Author Archives: monica

NILC Denounces S-Comm Advisory Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 20, 2011

CONTACT:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]

NILC Denounces S-Comm Advisory Committee

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — The National Immigration Law Center joined more than 200 civil rights organizations to denounce the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) recently formed advisory committee on Secure Communities (S-Comm). In a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director John Morton, the groups expressed deep disappointment in the advisory committee, which will be virtually unable to make significant recommendations to fix this fundamentally flawed program.

“By funneling hundreds of thousands of parents, children, students, and others into the deportation pipeline, S-Comm has effectively severed an already-tenuous tie between communities of color and local law enforcement,” said Nora Preciado, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “Instead of listening to the community and putting a moratorium on this program, DHS has simply applied window dressing in the form of an advisory committee without any real authority. This is not the ‘reform’ we were hoping for.”

Members of the newly-created advisory committee, which include law enforcement officials, ICE agents, and immigrants’ rights advocates, were appointed without public input. The committee’s scope is limited to suggestions about treatment of individuals identified as a result of minor traffic offenses. The committee has no authority to stem the deportations of hundreds of thousands of community members caught in the S-Comm dragnet.

The controversial program has sparked outcry among immigrant and law enforcement communities across the country, prompting governors from Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts to request that their states be allowed to opt-out of S-Comm. The California legislature is also considering the TRUST Act, legislation that would put the power back in local hands to determine if participation in S-Comm comports with community policing concerns.

In May, Angelenos were shocked to learn that S-Comm triggered deportation proceedings for Isaura Gomez, a mother who called 911 to protect herself from her abusive boyfriend.

ICE’s practices and policies have been shrouded in secrecy since the program’s inception. Civil rights organizations, including the National Day Labor Organizing Network, filed a lawsuit demanding that the government shed light on its practices. The documents procured as a result of the suit, which were made public earlier this year, showed that ICE used misleading definitions of “voluntary” and “opt out” to allow room for the agency to expand implementation of the program.

“For too long, ICE has rebuffed public and private pleas for accountability and transparency on a program that has wreaked havoc on our communities,” said Melissa Keaney, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “We hope this letter will serve a wake-up call to ICE: we will not be placated by toothless advisory committees and cosmetic changes. We demand that ICE put the brakes on the fatally flawed ‘S-Comm.’”

A copy of the letter to ICE director John Morton is available athttps://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/371/images/FINALSCommMortonLtr.pdf.

# # #

NILC Files Lawsuit Challenging Alabama’s H.B. 56

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 8, 2011

CONTACT:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Marion Steinfels, SPLC, (334) 956-8417; [email protected]
Elizabeth Beresford, ACLU national, (917) 498-9697 or (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
Nikki Cox, ACLU of Alabama, (334) 265- 2754, ext. 205

NILC Files Lawsuit Challenging Alabama’s H.B. 56

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The National Immigration Law Center and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today challenging Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, passed last month. The draconian law is even more restrictive than the Arizona law it was inspired by—Arizona’s SB 1070.

The Alabama law chills children’s access to public schools by requiring school officials to verify the immigration status of children and their parents; authorizes police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops; and criminalizes Alabamians for ordinary, everyday interactions with undocumented individuals. The lawsuit charges that the extreme law endangers public safety, invites the racial profiling of Latinos, Asians and others who appear foreign to an officer, and interferes with federal law.

The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Asian American Justice Center. The law is set to take effect September 1.

The lawsuit charges that HB 56 is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; subjects Alabamians including countless U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to unlawful search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; unlawfully deters immigrant families from enrolling their children in public schools; unconstitutionally bars many lawfully present immigrants from attending public colleges or universities in Alabama; and drastically restricts the right to enter into contracts.

Alabama is the fifth state to have enacted laws emulating Arizona’s controversial and costly SB 1070, even though the Arizona law was blocked by the courts. In a stinging rebuke to these unconstitutional laws, federal courts have also halted implementation of similar laws passed in Utah, Indiana and Georgia. The coalition has announced plans to challenge the latest state to pass an Arizona-inspired anti-immigrant law, South Carolina.

The filing of the lawsuit was announced at the Civil Rights Memorial Center in downtown Montgomery.

