 Image via Wikipedia The Florida Senate Judiciary committee voted against a bill that would have allowed immigrant students who meet certain requirements to pay in-state tuition rates at Florida public colleges and universities. According to The Miami Herald, state Senator Gary Siplin (D-Orlando), who filed the bill, said at the hearing that “SB 106 would make higher education more accessible for undocumented immigrant students who are interested in attending one of Florida’s post secondary education institutions.” A Senate analysis of the bill had showed that there would have been no fiscal impact on taxes or fees if the bill would have become law, yet there was a broader discrepancy as to who would qualify for the exemption, that is the main reason why the senate did not approve of the bill becoming state law.
State Senator David Simmon (R-Altamonte Springs) said that he voted against the bill because of the possibility of “requiring [the state of Florida] to give residency status to students from other states.” Yet the intent of the law would have been to afford undocumented individuals who are already Florida residents to be able to receive higher education as residents, not to give this privilege to people who were not Florida residents to begin with. The Board of Governors of the State University System has noted that an undocumented student enrolled in as a non-resident student will generate an estimated $25,233 annually, while the same student, if classified as resident, will only generate an estimated $5,363 annually.” But this excuse to not pass the law is one that is based on opportunistic and unfair grounds since it basically takes advantage of individuals who are legitimate Florida residents and penalizes them because they do not have their immigration papers in order. As the Florida Immigrant Coalition said, SB 106 would have allowed thousands of Floridians who are born or raised in the State of Florida to pay in-state tuition in order to enroll in colleges or universities. Currently, approximately 192,000 undocumented students and other many U.S. born Floridians whose parents are undocumented, absent or incarcerated, are forced to pay out-of-state tuition which is three or four times higher, only because they can’t provide Florida residency documents of their parents as required by current state laws. With the news of this bill’s failure to pass, the hopes of countless young Floridians fizzled out. There are currently very few pieces of legislation that are worth fighting for, and this is one of the very few. Let’s hope this bill becomes law in the near future so as to help individuals in our state have access to an affordable education that would help unleash their true potential.
After the scandalous Maricopa County, Arizona case enabled by the country’s notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has released details on another case of police discrimination against Latinos. In East Haven, Connecticut, the police department is believed to have “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Latinos in violation of the Constitution and federal law.” In a letter from the DOJ to the police department, they indicate that the investigation they began in September 2009 focused on allegations that the officers engage in biased policing, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and the use of excessive force. The DOJ has concluded that they “have reasonable cause to believe that [police] officers intentionally target Latinos for disparate traffic enforcement and treatment because of their race, color, or national origin based on statistical analysis of traffic stop, incidents of abuse of authority, failure to remedy a history of discrimination, and significant deviations from standard police practices.”
As we had already informed, the Department of Homeland Security had announced it immediately terminated its immigration enforcement agreements with the office in Arizona after the DOJ found the county’s Sheriff, an advocate for controversial immigration enforcement and detention measures, has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations.” Now there is a movement going on countrywide to stop these unfair and illegal practices. Here in South Florida, Homestead residents and immigrant advocates delivered a petition with 2,000 signatures to Miami-Dade County Police Department headquarters last week, “calling on the department to stop its practice of stopping Latino drivers based on their racial profile.” A spokesman for the Miami – Dade County Police Department said that the department strives to maintain “core values of integrity, respect, service and fairness,” and that amid these allegations the department would investigate the issue. Immigrant advocates from South Florida have denounced the fact that under the current immigration enforcement program Secure Communities, an arrest when no crime is involved can quickly turn into a deportation process, leaving U.S.-born children without a parent. “We’ve tried to show racial profiling in an objective way,” said the executive director of We Count! “but in Miami Dade County, basically you’re white or black, there’s no way of coding Latinos to show the disparity in the stops—that’s been one of the problems.” As the New Year quickly approaches, it is our greatest hope that these aberrations in civil rights justice will be corrected and never repeated again. This is definitely a worthy cause to fight for throughout the upcoming year.
During what was dubbed the “congressional showdown” over payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, an arrangement for an increased number in immigration beds was taken into consideration as part of the deal that was quickly approved by the Senate and finally also by the House of Representatives. The bill to extend payroll tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits is part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, H.R. 3671, a $1 trillion dollar spending bill that funds several federal government departments, including Defense and Homeland Security. The Wall Street Journal reported that the “House had to scuttle a deal brokered in the Senate to extend the payroll-tax holiday and federal unemployment insurance for two months.” This vote left Congress at a familiar impasse, but at the last moment an agreement was reached to extend for two months the payroll-tax cut, federal unemployment benefits and a measure to reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients.
