Politics/Justice

Stories about the politics, policies, and law enforcement issues surrounding immigration.

Key topics in this category:

RECENT POSTS

December 14, 2011 | 10:47 AM | By

Now that the Supreme Court has taken up SB 1070, what happens next?

Photo by IslesPunkFan/Flickr (Creative Commons)

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would take up an appeal by the state of Arizona regarding SB 1070, the state’s controversial and trend-setting 2010 anti-illegal immigration law that has since inspired similar laws in other states. Before it was implemented in July of last year, a federal judge in Arizona blocked some of SB 1070′s main provisions, including one that would empower local police to check the immigration status of people they suspect of being in the country illegally.

The Supreme Court justices won’t be weighing the merits of SB 1070, but rather the merits of the lower federal court judge’s decision, made pending a constitutional challenge from the Obama administration filed shortly before the law took effect and since upheld in appeals court. That lawsuit asserts that immigration law is the domain of the federal government, pre-empting state attempts to set their own rules.

So what happens next? Explaining the legal stakes is law professor and immigration blogger Kevin R. Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law and an editor of the ImmigrationProf Blog. A few months ago in an analysis of the SB 1070 case, Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court would take up Arizona’s appeal, and weighed in on the potential influence of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, a case involving a 2007 Arizona law forcing employers to check workers’ legal status, which the high court upheld this year.

How the justices rule on the case, which is expected to be heard in the spring, could among other things affect the temporary injunctions issued by lower federal courts blocking the stricter provisions of SB 1070-inspired laws in states like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. These include, for example, an especially divisive portion of Alabama’s new anti-illegal immigration law that would have public schools check the immigration status of students.

In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, only eight of the nine justices considered the case, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself; Kagan has also recused herself from the SB 1070 case, meaning the court could be split. Johnson explains the details:

M-A: The Supreme Court has decided to review Arizona’s appeal on the SB 1070 case. Just what will the court be weighing?

Johnson: Technically, the court will be reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of a district court injunction barring four sections of SB 1070 from going into effect.

As a practical matter, the court will be reviewing the same federal preemption arguments that were raised in the district court and Ninth Circuit.

M-A: How could a decision affect the temporary injunctions blocking of portions of similar state laws, such as in Alabama and Georgia?

Johnson: Depending on whether there is an opinion (which there would not be if the court was equally divided 4-4), the opinion could have a big or small impact on the other state immigration law cases, depending on how broad or narrow the court’s opinion was.

Even a narrow opinion, however, would, I think, have an impact on the other state laws that resemble in important ways Arizona’s (including Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina’s).

M-A: Based on lower court decisions, the previous SCOTUS decision on the Arizona E-Verify law and other precedents, which way do you think the court might go?

Johnson: Hard to say. If the justices line up as in Whiting, it could be 5-3 for reversal (of the lower court’s ruling to block parts of the law). If Justice Kennedy changes his mind, it could be 4-4.

In that event, the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming the injunction of four provisions of SB 1070 will remain in effect. If other justices who upheld the Arizona law think that SB 1070 is a very different law, then the majority for affirmance could grow.

M-A: So to make clear, the court is not weighing the constitutionality of SB 1070, correct? At what stage is the federal constitutional challenge to the state law?

Johnson: The court will decide whether, at this stage of the litigation, SB 1070 is preempted by federal law. This is a constitutional law question under the supremacy clause that makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Thus, a constitutional question is at the core of this case. The court could duck it but probably, in my view, won’t.

In July of last year, as SB 1070 was set to take effect, Johnson provided his take on the federal government’s constitutional challenge to the Arizona law in another Multi-American Q&A.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, ImmigrationProf Blog, Kevin Johnson, SB 1070, U.S. Supreme Court, UC Davis
December 13, 2011 | 10:08 AM | By

Was Lowe’s pulling its ads from ‘All-American Muslim’ warranted?

KPCC’s Yasmin Nouh has been following the controversy over the Lowe’s Home Improvement chain pulling its advertising from “All-American Muslim,” an otherwise innocuous reality show set in Dearborn, Michigan that premiered last month on TLC. The decision to pull the ads, made after the chain was targeted by a religious-right Christian activist group in Florida, has turned into a public relations disaster for Lowe’s, with boycotts threatened and critics alleging bigotry.