“If allowed to take effect, this law will deter parents from enrolling their children in schools, restrict the ability of individuals and businesses across Alabama to freely engage in commercial activities, and restrict ministers from fully administering to their parishioners’ spiritual and other needs,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center. “In short, Alabama’s law will affect the daily lives of countless residents, native-born and foreign alike. Alabama cannot constitutionally turn teachers, landlords, and community members into de facto immigration enforcement agents. We look forward to adding HB 56 to the roster of discriminatory laws that have been blocked by federal courts.”

“We have filed this lawsuit today because Alabama’s immigration law is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center. “This law revisits the state’s painful racial past and tramples the rights of all Alabama residents. It should never become the law of the land.”

So far, none of these discriminatory anti-immigrant laws passed by the states have been fully implemented due to legal challenges.

“Alabama has brazenly enacted this law despite the clear writing on the wall: Federal courts have stopped each and every one of these discriminatory laws from going into effect,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Local Alabama communities and people across the country are shocked and dismayed by the state’s effort to erode our civil rights and fundamental American values. Just as we’ve stopped similar draconian laws in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia from going into effect, we will do so here in Alabama as well.”

“HB 56 is the harshest version of the SB1070 copycats we have seen so far,” said Sin Yen Ling, senior staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus. “Requiring schools to verify a student’s immigration status forces teachers to become law enforcement officers which is counterproductive to creating a positive learning environment. HB 56 should be struck down as unconstitutional.”

“Alabama’s HB 56 comes at the unacceptably high cost of sacrificing the U. S. Constitution. This law, if allowed to stand, will create a two-tiered system of justice in Alabama, which all Alabamians should fight against,” said Olivia Turner, executive director, ACLU of Alabama. “In the nearly fifty years since the historical and worldwide movement for civil and human rights began in our state, real progress has been made. But this law threatens to pull us back to a dark and shameful past—and one in which all Alabamians were held back.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit reflect the far-reaching and devastating impacts HB 56 would have if allowed to be implemented even for a single day. Plaintiff Matt Webster and his wife are in the process of adopting two boys. These children do not currently have federal immigration status but are in the process of acquiring it based on their U.S. citizen adoptive parents. Alabama’s immigration law will criminalize these youths and make it illegal for Webster to transport and provide for these children.

“I will be considered a criminal for harboring, encouraging and transporting my own sons,” he said. Webster added, “I am furious that our state representatives have wasted and will continue to waste taxpayer money with this law. I am a Republican and probably agree with many of our Republican legislators on most issues. On this one, however, I do not.”

The law has also raised concerns from faith-based organizations that provide community services.

“Today, our mission and the missions of many religious groups across Alabama have been made impossible by the recently enacted Alabama immigration law,” said Scott Douglas, executive director of Greater Birmingham Ministries, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This law interferes with the free exercise of religion. It violates core values of various faiths because it criminalizes acts of love and hospitality commandments from our God of many names.”

Other agencies that work with immigrant communities are concerned the law may criminalize their work.

“We are fearful that HB 56 will lead to another era in this state of racial profiling and discrimination and foster hate and separation, rather than welcoming and community-building,” said John Pickens, executive director for Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “What we need is a comprehensive national immigration policy, and our state legislative leaders, and Governor Bentley, should be urging our congressional representatives in Washington to support comprehensive immigration reform, rather than spending time passing and trying to enforce piecemeal state immigration laws.”

The Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (¡HICA!), a social service organization that works with the Latino community, joined the lawsuit because of the damage the law will inflict across the state.

“If implemented, HB56 will cause irreparable harm to Alabama’s reputation, to the vitality of our economy, and to the well-being of hardworking immigrant families that ¡HICA! works daily to engage and empower,” said Isabel Rubio, executive director of ¡HICA!. “With no other recourse remaining, ¡HICA! must join this lawsuit to stop HB56.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of several organizations and individuals across the state who will be adversely affected by the law.

