Posts Tagged 'legalization'

We don’t want just any immigration reform!

Renee Saucedo

We don’t want just any immigration reform!

Last week, we witnessed the powerful marches of immigrant communities in Washington D.C., and in other cities, in support of “immigration reform.” These righteous protests allowed those impacted by unfair immigration laws to remind lawmakers of what they are demanding: legalization for themselves and their families.

But some of the groups that organized the march in Washington, led by beltway advocates like the National Immigration Forum and the National Council of La Raza, are supporting policies beyond legalization which actually harm immigrant communities. Reform Immigration For America, or “RIFA,” the coalition spearheading a national immigration reform campaign, recently came out in support of the conservative, Senate proposal, authored by Senators Lindsey Graham (Republican-SC) and Chuck Schumer (Democrat-NY). In a recent email, RIFA celebrated President Obama’s support for this “bi-partisan blueprint for reform” and mentioned the rally in San Francisco as further support for a “bi-partisan bill.”

It is horrifying that immigrant rights groups would support a proposal that would have devastating impacts on immigrants. Among other things, the Graham-Schumer plan proposes an intensification of raids, detentions, deportations and militarism of the US-Mexico border. Over 350,000 undocumented migrants were incarcerated last year in private detention centers. This number will rise under the bi-partisan plan.

Graham-Schumer also propose creating a biometric national identity card that everyone, including US citizens, must carry to prove authorization to work. This means that people working without papers will be fired and even imprisoned. And they propose to expand guest worker programs that have been documented numerously to be highly exploitative. It will be harder for immigrant workers to defend their rights, organize unions and raise wages.

In the area of legalization, the Graham-Schumer proposal involves “going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.” It offers no real alternative to the current system and makes it almost impossible for most to legalize their status.

As the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) states, “(the bi-partisan blueprint) sets a low bar for the debate, placing harsh and failed enforcement strategies at its heart in hopes of drawing conservative support, regardless of the human rights consequences of such policies.” (Press Release dated March 20, 2010). The “bi-partisan blueprint” outlined by Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and supported by President Obama, is a horrible starting point for legalization.

Many respectable advocates argue that, while Graham-Schumer may not be the ticket, we should support less onerous proposals such as the Luis Gutierrez bill, introduced by the Illionois Congressman in the House of Representatives. “It’s best to get at least residency for some, even if this means accepting provisions which would lead to further criminalization and exploitation for others,” they say. “It’s the best we’re going to get.” They make a strategy argument rather than a political or ideological one.

However, Luis Gutierrez’s bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009, offers benefits to some, but criminalizes the vast majority of undocumented immigrants. While it eliminates the program encouraging collaboration between local law enforcement and Immigration, provides an avenue for undocumented youth to apply for residency, and improves the oversight in the current detention system, it does little in the area of legalization. The Gutierrez bill creates a new “conditional non-immigrant visa status” (CNIS) and those who qualify could apply, with no guarantee, for residency. The only real difference between this proposal and the current system is that applicants’ biometrics would be registered witht he Department of Homeland Security and they would have to wait at least 6 years to gain their residency. Most undocumented immigrants I’ve spoken to about this proposal do not consider it to be beneficial.

Even if the Gutierrez bill was favorable in the area of legalization, it still does more damage than it does good. Among other things, it increases border militarization and enforcement, raids, and deprtations, instead of addressing the economic and social issues that fuel migration across the border. The bill also mandates the use of an “Employment Verification System (E-Verify), requiring all employers to fire employees whose names do not match their Social Security numbers. Finally , the bill creates a Commission with an anti-worker character, since its stated goal is to pursue “employment-based immigration policies that promote economic growth and competitiveness, while minimizing job displacement, wage depression, and unauthorized unemployment.” The establishment of this commission is the first step towards setting up an expanded guest worker program.

Of course, the human rights implications of both the Graham-Schumer and Gutierrez proposals are deadly and catastrophic. Under both, more families will be separated, more people will suffer and die while attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. More workers will be exploited and discriminated against. Employers will still be ble to exploit cheap immigrant labor while temporary workers would be barred from many of the benefits and rights of US citizenship, as well as from many of the labor protections guaranteed under US laws. And undocumented migration to the US will continue to conveniently mischarcterized as a “criminal,” or “illegal,” issue, rather than as a consequence of economic trade agreements and political repression which displaces millions. Employers want to keep it this way to ensure their supply of cheap, vulnerable, exploitable labor.