What gives? Here’s Yasmin’s report:

Lowe’s Home Improvement, a national chain store, recently pulled out commercials from TLC’s “All-American Muslim” reality show. A right-wing Christian group called the Florida Family Association led a fervent campaign, in which they urged over 60 corporations to end commercials during episodes.

In a statement on their website, the group calls the show “propaganda”:

The Learning Channel’s new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.

The group alleges that 65 of 67 companies they targeted have followed Lowe’s move, claiming that Bank of America, Amazon and Home Depot have done the same, but Lowes is the only business that has verified the pull-out. On its Facebook page, the hardware chain posted a statement about its decision, a post that has garnered thousands of comments:

Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.

The fallout has been predictably intense, with a Facebook group calling for a boycott of the store and an online petition that has collected nearly 12,000 signatures, urging the company to stand up to “bigotry and fear-mongering.”

Muslim groups in the U.S. have been advocating a variety of action items: contact Lowes, sign the petition, send an appreciation tweet to hip hop Mogul Russell Simmons for buying remaining ad time on the reality show, email a thank you to California Sen. Ted Lieu. In an open letter to Lowe’s CEO, Lieu, a Democrat, called Lowe’s decision “bigoted, shameful.”

Muslim bloggers have been sounding off as well. Shiela Musaji, a blogger for theamericanmuslim.org, wrote:

Shame on Lowe’s, and shame on every one of these companies if they really did cave in to such bigotry and hatred.  Did this program not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines because it showed a Muslim policeman who self-identifies as an American?  Was it because Muslims and Arabs were not portrayed as evil villains who are not “real Americans” and have no right to act as if they are normal human beings with families, mortgages, jobs, etc.? 

Another thing some have sounded off about: As a business decision, what was Lowe’s thinking? From a Facebook post from Nida Chowdhry, a UC Irvine film and media graduate:

In 1950′s TV, black people would be portrayed as either jesters or maids. Nat King Cole’s show got pulled off the air because racist people couldn’t stand seeing a charming, intelligent, talented black man on TV: “After a trail-blazing year that shattered all the old bug-a-boos about Negroes on TV, I found myself standing there with the bat on my shoulder. The men who dictate what Americans see and hear didn’t want to play ball.” MUST WE REPEAT HISTORY? Please send a POLITE message to Lowe’s Home Improvement or https://twitter.com/#!/Lowes.

Let them know that if pleasing anti-Muslim bigots is more important than embracing their diverse customer base, THEY JUST LOST YOUR BUSINESS!

Nancy Salem wrote on the Council of American Islamic Relations Facebook page:

The show doesn’t represent me but I don’t want to spend my money with companies that cave in to Islamophobic behavior.

According to Nova Advertising, a marketing services firm, American Muslims are the “largest, untapped, consumer niche.” Just recently, corporations have begun to tap into the pockets of Muslim consumers, among them Whole Foods, Costco and Bristol Farms, all part of a national supermarket trend to sell halal food products as a way to draw Muslim customers. But such chains, like Whole Foods, are not immune from caving in to Islamophobia as well.

What do you think? Was pulling the ads warranted or a poor decision? Could the move wind up costing Lowe’s more potential customers than had it not pulled the ads?

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Economy, Politics/Justice, All-American Muslim, Lowe's, TLC
December 12, 2011 | 4:22 PM | By

Quote of the moment: The Catholic bishops’ letter to ‘immigrant sisters and brothers’

An open letter signed by 32 Latino bishops in the Catholic church was released today, timed to coincide with the Dec. 12 feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

The statements made in the letter, addressed “Dear immigrant sisters and brothers,’ aren’t surprising in that many church leaders have long been involved in immigrant rights activism. What makes it an interesting read is its earnestness, and that it’s unabashedly addressed to people who are here illegally and their families. A snippet from the letter:

“Many of you perform the most difficult jobs and receive miserable salaries and no health insurance or social security. Despite your contributions to the well-being of our country, instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws.”

The letter, which calls immigrants “the revitalizing force of our country,” also calls for a path to citizenship and for “a program for worker visas that respects the immigrants’ human rights.” In the letter, the bishops state: “We recognize that every human being, authorized or not, is an image of God and therefore possesses infinite value and dignity.”

The letter wasn’t greeted with enthusiasm by those advocating for tighter restrictions. Reuters interviewed Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an immigration-restriction activist group, who accused the church of using “immigration as a recruiting tool.”