Attorneys on the case include Bauer, Sam Brooke, Andrew Turner, Michelle LaPointe, Dan Werner, and Naomi Tsu of the Southern Poverty Law Center; Cecillia D. Wang, Katherine Desormeau, Kenneth J. Sugarman, Andre Segura, Elora Mukherjee, Omar C. Jadwat, Lee Gelernt, Michael K. T. Tan and Freddy Ruibio of the American Civil Liberties Union; Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Tanya Broder, Shiu-Ming Cheer, Melissa S. Keaney, and Vivek Mittal of the National Immigration Law Center; Sin Yen Ling of the Asian Law Caucus; Erin E. Oshiro of the Asian American Justice Center; and G. Brian Spears, Ben Bruner, Herman Watson, Jr., Eric J. Artrip, and Rebekah Keith McKinney.

See the complaint in the lawsuit. (PDF)

# # #

Community Groups Sue L.A. County Sheriff Baca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 30, 2011

CONTACT:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Jessica Karp, NDLON: 917-855-7682; [email protected]
Carl Bergquist, CHIRLA: 310-279-6025; [email protected]

Lawsuit Seeks to Uncover Truth Behind Sheriff’s Immigration Operations in Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — After years of requesting public documents through the California Public Records Act, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) today announced that they were taking legal action to obtain information about the Los Angeles County’s ties to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Community members served Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca with a summons and petition during a demonstration outside of his office protesting the criminalization of immigrants in Los Angeles. The petition names Baca as the defendant in a lawsuit, which charges that the sheriff violated the California Public Records Act by refusing to disclose information about his dealings with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The demonstration follows a storm of controversy triggered by Sheriff Baca’s recent remarks about undocumented immigrants. Demonstrators decried the sheriff’s collaboration with ICE, including his participation in the controversial Secure Communities (S-Comm) program. Baca has publicly championed S-Comm, despite serious criticisms of the program from civil rights groups across the country, calls from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for a moratorium pending investigation of racial profiling concerns, and demands by the states of New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts to withdraw from it.

“Los Angelenos expect their sheriff to be a fair and just leader and to apply the law in accordance with the context under which an incident has occurred. Sheriff Baca’s enthusiastic support of S-Comm is disconcerting and dangerous and sets him apart not as an ally of the community but as one who blindly follows instead of leading,” said Angelica Salas, CHIRLA executive director.

NDLON’s staff attorney Jessica Karp said, “ICE has used secrecy and deception to create monsters out of sheriff departments throughout the country. This is L.A., not Phoenix. We demand transparency from our sheriff, and we have zero tolerance for civil rights violations.”

“Our democracy is dependent upon an open and transparent government,” said Melissa Keaney, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Unfortunately, both federal and local officials involved in controversial and largely discredited immigration enforcement programs like S-Comm and 287(g) seem to have forgotten this central component of good governance. Angelenos, as well as community members across the country, deserve to know about government activities, including those of local law enforcement.”

Sanjukta Paul, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said, “Looking at the plain text of the California Public Records Act requiring that public records be just that—public—and looking at the courts’ and the Constitution’s strongly worded reiterations of that fundamental requirement, I am truly surprised by the recalcitrance of the Sheriff’s Department, a sophisticated public entity, in responding to legitimate requests for information from these organizations regarding matters that are plainly of public concern.”

The law office of Sanjukta Paul represents the lawsuit’s plaintiffs.

A copy of the petition is available at www.change.org/petitions/tell-los-angeles-county-sheriff-baca-the-constitution-protects-us-all.

# # #

Federal Court Blocks Georgia’s Anti-Immigrant Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 27, 2011

CONTACT:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Elizabeth Beresford, ACLU national, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; [email protected]
Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU of Georgia, (404) 574-0851; [email protected]
Marion Steinfels, Southern Poverty Law Center, (334) 956-8417; [email protected]
Sin Yen Ling, Asian Law Caucus, (415) 896-1701; [email protected]

Federal Court Blocks Georgia’s Anti-Immigrant Law

ATLANTA — A federal judge in Georgia today issued the latest judicial rebuke to anti-immigrant laws passed this legislative season by state legislatures across the country. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a coalition of civil rights groups requested that the law be blocked from going into effect, pending a final ruling on its constitutionality. Today’s decision makes clear that H.B. 87is unlikely to survive constitutional review because it improperly interferes with federal law.