No immigrant, labor, or human rights organizaiton can in good conscience rationalize the support of the Graham-Schumer or Gutierrez proposals.

Instead, we must hold steadfast to what immigrant communities really want and deserve: Immediate legalization for the millions of undocumented and a reasonable legalization process for future immigrants; An end to the criminalization of immigrants, workplace enforcement, and raids; The repeal of Employer Sanctions; the Expansion of Family Visas to end the backlogs in family reunification; An end to the detention and deportation system; The end of border militarization and protection of human rights of border communities; An end to guest worker programs; The protection and expansion of civil rights, labor rights and due process for immigrants.

We must continue to organize around just immigration policies in terms of labor mobility and human rights, not as an issue of national security and enforcement.

In 1986, Employers Sanctions was traded in exchange for legalization for some. This proved to be disastrous in the long run for millions of workers who cannot get work legally, or who are discriminated against by employers.

Why are we chopping off our bargaining power away so early in the game? Why don’t we demand everything that we want from the start, knowing that we will probably have to compromise on some things as the process moves forward? I don’t understand why advocates believe we must begin negotiations with the lowest common denominator.

I believe that we should never fight for the rights of some at the expense of others. Legalization for some will be an empty victory if at the same time most undocumented immigrants are facing higher exploitation, suffering, and even deaths.

We must continue to support immigrant communites in their struggle to obtain a fair legalization law. We must not allow certain advocacy organizations to negotiate away rights on their behalf. By organizing, marching, etc. we must continue to demand just immigration laws and to work towards ending policies which criminalize and exploit members of our community. In the long run, the immigrant rights movement will be stronger for it.

Renee Saucedo is the Community Empowerment Coordinator at La Raza Centro Legal, in San Francisco.  Her email address is renee@lrcl.org.

short link to this post: http://wp.me/p3xLR-nY

Immigrant Rights Activists Condemn Obama Plan to Expand Use of Local Police to Enforce Immigration Law

Immigrant Rights Activists Condemn Obama Plan to Expand Use of Local Police to Enforce Immigration Law

On July 10, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano  announced plans to standardize and greatly enlarge the 287(g) program,  by which local law enforcement is given money, equipment, and powers  to enforce federal immigration law.  (See Homeland Security’s press release.)

As the following press release shows, turning immigration enforcement over to local police has led to  frequent police abuse, racial profiling, and rapid-fire detentions and  deportations.

In a related development, the ACLU has condemned the new standardized  Memorandum of Agreement governing local police under the 287(g) plan,  as a meaningless gesture to reduce local police abuses, writing “The  new standardized MOA makes no serious attempt at discouraging illegal  racial profiling or reducing the conflict between sound community  policing principles and the expansion of this program.”

As one immigrant rights activist wrote, “More groups and individuals going against the “Washington Consensus” –  legalization in exchange for even more enforcement-on immigration.  Please distribute this far and wide as the Obama and Napolitano are  trying to do this below the clouds-and some fog- of excitement around  the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. This is the clearest statement to  date of Obama’s willingness to support racist, dangerous and  ultimately failed immigration policy. That some of these groups have  not previously made statements against Obama and that they waste no  time using language still unheard of in echo chamber of Washington  (ie;” Condemning”) provides,  I think, an interesting preview of where  and how Obama’s credibility may rapidly drop in immigrants rights and  Latino communities.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADVOCATES ISSUE STATEMENT CONDEMNING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S

EXPANSION OF DHS’S FAILED 287(g) PROGRAM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 17, 2009

Media Contacts:

Adela de la Torre, Communication Specialist, National Immigration Law  Center, 213.674.2832 (office), 213.400.7822 (cell)

Andrea Black, Coordinator, Detention Watch Network, 202-393-1044 ext.  227 (office), 520-240-3726 (cell)

Judith Greene, Director, Justice Strategies, 718-857-3316,  jgreene@justicestrategies.net

Civil rights and community groups across the country denounce  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano’s  plans to expand the highly criticized 287(g) program to eleven new  jurisdictions around the country.  The program, authorized in 1996 and  widely implemented under the Bush Administration, relinquishes, with  no meaningful oversight, immigration enforcement power to local law  enforcement and corrections agencies.

