Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Muslim Ban 2.0: What Happens Next?

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Esther Sung, NILC staff attorney
June 9, 2017

Wondering what happens next in our Muslim ban case, IRAP v. Trump? Here’s everything you need to know, from the recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision, and what the Supreme Court could do next.

The Supreme Court’s action of
June 26, 2017, is explained HERE.This is a case brought by HIAS and the International Refugee Assistance Project, who are represented by NILC, the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, and the ACLU of Maryland.

What happened at the Fourth Circuit?

The Fourth Circuit is the first federal appeals court to hear and issue a decision on a lawsuit brought against President Trump’s second Muslim-ban executive order, the one he signed on March 6, 2017. The Fourth Circuit heard arguments in IRAP v. Trump in an initial en banc hearing. This means that instead of a panel of just three judges hearing and deciding the case immediately after it was appealed from the federal district court in Maryland, all the judges in the Fourth Circuit, minus two who recused themselves, heard the case.

Of the thirteen judges who heard the case, ten voted to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction, and three dissented from the majority opinion.

The ten judges who voted to affirm found that the March 6 executive order violates the U.S. Constitution—and that it “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” Three judges, in concurring opinions, provided several reasons why the executive order also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The judges who dissented, on the other hand, argued that the court should show deference to the national security justifications the administration made for having issued the executive order.

Now what is the Trump administration asking the Supreme Court to do?

Late on the night of June 1, 2017, the administration filed papers asking the Supreme Court to “stay” the injunction issued by the federal court in Maryland and another injunction that was issued by a federal court in Hawaii—in other words, to lift both injunctions and allow the Muslim-ban executive order to go into full effect. The Maryland court’s injunction currently prevents section 2(c) of the executive order—the section that creates the Muslim ban (also known as the “travel ban”)—from taking effect.

The Hawaii court’s injunction is broader and currently prevents sections 2 and 6—which include the executive order’s refugee ban and reduction in refugee admissions for FY 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000—from taking effect. The administration’s request regarding the Hawaii injunction is unusual because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the Hawaii district, has not yet issued an opinion on its validity.

In a separate filing, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in the Maryland case, which would enable the Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding the injunction of section 2(c) of the executive order. Section 2(c) bans for 90 days the entry into the U.S. of nationals of six designated countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow expedited briefing on both these requests because it wants the Court to decide them before it takes its summer recess at the end of June.

What happens next at the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has already allowed for expedited briefing on the administration’s requests and has ordered the plaintiffs/appellees to respond to the administration’s filings by 3 p.m. ET, Monday, June 12.

To grant the administration’s request for a stay of the Maryland and Hawaii injunctions and allow the executive order to go into full effect, five justices would need to vote in favor of a stay. The justices can issue their decision on the administration’s stay application at any time after the plaintiffs/appellees file their response on June 12.

To grant the administration’s request for a writ of certiorari, only four justices would need to vote in favor of granting certiorari. The justices will likely decide the request during one of several remaining previously scheduled conferences in June and issue a decision after that, likely at the same time it releases opinions in other cases on the Court’s docket.

No Muslim ban ever!

The Fourth Circuit, like several other courts across the country, found that the executive order unconstitutionally disfavors Muslims and is clearly motivated by unconstitutional discriminatory intent. The majority opinion and concurrences were a victory for the American public and our democracy, and a reminder that no one—not even the president—is above the Constitution. NILC stands ready to continue the fight against the president and his politics of hate in the highest court in the land.

Trump Administration Appeals to Supreme Court in Muslim Ban Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2017

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, 213-400-7822, [email protected]
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU, 347-514-3984, [email protected]

Trump Administration Appeals to Supreme Court in Muslim Ban Case

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice late last night requested that the Supreme Court consider the government’s appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and allow the Muslim ban to go into effect in the meantime. The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center represent the plaintiffs in this case.

Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, said: “Again and again, our nation’s courts have found that President Trump’s Muslim ban is unconstitutional. We will continue to defend our plaintiffs’ right to live free from fear of discriminatory treatment by the federal government.”