Georgia is the fourth state in which a federal court has blocked costly and controversial anti-immigrant laws. A federal appellate court upheld an Arizona district court decision to block SB 1070’s most troubling provisions, and, after ACLU and NILC lawsuits, federal district courts put Utah and Indiana’s laws on hold pending further review. NILC, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have also announced plans to challenge Alabama’s and South Carolina’s Arizona-inspired anti-immigrant laws.

The following can be attributed to Karen Tumlin, managing attorney of NILC:
“The court rightly recognized that Georgia cannot, and should not, curtail fundamental freedoms for countless Georgians simply because of the color of their skin. We are pleased that the court has prevented the most pernicious elements of this draconian law from going into effect. Today’s decision, as well as those in Indiana, Utah, and Arizona, should send a strong warning signal to states considering treading down the same unconstitutional path: do so at your own risk.”

The following can be attributed to Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project:
“Georgia’s law, like Arizona’s, Utah’s, and Indiana’s before it, has been blocked by a federal court because it is fundamentally flawed. The universal failure of these laws in the courts is a stinging rebuke to state lawmakers who have pushed laws that would threaten all of our freedoms in order to express their hostility to immigrants and immigration. Thanks to today’s ruling, Georgia will not become a ‘show me your papers’ state on July 1.”

The following can be attributed to Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia:
“We are very happy that this decision means that people who minister to the poor and offer assistance to those in need can continue to practice their beliefs without being criminalized.”

The following can be attributed to Dan Werner, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project:
“This landmark ruling protects those living in Georgia from unconstitutional racial profiling, upholds the principle that federal functions such as immigration enforcement should rest with federal government authorities and hopefully will steady Georgia’s already shaky economy due to the law passing from another major blow.”

The following can be attributed to Sin Yen Ling, staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus:
“Judge Thrash’s decision to strike down the most discriminatory parts of the law is a victory for Asians, Latinos, and all people of color in Georgia. This is a strong message that racial profiling of immigrants and those perceived to be will not be tolerated in Georgia state.”

The civil rights coalition includes NILC, the ACLU, the ACLU of Georgia, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Asian Law Caucus, Federal & Hassan, LLP, Kuck Immigration Partners, LLC, and G. Brian Spears.

Attorneys on the case include Jadwat, Andre Segura, Elora Mukherjee, Cecillia D. Wang, and Kate Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Tumlin, Linton Joaquin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Tanya Broder, and Jonathan Blazer of the National Immigration Law Center; Bauer, Andrew H. Turner, Samuel Brooke, Naomi Tsu, Michelle R. Lapointe, and Daniel Werner of the Southern Poverty Law Center; Chara Fisher Jackson and Azadeh N. Shahshahani of the ACLU of Georgia; G. Brian Spears; Ling of the Asian Law Caucus; R. Keegan Federal, Jr. of Federal & Hassan, LLP.; and Charles H. Kuck and Danielle M. Conley of Kuck Immigration Partners, LLC.

See the preliminary injunction order. (PDF)

See the Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (PDF)

See the Brief in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (PDF)

# # #

Court Blocks Implementation of Anti-Immigrant Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 24, 2011

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Elizabeth Beresford, (917) 498-9697 or (212) 549-2666; [email protected]

Law is Third of its Kind to be Blocked by Federal Courts

INDIANAPOLIS – A federal judge today blocked the implementation of a discriminatory Indiana law inspired by Arizona’s notorious SB 1070. The National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit last month charging that the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status and criminalizes the mere use or acceptance of commonly used consular ID cards. The groups also charged in their lawsuit that the law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents.

Judges in Arizona and Utah have blocked the implementation of similar anti-immigrant laws in those states, and the ACLU, NILC and others earlier this month filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against an anti-immigrant law in Georgia. The ACLU and NILC have also publicly announced their intention to legally challenge the most draconian anti-immigrant law passed June 3 in Alabama.

The following can be attributed to Shiu-Ming Cheer, staff attorney, NILC:

“Today’s decision will prevent countless Indianans of color from suffering unnecessary and unconstitutional rights violations simply because their legislators passed a draconian law. We are pleased that the court has prevented the most pernicious and discriminatory elements of this law from going into effect, and we look forward to the day that it is permanently removed from Indiana’s law books.”