The 2012 Appropriations Act includes funding that raises the number of immigration detention beds to about 34,000. The final fiscal year 2012 Appropriations 1,200-page bill package includes “a total of $39.6 billion in regular discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—a decrease of $2 billion below last year’s level and $4 billion below the President’s request.” According to a detailed summary, “the bill provides $5.9 billion for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], which is $50 million more than last year’s level. This includes funding for 34,000 detention bends—the largest detention capacity in ICE’s history—and increases in immigration enforcement activities.” This is all even though the residents of Pembroke Pines and the town of Southwest Ranches are opposed to the federally funded and privately managed detention center set to be built in South Florida. The Appropriations Act also includes $11.7 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is an increase of $362 million over last year’s level.
The upcoming Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law SB 1070 will have an impact on both the 2012 elections and on the lives of millions of immigrants, reassures a Spanish-language news report in a Univision program. The Hispanic News Network said that the decision would come in June in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign and will greatly influence the Obama campaign against the eventual Republican nominee. It is worth highlighting the fact that with Justice Elena Kagan not voting, five of the remaining eight justices were selected by Republican administrators. In spite of where the Justice’s ideologies may lie in the overall scheme of things, the immigration issue is a constitutional one and the Court cannot decide against the Constitution. For this reason, the logical expectation of the result will be one that strips Arizona and every other state of its ability to issue immigration law because it does not fall within their constitutional rights, but the official verdict remains to be seen of course.
Marcello Raimon from Agencia ANSA, the Latin-American news agency, said “we have to wait with our fingers crossed,” hoping “that the Supreme Court does not decide to allow states to do what they want.” Further adding that, “It is on the conscience of the justices if they will destroy the lives of millions of people. I find it very interesting that instead of talking about immigration reform for 11 million undocumented immigrants, the anti-immigrant environment in the U.S. is so large we’re talking about these issues.” This Supreme Court decision to hear the legal challenge to Arizona’s controversial immigration law comes at a time when the leading GOP presidential candidates are talking about immigration and trying to strengthen support with Latino voters. Newt Gingrich has called for a “humane” approach to immigration enforcement and Republicans share his approach to immigration, but the GOP still has to work hard to get Latino Voters in important swing states in the 2012 presidential elections. Immigration will surely be a “hot” topic of discussion for the upcoming presidential debates and the Supreme Court’s decision will likely frame the direction of the candidates’ platform on this issue.
Even though recent court decisions and interpretations from the state’s Attorney General have limited the implementation of Alabama’s punitively harsh immigration law, HB 56, much of the damage has already been done. In an investigation conducted by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the AFL-CIO, Alabama residents were interviewed and it was found that the complications from this law go well beyond the official implementation of the law’s provisions with both reports finding that the law is just one part of an agenda to deny people their fundamental rights.
HRW found that the law not only denies unauthorized immigrants education, utilities, housing, and other basic necessities, it also denies them fundamental rights since they are denied due process and access to the courts, which cannot enforce contracts between an “alien unlawfully present” and any other party. It was also found that since the law was implemented, employers have refused to pay their employees, landlords have refused to make critical repairs, and lawyers, judges and court interpreters have threatened to report suspected unauthorized immigrants. The law has created an environment ripe with harassment, discrimination and abuse where people who “look” or “sound” like immigrants are treated as less than human. People are fearful of calling the police when they are victimized by crime, they are afraid of driving their kids to school or have withdrawn them from school altogether for fear of being detained. One woman reported that a clerk at a major discount store told her she needed proof of U.S. citizenship to fill a prescription. HRW has also reported that strangers make derogatory or abusive remarks in public, that school children are being traumatized and bullied by their classmates, and businesses that employ immigrants—illegal or otherwise—are being boycotted and forced out of business.
Americans who want a practical solution to our problems with our immigration system understand that laws intended to make life miserable for immigrants so as to force them to leave a particular city or state is not the way to go. Our hearts go out to the men, women and children who are being victimized by this malicious and unfortunate situation. We hope this is all put to an end as soon as possible. This maltreatment of immigrants due to state immigration enforcement may be stopped if in the upcoming hearing the Supreme Court rules that this behavior on behalf of the states is unconstitutional. We shall have our hopes up while we wait and see how the forthcoming events develop.
