Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Following Death of 7-Year-Old, a Call to End Culture of Cruelty at the Border

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2018

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Following Death of 7-Year-Old, a Call to End Culture of Cruelty at the Border

LOS ANGELES — Below is a statement by Nora Preciado, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, following the tragic death of a 7-year-old girl in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. Preciado is co-counsel in Doe v. Nielsen, a class-action lawsuit filed by the National Immigration Law Center, the American Immigration Council, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP, challenging deplorable conditions in Border Patrol holding facilities in the Tucson Sector.

“The death of 7-year-old Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin is a tragic reminder of a longstanding pattern of systemic cruelty and secrecy at CBP and its parent agency, DHS, and underscores the stark need for greater transparency and accountability at these agencies. As we mourn and demand justice for Jakelin and her loved ones, we must also take meaningful steps to prevent anything like this from happening again.

“Direct accounts over years from people in CBP custody and hard evidence obtained through litigation reveal a culture of utter disregard for human life at the agency. This toxic environment has resulted in civil and human rights violations, physical and psychological harm, and numerous preventable deaths.

“In June 2015, we sued CBP to demand humane conditions for those jailed in Border Patrol holding facilities known as hieleras. We demanded medical screenings, adequate food and water, and other basic necessities. The lawsuit continues, but we shouldn’t have to sue our government to force it to abide by our laws and treat people with dignity.

“Sadly, the culture of cruelty at CBP has only worsened under the Trump administration. By DHS’s own account, Jakelin and dozens of people apprehended by CBP at the same time were kept for hours in a ‘covered area’ before being transported to a Border Patrol station and before she received medical care. Overnight temperatures in the region can fall to below freezing this time of year.

“Our tax dollars have paid for this culture of abuse for far too long. We demand that Congress investigate the atrocities being committed under President Trump’s watch.”

###

Share

Massive Popular Rejection of Trump Anti-Family Regulation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2018

CONTACT
• National Immigration Law Center: [email protected]; Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149, or Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279
• Center for Law and Social Policy: Tom Salyers, 202-607-1074, [email protected]

Massive Popular Rejection of Trump Anti-Family Regulation

Proposal equating worth with wealth draws 210,000+ comments

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration regulatory proposal to effectively restrict immigration access based on income drew more than 210,000 comments during a 60-day public comment period that closed Monday. The comments, which came from people from all sectors of society, criticized this 477-page regulation as an affront to family dignity and ultimately unworkable. The National Immigration Law Center and the Center for Law and Social Policy led a nationwide campaign to educate the public about the threat and encourage people to submit comments.

“Mayors from across the country, members of Congress, faith leaders, advocates for women and communities of color, teachers, pediatricians, small business owners, veteran families, and Americans from all walks of life spoke out during the last 60 days,” said Olivia Golden, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy. “And though there were diverse voices speaking out, the message to the Trump administration was consistent and clear: this is the wrong policy for children, families, communities, and the country as a whole.”

“Last month’s midterms demonstrated a groundswell of support for political candidates who rejected Trump’s hateful attacks on low-income families and immigrant families,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “Now those voters have raised their voices again to push back on Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-family agenda and take back their power.”

Widely reported by the press, the proposed “public charge”  regulation, if enacted, would put people at risk of immigration denials if they use Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Section 8 housing, Medicare’s prescription drug assistance program, or other programs. Specifically, the regulation puts applications for admission to the United States and applications for permanent residence (a “green card”) in jeopardy. The proposal would also make it far harder for working immigrants to be approved for residency if they do not have high incomes or wealth, by counting a range of demographic factors against applicants. These include being a child, being older than 61, demonstrating limited English language skills, and having a disability.

The rules governing public charge in the U.S. have not yet changed. But experts warn that the threat of the proposal would worsen hunger, unmet health needs, and other problems by making immigrant families — including families with children — afraid to get the help they need. Comments opposing the regulation validate those concerns.

“I am applying for [a] Green Card. I already dis-enrolled my child from CHIP out of fear since the draft policy floated around early this year. I pray every day nothing bad happens to my child,” wrote one anonymous commenter.