The following can be attributed to Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project:

“We are pleased the court has blocked this discriminatory law from taking effect. Wherever civil liberties are threatened, be it in Utah, Arizona, Indiana or elsewhere, we will continue to challenge unconstitutional laws like these.”

Read the court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. (PDF)

# # #

Senate Dems Introduce Practical Legislation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 22, 2011

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832

A Sensible Plan: Senate Democrats Introduce Practical Legislation to Produce Jobs, Protect Our Workforce, and Increase American Prosperity

WASHINGTON, DC — Along with five cosponsors, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 (S.1258). The legislation, which would offer a comprehensive solution to fix our broken immigration system and foster economic recovery, is the first bill of its kind in the 112th Congress. Below is a statement from Tyler Moran, policy director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“By incorporating proposals championed by Republicans and Democrats alike, Sen. Menendez and his colleagues today have laid out a plan to effectively fix our broken immigration system without stalling our economy or ripping our communities apart. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act not only would fix a system that has for too long been out of whack with America’s economic and societal needs, but it recognizes that, in the absence of a legal workforce, forcing employers to verify the employment authorization of their workers by using E-Verify would undermine our economy and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

“Their effort stands in stark contrast with the mass-deportation and anti-worker agenda espoused by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and his colleagues, who seem willing to risk our economic recovery and drive unemployment rates to unprecedented levels to score politics points. We hope colleagues will join Sen. Menendez, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to support this workable solution to fix a system that has for too long been held hostage to partisan politics.”

The text of the bill is available fromhttp://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php. The bill number is S.1258.
# # #

NILC Will File Lawsuit Challenging South Carolina

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 2011

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]

Bill Recalls State’s Shameful History of Racial Discrimination

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of South Carolina, and a coalition of civil rights groups announced they will file a lawsuit challenging the draconian racial profiling bill passed by the South Carolina legislature today if Gov. Nikki Haley signs it into law.

The bill’s key provisions sanction discriminatory and unconstitutional practices by police officers and employers by inviting racial profiling of Latinos and others based on how they look or talk, interfering federal law. Under this extreme bill, police are required to demand “papers” from people they stop whom they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.

The following can be attributed to . . .

Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project:

“It’s appalling that the South Carolina legislature went into a special summer session to pass this discriminatory bill, particularly since federal courts have blocked its cousins in Arizona and Utah. These states are in a race to the bottom. Not only does this bill mimic Arizona’s notorious S.B. 1070, it goes even further by attempting to create South Carolina’s own immigration enforcement agency authorized to detain people based solely on how they look or talk. If the governor signs this bill, we are prepared to stand up for the civil liberties of all South Carolinians just as we have in every state that has passed similar copycat bills.”

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:
“Like Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Utah, South Carolina has now passed an unconstitutional law that betrays our American values. If Gov. Haley signs this law, she will join Governor Brewer and others on the wrong side of history. When considering this legislation, we hope the Governor puts the best interests of her state and the values of the U.S. Constitution above extremist politics of hate.”

Victoria Middleton, executive director, ACLU of South Carolina:
“It’s disappointing that the South Carolina legislature made this discriminatory bill a top priority in a special summer session, particularly given the state’s serious budget shortfall. This legislation is a shameful throw-back to the pre-Civil Rights era and we call on Gov. Haley to veto this deeply misguided bill. The ACLU will stand up for the civil rights and liberties of all residents of South Carolina if she does not.”

Dan Werner, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project:
“It is extremely disappointing to see the South Carolina state legislature following in these ill-fated footsteps by passing this legislation that will sacrifice citizens’ safety, cost the state an untold amount in taxpayer dollars and perpetuate bigotry. If Gov. Haley signs this legislation, SPLC will join our counterparts in fighting this unconstitutional and racist law to protect the civil rights of every South Carolinian.”

Tammy Besherse, staff attorney with the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center:
“We have already seen the courts block Arizona’s law. Moving forward with a law that is unconstitutional will only cost our state—which has already had to make deep cuts to essential services—more money that we don’t have.”

See NILC’s latest map showing the status of Arizona-inspired legislationacross the country.