A group of Indonesian Christians and their supporters are calling for the passage of a federal bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives last week that would give them protection from religious persecution and a way to prevent parents from being separated from their American-born children. This law would benefit hundreds of Indonesians who fled to the U.S. but waited too long to file claims for asylum, by allowing them to reapply. Many Indonesian Christians came to the U.S. in the late 1990s but made the mistake of waiting for more than a year to apply for asylum, for reasons that were mainly related to economic reasons. When they eventually applied most were denied only because they had missed the deadline. That is the group targeted by the bill being co-sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney and New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.
In recent months, more than 70 Indonesian immigrants in New Jersey have received deportation warning letters form the Department of Homeland Security or have been told to report to local ICE offices and bring a one-way ticket to Indonesia with them. More than 100 Indonesians in New Hampshire have received similar warnings and more than 20 in the New York City area are concerned that they will be next to be called up on the list. One woman expressed her pleas in a letter that reads: “Dear Mr. President Obama, I love this country, I love my church- the Reformed Church of Highland Park. Let our family together stay in here together. I will not take [my two American-born daughters who are 9 and 5 years old] to Indonesia. They have a strong Christian faith. They will not be quiet. Jakarta is too dangerous for the faithful Christians.” It is true that the Indonesian government has gone to far lengths to terrorize those who are not a part of the Muslim majority, setting many churches aflame.
Many Indonesians in the U.S. have been benefiting from a conditional agreement with U.S. immigration authorities that has allowed them to live and work legally in the country for many years, but now they are ready to have their stake in this country made official. “We’re here to encourage the Congress of these United States to do everything in its power to get behind the Indonesian Family Justice Act with great gusto,” said a spokesperson. Without intervention, some families will be compelled to leave their children behind with relatives or in the care of the state since taking them with them to Indonesia would mean subjecting them to discrimination and possibly even physical harm because of their beliefs and because they are American-born. Our hearts go out to these families, and although it is hard to say what the outcome of this situation will be, we hope that Congress will do what is right by them.
 The privilege of driving with a Florida driver’s license is one that is elusive for the thousands of undocumented aliens and people in removal proceedings without status. Under a new initiative from the DHS, ICE agents, their attorneys and the Director/Deputy Director of DHS are allowed to use their discretion to close cases and allow applicants currently in removal proceedings to remain in the country lawfully. This is a two-step process: The applicant’s attorney and the prosecutors in ICE, etc., jointly file a motion to terminate the removal proceedings case. Then the motion is heard by a IJO and a Final Order is issued. The Final Order may be approved, granted, or denied.
In all such cases, Florida Department of Motor Vehicles will now issue the license/ID for one year upon receiving the following documents:
• Copy of Joint motion for termination
• Original of the Final order “granting” or “approving” the motion.
This is very big news for those who are considering whether to accept prosecutorial discretion from the Government because prior to this announcement, most were worried that they would be permitted to stay in the United States but not permitted to drive.
Before the holidays, the President signed a spending bill for 2012 that includes the “Lautenberg Amendment” which is a provision that gives an extension for refugees seeking religious freedom. This provision was originally enacted as part of the 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, and it established a presumption of eligibility for refugee status for certain categories of people from Southeast Asia, as well as religious minorities from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) seeking to resettle as refugees in the United States. Today the Lautenberg Amendment primarily facilitates the resettlement of Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities fleeing Iran, while it continues to cover religious minorities from the FSU.
The Lautenberg Amendment has been extended on appropriations legislation every year since its enactment but last year it was only extended for part of the year before it expired on June 1, 2011. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and has jurisdiction over refugee-related legislation, was the main obstacle to the renewal of the amendment. He alleged that the refugee program has not received sufficient Congressional oversight despite the fact that each year he presides over consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services on the U.S. Refugee Program. Through strong bi-partisan support demonstrated by letters signed by 21 senators and 108 House members to House and Senate leadership urging that the amendment be extended, the provision was finally included in the 2012 spending bill that Congress passed. Besides Congress members, the inclusion of the amendment was also urged by HIAS, the Jewish Federations of North America, and other national and local Jewish groups, along with the National Association of Evangelicals and World Relief and partners in the International Religious Freedom Roundtable. At a time when Congress is deadlocked on immigration issues and legislative victories are few and far between, it is reassuring to know that the powers inherent in the collective persuasion of our nation’s leaders is still a powerful weapon to sway these leaders in matters that benefit the people. Despite all of the political intransigence we have grown accustomed to seeing in matters related to immigration, we are proud to see that our nation has once again proven to be a beacon of hope for those seeking it as a safe haven.
