hard-working family man and homeowner with “no reason to attack twenty drunks.” She also scores Williams for sidestepping Saladino’s history of arrests for violence which undercuts contentions that Saladino was a mere bystander.
One appellate ruling noted an arrest of Saladino days before the brawl for attacking a policeman. Williams says Saladino’s record was irrelevant to the fact that he was viciously beaten. Saladino collapsed in front of Calderon’s house. According to testimony, Saladino ran to the street in front of Calderon’s house after the fight started.
A Philadelphia judge convicted the cousins on assault and conspiracy charges in 1997, accepting contradictory testimony from members of that drunken, racist-slur spewing crowd. The cousins received identical 2-10-year sentences.
When Saladino died two years after the clash, prosecutors filed murder charges against Maldonado and Calderon contending the young man’s death was a direct result of the beating.
But a jury acquitted the cousins based largely on testimony from a forensic pathologist who provided evidence that Saladino’s rare blood disorder most likely caused his 1996 collapse.
A report prepared by that pathologist prior to the murder trial stated it was his “opinion that Christian Saladino could have collapsed as the result of either a pre-existing natural disease process or drugs of abuse. However, his medical condition was not as the result of being struck by an instrument/weapon such as a club.”
That pathologist did not testify during the assault trial.
That murder trial medical testimony caused the Philadelphia judge who initially convicted the cousins to overturn their clash related convictions.
But prosecutors appealed that judge’s ruling, securing reinstatement of those clash convictions on a technicality that contradicted their position during the assault trial of the cousins.
Prosecutors successfully argued that the failure of the pathologist to testify at the assault trial did not harm the cousin’s defense because their trial lawyers got the prosecution’s principal medical expert to admit that no records showed Saladino’s condition stemmed from external trauma like a beating.
Yes, prosecutors conceded in appellate court what they had denied in trial court: no medical records documented that the glancing blow from Maldonado and/or the alleged beating by Calderon caused Saladino’s collapse.
After Maldonado and Calderon served more than two years in prison for the clash related conviction, federal authorities initiated deportation proceedings. When the cousins refused to assist with their deportation by signing required papers, the feds imprisoned them in 2005 for failing to cooperate.
Maldonado served four years in a Pennsylvania jail contracted by federal immigration authorities. Calderon remains in an immigration prison in Pa serving the sentence for refusing to sign his deportation papers. Federal authorities re-imprisoned Maldonado shortly after his release months ago and now push for his deportation to Peru.
“My cousins are innocent and we know that once they are deported, it’s a permanent exile,” Rolon said.
“I didn’t want to go public with this. I just wanted Seth to do the right thing, acknowledge that my cousins were victims and oppose their deportation,” said Rolon, “We’ve been told that Julio was sent to Louisiana and apparently will be deported,” said Rolon said who’s petitioned Pa’s Governor Ed Rendell for a full pardon and is separately petitioning Homeland Security officials to stay her cousins deportation until Rendell decides the pardon request.
Defenders of Seth Williams say he did his job properly in prosecuting Maldonado/Calderon for assault, the later murder charge and challenging their appeals.
In a fair system prosecutors would actively seek to right wrongful convictions.
A Pa Supreme Court ruling in 1889 declared that the duty of prosecutors is to seek “justice only…and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes.”
However, in Philadelphia’s often perverted justice system, prosecutors routinely pursue justice crushing convict-at-all-costs practices that frequently involve bending or breaking the law.
Nearly two-thirds of the cases where Pa courts overturned convictions due to misconduct by prosecutors originated in Philadelphia according to an extensive investigation conducted by The Center for Public Integrity examining a 33-year period.
Compounding convict-at-all-costs practices by Philly prosecutors is their penchant for clawing to maintain tainted convictions.
Courts have faulted some famous Philly prosecutors for foul practices.
The Pa Supreme Court, in a stinging 1978 ruling, blasted a then former Philly DA Office official for “misleading” testimony in a murder case where he helped his former colleagues perpetrate “a fraud” to secure a conviction.
The name of the official specifically cited in that ruling is Ed Rendell, Pa’s Governor who served two terms as Philadelphia District Attorney.
Changing the “culture” among Philadelphia prosecutors – including eliminating convict-at-all-costs practices – is a key campaign pledge of Seth Williams…a pledge that Rolon and others wonder if Williams will fulfill.
Linn Washington Jr. is a columnist for The Philadelphia Tribune who writes frequently about justice system issues.
ICE-local immigration partnership to remain
ICE-local immigration partnership to remain
Los Angeles Times
By Anna Gorman
October 17, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig-law17-2009oct17,0,3127477.story
Despite continuing criticism about the program, authorities announced Friday that 67 local and state law enforcement agencies across the country would continue enforcing immigration law under special agreements with the federal government, but that they would be subject to more oversight.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also limited the authority of the most controversial participant, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., who is under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible civil rights violations. Arpaio can still identify illegal immigrants in the jails but can no longer conduct immigration sweeps in his community under the federal program known as 287(g).
ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton said Arpaio's sweeps were "not consistent" with the agency's priorities.
Morton announced in July that the program, which has drawn criticism about racial profiling and civil rights violations, would continue but that every agency wanting to participate would have to sign a new agreement by this week. Under the revised guidelines, the police agencies would have to focus on serious criminals and would be bound by civil rights and constitutional laws.
"The new 287(g) very clearly lays out the priorities for the program and the intention for ICE and the partnering agencies to focus on serious criminal offenders," Morton said.
Since 287(g) began, more than 1,000 local officers have been trained to enforce immigration law. More than 130,000 illegal immigrants have been identified under it, according to officials. In 2009, roughly 24,000 illegal immigrants identified have been deported.
In California, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has reached an agreement to continue screening for illegal immigrants at the jails but is awaiting approval by county supervisors. Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside county sheriff's departments are still negotiating their agreements with the federal government.
Of the 67 agreements announced Friday, 55 have been confirmed and 12 are awaiting approval by local agencies, federal authorities said. Ten new agencies are participating, and six elected to drop out.
The proposed agreement in Los Angeles County would give the sheriff's department more responsibility in processing illegal immigrants for possible deportation, according to a recent report by Merrick Bobb, special advisor to the supervisors. The additional responsibilities would require that the custody assistants begin the screening process before inmates are convicted, rather than after conviction, contrary to the supervisors' original direction to the sheriff's department, Bobb said.
Carl Bergquist, a policy advocate at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said immigration officials will have to prove that the oversight is sufficient throughout the nation.
"I think it's definitely wait and see," he said. "There was supposed to be some kind of oversight under the old program. That was never the case."
Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Sweeping Immigration Reform
July 8, 2009
Washington, DC - Today, the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the oldest and most respected non-partisan foreign policy think tanks in America, issued a sweeping report on U.S. immigration policy. Developed by an independent task force comprised of bi-partisan leaders, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, the report finds that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform is vital to the national interests of the United States. The report offers a number of specific recommendations to reform current policy, but most notably insists that the time is now to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Failure to do so, argues the task force, "threatens to weaken America's economy, to jeopardize its diplomacy, and to imperil its national security."
The following is a statement by Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center:
"That fact that the Council on Foreign Relation is examining U.S. immigration policy is a clear signal that immigration is now regarded as a matter of national security and international diplomacy, not only a domestic policy concern with broad economic implications. The Council on Foreign Relations' report states unequivocally that comprehensive immigration reform is not only good for America, but vital to our national interests. The report places the debate over comprehensive reform in a broader context, challenging Congress and the White House to move forward now on a sensible and thoughtful reform of our broken immigration system. The fact that a diverse group of leaders representing a range of political perspectives can reach consensus on immigration reform is not only a good sign, but an indication of just how critical immigration has become in efforts to maintain America's political, economic, and moral leadership in the world."
Immigration Impact
The Numbers Are In: Most Americans Want an Immigration Overhaul
By Seth Hoy, Immigration Impact
Posted on June 9, 2009, Printed on June 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140533/
Despite anti-immigrant groups repeated attempts to sway public opinion by scapegoating immigrants for the recession, new polling data suggests that the majority of likely voters actually support an overhaul of our broken immigration system--an overhaul that includes a path to citizenship for the roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants living in America.
A recent survey by Benson Strategy Group--a group who conducts polling for President Obama and Fortune 100 Companies--found that 71% of likely voters think undocumented immigrants should take steps to become legal taxpayers Similarly, Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners said recent polling data suggests that voters want undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and on the books:
If anything, the economic climate has actually improved the environment for immigration reform, at least as far as the public is concerned. A salient issue is that reform would make immigrants all taxpayers. [Voters] want a level playing field and they don't have one today. There's a huge pool of workers that are playing by a different set of rules than they are.
This new polling data, along with other polling data, echoes what leading economists and experts have been saying since the beginning of our current recession--America needs to create more jobs, not less workers. Deporting millions of immigrants at the taxpayers' expense is clearly not a viable, cost-efficient or effective solution. Creating a functional immigration system, however, would go a long way in maintaining a balanced, stable and legal workforce that would help sustain our recovering economy. David Kallick, a Senior Fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute, reinforces what many American are beginning to understand:
We've heard some people asking whether this is the right time for immigration reform...reform that leads to a better regulated system can only be good in an economic downturn...People don't just vanish, and just imagine what would be involved in driving out an estimated 10-12 million undocumented immigrants. What is real is the idea of bringing undocumented immigrants into the above ground economy, making sure they pay taxes just like everyone else.
In addition to newly generated tax revenue and a leveled playing field for all workers, legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase the contributions immigrants already make to the U.S. economy. The White House Council of Economic Advisors concluded in a 2007 report that the whole of immigration increases the U.S. GDP by roughly 37% billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool.
Hopefully President Obama and members of Congress will remember these facts--and the 75% of respondents who support congressional action on immigration reform this year--when they meet on June 17th to discuss plans to move forward with immigration legislation.
Seth Hoy is a writer at Immigration Impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)