# # #

S-COMM Should Be Suspended Immediately

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2011

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832

Proposed Changes to Secure Communities: Too Little, Too Late

LOS ANGELES — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today announced several changes to its much-criticized Secure Communities (S-COMM) program. Below is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“S-COMM has resulted in untold numbers of fundamental rights violations, and the proposed changes announced today don’t change the program’s underlying deficiencies.

“Furthermore, the announcement proves that the conclusion reached by Gov. Cuomo of New York, Gov. Patrick of Massachusetts, and Gov. Quinn of Illinois is correct: S-COMM is simply too broken to be allowed to continue operating. Far too many members of our communities, many of whom came to the police as victims of crime, have been ensnared by this program and deported already.

“Since S-COMM’s inception, we’ve raised serious concerns about the inevitable rights violations that would occur because of this program. We were right: immigrant communities now know that a simple traffic violation or no criminal conviction at all can lead to a deportation order. As a result, immigrants are afraid to come into contact with local law enforcement officers, even as victims of, or witnesses to crime. This has threatened the safety of all of our communities.

“At this time, the only appropriate measure would be to heed the requests of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts by suspending this program at a national level. Only then can we work towards creating secure communities for all.”

See the ICE announcement. (PDF)

# # #

The POWER Act Would Thwart Bad-Apple Employers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 15, 2011

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]

The POWER Act Would Thwart Bad-Apple Employers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) yesterday introduced the POWER (Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation) Act, legislation that that, if passed, would expand the right to organize and offer key protections to all workers. Below is a statement from Emily Tulli, policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center:

“For too long, bad-apple employers have taken advantage of the broken immigration system by reporting workers who assert their labor rights to immigration enforcement officials, hurting organizing efforts for all workers. The POWER Act would put an end to the unfair advantage unscrupulous employers currently enjoy by closing the legal loophole between immigration and labor law. In doing so, the POWER Act will finally level the playing field for employers who play by the rules and respect workers’ rights. We hope colleagues of Sen. Menendez, Rep. Miller, and Rep. Chu will follow in their footsteps and pass this much-needed legislation.”

The text of the Senate and House bills is available from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php. The bill numbers are:

S.1195 (Senate bill)
H.R.2169 (House bill)

See a NILC summary and analysis of the bill (PDF).

# # #

NILC Policy Director Testifies on the Legal Workforce Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 15, 2011

CONTACT:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]

Moran Illuminates Flaws in Rep. Lamar Smith’s Recently-Introduced Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2164)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tyler Moran, policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, served as an expert witness during a hearing about the Legal Workforce Act, Rep. Lamar Smith’s recently introduced legislation mandating that all employers use an error-ridden Internet-based employment eligibility verification system modeled on E-Verify. The hearing, which took place in the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, was the first public discussion of the controversial bill.

According to Moran, “Making use of E-Verify or any electronic employment eligibility verification system mandatory, outside of broader reform of our immigration system, will undermine American jobs and ultimately impose new burdens on our economy, workers and businesses . . . We need enforcement of labor, employment and civil rights laws, not the current churning of the workforce, where undocumented workers are often preferred over documented workers because they are easier to hire and fire.”

Moran, an expert on immigration and labor issues, has researched E-Verify for nearly a decade and is recognized as one of the nation’s leading experts on the system.

To read Moran’s testimony, visit www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/Legal-Workforce-Act-imm-subcomm-testimony-2011-06-15.pdf. To watch and listen to Moran’s testimony, go to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_06152011.html. Click on the “Watch Video Webcast” icon under “Hearing Documentation.” Fast-forward to minute 28:40 (when the hearing starts) or to minute 1:13:24 (when Moran begins her testimony).

To speak with Moran about E-Verify and other immigrant labor issues, please contact Adela de la Torre at 213-674-2832 or [email protected].

General summary of H.R. 2164. (PDF)

Detailed summary of H.R. 2164 (table format). (PDF)

Ley de Fuerza Laboral Legal. (PDF)

Statement of Tyler Moran, Policy Director, National Immigration Law Center, to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, Hearing on H.R. 2164, the Legal Workforce Act, June 15, 2011. (PDF)

# # #