The Obama administration has proposed a new process allowing spouses and children of U.S. citizens to file for visas while remaining in the country—ending one of the most heartbreaking practices in history by preventing the separation of families. As you may know, under current immigration law, many undocumented immigrants that are eligible for visas must leave the country in order to adjust their status. The devastating aspect of this requirement is that, upon leaving the U.S. to have their documents processes in their country of origin, they trigger a ban against returning to the U.S. for three or even ten years. This catch-22 tears families apart and punishes hundreds of thousands through extended separation from parents, children, and spouses. If the administration’s proposal goes through, however, it will be easier for families to avoid these bars by applying for family unity waivers. These waivers are currently available but only in situations of extreme hardship and the process is incredibly slow and inefficient. This proposal would be a huge relief for mixed-status families and it is exactly the kind of common-sense reform that is desperately needed.
Under the new process, if eligible, undocumented husbands, wives and children of U.S. citizens would no longer need to leave the country to process their visa application, and could instead remain in their home in this country throughout the process. Moreover, the new procedure could allow spouses and children to remain united with their family members, and would not have to endure long and unequal waiting times depending on home country processing. Furthermore, since government bureaucracy has created a backlog of immigrant cases in our courts, and has put up other obstacles that keep families separated for years; this proposal may substantially relieve the courts and boost efficiency. Given that waiver applications are often referred by U.S. consulates abroad back to the Department of Homeland Security offices in the U.S. for settlement, processing these applications in the U.S. in the first place will allow these consulates to focus staff resources on serving citizens in foreign lands, and will ensure DHS staff develop the expertise to apply uniform legal standards to all cases. Those potentially eligible for family unity waiver include spouses and unmarried children of U.S. citizens—a pool of hundreds of thousands of individuals that could be protected from forced separation from loved ones. This is a great step in the right direction and we should push for this announcement to become a reality so that we can ensure families can stay together. We will be tracking the developments of this as time progresses hoping for the best of outcomes. We are confident that it has high chances of passing, especially given that this is an election year and such an administrative change would greatly help Obama’s chances in securing the support from the ever-growing Latino and Hispanic communities. Our fingers remain crossed.
 Image via Wikipedia Mitt Romney, who is considered the favorite and frontrunner in the bid for the Republican presidential ticket, has made it clear that he is an opponent of the DREAM Act and said he would veto it if it came across his desk as president. The question was posed by a voter at a restaurant and it was the first time Romney had been asked directly if he would veto the act and he responded that the “answer is yes.” Romney said he is open to military service as a way for people to earn permanent residency, as it currently is a way for people to earn citizenship. “I am delighted with the idea that people who come to this country and wish to serve in the military can be given a path to become permanent residents in this country. Those who serve in our military and fulfill those requirements, I respect and acknowledge that path,” he said. However, he does not support a path to citizenship through education.
As you may already be fully aware given our lengthy commitment to bringing you news on said legislation, the DREAM Act would allow children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents to earn citizenship by taking a number of steps that include completing college or serving two years in the military. For over a decade, the bill has been considered several times by Congress but has never been passed by both houses, a requirement that has prevented it from becoming implemented nationwide. This, of course, is a shame since this bill would help countless youths have access to higher education and would give them a chance to come out of the shadows they have been subjected to for being undocumented in this country while also creating a significant benefit to our country’s economy through extra taxable income and jobs being created, among other things. David Axelrod, President Obama’s top campaign adviser, commented on Romney’s stance on the issue and said that his remarks were unequivocally “wrong on principle and politics.” The Democratic National Committee’s senior adviser for Hispanic Affairs called Romney’s veto threat “appalling.” He said it removed any doubt that his “far-right views on immigration would make him the most extreme presidential nominee in recent memory.” After having seen that some Republicans were trying to reach across the aisle and leave their Party’s hard stance on immigration to adopt a more moderate one we are truly disappointed in Mr. Romney for choosing to alienate the immigrant community, illegal or otherwise, that reside in this country. If his heart is as stone cold as he portrayed it to be, it will be very unlikely that he will win the hearts of the immigrant community and least of all their vote in the upcoming presidential race.
|