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, had this reaction: “There is no reason to disturb the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, which was supported by an overwhelming majority of the judges on the full court, is consistent with rulings from other courts across the nation, and enforces a fundamental principle that protects all of us from government condemnation of our religious beliefs.”

For more information on the case, visit www.nilc.org/irap-v-trump/.

# # #

A Simple Way to Resist the Trump Anti-Immigrant Agenda? Refuse to Pay for It

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Jackie Vimo, NILC economic justice policy analyst
June 1, 2017

With so much news coming out of the White House since late January, it can be challenging to keep track of all the ways the Trump administration is attacking immigrants and working families. However, it’s crucial that we pay close attention to one of the greatest threats to the health and safety of American families that this nation has ever faced: the devastating cuts the president’s proposed budget contains that are intended to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and to fund a massive deportation force that will tear families apart and spread fear across communities nationwide.

The federal budget process may seem overwhelming and unintelligible to many people outside Washington, DC, but it is more important than ever that taxpayers speak out to let Congress know that we will not allow our tax dollars to be used to fund Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda at the expense of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Congress controls the purse strings for the funds that the president requires to enact his agenda, and our best hope to defeat his proposals lies in telling Congress to deny him our tax dollars. Instead of building walls and spreading fear, Congress should be funding programs to create jobs, build a strong health care system, and educate our next generation.

Trump’s proposed Fiscal Year 2018 budget, released last Tuesday, threatens to decimate crucial economic supports for low- and middle-income families. The proposed budget slashes funding for Medicaid by nearly half over the next ten years, cuts food stamps by nearly 30 percent, breaks his promise to protect programs for the disabled because it cuts $72 billion from Social Security programs, cuts Environmental Protection Agency funding by a third, ends all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and eliminates programs to help kids afford college.

Trump’s budget uses these cuts to pay for his anti-immigrant agenda, including increased funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is currently under fire for fiscal mismanagement and allegations of agent misconduct. This budget is a “Robin Hood in reverse” that steals money from the nation’s vulnerable communities to fill the pockets of millionaires and corporations. It promotes policies that will scapegoat immigrants and terrorize communities by flooding neighborhoods with immigration agents operating under inadequate government oversight.

The Trump budget asks taxpayers to allocate $4.5 billion on top of the $19 billion we already spend on immigration enforcement to fund the president’s plans to build an ineffective and xenophobic wall and to deport millions of immigrants, tearing apart families and communities. Most of this funding would go to hire 1,000 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and 500 hundred new Border Patrol officers, and to build 74 miles of wall on the southern border.

DHS is already struggling to hire agents that the agency already has funding for, partly because two out of every three applicants for Border Patrol positions fail the required polygraph test. In response, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol’s mother agency within DHS, has suggested that it may loosen testing requirements, thereby putting badges and guns into the hands of people who can’t even pass a lie detector test.

More militarized immigration agents on our streets will only make our communities less safe and increase the levels of terror that already exist. In just the first few months of the Trump presidency, his policies’ chilling effects have led to a decline in the number of women reporting sexual assault and domestic violence and to an increased generalized fear of the police among Latinos. Furthermore, the Trump budget encourages increased collaboration between DHS and local law enforcement. Our communities are safer when all residents can feel safe interacting with their local police officers.

In addition to flooding our streets with immigration agents, the Trump budget would also swell our immigrant detention system by funding an additional 51,379 detention beds, an increase of almost 20,000 beds over last year’s 34,000-bed funding level. As Trump calls for increased detention of immigrants, his budget also proposes to eliminate protections currently provided by ICE detention standards and increase the average number of days that immigrants, including asylum-seekers fleeing horrific conditions and children, are detained.

In addition, the budget calls for making E-Verify, the federal government’s Web-based employment eligibility verification system, mandatory—an expensive mandate that would hurt employers, increase unemployment, and harm our economy. Finally, the Trump budget proposes restricting eligibility for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to only people who have Social Security numbers (SSNs). While the EITC already requires that the filer provide an SSN, this budget would require that both the taxpayer parent as well as the qualifying child have an SSN to receive the EITC or the CTC. This policy would primarily harm working-class taxpayers and millions of U.S. citizen children who live in mixed–immigration status families.

Budget negotiations can be complicated, but resisting the dangerous proposals in Trump’s proposed budget is simple. We need to tell Congress that it cannot be complicit in Trump’s build-up of a deportation army at the expense of cuts to crucial social programs. In fact, Congress should be decreasing the funding for the bloated DHS enforcement and detention system that fails to adequately manage tax dollars and violates the rights of immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. Instead of building walls and funding fear to divide us, we should use our taxpayer dollars to build a stronger economy and healthier communities.

Resisting Trump’s agenda is as simple as denying the White House our tax dollars. You don’t need to be a budget expert to know that military boots and border walls don’t pay for themselves—we can stop the Trump agenda by refusing to pay for it.

Horrifying Attack in Portland Should Not Be Met with Silence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2017

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, [email protected], 213-400-7822

Horrifying Attack in Portland Should Not Be Met with Silence

PORTLAND, Ore. — A man viciously attacked three men who defended two young women on a Portland light rail train yesterday afternoon. Witnesses reported that the man was verbally attacking the women by making violent anti-Muslim remarks. Two of the men who intervened died because of the attack, and a third is injured but expected to survive. Below is a statement from Reshma Shamasunder, deputy director of programs for the National Immigration Law Center:

“Our hearts go out to the families of the victims of this heinous attack. This incident should make clear that hate speech and harassment has very real and devastating consequences for entire communities.

“The brave men who stood up to defend two young women, one of whom was wearing a hijab, and others who led police to locate the man who allegedly committed the attack, should serve as a model for President Trump and other elected officials, who have not spoken out in the face of increased Islamophobia.

“All of us should be able to live free from fear of harassment or assault, regardless of where we were born or how we pray. And we each have a responsibility to speak out against such injustice. Today, on the first day of Ramadan, the silence of our nation’s elected leaders is deafening. Portland — and the nation — deserve better.”

# # #

Fourth Circuit Decision: Muslim Ban Remains Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 25, 2017

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, [email protected], 202-384-1279

Fourth Circuit’s Decision: Muslim Ban Remains Unconstitutional

RICHMOND, VA — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision today refusing to lift the nationwide injunction on President Trump’s Muslim and refugee ban. The court’s opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. affirms the plaintiffs’ right to challenge an executive order and upholds their claims under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The National Immigration Law Center and the ACLU filed this case on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project, HIAS, the Middle East Studies Association, and others.

Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Fourth Circuit’s decision today is yet another resounding indictment and rejection of the Trump administration’s Muslim and refugee ban. While the administration has tried to justify its ban under an unfounded and unclear cloak of national security, the courts continue to call it out for what it is: religious intolerance, racial animus, and discrimination.

“The court’s opinion upholds our most sacred and cherished constitutional principles by again affirming what our founders intended when writing the First Amendment — that our government may not favor or disfavor one religion over another, or establish any one particular religious orthodoxy. Our founders were clear in protecting that fundamental principle more than 200 years ago, and our institutions continue to stand guard to ensure it endures any and every attempt to undermine it.

“While the spotlight today is on the Muslim ban, the truth is that this executive order is just one part of President Trump’s xenophobic agenda. We will continue to fight to ensure that all people — regardless of where they were born, what they earn, or how they pray — can live freely and be treated fairly in this country.”

The decision issued today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IRAP-v-Trump-4th-Cir-affirming-and-vacating-2017-05-25.pdf.

More information about IRAP v. Trump is available at www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/irap-v-trump/.

# # #

Lawyers for First Known Deported DACA Recipient Ask the Court to Bring Juan Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2017

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

Lawyers for First Known Deported DACA Recipient Ask the Court to Bring Juan Home

Amended complaint makes new allegations against the federal government

LOS ANGELES — Lawyers for Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez, a 23-year-old DACA recipient, filed an amended complaint in federal district court today alleging their client was unlawfully expelled from the United States in violation of the Constitution and federal law and requesting that he be returned to this country, which is his home.

The original lawsuit against U.S. immigration authorities, filed on April 18, 2017, sought only additional documentation to explain why Montes was removed from the country. This amended complaint challenges the unlawful nature of Montes’s removal. It comes after the federal government initially and erroneously denied that Montes had DACA and provided some limited documentation concerning Montes’s removal.

“We initially sought an answer to one simple question: What happened to Juan Manuel?” said Mónica Ramírez Almadani, an attorney with Covington & Burling LLP in Los Angeles. “The government’s response to date has been woefully inadequate. Their minimal responses have made only one thing clear: that Juan Manuel should never have been taken from his home in this manner.”

Before he was removed from the country, Montes worked in area agricultural fields and was pursuing a welding degree at his local community college.

The amended complaint alleges that Montes was stopped and questioned by a Border Patrol agent while he was walking to find a taxi near the Calexico port of entry. He was detained by the Border Patrol agent and, a few hours later, was expelled from the country.

Montes was a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that allows immigrant youth to apply for temporary work authorization and deferral from deportation for two years, subject to renewal for another two years. Though the federal government initially denied that Montes had DACA when he was removed from the U.S., it later acknowledged that Montes did have DACA at the time he was removed and that it was not set to expire until 2018.

“The federal government made a promise to Mr. Montes,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center. “He came forward, paid a fee, subjected himself to a background and biometric check. In return, he was promised that he would be protected from deportation. The federal government broke its promise without providing due process and by violating federal laws and regulations.”

For more information about Montes Bojorquez v. USCBP, visit www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/montes-v-uscbp/.

A copy of the complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Juan-Manuel-Montes-Bojorquez-Amended-Complaint.pdf

# # #

NILC Responds to Continuation of Haitian TPS Program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2017

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

NILC Responds to Continuation of Haitian TPS Program

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly announced today that he has decided to extend the temporary protected status (TPS) designation for Haiti for an additional six months. TPS gives individuals from designated countries temporary permission, on humanitarian grounds, to remain and work in the United States, if they are here at times of great natural disaster or civil strife in their home country.

Thirteen countries, including Haiti, are currently designated as countries whose nationals living in the U.S. may be eligible for TPS. Haiti was added to the list following the devastating 2010 earthquake there.

Just days before the administration’s expected announcement, the Associated Press exposed leaked emails from high-ranking Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials requesting data on Haitian nationals’ use of public benefits and their crime rates. Although DHS officials have denied any connection between these requests and the timing of their decision, the news sent shockwaves through Haitian and immigrants’ rights advocacy communities here in the U.S.

UndocuBlack and the National Immigration Law Center last week filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the agencies involved in the TPS adjudication process to get more information about how the administration arrived at its decision.

Kamal Essaheb, policy and advocacy director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“This decision is critical to preserving the lives and livelihoods of the approximately 50,000 Haitians who have found relief in our country from extreme circumstances in Haiti and who now call the United States home. We strongly believe an extension of TPS for Haitians is the right decision.

“However, while we are pleased with this progress, a six-month extension will hardly appease the concerns of those who face a return to a country that has been ravaged by natural disasters and continues to experience political and economic turmoil. A longer-term solution is necessary and in the best interest of both the United States and Haiti.

“Furthermore, we cannot overlook the gravity of the Trump administration’s behind-the-scenes attempts to criminalize and vilify Black and immigrant communities. We will continue to fight with our partners to shed light on the administration’s troubling actions in the leadup to this decision.”

The statement issued by DHS today says that more details about this extension of Haiti’s designation for TPS, including requirements for applying for the additional six months of protection, will be published later this week in the Federal Register.

# # #

Civil Rights Groups Challenge LaGrange, GA, Policies That Restrict Access to Basic Utility Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2017

CONTACT
Elizabeth Beresford, [email protected], 917-648-0189
Kathryn Hamoudah, [email protected], 404-688-1202

Civil Rights Groups Challenge LaGrange, GA, Policies That Restrict Access to Basic Utility Services

Policies have unlawful discriminatory effect on Black and Latino residents

ATLANTA — The National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Center for Human Rights, and Relman, Dane & Colfax filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Georgia NAACP, the Troup County Branch of the NAACP, Project South, and individual residents of LaGrange, GA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia today, challenging two local policies that unlawfully restrict access to basic utility services, including gas, water, and electricity.

Plaintiffs argue that the policies violate the Fair Housing Act and Georgia law, and disproportionately impact Black and Latino residents living in the city of LaGrange. They are asking the court to permanently block the two policies and to award damages to individual plaintiffs for discrimination by the city of LaGrange on the basis of race, color, and national origin.

The LaGrange government—which is the sole provider of basic utilities for residents of the city—attaches unpaid fines from the LaGrange Municipal Court to residents’ utility accounts and threatens utility disconnection if the fines remain unpaid. LaGrange residents are subject to the termination of household utilities for unpaid fines stemming from the city’s municipal court for offenses that range from driving without a license to petty theft.

“The city of LaGrange is using its monopoly on electricity and water to wring every possible dollar out of municipal residents who already struggle to feed and house themselves and their families. By restricting access to such basic utility services, the city’s most vulnerable residents are at risk of not only losing access to water and electricity, but also their housing,” said Justin Cox, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “These policies are not just inhumane—they’re illegal, too.”

Approximately 90 percent of individuals with unpaid court debt added to their utility accounts from January 2015 through September 2016 were Black, although Black residents make up less than half of the city’s population.

“This onerous practice by the city of LaGrange not only deprives its residents of their rights under the law, it robs them of their dignity. This lawsuit is not about Black, Brown or White racial issues; it’s about fundamental red, white and blue issues that go to the heart of what it means to be America. The NAACP will mortgage every asset we have to ensure the answer to that question is same for all of God’s children regardless of race and ethnicity,” said Francys Johnson, Statesboro Attorney and state president of the Georgia NAACP.

Under the second challenged policy, the city of LaGrange denies utility services to applicants who cannot provide a Social Security number and U.S. government–issued ID. Latino immigrants, and particularly undocumented ones, are overwhelmingly impacted by this policy. It forces them to find a third party willing to open an account for them—a practice that, in many circumstances, constitutes a crime under a separate LaGrange municipal ordinance—or to go without basic utilities altogether.

“Access to water and sanitation services is a human right. It is deplorable for LaGrange to deny this essential service to its residents based on their immigrant status. We are confident that the courts will address and rectify this injustice,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director of Project South.

Unlike most municipalities in the country, LaGrange does not levy property taxes—a policy decision that the city routinely touts to recruit new employers and residents. Instead, municipal operations are largely funded through the city’s sale of basic utilities to its residents.

“There are enough collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction. Being threatened with water or electricity disconnection shouldn’t be one of them,” said Atteeyah Hollie, staff attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Read the complaint here: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Georgia-NAACP-v-LaGrange-complaint-2017-05-18.pdf.

# # #

UndocuBlack and NILC Seek to Uncover the Truth Behind Trump Administration TPS Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2017

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

UndocuBlack and NILC Seek to Uncover the Truth Behind Trump Administration TPS Decision

Civil Rights and Social Justice Groups to Urge the Trump Administration to Reauthorize Temporary Protected Status for Haitians

WASHINGTON — Days before the Trump Administration announces whether it will re-authorize Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants, civil rights and social justice leaders emphasized the importance of the program for Haitians in the United States and in Haiti, as well as for the national interests of both countries.

The call for reauthorization of TPS for Haitians comes after the Associated Press last week exposed leaked emails from high-ranking DHS officials requesting data on Haitian nationals’ use of public benefits and crime rates. Although DHS officials have denied any connection between these requests and the timing of their decision, the news sent shockwaves through the Haitian community.

UndocuBlack and NILC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the agencies involved in the adjudication process to uncover the administration’s decision-making. Those agencies are the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DHS sub agencies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, representatives for the National Immigration Law Center, the UndocuBlack Network, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) urged the administration to extend the program beyond its current July 22 expiration, noting that recovery efforts following the devastating 2010 earthquake and, more recently, Hurricane Matthew in 2016, have been uneven.

Lys Isma, a student who works in a Biology Genetics lab at her University in Florida, described the consequences of the 2010 earthquake for her and her family and what could happen to them if TPS for Haiti is not renewed. Isma is a member of UndocuBlack who has lived in the United States since she was nine months old.

“It shouldn’t be an easy decision to send somebody to the poorest country in this half of the world, where they don’t have any memories and where they can hardly speak the language,” Isma said. “Where you live should never determine if you live.”

TPS gives individuals from designated countries temporary permission to live and work in the United States on humanitarian grounds if they are here at times of great natural disaster or civil strife in their home country. Thirteen countries, including Haiti, are currently designated for TPS.

According to media reports, 58,000 Haitians stand to lose TPS and would be forced to return to their ravaged homeland if the designation is withdrawn. The Trump administration has until May 23, 2017, to announce its decision.

Tia Oso, National Organizer at the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), said:

“TPS for Haiti is a vital program, not just for the Haitian community, but for everyone that lives and works alongside them in Boston, Miami, Brooklyn and beyond. The Black Alliance for Just Immigration is calling on everyone to stand with the Haitian diaspora in the U.S. and fight for TPS, and condemn the Trump administration’s racist, xenophobic witch-hunt against Haitian TPS holders and other immigrants.”

Olivia Golden, Executive Director at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a national anti-poverty organization, said:

“The federal government’s probe into public benefit use—which in practice mostly means health and nutrition supports for children—is deeply concerning. It is clearly part of a larger agenda by the Trump Administration that began in January to create fear and a chilling effect across immigrant communities, threatening access to the fundamental health care and nutrition that families need and deserve. Scaring parents away from accessing critical services for their citizen children as well as potentially deporting thousands of Haitian TPS holders would have deeply damaging long-term consequences for not only Haitian TPS holders, their families, and their communities, but also our shared national interest.”

Alvaro Huerta, Staff Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said:

“TPS has been an economic lifeline to Haitians both here in the United States and in Haiti. Haitian-Americans have built economic and social ties to this country, and they have friends and family here. These ties would be severed if these individuals lost TPS designation, and the economic ripple effects would extend far beyond TPS holders themselves. We are deeply concerned that the rules for TPS may be shifting for Haitians, and we want to know why.”

Jonathan Jayes-Green, Co-Creator and National Coordinator of the Undocublack Network, said:

“Renewing TPS is about maintaining the dignity of human lives and protecting their choice to migrate to avoid extreme circumstances in Haiti and live. We’ve seen the extraordinary measures and the discriminatory factors the administration is taking into consideration while weighing this decision. As Black immigrant communities, we are very aware of how agencies, organizations and institutions have sought to equate Blackness and poverty with criminality, and used that mantle to deny our communities of our human rights. That’s why today we took the unprecedented step of filing this FOIA Request, our first as an organization.”

Audio for today’s call is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HAITI-051717.mp3

A copy of today’s FOIA request is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Haitian-TPS-FOIA.pdf

###

Leaked Emails Expose Trump’s Xenophobic, Racist Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

Leaked Emails Expose Trump’s Xenophobic, Racist Agenda

NILC and Undocublack respond to AP exclusive on request for Haitian and TPS data

WASHINGTON — The Associated Press reported today that a request was made of career U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) staff to collect and send data on Haitian temporary protected status (TPS)–holders, including information about use of safety-net programs and whether any Haitians with TPS had committed any crimes.

This request for information is as shocking as it is unattainable. It was made while the Trump administration mulls whether to extend the TPS designation of some 50,000 Haitians currently living in the U.S.

“The wanton racism against a group of Black immigrants is not surprising. What is surprising is the brazenness with which the Trump administration is attempting to carry it out,” said Patrice Lawrence, policy and advocacy manager for the UndocuBlack Network. “The fact that the USCIS office is going out of its way to wrap our communities around their mantle of criminality, while working overtime to deport and erase us, is malicious. We will not be bullied. We herald a stronger call for dignity and fairness for all. We need our allies to stand with our Haitian communities, because we know that they will use this precedent to paint all immigrants.”

“Yesterday we saw Trump’s lawyers struggle to explain the Islamophobic animus that motivated the Muslim ban. Today we hear about how his staff is attempting to criminalize Black immigrants,” said Kamal Essaheb, director of policy and advocacy for the National Immigration Law Center. “This is an administration that has run up the political scoreboard by attempting to demonize and divide immigrants, Muslims, and the Black community. All of us, regardless of where we were born, how we pray, or what we look like, should forcefully reject this attempt to criminalize an entire group that has become an integral component of our communities.”

# # #