Advocates for economic opportunity and immigrant families charge that the proposal puts wealthy immigrants ahead of families and expands a policy that has historically been used to discriminate against certain racial, ethnic, and social classes. Commenters also underscore those concerns.

“At times throughout my family’s history, we’ve needed help from public programs to get by, just like millions of other families. And with some help from programs like unemployment, food assistance, and tax credits, we kept our jobs, got ahead, and paid that assistance back many times over in taxes and in job creation. I vehemently oppose the White House’s new proposal that would deny this generation of immigrant families the same opportunities that my family benefitted from,” wrote Jeff Sheldon.

“This undeniably xenophobic policy, disguised as an economic decision, closed off one of the few escape routes for European Jews facing deportation to concentration camps, and contributed to the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust,” wrote Samuel Chu, National Organizer for MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger.

While the public comment period is closed, the regulation is not final. In some cases, federal agencies decide not to finalize a rule given widespread opposition. If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does elect to advance the proposal, it must review comments first and respond to substantive concerns — a process advocates expect to take months or years. Immigration officials will not be allowed to consider an applicant’s use of public programs prior to 60 days after the date that the final regulation is published in the Federal Register. The attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, and other states have already indicated that they are considering litigation if the regulation is finalized.

“This radical proposal goes far beyond the agency’s legal authority, and it may well be struck down. We urge the millions of families affected by this proposal to consult a lawyer to determine the best course of action for you and your family,” said Golden.

“Immigrant families have been the target of relentless, multifaceted attacks by this administration,” added Marielena Hincapié. “What we have shown is that our communities — and our allies — are resilient. We will keep fighting, using every legal and policy tool at our disposal to stop this hateful rule.”

###

Share

JOINT STATEMENT: Trump Threatens to Hold Government Hostage to Get His Wall

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2018

CONTACT
– National Immigration Law Center: [email protected]; Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149; Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279
– Indivisible Project: Emily Phelps, [email protected]
– United We Dream: Bruna Bouhid, [email protected], 202-850-0812
– Southern Border Communities Coalition: Yesenia Padilla, [email protected], 415-269-3178

JOINT STATEMENT
Trump Threatens to Hold Government Hostage to Get His Wall

WASHINGTON — The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Indivisible Project, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, and United We Dream released the following statement:

For two years, President Trump has demanded funding for his deadly, harmful, and wasteful border wall while continuing to attack immigrants, refugees, and communities of color. Today, he proudly declared “I will shut down the government” if he doesn’t get his way. Immigrants’ rights groups and allies have made it clear that we reject this administration’s racist policies and oppose any amount of funding that would build Trump’s vanity wall or increase the number of detention beds and immigration agents.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi should reject any and all funding for Trump’s border wall or for additional immigration enforcement.

This past year, Congress approved $1.3 billion in wall funding that has already devastated border communities. We aim to bring this number down in the next Congress. The current Department of Homeland Security budget already represents reckless overspending on agencies that routinely engage in abusive and corrupt practices that terrorize our communities. Congress must include specific guidelines that require an analysis of the harmful effects of a wall to border communities, the environment, and wildlife prior to authorizing any more construction.

When Trump is separating children from parents and tear-gassing families seeking asylum at the border, Democrats cannot give him another dime to wage his war against immigrant families.

Trump made the 2018 midterm elections into a referendum on his immigration policies, and voters overwhelmingly rejected them. Voters want a different type of government that respects all of us, regardless of where we were born.

Our organizations support a clean, year-long continuing resolution that doesn’t fund Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda which includes his vanity wall, detention beds, or agents. We urge Congress to stand up against this false and ineffective style of leadership and consider funding the greater needs of the nation, such as health care for all, addressing the climate crisis, better K-12 education, and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure.

# # #

Share

Lawsuit Alleges ICE, DHS, and Vermont DMV Targeting Immigrant Leaders in Retaliation for Activism

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 14, 2018

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, (213) 375-3149, [email protected]
Will Lambek, Migrant Justice, (802) 321-8393, [email protected]
Lia Ernst, ACLU of Vermont (802) 223-6304 x112, [email protected]
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, [email protected]
Liz Valsamis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, (213) 229-7115, [email protected]
Leah Lotto, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, (212) 633-6967, [email protected]

Lawsuit Alleges ICE, DHS, and Vermont DMV Targeting Immigrant Leaders in Retaliation for Activism

Migrant Justice leaders at risk of deportation for engaging in protected First Amendment activity

BURLINGTON, VT — Today, Vermont-based Migrant Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ― with the assistance of the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) ― conducted an unlawful, multi-year operation to surveil, harass, arrest, and detain the organization’s members and leaders. Those activities were undertaken in retaliation for plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech and assembly and in order to destabilize Migrant Justice and its successful organizing of Vermont’s immigrant farm workers.

The lawsuit claims federal immigration authorities targeted Migrant Justice leaders and members since at least 2014, as the organization was engaged in high-profile human rights organizing across Vermont and nationally. As part of a larger pattern of suppressing immigrant activism nationwide, federal immigration authorities infiltrated the meetings and private associations of Migrant Justice through the use of a civilian informant, invasively surveilled its members and mined their social media pages for information, and targeted, arrested, and detained no fewer than nine Migrant Justice members in direct retaliation for their activism.

“We come to the U.S. from countries with histories of political repression, and we thought that here our freedom of speech would be protected as we stood up to defend our rights,” said Enrique Balcazar, a Migrant Justice leader and plaintiff in the case. “It is clear that ICE is trying to silence the voices of immigrants in Vermont.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Vermont DMV assisted ICE and DHS in targeting Migrant Justice leaders after the organization worked to pass Vermont’s Driver Privilege Card (DPC) law in 2013, allowing state residents to obtain driving privileges regardless of immigration status. Documents obtained through public record requests show that when the plaintiffs submitted their DPC applications, the DMV sent their personal information directly to ICE, which compiled dossiers on Migrant Justice leaders, including their social media pages and media appearances. The records show DMV workers shared the plaintiffs’ information with ICE for discriminatory purposes, out of racial and anti-immigrant animus.

“Time and again, we’ve seen that when Vermont officials get entangled in federal immigration matters, civil rights violations are the inevitable result,” said ACLU of Vermont staff attorney Lia Ernst. “The fact is, DMV and other local officials have no legal authority to do immigration enforcement or to discriminate against Vermont residents ― but clearly that message still hasn’t gotten through.”

A 2016 investigation by the Vermont Human Rights Commission found that the DMV misused the DPC program to engage in a number of discriminatory practices, including falsifying information on applications. Even after the DMV implemented policy reforms, however, officials continued to share extensive information about DPC applicants of color with ICE. DMV officials repeatedly sent what they referred to as “South of the Border” names to ICE for potential investigation, while referring to immigrants in racist and derogatory terms, and scheduled appointments to facilitate immigration arrests.

“Migrant Justice leaders have worked for years to thwart discriminatory policing by local and federal officials,” said Trudy Rebert, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “ICE and willing enablers with a history of anti-Latinx bias at the local DMV have resorted to weaponizing systems essential to community safety to target and suppress our plaintiffs.”

ICE has detained four prominent Migrant Justice leaders who are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. During the course of the arrests, ICE agents harassed and intimidated plaintiffs, referring to one as a “famous person” because of his activism, and named an additional member who would be “next.” In detention, plaintiffs were forbidden from contacting a lawyer or anyone associated with Migrant Justice. Two plaintiffs were detained soon after leaving the Migrant Justice office. As part of its campaign to undermine Migrant Justice, ICE spread false information about the organization, including that staff were collaborating with the agency to locate and detain immigrant community members.

The lawsuit alleges that the arrests and detention are part of an alarming national trend of retaliation against immigrants’ rights activists. Since 2016, ICE has arrested no fewer than twenty high-profile leaders around the country.

“The federal government crackdown on political speech in Vermont is part of a national campaign to silence immigrants who criticize government officials and their policies,” said National Center for Law and Economic Justice Senior Attorney Leah Lotto. “Using their power to physically arrest and detain outspoken leaders is a shocking violation of our Constitution.”

Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from targeting, surveilling, infiltrating, spreading disinformation, arresting, and detaining Migrant Justice members and to prohibit DMV employees from racially motivated sharing of information with federal immigration enforcement agencies.

“The federal government targeted Migrant Justice because of its historic and unrelenting advocacy on behalf of a vulnerable immigrant community,” said Center for Constitutional Rights staff attorney Angelo Guisado. “In so doing, ICE has weaved its way into the tortured counterpane of U.S. policy used to suffocate grassroots activism and to exert control over communities of color.”

On Wednesday, Migrant Justice members and supporters marched from the organization’s Burlington office to the federal courthouse, hand-delivering the lawsuit while rallying outside. Migrant Justice leaders and attorneys addressed the crowd. In recent years, the federal building has been a frequent site of such rallies; at times, hundreds have filled the streets to denounce immigration arrests and call for the release of detained community members. 

“The rule of law applies to everyone, regardless of one’s particular political position,” said Joel Cohen, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. “An arm of the government should never be used to stifle the rights of speech and assembly or to discriminate against individuals based on their race or perceived immigration status.”

Plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU of Vermont, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the National Immigration Law Center, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Migrant-Justice-v-Nielsen-complaint-2018-11-14.pdf.

###

Share

Voters Across the Country Choose to Correct Course

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 6, 2018

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Voters Across the Country Choose to Correct Course

The National Immigration Law Center responds to the 2018 midterm elections

LOS ANGELES — U.S. news outlets project that Democrats will win the majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, following historic levels of voter participation in the 2018 midterm elections.

Votes were still being counted in some precincts, but turnout shattered previous midterm records from coast to coast, and voters made history by sending diverse leaders to state houses and to Washington.

Republicans, who held majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress since 2012, lost control of the House despite a late push by President Trump and some candidates to fearmonger and scapegoat immigrants in an effort to increase voter turnout among Trump supporters.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Tonight’s election results, on the whole, were a rejection of hatred and anti-immigrant extremists. This offers a renewed sense of hope that we can get back on the path to a more just and inclusive vision for our country. Tonight, history was made with the first Native American and Muslim women elected to Congress, the first Latinas in Texas elected to Congress, and the first openly gay male governor elected in our nation’s history. After two very destructive years under President Trump, voters turned out in record numbers to demand serious leadership from Washington and in their communities. We have an opportunity now to start to correct course toward achieving justice.

“The message from voters is loud and clear: We want competent, thoughtful leaders who are committed to our values and to finding solutions to our country’s most pressing needs that respect our democratic principles. We will no longer stand for the chaos and divisiveness that have characterized Trump’s presidency. And we will not tolerate elected leaders who cower in the face of relentless attacks on our democracy and pandering to white supremacists.

“Voters turned out not only to reject President Trump’s dangerous leadership, brash policymaking, and cynical, last-ditch efforts to stoke fear and racism, but also to support leaders who stand for inclusivity and who fight for all of us. In states and cities all across the country, communities voted decisively to protect access to health care and to ensure that the economy works for all us.

“From coast to coast, xenophobic candidates like David Brat in Virginia and Kris Kobach in Kansas saw their hate backfire. In Tennessee, a state official who blocked access to education was removed from office in favor of one who supports access to education for all. In Oregon, voters rejected a hateful attempt to strip the state of its anti–racial-profiling law. And across the country, women, people of color, and LGBTQIA leaders are making the halls of power more representative of the nation and communities they serve.

“Leaders with the privilege of power must now deliver on this more inclusive, more unified vision that works for all of us, regardless of where we were born, what we look like, who we love, or how we pray. They must hold the Trump administration accountable for their cruel and corrupt ways and defend our most cherished principles. They can achieve this by serving in their constitutionally mandated role of serving as a check and balance against an executive branch that has shown little regard for our communities or other branches of government. Tonight wasn’t the end of the fight — it was the beginning of a long, collective struggle toward dignity for all.”

###

Share

Latest Immigration Announcement Smacks of Racism, Desperation, and Cruelty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 1, 2018

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, [email protected], 202-805-0375

Latest Immigration Announcement Smacks of Racism, Desperation, and Cruelty

WASHINGTON — President Trump held a press conference today to address a manufactured “crisis.” While he failed to introduce any concrete policies, Trump uttered several falsehoods about immigrants and politics, among other issues.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement.

“Sensing tough political headwinds, Donald Trump is doing what he does best: hijacking a media cycle to trot out another unlawful, unworkable plan that is designed not to make anyone safer, but to gin up his base before the elections.

“The show we saw today was desperate, cruel, and dripping with racism, and the majority of us are clearly tired of such antics. Voters have shown time and again that they are hungry for real leaders who are willing to provide practical solutions, not photo-op–loving PR stunts that are notable only for their cruelty and unworkability.

“The president’s remarks on the so-called migrant caravan are not dog whistles, because his message continues to be loud and clear: If you are not white, if you are poor, if you pray a certain way, if you were not born in this country, if you are a woman or trans person, then you are not valued.

“These attempts to divide us are beyond shameful and demonstrate that this administration is completely out of touch with the daily needs of people living in this country. We don’t need leaders who manufacture false crises and scapegoat nonwhite communities in an attempt to scare American voters. Our communities need better than this. We all — white, Black, and brown communities — must come together next Tuesday and reject these latest desperate attempts to divide and distract us from rebuilding our nation and ensuring that government works for all of us.”

###

Share

Trump Anti-Family Regulation Draws 15,000+ Comments in First Week

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 17, 2018

CONTACT
– National Immigration Law Center: Juan Gastelum (213-375-3149) or Hayley Burgess (202-384-1279), [email protected]
– Center for Law and Social Policy: Tom Salyers (202-607-1074), [email protected]

Trump Anti-Family Regulation Draws 15,000+ Comments in First Week

Proposal would deny immigrants for meeting basic needs

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration regulatory proposal to effectively restrict immigration access based on income has drawn more than 15,000 comments since the legally required public comment period opened on October 10. Widely reported by the press, the “public charge” regulation would put people at risk of immigration denials if they use Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicare’s prescription drug assistance program, or other programs. The National Immigration Law Center and the Center for Law and Social Policy are coordinating a campaign to protect millions of immigrant families from this attack.

“This massive response shows that people see the Trump regulation for what it is — reckless, deeply unfair, and inconsistent with core American values,” said Madison Hardee, a senior policy analyst/attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy.

Experts warn that the plan would worsen hunger, unmet health needs, and other problems by making immigrant families — including families with children — afraid to get the help they need. Comments opposing the regulation validate those concerns.

“I am applying for Green Card. I already dis-enrolled my child from CHIP out of fear since the draft policy floated around early this year. I pray every day nothing bad happens to my child,” wrote one anonymous commenter.

Advocates for economic opportunity and immigrant families charge that the proposal would put wealthy immigrants ahead of families and expand a policy that has been historically abused. Commenters also underscore those concerns.

“This rule is diametrically opposed to our most basic values as a nation and devalues the fact that many of our top doctors, scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs are the children or grandchildren of immigrants who came to the United States with little more than the clothes on their backs and dreams for a better future,” wrote Meredith Owen of Church World Service.

“My husband’s entire family arrived as widows and child refugees from the Holocaust. Many immigrants arrive in similar tragic circumstances in which they need to use the US’s social safety net,” wrote commenter Janet Rosenbaum.

Individuals who have submitted comments to date opposing the regulation include elected officials, physicians, food pantry and other human services agency administrators, and community voices. A week ago, advocates released a joint letter signed by more than 1,500 nonprofits representing a wide range of concerns, from housing to faith, hunger to immigrants’ rights.

Federal law requires that the administration give the public an opportunity to comment on this expansive proposal. Commenters are not required to give their address or divulge their immigration status. Concerned members of the public can learn more and submit comments on the proposal at www.ProtectingImmigrantFamilies.org through December 10, 2018.

Advocates observed that the pace of comments to date could put the public charge regulation on track to surpass the 50,714 comments received on a student visa training options regulation proposed in 2015. That proposal appears to have received the most comments submitted on any regulatory proposal by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“There is still much work to be done and only a few weeks to do it,” said Sonya Schwartz, a senior policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But it’s encouraging to see the American people raising their voices to resist Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-family agenda and take the power back.”

###

Share

Trump Rule Rigs Immigration for the Super-Rich, Expands Abusive Policy to Put Families at Risk, Advocates Say

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 23, 2018

CONTACT
– National Immigration Law Center: Juan Gastelum (213-375-3149) or Hayley Burgess (202-384-1279), [email protected]
– Center for Law and Social Policy: Tom Salyers (202-607-1074), [email protected]
– Center for American Progress: Julia Cusick (202-495-3682), [email protected]
– National Domestic Workers Alliance: Natalia Jaramillo (786-317-3524),  [email protected]

Trump Rule Rigs Immigration for the Super-Rich, Expands Abusive Policy to Put Families at Risk, Advocates Say

Proposal Would Deny Immigrants for Meeting Basic Needs

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is soon expected to circumvent Congress, proposing regulations to effectively restrict immigration access, based on income. Widely reported by the press, the regulation would put people at risk of immigration denials if they use Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, or other programs. Experts warn that the plan would worsen hunger, unmet health needs, and other problems by making immigrant families — including families with children — afraid to get the help they need. Advocates for economic opportunity and immigrant families charged that the proposal would put wealthy immigrants ahead of families and that it expands a policy that has been historically abused.

White House aide Stephen Miller, architect of the administration’s child separation policy, is reported to have led this “public charge” effort. News reports indicate that the proposal was also developed by an advisor who has personal relationships “with prominent white supremacists and racists.” Historians have warned that public charge regulations have been abused in the past to deny otherwise-eligible applicants access to lawful immigration avenues, based on race and religion. Because it would almost exclusively affect family-based immigrants, the Trump proposal will disproportionately affect families of color, especially Latinos.

Federal law requires that the administration give the public an opportunity to comment on this expansive proposal, when and if it is formally proposed. Commenters will not be required to give their address or divulge their immigration status. Advocates will post updates on http://www.protectingimmigrantfamilies.org, as available.

Responding to the administration’s move, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Immigration Law Center, the Center for American Progress, and the National Domestic Workers Alliance issued the following statements:

“The proposal is reckless, deeply unfair, and inconsistent with core American values. It explicitly places a priority on well-off families and ignores families who have waited years to be reunited. This proposal says work and family don’t matter — only money matters. And at a time when one-fourth of children in America have at least one immigrant parent, it’s a direct attack on children. The good news is that by rising up together and fighting back — as we have done against other attacks — we can speak up for immigrant families,” said Olivia Golden, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy.

“The Trump administration is trying to achieve through the back door what it hasn’t been able to do through Congress, which is to radically reform the legal immigration system. Through this rule, they want to restrict family immigration as the use of certain programs can prevent families from being reunited, getting a green card, or even becoming naturalized citizens,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

“My immigrant mother worked hard to build a better life for herself and her children. But if this proposal had been in place, she likely wouldn’t have had that opportunity, and I wouldn’t be here today. Now, with the flick of a pen, the Trump administration hopes to deny others a chance at the American Dream. The changes to the public charge provision would fundamentally alter our system for family-based immigration. Public charge has a sordid history. It was abused in the past to keep out Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, Irish Catholics, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, and unmarried women, among others. Once again, President Trump is prioritizing wealth over family and — just like his policy of tearing thousands of children from their parents at the border — undermining the fundamental values of our nation,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress.

“This is Trump’s latest plot to keep separating families. He is willing to put over 20 million children at risk of malnutrition and disease, just to push his anti-immigrant agenda. This change in rules will punish millions of low-income mothers like domestic workers who take care of our loved ones and our homes, yet often struggle to make enough to take care of their own families and rely on our democracy to keep their families healthy and safe. No parent should have to choose between feeding their children or keeping their family together. Tearing families apart is a choice that we don’t have to keep making,” said Ai-jen Poo, Director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and co-chair of the Families Belong Together campaign.

###

RECORDING of news teleconference (Sun., Sept. 23, 2018): https://www.nilc.org/families-news-conf-2018-09-23/ or https://wp.me/a7gMAF-4Ez

MORE INFORMATION on “public charge”: www.nilc.org/exec-orders-and-access-to-public-programs/

Share

Trump Administration Proposal Would Separate Immigrant Families, Harm Public Health and Wellbeing for All of Us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2018

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Trump Administration Proposal Would Separate Immigrant Families, Harm Public Health and Wellbeing for All of Us

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration today announced it would propose a new rule that would prevent immigrant families on the road to U.S. citizenship from being able to secure permanent lawful immigration status if they utilize any of a vast array of health care supports, nutrition assistance, or other services. Previous versions of the proposed rule have been decried by public health officials, mayors, faith leaders, and anti-poverty advocates due to its breathtaking scope and the potential consequences of such a policy change.

On Saturday, Sept. 22, major news outlets announced the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would post the proposed rule for public comment in the Federal Register.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Building on the traumatic separation of families at the border, the Trump administration has taken another cruel step. This proposed rule change will similarly result in the separation of families and is just the latest assault on immigrant families. This is an inhumane attack on the health and wellbeing of so many families and communities across the country.

“How you contribute to your community — and not what you look like or the contents of your wallet — should be what matters most. This proposed rule does the opposite and makes clear that the Trump administration continues to prioritize money over family unity by ensuring that only the wealthiest can afford to build a future in this country.

“The Trump administration is using this regulatory backdoor approach because it attempted to enact its draconian agenda of restricting legal immigration through Congress — and failed. This rule change is radical and extreme, and it leaves the door wide open for potential abuse. All of us, regardless of where we were born, suffer when immigrants are penalized for trying to have their basic needs met.

“Whether by ripping families apart, enacting a Muslim ban, ending temporary protected status, or callously holding immigrant youth with DACA hostage to politics, the Trump administration has shown that its appetite for harming the immigrant community is insatiable. This latest attack on immigrants is a cynical ploy to deflect from its current political misfortunes and to attempt to scapegoat immigrants once again just in time for the midterm elections.

“In this case, however, we have the tools to fight back. The comment period for the proposed rule will provide an opportunity for all Americans, regardless of citizenship status, to tell the government that we oppose this rule change. Instead of using an administrative backdoor to attack immigrants, the Trump administration should work with Congress on legislation that would make our communities stronger and healthier. Our power is in our voice, and the time to use it is now.”

To learn more about the Trump administration’s proposed rule change, please visit www.protectimmigrantfamilies.org.

###

MORE INFORMATION on “public charge”: www.nilc.org/exec-orders-and-access-to-public-programs/

Share

Senate Must Not Confirm Nominee Who Disregards the Rights of the Most Vulnerable (The Torch)

UPDATE (8 AM Pacific time, Thur., Sept. 13)
The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning voted to delay — until Thursday, Sept. 20, at 1:45 PM Eastern time — its vote on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. According to the Washington Post, “The move was expected — senators routinely delay committee business for one week, which is allowed under the panel’s rules.”

Senate Must Not Confirm Nominee Who Disregards the Rights of the Most Vulnerable

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Jessie Hahn, Patrick O’Shea, and Josh Rosenthal
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. This Court nomination is arguably the most consequential in at least a generation, given the likelihood that, if he’s confirmed, Kavanaugh will be the deciding vote on many critical issues currently working their way through our court system. Gaining a seat on the Supreme Court confers a lifetime duty to uphold the rights and values of our democracy, including the responsibility to protect the rights of everyone living in the United States. Kavanaugh’s judicial record shows a troubling disregard for the rights of women, workers, and immigrants, a disregard that will be dangerous for families — immigrant and native-born alike — all across our country.

One case that vividly illustrates Kavanaugh’s views on the rights of immigrants and workers, as well as his views on settled law and precedent, is Agri Processor Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, in which Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In this case, a notoriously unscrupulous and exploitative meatpacking company had refused to bargain with the union its employees had voted to form, and it fired several employees in retaliation. The company claimed it did not have to recognize the pro-union votes of immigrant employees who didn’t have work authorization, but the company chose to investigate those workers’ employment eligibility status only after they voted to form a union. (Some employers “weaponize” their workers’ immigration status to silence those who attempt to unionize.) With one exception, every judge who heard this case rejected the company’s arguments and recognized that undocumented workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The one exception: Brett Kavanaugh.

In his dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh held that an undocumented worker “is not an ‘employee’” and should not be protected under federal labor laws. To reach this result, Kavanaugh deviated from decades of established law and precedent.

During Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked him why he disagreed with every other judge who had found that federal labor law does, in fact, cover undocumented workers. Kavanaugh argued that section II(B) of a related Supreme Court case, Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, required him to interpret the NLRA as conflicting with the “employer sanctions” provisions of the immigration statute, which require that employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers be penalized. But that section of Sure-Tan does not squarely address the question in Agri Processor, and when Congress established (in 1986) the employer sanctions referenced by Kavanaugh, it did not amend the NLRA to exclude undocumented workers from its protections.

Kavanaugh stretched the Sure-Tan opinion to achieve the result he wanted, and he got that opinion wrong. The Supreme Court reinforced this when it refused to take up Agri Processor’s appeal. By choosing not to accept the appeal, the Court left the Agri Processor majority’s decision in place; therefore, all immigrants fall within the NLRA’s coverage, all a company’s employees’ votes count in a union election, and it’s unlawful for an employer to fire its workers in retaliation for voting to form a union.

The justices who sit on the Supreme Court should work to protect the rights of all of us. If Kavanaugh was willing to depart from settled law in this case, what other precedents would he contort or ignore to reach a particular result?

Another, more recent, Kavanaugh opinion further reveals how he (mis)understands the rights of immigrants. This past October, in Garza v. Hargan, he disregarded the constitutional right of a 17-year-old girl in immigration detention to seek a safe abortion. After being raped on her journey to the U.S., Jane Doe was eight weeks pregnant when she entered the country. Due to her age and immigration status, she was placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where she decided to terminate her pregnancy. She followed Texas state law and was granted a judicial bypass to receive the abortion, but federal officials in the ORR blocked her from accessing the procedure. Kavanaugh initially upheld the government’s interference with her exercise of constitutional rights, a ruling that was reversed by the full DC Circuit only four days later. Notably, Kavanaugh again dissented. He would not affirm that the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause protects “any person” in the U.S, as the Constitution states, and he insisted that Jane Doe should be able to exercise her rights only if she could get herself out of immigration detention.

The role of the Supreme Court is to defend everyone’s rights under the Constitution, regardless of what we look like, where we were born, or what our immigration status may be. The Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect all “persons” in the U.S. Jane Doe’s fundamental, constitutional rights didn’t disappear simply because she was placed in a government facility. The workers at the meatpacking plant continue to be workers, regardless of their immigration status — workers who continue to be protected by the law from exploitation and abuse. Kavanaugh’s past disregard for the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society should serve as a warning to all of us who believe in a fair judiciary for all.

This confirmation vote will reverberate for generations. The publicly available aspects of Kavanaugh’s record make clear that his extremist views would turn back the clock on some of our most cherished rights. The Senate has an important role to play — it must not confirm someone who could cause irreparable damage to our rights for decades to come. Call your senators at 1-202- 224-3121 and ask them to vote “no” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Jessie Hahn is NILC’s labor and employment policy attorney, Patrick O’Shea is NILC’s research and narrative strategist, and Josh Rosenthal is a NILC staff attorney.

Share