Among the bishops who released the letter is Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, who was born in Mexico. Versions of the letter were written in Spanish and English.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice
December 12, 2011 | 11:21 AM | By

What the Supreme Court’s review of the SB 1070 case means

Photo by S.E.B./Flickr (Creative Commons)

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., July 2008

After a federal judge in Arizona blocked portions of the state’s then-new SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law last year, among other things putting on hold a provision that would empower police to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vowed to fight the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it’s there that the case has now wound up.

The high court announced this morning that it would review the federal government’s challenge to the law, which since its partial enactment in July of last year has led to a series of copycat laws in other states – and subsequent legal challenges to each.

The Supreme Court justices won’t be weighing the merits of SB 1070, but rather the merits of the lower federal court judge’s decision to block parts of it from being enforced pending a constitutional challenge from the Obama administration. The federal lawsuit, filed in early July of last year as SB 1070 was set to take effect, asserts that immigration law is the domain of the federal government and that it pre-empts attempts by states to set their own immigration rules.

While the SB 1070 appeal won’t likely be heard until spring, how the high court justices rule could either encourage or put a halt to the flurry of state anti-illegal immigration laws that followed. In the last year, states that include Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana have enacted their own versions of SB 1070. Alabama, South Carolina and Utah have also been sued by the federal government on pre-emption grounds; others have been sued by civil rights groups.

In some cases, lower federal court judges have issued preliminary injunctions – just as was done in Arizona – blocking some of the more controversial parts of these laws. For example, a judge in October blocked a provision of the Alabama law that required public schools to check student’s immigration status, initially prompting a rash of school absences. The decision by the Supreme Could could have a bearing on these lower court decisions as well; if the partial block of the Arizona law is lifted, it could also affect the injunctions blocking portions of the other state laws as the federal pre-emption challenges and other lawsuits wind their way through the courts.

The preliminary injunctions issued have varied from state to state. For example, a September ruling by a federal judge in Birmingham temporarily blocked a provision that would bar undocumented immigrants from state universities, but still allowed police to question people they suspect of being in the country illegally. (The controversial public schools provision was blocked the following month, after the federal government appealed.) Last summer in Georgia, where civil rights groups have filed suit against the state, a federal judge temporarily blocked the provision allowing police to check for immigration status.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in favor of a previous Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, one mandating employers to use a federal program called E-Verify to check workers’s immigration status and punishing those who don’t comply. Many of the state laws that have followed SB 1070 have had similar employer provisions, including the new laws in Georgia and Alabama, which have since suffered from agricultural worker shortages.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Arizona, Jan Brewer, SB 1070, U.S. Supreme Court
December 9, 2011 | 10:11 AM | By

Poll: Majority of Latino voters say religion not a big factor in voting booth

Photo by Steve Parker/Flickr (Creative Commons)

While some evangelical Christians have made religion an issue in the GOP presidential race, declining to support candidate Mitt Romney because he’s Mormon, a new poll of Latino voters indicates that religion isn’t a big factor for the majority of Latinos in the voting booth.

A nationwide poll of Latino registered voters conducted by impreMedia, parent company of the Spanish-language daily La Opinión, and the polling firm Latino Decisions shows 53 percent of those polled saying their own religion doesn’t really influence which candidate they choose. Forty percent said it does, though not to a large degree for all of these. From the report:

Although the numbers appear balanced, they become clearer when broken down: Only 23% said their religion has a “big impact,” while 17% said the candidate’s religion has a “small” impact. The only exception is among Latinos who are part of the GOP, since 47% said their religion does have a big impact on their election choices.

“It’s always been said that Latinos have a conflict between their religion and their political tendencies. That they’re usually more progressive on economic policy but conservative on social issues,” said Matt Barreto, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle and advisor to Latino Decisions.

However, Barreto said the poll reflects no such conflict: “Religion and social and moral values are not among their priorities when they make their political and election calculations.”

The poll confirmed that Latino voters place little or no importance on traditional moral issues when voting: 75% think the economy, jobs and taxes are much more important in politics. Only 14% said moral or social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage or family values are more important.

The emphasis on the economy reflects broader attitudes among U.S. voters as the 2012 election nears. There were other interesting findings, including attitudes about church involvement in the immigration debate and yes, Mormonism. Some highlights:

  • 66 percent agreed with churches supporting the rights of undocumented immigrants, with the greatest support coming from naturalized citizens (vs. native-born Latinos)
  • 48 percent said they didn’t know what President Obama’s religion is; 58 percent said the same about Romney (only 25 percent said, correctly, that Romney is Mormon)
  • 58 percent said they weren’t familiar with Mormonism

And interestingly, 12 percent said they thought that Obama is Muslim. He isn’t.

The poll is one of a series conducted by impreMedia and Latino Decisions. The compete results can be viewed here.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice
December 7, 2011 | 12:21 PM | By

New report counts fewer criminal deportations; ICE calls analysis ‘misleading’

In October, the Obama administration released deportation statistics indicating that a majority of the record 396,906 people deported in fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, had criminal records. Nearly 55 percent were counted as being convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, with the percentage of criminal removals overall up 89 percent since 2008.

But the numbers in a new report based on immigration court records from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) add up differently.

According to the TRAC analysis, of all the deportation proceedings initiated between July and September of this year in the nation’s immigration courts, only 13.8 involved individuals charged with having engaged in criminal activity. The analysis also counts fewer removals involving criminal charges this year, as opposed to fiscal year 2010.

Federal immigration officials, one of whom today called the analysis “wildly misleading,” attribute the difference to the accounting used. First, a table and excerpt from the TRAC report:

Screen shot from trac.syr.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only has ICE targeted relatively few criminals as the basis for seeking deportation in these court proceedings, but this proportion has been declining steadily throughout the past year: 15.8 percent were charged with engaging in criminal activity during the first quarter period (October – December 2010), 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January – March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April – June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July – September 2011).

The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent.

Why the lower numbers? According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the report counts deportation proceedings in which individuals’ criminal records are taken into account. But many immigrants, particularly those who are in the country illegally (versus legal residents), are removed solely on administrative grounds of violating immigration rules, even when immigration authorities are aware there is a prior criminal record.

“TRAC’s report is wildly misleading” wrote ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen in an emailed statement. “When removing individuals who have been convicted of a crime and who have no lawful immigration status, like those who illegally cross our border or overstay their visa, ICE is not required to file charging documents in immigration court asserting criminal grounds of removal.”

TRAC maintains in the report that the court data casts doubt on the Obama administration’s assertion that it is effectively targeting criminals. As for “immigration only” charges in deportation proceedings, i.e. administrative removal charges, those account for 83.4 percent of the total in the report, up slightly for fiscal year 2011 over the previous year.

The data in the report is based on case-by-case immigration court records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the immigration court system.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Criminal deportations, Deportations, ICE, Record deportations, Syracuse University, TRAC
December 6, 2011 | 11:42 AM | By

Controversial ‘anchor baby’ dictionary entry redefined as ‘disparaging’

Photo by jollyville/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The term “anchor baby,” used by some in reference to children of undocumented immigrants, is almost exclusively used in a negative light. Media pundits often use it when discussing or making their case against U.S. birthright citizenship, as in this exchange between Fox’s Megyn Kelly (“…and I’m not talking about my son Yates”) and Lou Dobbs, or this monologue by Glenn Beck.

But the American Heritage Dictionary recently added “anchor baby” as an entry that read as a neutral term, provoking enough criticism that the publishers agreed to modify it, with the change made online yesterday. Here’s the original entry as posted on the Immigration Impact site, a project of the American Immigration Council:

anchor baby n. A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.

And here’s new revised version:

anchor baby n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.

The controversy erupted last week, with the council’s Immigration Policy Center director Mary Giovagnoli criticizing the neutral entry in a post on Immigration Impact. She wrote:

The New American Heritage Dictionary acknowledges the derogatory nature of hundreds of terms. By failing to do so with the term “anchor baby,” however, the dictionary implies that the term is acceptable in common usage and misleads the public by insinuating that giving birth to a child in the United States necessarily carries with it the intention of using that child for immigration status.

In an era where politicians and pundits have no qualms about being imprecise, dictionary editors need to be—even if that means calling a term “highly charged,” “political,” or down right nasty. While dictionaries may be neutral, language isn’t. “Anchor baby” is a term that epitomizes the way words reflect and reframe a debate.

Her post last Friday drew numerous comments on the site, including from Steven Kleinedler, executive editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, who expressed that “a revision to this definition is in order.” In a post today, Giovagnoli writes:

This is the kind of controversy that doesn’t fade away quickly, and many argue that the term is so offensive that it shouldn’t appear in the dictionary at all. I understand but disagree with that position, largely because the term, however offensive, exists as a political and practical reality. I think the new definition validates what many outraged voices in blogs, on Twitter, and in the press have been saying all along: “anchor baby” is a term that shouldn’t exist but does because immigration restrictionists are really good at creating words that generate fear.

While the origins are not reflected in the definition, characterizing the term as both “offensive” and “disparaging” says volumes about how it is used in real life. I would much rather have a curious student or citizen have the ability to look up the term in the dictionary and find this definition than to find no guidance and accept the meaning and agenda of restrictionists who used it.

Aside from the negative connotations of “anchor baby,” one point long raised by those who deal in U.S. immigration law is that the end result the term implies (“…to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family,” as worded in the original entry) is technically inaccurate, as there’s no direct “anchor” provided by having a U.S. citizen child.

According to law, a U.S. citizen child of undocumented parents can’t petition the parents until turning 21. Even then, it’s complicated: The child can’t petition parents who entered illegally unless the parents leave the country. Because people who have been in the U.S. illegally for more than a year are barred from returning for 10 years, it’s unlikely the parents would be able to return legally with a green card – if approved – until their child is in his or her thirties.

Parents who illegally overstayed visas don’t need to leave the country, but the child must still be 21 to petition them, and they are subject to the same readmission bar if they do leave.*

Having U.S. citizen children also offers no protection against deportation.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, American Heritage Dictionary, American Immigration Council, Anchor babies, Anchor baby, Immigration Policy Center
December 5, 2011 | 9:45 AM | By

Who had the longest wait for an immigrant visa this month?

Nations with current longest waits for family-sponsored based immigrant visas: The priority dates shown are when applicants now up for processing filed petitions. (Source: Visa Bulletin for December 2011, U.S. Department of State)

Among those hopeful immigrants who are up for visas in December, who endured the longest wait? Little has changed in that those who have waited longest to come legally are from the Philippines, some of whom have been in line since 1988, followed by immigrants from Mexico.

Among the latter, those waiting in line the longest have been doing so since 1992, which is to say they’ve been waiting since Bill Clinton was elected and Nirvana was hot.

The line for immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines being sponsored by U.S. citizen and legal resident relatives moves at a glacial pace, so it can take decades from the time the paperwork is filed to sponsor a relative and the time that person arrives with an immigrant visa. According to this month’s Visa Bulletin from the U.S. State Department, here are the top four categories of immigrants who have waited longest for their number to come up:

1) Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens from the Philippines, a wait of more than 23 years (petitions filed September 8, 1988).

2) Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens from the Philippines, a wait of more than 19 years (petitions filed July 8, 1992)

3) Unmarried adult (21 and over) sons and daughters of U.S. legal permanent residents from Mexico, a wait of more than 19 years (petitions filed November 22, 1992)

4) Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens from Mexico, a wait of almost 19 years (petitions filed December 15, 1992)

How it works: Each month, immigrant visas technically become available to those whose priority dates, i.e. the dates on which their petitions were filed, are listed in the visa bulletin.

Why does it take so long for some? Every nation is allotted the same percentage of visas from a pool of family and employer-based visas available each year, regardless of the demand from any individual nation. Mexico, the Philippines, China and India are represented by large immigrant populations in the U.S., meaning there is very high demand for family reunification. The result is that hopeful immigrants in these countries must wait much longer – sometimes 20 years or more – for their turn to come legally than those in countries where demand isn’t as high.

This could change somewhat if a bill approved last week in the House, HR 3012 or the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, makes it through Congress. Though its focus is on employer-based visas, the bill would also raise the per-country limits on family-based visas from what it is now (no more than seven percent of the total) to 15 percent. The biggest change would be to the employer-based system, with those per-country limitations removed altogether. But it would not increase the total number of family- and employment-based visas that can be issued each year.

Immigrants who are defined as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, such as spouses, parents, and children under 21, are exempt from these limits (although U.S.-born children of immigrants must be 21 in order to sponsor their parents, and penalties apply if the parents entered illegally). Other relatives being sponsored must wait until their priority date comes up.

Being on the monthly priority date list for a family-based visa is great news for those waiting, of course. But the dates are subject to change at the last minute, and often do. This means that some who thought their long wait was over will have to wait longer.

The entire Visa Bulletin for December 2011 can be viewed here.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Green cards, Immigrant visas, U.S. State Department, Visa Bulletin