Posts Tagged ‘SB1070’

The sequester: a promise of immigration reform?

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 6:41 pm by

President Obama has had a complex (and somewhat contradictory) stance on immigration for as long as he has been in office.  His administration has proudly touted its aim to deport record numbers of  undocumented immigrants, while simultaneously pushing for the passage of the DREAM act, which would grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants who fall into one of two socially acceptable categories: those willing to risk their lives for the United States military, and those who are interested in pursuing a college degree.

Immigrants not interested in either of the two straight-and-narrow paths offered by the DREAM act can say goodbye to a life in the U.S.

The exact number of undocumented immigrants deported under Obama is somewhat unclear. Some sources report over 400,000 in the 2012 fiscal year alone and a continuous increase in removals since President Bush left office, while other sources suggest these numbers have been inflated, and that there has actually been a steady decrease in deportation since Obama first came to office in 2008.


News Digest 09/25/12

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

News Digest 7/20/12

Friday, July 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

News Digest 7/16/12

Monday, July 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

7/16, Roberto Rodriquez, TruthOut, The Face of “Reasonable Suspicion”: Arizona’s Freedom Summer Continues

7/15, Karen Graham,, Florida to use Homeland Security list to purge illegal voters

7/15, Editorial, New York Times, Sheriff Joe on Trial

7/13, Dave Lindorff, Nation of Change, Information Overload: Driving a Stake Through the National Security State

7/13, Peter Maass & Megha Rajagopalan, Pro Publica, That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker

7/12, Amanda Beadle, ThinkProgress, U.S. Citizen Sues After Erroneously Being Held As An Undocumented Immigrant

SCOTUS upholds racial profiling in SB1070 decision

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 11:58 am by

SB1070 Rally @ the White HouseThe Supreme Court of the United States made a decision on Arizona’s infamous immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, this week.  To make a long story short, SCOTUS upheld racial profiling.

The decision made four main points clear:

  1. Police cannot arrest without a warrant.
  2. Being undocumented is not a state crime.
  3. Accepting work as an undocumented person is not illegal.
  4. Police can demand “papers” if they suspect a person is undocumented.

The fourth point, officially known as section 2B, is a decision to uphold racial profiling, because there are no guidelines defining what constitutes suspicion of being undocumented. This policy has only been upheld in relation to the Arizona law, but other states, such as Alabama, have similar laws on the books. Hopefully, other states will see how expensive and unnecessary are programs that promote racial profiling and other civil rights violations. But thankfully, there was more to the Supreme Court’s decision than this terrible news: the Supreme Court struck down three major parts of Arizona immigration law and 287(g) agreements (which deputize local police as immigration enforcement officers) have been suspended.

We cannot allow the institutionalization and legalization of discrimination in America. Congress must consider this when voting on the End Racial Profiling Act and realize that the outcome of that vote should directly reflect this country’s core values: justice, freedom, and equality.

It’s time that we see some of these values in something other than textbooks and postage stamps. We must demand that lawmakers recognize this growing problem in the United States. It’s time to end racial profiling.

Supreme Court expected to rule on Arizona’s anti-immigration racial profiling law

Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 10:11 am by

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is expected to rule on Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration law, SB 1070 (2010), sometime in the coming weeks. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Arizona, and other states that enacted similar immigration laws, claiming their state regulations are preempted (i.e., when a particular law is invalid because it contradicts with or displaces federal law) by the federal government. Bills similar to Arizona have been adopted by Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.SB1070 Rally @ the White House

However, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli failed to make an equally important argument that SB 1070 is unconstitutional: executing SB 1070 leads to racial profiling. This violates both the Constitution and human rights. During oral arguments in April, Chief Justice John Roberts greeted Verilli, stating “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” Verilli responded in the negative. But when he later attempted to argue a point about Arizona Latinos largely affected by the law, Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, complaining his assertions sounded too much like racial profiling.

SCOTUS is reviewing whether four specific provisions are precluded by federal law, including: (more…)

News Digest 5/14/12

Monday, May 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

News Digest 4/27/12

Friday, April 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

News Digest 4/20/12

Friday, April 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm by

The fate of immigrant rights for 2012

Friday, March 30, 2012 at 9:10 am by

NoS-CommAction092From the passage of Alabama’s draconian immigration law, to the many states and municipalities who stood up across the nation against the misleadingly named Secure Communities (S-Comm) program, 2011 was a momentous year for immigration policy. As the heated debate on immigrant rights raged throughout the country, over 1,600 immigration bills were introduced into state legislatures nationwide, most seeking to curb the rights of undocumented immigrants.

Now, in 2012, there is a similar if not more drastic forecast for immigration policy. A recent report by the Advancement Project detailed the causes of the progression against immigrant rights and the results of that trend seen in many states.

The report highlights “Arizona copycat,” laws, measures which are forthright assaults on immigrant rights. Copycats have been passed in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.

[The laws] require immigrants to carry documentation verifying their immigration status, authorize law enforcement to inquire about immigration status during a ―lawful‖ stop, mandate employers to administer E-Verify for new workers, and permit state residents to sue state and local agencies for non-compliance of these laws.

Yet this year, “Arizona copycat” laws are not the greatest threat to immigrant rights. “Active enforcement proposals… remain a serious threat,” the report noted. “But in this presidential election year, state legislators may see passive enforcement measures through piecemeal legislation as the more politically safe option,”

These laws, passed in numerous states in 2011, restrict undocumented immigrants from their lives by shutting them off from necessary services. Passive laws often times include “identification requirements, public benefits access, and governmental agency status verification,” that ultimately prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing essential health care services and discourage them from reaching out to police to report crime or act as witnesses, thus endangering the public at large.

Much of the 2011 anti-immigrant furor has been attributed to the “state budget crises [that] fueled the blaming of low-income people of color, with the target in many states being immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants.” As deep economic losses continue to plague states and municipalities, it is likely that this will only worsen.

The upcoming presidential election will also incense more debate and fuel the passage of state anti-immigrant legislation. President Obama’s harsh immigration platform, the report states, “seems to have further emboldened states to propose their own immigration enforcement measures.” As the debate takes the election stage, Obama and his Republican counterpart will surely try to outdo each other’s anti-immigrant policies.

Despite this, there has been some progress against the onslaught of anti-immigrant legislation. Local efforts have opposed Secure Communities (S-COMM), the harmful immigration program created by Bush and then expanded by President Obama that not only endangers public safety but also serves as a pilot program intended to introduce a national biometric ID system for citizens and non-citizens alike. Additionally, the 287(g) program was recently brought to an end, and there have been successful court challenges to the “Arizona copycats.”