Since its inception the program has drawn sharp criticism from federal  officials, law enforcement, advocates and local community groups.  A  February 2009 report by Justice Strategies, a nonpartisan research  firm, found widespread use of pretextual traffic stops, racially  motivated questioning, and unconstitutional searches and seizures by  local law enforcement agencies granted 287(g) powers.  Justice  Strategies recommended the program be suspended.  “We found evidence  that growth of the 287(g) program has been driven more by racial  animus than by concerns about public safety.  The expansion of this  deeply flawed program cannot be justified before a thorough test of  corrective actions shows solid proof that they have been effective,”  reports Judy Greene, Director of Justice Strategies. A March 2009  Government Accountability Agency (GAO) report, criticized DHS for  insufficient oversight of the controversial program.

Also in March, the United States Department of Justice launched an  investigation into Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, to  determine whether Arpaio is using his 287(g) power to target Latinos  and Spanish-speaking people.  In Davidson County, Tennessee, the  Sheriff’s Office has used its 287(g) power to apprehend undocumented  immigrants driving to work, standing at day labor sites, or while  fishing off piers. One pregnant woman—charged with driving without a  license—was forced to give birth while shackled to her bed during  labor. Preliminary data indicate that in some jurisdictions the  majority of individuals arrested under 287(g) are accused of public  nuisance or traffic offenses: driving without a seatbelt, driving  without a license, broken taillights, and similar offences.  Such a  pattern of arrests suggest that local sheriff’s deputies are  improperly using their 287(g) powers to rid their counties of  immigrants, by making pretextual arrests that are then used to  forcefully deport people. “We need only look at the example of  Maricopa County to understand the devastating effects the increased  287(g) program will have on our communities,” said Chris Newman, Legal  Programs Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.  “The Obama administration must recognize that the 287(g) program is  predatory and ripe for corruption and profiling that will harm  community stability and safety for everyone.”

The Police Foundation, the International Association of Chiefs of  Police, and the Major Chiefs Association have expressed concerns that  deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce civil federal  immigration law undermine the trust and cooperation of immigrant  communities, overburdens cities’ already reduced resources, and leaves  cities vulnerable to civil liability claims.  “When victims and  witnesses of crime are afraid to contact police for fear of being  jailed or deported, public safety suffers,” said Marielena Hincapie,  Executive Director, National Immigration Law Center.

Napolitano’s July 10 announcement that DHS has granted 11 new  jurisdictions 287(g) powers stunned advocates who had been expecting a  major overhaul of – or end to – this failed program.  “DHS is fully  aware that the abusive misuse of the 287(g) program by its current  slate of agencies has rendered it not only ineffective, but dangerous  to community safety.   It is surprising Napolitano did not simply shut  this program down.  Expanding this failed program is not in line with  the reform the administration has promised,” said Andrea Black,  Coordinator of the Detention Watch Network.

Signatory Organizations:

A Better Way Foundation, New Haven, CT

All of Us or None, San Francisco, CA

Border Action Network, Tucson, AZ

Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY

Center for Media Justice, Oakland, CA

Detention Watch Network, Washington, D

Families for Freedom, New York, NY

Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami, FL

Grassroots Leadership, Austin, Texas

Homies Unidos, Los Angeles, CA

Immigrant Defense Project, New York, NY

Immigrant Justice Network

Immigration Law Clinic, UC Davis School of Law, Davis, CA

Immigrant Legal Resource Center, San Francisco, CA

Judson Memorial Church, New York, NY

Justice Strategies, New York, NY

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, San Francisco, CA

Main Street Project, Minneapolis, MN

Media Action Grassroots Network, Oakland, CA

National Day Laborer Organizing Network

National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, CA

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Boston, MA

Partnership for Safety and Justice, Portland, Oregon

Project Rethink

Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA


Archives

Categories

RSS Gray Panthers in the News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 370 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers

%d bloggers like this: