Author Archives: Richard Irwin

DHS’ Stepped-up Targeting of Families and Kids Fleeing Violence Denounced

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2016

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre [email protected]

DHS’s Stepped-up Targeting of Families and Kids Fleeing Violence Denounced

WASHINGTON — Just one day after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) vowed to “offer vulnerable populations in Central America an alternate, safe and legal path to a better life,” it made the chilling revelation that, since late January, it has arrested 336 youth who came here as unaccompanied children fleeing some of the most horrific violence in the Western Hemisphere.

A new media report highlights some of these arrests, conducted as part of “Operation Border Guardian,” and the wave of fear that has gripped schools, churches and communities where these youth live. North Carolina has been particularly hard hit by these raids.

DHS has targeted these teens in aggressive early morning raids taking place in homes and at school bus stops. These arrests, like those of more than 120 Central American and Mexican mothers and young children that took place over New Year’s weekend, have deepened fears that keep children from going to school and parents from going to work or grocery stores, and that deepen the mistrust of government in immigrant communities, according to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

Despite massive public outcry from immigrant, labor, faith, and congressional leaders in response to the early January raids, DHS continues to dig in its heels and forge ahead with these arrests, claiming that these youth represent an enforcement priority.

“There is simply no justification for targeting for arrest vulnerable kids fleeing violence. These enforcement actions urgently call into question what DHS’s priorities are,” said Avideh Moussavian, a policy attorney for NILC.

“These are kids who haven’t had a fair day in court, had no idea how to navigate our complex immigration system, and are often left trying desperately to fight their cases while locked up and cut off from their loved ones and support networks,” Moussavian added.

Strong public opposition to these enforcement actions have been voiced by faith and community leaders, including members of Congress.

Earlier this year, NILC and other groups issued a fact sheet and overview of experiences of 13 Central American and Mexican families during the raids at the start of the year. Based on interviews, the groups found:

• All these families are survivors of violence and trauma in their home countries and are deeply afraid of being sent back.

• 12 of the 13 have meritorious claims for protection and have not yet pursued all the legal remedies available to them.

• Project attorneys quickly filed notices of appeal and stay requests with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Acknowledging the severity of the situation, the BIA immediately issued stays of removal for all 12 families who requested them. In at least three of these cases, families were spared deportation only after literally being pulled off deportation flights at the very last minute.

NILC again calls on DHS to stop all raids against families and children fleeing violence in Central America, including those who have never appeared before an immigration judge.

Also, DHS must:

• Respect the legal rights of immigrant families during any enforcement actions, including constitutional and statutory rights, and avoid sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, and churches.

• Facilitate access to counsel and ensure a fair day in court before an immigration judge to any immigrant fearing persecution.

• Respond to this as an urgent humanitarian situation and explore root causes for the violent conditions these families are fleeing. While this population overwhelmingly qualifies for asylum, DHS should also consider other protective measures, such as temporary protected status (TPS), as part of a humanitarian response.

• Use appropriate prosecutorial discretion pursuant to its own enforcement priorities rather than apply a blanket approach to all recent border crossers.

# # #

Coalition’s Brief Urges Supreme Court to Let Immigration Relief Programs Go Forward

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 8, 2016

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

In Landmark Case, U.S. v. Texas, 326 Civil Rights, Immigration, and Community Groups Urge Supreme Court to Let Immigration Relief Programs Go Forward

Brief features profiles of families whose lives would improve if immigration directives were allowed to take effect

WASHINGTON — A diverse coalition of 326 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups has filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, urging the court to lift the injunction that blocked the executive actions on immigration that President Obama announced in November 2014.

The Obama administration’s expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as well as a new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) initiative were stopped by a federal district court in Texas, and that court’s order subsequently was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The lawsuit against the president’s executive actions was brought by 26 states. Late last year the federal government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

“If the injunction is lifted, many families will be more secure, without the looming threat that loved ones will be deported at a moment’s notice,” the brief filed by the civil rights groups argues. “Many deserving individuals will also have access to better jobs and the ability to improve their lives, the lives of their families, and their communities. DHS has discretion to grant or deny applications for the initiatives at issue, and the concocted argument to the contrary should not be used to prevent individuals from even applying.”

The brief was filed by the National Immigration Law Center, the American Immigration Council, the Service Employees International Union, the Advancement Project, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and 320 other immigrants’ rights, civil rights, labor and service-provider organizations.

In the brief, the groups outline how families and communities would benefit from the initiatives. The brief provides examples of parents and individuals who would be able to contribute more fully to their communities if the immigration initiatives were allowed to take effect.

Among those impacted by the injunction are people who immigrated to the U.S. as children, did not meet the age and arrival date rules under the original DACA program (announced in 2012), but would qualify under the expanded program. These individuals continue contributing to their communities as they await relief from the courts. Also profiled are parents such as Dr. Alina Kipchumba, who came to the U.S. from Kenya 21 years ago, earned her Ph.D., and gave birth to a son in the U.S. She had work authorization but fell out of status when her son, who was born with a serious heart condition, had to undergo multiple heart surgeries that would not have been available in Kenya. Her son’s cardiologist warned that returning to Kenya would be a “death sentence” for her son.

“The stories in the brief illustrate the myriad ways that prospective beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA could contribute to our country if given the chance. These initiatives constitute a lawful exercise of executive discretion, and we hope that the Supreme Court will affirm that in no uncertain terms,” said Melissa Crow, Legal Director, American Immigration Council.

“Groups from more than 40 states and all walks of life agree: we as a country are better off if we allow these initiatives to move forward,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “U.S. citizen children whose parents would qualify for this temporary relief from deportation will gain much-needed economic and emotional stability if the court allows these common sense measures to take effect.”

Advocates note that the Supreme Court should not be used to settle a political debate, with anti-immigrant activists trying to push through the courts what they haven’t been able to accomplish through the political process.

“This is a suspect legal challenge brought by Texas and followed up with support from the governors of Florida, Alabama, and North Carolina to tear apart families,” said Juan Cartagena, LatinoJustice PRLDEF President and General Counsel. “The president has clear legal authority on this matter. The purpose of the president’s action is to help immigrant families, many of which have mixed status, come from out of the shadows. These governors need to get out of the way and let the president do his job.”

The harmful effects of the injunction on families must be seriously considered, other advocates emphasized.

“We trust that the Supreme Court will recognize the historic tragedy of the detention and deportation machinery that rips families apart and erodes our justice system,” said María Rodríguez, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, a partner of the Advancement Project. “The partisan battles waged by corporate interests and immigration demagogues, including Florida’s Pam Bondi, have done great harm to American tradition and families alike. Unfortunately, their extremism does not exist in a vacuum. It concretely affects thousands upon thousands of children and parents who either fear being torn apart or are condemned to live without one another because of deportation. Communities across the nation stand with immigrant families who need relief immediately and for policymakers to end detentions and deportations. We hope that the court will see the motivations behind the effort against DACA and DAPA, and the nefarious effects it has on vulnerable families.”

“President Obama’s deferred action policies would provide administrative relief to hardworking immigrant families who live in our communities and contribute to our economy every day,” said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “But because of this politically motivated, anti-immigrant lawsuit, the president’s initiatives have been frozen, forcing millions of parents and children to continue to live in the shadows, in constant fear of deportation and being separated from their families. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the president’s actions.”

“The lives of real people and their American-born children — not some political targets used in talking points on a campaign trail — are at stake in this case,” stated Rocio Saenz, Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). “We hope the stories of immigrants who reflect our American past and success speak to the justices of the court. But above all, we hope justice prevails against the politics of hate. Far too many families have waited to cross this threshold. It’s time our country set the path forward as we ultimately continue to fight for our north star, lasting immigration reform.”

The full legal brief is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/US-v-TX-amicus-immigrant-labor-civilrights-2016-03-08.pdf.

Links to amicus briefs filed by other interested parties in support of the president’s immigration initiatives can be found at www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-reform-and-executive-actions/united-states-v-state-of-texas/amicus-briefs-filed-in-u-s-v-texas.

For more background on the legal challenges to executive action on immigration, see www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-legal-challenges-executive-action.

# # #

Supreme Court Will Review U.S. v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 19, 2016

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

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Texas-led Block of Obama Immigration Initiatives

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to review United States v. Texas, the Texas-initiated case that put on hold President Obama’s proposed initiatives that would allow millions of immigrants to apply for deferral of deportation and work authorization.

The following is a statement by Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed an amicus brief on this case before the Court:

“Millions of families have waited for almost a year for these immigration initiatives to receive a full and fair hearing before the Supreme Court. Our economy, our communities, and millions of U.S. citizen children have suffered due to the misguided injunction that has prevented aspiring Americans from contributing more fully to their communities and economy. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to remedy this grievous legal and moral error.

“The legal argument is clear: President Obama, like every president before him for nearly half a century, can and should exercise discretion in immigration matters. But the moral, economic, and societal arguments in favor of the president’s immigration initiatives are no less important. Our communities, economy, and future are stronger when those with long-term ties are able to live without fear of the threat of deportation and better allowed to contribute.

“Aspiring Americans fought for decades to strengthen their ties to this country. Today’s news is another step in that battle, and we will not rest until all people — regardless of where they were born — are able to live without fear.”

More information about United State v. Texas is available at www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-reform-and-executive-actions/united-states-v-state-of-texas.

# # #

Inhumane Detention Lawsuit: Class Certified

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 13, 2016

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]
Wendy Feliz, American Immigration Council, 202-507-7524, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-773-6007, [email protected]
Candice Francis, LCCR, 415-543-9697, [email protected]
Hayley Home, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 415-268-6021, [email protected]

Court Rejects Government’s Efforts to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Inhumane Detention Conditions in Border Patrol Facilities and Certifies Large Class of Immigrant Plaintiffs

Class Now Seeks to Unseal Government Documents Detailing Abuse

LOS ANGELES — On Monday, a federal district court permitted a class action lawsuit challenging harmful and unconstitutional conditions of confinement by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to move forward.

In Jane Doe, et al. v. Johnson, et al., the court certified a class of plaintiffs to include “All individuals who are now or in the future will be detained for one or more nights at a CBP facility within the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector.” This class of thousands of present and future detainees includes traumatized asylum-seekers and mothers with infants and small children who are held by CBP. The Tucson Sector covers most of Arizona, from the New Mexico state line to the Yuma County line.

The court denied the government’s attempts to dismiss the class representatives and their constitutional claims. It found that the two women representing the class were held by Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector when the lawsuit was filed in June 2015 and clearly had standing to bring this lawsuit. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had set out sufficient facts in their complaint to sustain their constitutional challenge to all of the harmful detention conditions. As a result, the case will proceed and CBP will have to publicly attempt to demonstrate that these conditions were proper and necessary.

On behalf of the plaintiff class, lawyers from Morrison & Foerster LLP, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Immigration Council, the ACLU of Arizona, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area assert in the lawsuit that Border Patrol holds individuals in harmful and degrading conditions including: housing persons for days in overcrowded and dirty cells that are designed to hold people for a few hours; keeping lights glaring day and night; and stripping immigrants of their outer layers of clothing while subjecting them to brutally cold temperatures. The people detained in these CBP facilities are deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep; adequate food, water, medical screening upon arrival, and basic sanitation and hygiene items such as soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers, and showers.

“Taken as true, these and numerous similar allegations in the Complaint show that Plaintiffs have suffered or that they or putative class members are likely to suffer deprivations of adequate sleep, sanitary conditions, medical care, food and water, and warmth in CBP Tucson Sector facilities as Plaintiffs claim,” the district court wrote in the ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss.

The harsh conditions endured by the individual plaintiffs are representative of the experience of thousands who were and continue to be detained,” said Nora A. Preciado, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Because of these plaintiffs’ bravery, many more individuals will be represented and impacted by this case going forward.”

“Civil migrants detained in the Tucson sector have long suffered horrific conditions,” said Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the ACLU of Arizona. “Absent court intervention the Border Patrol will continue to operate in violation of U.S. and international law in disregard of the rights and wellbeing of thousands with no accountability.”

“With these rulings, we can now focus on building a record and documenting the abhorrent conditions that detained individuals must endure and to ending these conditions once and for all,” said Mary Kenney, a senior attorney at the American Immigration Council.

“These rulings are significant,” said Morrison & Foerster partner Colette Reiner Mayer. “The government must now respond to the voluminous evidence of civil rights violations ongoing in the Arizona detention facilities. We are looking forward to the resolution of our preliminary injunction motion so that the class can begin getting relief.”

While fighting for relief from unconstitutional detention conditions, the plaintiffs in this case also continue to fight the government’s efforts to keep detention conditions hidden from the public. The defendants have revealed to the plaintiffs, through discovery, written records and recordings establishing that individuals in Border Patrol custody have been treated harshly. The government is fighting hard to keep these documents under seal and to block the plaintiffs’ ability to share the information with the broader public.

Jane Doe, et al. v. Johnson, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Attorneys in the case include Harold J. McElhinny, Colette Reiner Mayer, Louise C. Stoupe, Kevin M. Coles, Pieter S. de Ganon, and Elizabeth Balassone of Morrison & Foerster LLP; Nora A. Preciado, Linton Joaquin, and Karen C. Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center; Mary Kenney, Emily Creighton, and Melissa Crow of the American Immigration Council; Travis Silva of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; and James Lyall, Victoria Lopez, and Dan Pochoda of ACLU of Arizona.

Additional information about the case, including the complaint and excerpts from statements by people who were formerly detained by the Border Patrol in Tucson Sector holding cells (describing horrific conditions), is available at the links provided above.

# # #

Immigrant-inclusive Policies Move Ahead

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2015

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

In Cities and States, Civil Immigration Debates in Uncivil Political Climate

WASHINGTON — Civic engagement by immigrants and their allies has been effective in moving inclusive state and local policies and in defeating virtually all of the significant anti-immigrant proposals filed in state legislatures during the past two years, according to a new report by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

The report released today, “Immigrant-inclusive State and Local Policies Move Ahead in 2014-15,” demonstrates that the groundwork built by immigrants’ rights groups has helped preserve, implement and gain new ground for inclusive state and local immigration policies.

States continued to expand access to driver’s licenses, higher education, health care, and professional licenses for eligible immigrants regardless of their immigration status. Cities and counties adopted policies aimed at disentangling local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement and offered access to legal counsel, health care, and municipal identification documents to their residents. States as diverse as Florida, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, Hawaii, and California—and localities in Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and New York—have adopted policies that improve the daily lives of all residents, including immigrants.

“During the past three years, effective organizing and advocacy have built support for policies that make communities healthier, encourage youth to pursue their educational and professional dreams, and allow all drivers to be trained, tested, and insured,” explained Tanya Broder, NILC senior attorney and a co-author of the report. “This trend shows that despite the heated anti-immigrant rhetoric in the national debate, legislators and leaders closest to their communities understand that inclusive policies yield broad economic and social benefits.”

Increasing numbers of states are creating policies to improve highway safety by allowing all residents to apply for driver’s licenses. Hawaii and Delaware are the latest states to expand access to licenses. About 40 percent of the nation’s foreign-born population now resides in a state that provides access to driver’s licenses for all otherwise-eligible residents—an increase from 4 percent at the start of 2013.

Similarly, states are making higher education more affordable for students who meet certain criteria, regardless of their immigration status, by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates or to qualify for financial assistance. Policymakers from across the political spectrum have recognized the social and economic benefits of this investment in immigrant youth. Oregon and Utah improved access to financial aid or scholarships, and threats to longstanding tuition equity laws in Texas and Kansas were thwarted, due to strong support and organizing by students, educators, and business leaders.

Despite the hostile rhetoric in the presidential campaigns, attempts by some politicians to challenge the president’s immigration policies, and some serious ongoing threats, states and localities have recognized the benefits of inclusive policies and are well positioned to influence the national immigration debate.

The report is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pro-immigrant-policies-move-ahead-2015-12.pdf.

# # #

Tax Deal Leaves Immigrants Out in the Cold

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2015

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

Holiday Season Tax Deal Leaves Immigrants Out in the Cold

Legislation Would Create Two-Tier Tax Code, Enact Barriers to Paying Taxes

WASHINGTON — Senate negotiators have agreed on a plan for tax cuts for corporations and much needed changes to the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The agreement, which was released last night, also contains provisions that would hurt low-wage taxpaying immigrant families.

The agreement would essentially create a two-tier tax system, denying newly legalized domestic violence survivors, DACA recipients, and others the rights enjoyed by other tax filers with identical economic circumstances. The agreement would bar millions of tax-paying immigrants receiving Social Security numbers from access to vital tax credits. Worse, the agreement would enact additional barriers on those who wish to file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, making tax compliance for working immigrant families even more difficult.

Below is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“In their zeal to come up with a deal on taxes, tax negotiators have approved a harsh and shortsighted policy proposal that will only serve to hurt immigrant families and deplete our tax coffers. Working families across America can – and should – be able to count on the tax credits they need to keep the lights on and food on the table so we are glad that the EITC and CTC have been extended permanently.

“But it is shameful that anti-immigrant legislators continue to feel a constant need to add an anti-immigrant imprimatur to their legislation. Immigrant families should not have to pay a steep price in exchange for sound tax policy. Yet, this shortsighted and nonsensical policy punishes the very immigrant workers who have been filing their taxes and sets up new barriers for immigrants wanting to comply with the tax laws. Working families, regardless of where they were born, deserve legislation that allows them to plan their economic future. But this economic certainty should not come on the backs of immigrant workers and their children.”

# # #

Groups Take Legal Action to Prevent Texas Ban on Syrian Refugees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2015

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Cente, [email protected], 213-400-7822
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU, [email protected], 212.284.7347
Anna Núñez, ACLU of Texas, [email protected], 713.325.7010
Lucy Carrigan, International Rescue Committee, 917.859.3086
Emma Weinstein-Levey, Southern Poverty Law Center, [email protected], 334.956.8458

Groups Take Legal Action to Prevent Texas Ban on Syrian Refugees

LOS ANGELES — The National Immigration Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and Southern Poverty Law Center have filed a legal response on behalf of the International Rescue Committee in order to prevent the state of Texas from illegally barring Syrian refugees from entering the state.

The following may be attributed to Jennifer Sime, senior vice president of the International Rescue Committee:

“We are confident that the IRC has always acted in accordance with the law when it comes to our work to assist refugees who have been given sanctuary in Texas. We have had a strong and collaborative relationship with the State for the past 40 years, which has benefitted refugees and local communities. We have made clear our commitment to continued dialogue with the state authorities, and we hope for a swift resolution of this case.”

The following may be attributed to Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“It is reprehensible that the state of Texas would take legal action in order to stop providing refugees with vital services. We are proud to defend the IRC’s efforts to provide those fleeing violence and seeking opportunity on our shores with the tools they need to flourish in their new homes.”

The following may be attributed to Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, lead counsel for the International Rescue Committee:

“Under the U.S. Constitution, no state can unilaterally bar a group of refugees that has been thoroughly vetted and admitted by the federal government. By irrationally blocking Syrian families, based solely on their nationality, Texas is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and our fundamental American values of welcoming and providing refuge for families fleeing violence and war.”

The following may be attributed to Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas:

“Attempts to close Texas’s doors to Syrian refugees run counter to our laws, our values and our conscience. Refugee resettlement is a federal matter over which state governments have no veto authority, and the refugees who need our help are families, widows and children fleeing unspeakable terror wrought by our own enemies. Texans are better than this.”

The following may be attributed to Kristi Graunke, senior staff attorney at Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project:

“Syrian refugees, including many children, are fleeing unconscionable violence and should be welcomed by all states, Texas included. Texas’s attempt to block the IRC’s humanitarian efforts to ensure the safe resettlement of refugees lacks compassion and common sense.”

The legal response is available at www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1305.

# # #

U.S. v. Texas: Texas Response Due Dec. 29

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2015

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

Supreme Court’s Timeline in Texas v. U.S. Is Welcome News for Immigrant Families

WASHINGTON — The state of Texas will have eight additional days, until December 29, to respond to the U.S. Justice Department’s request that the Supreme Court review Texas v. United States, the case that has put some of President Obama’s immigration actions on hold. This is far short of Texas’s original request for an additional 30 days to respond to the Justice Department’s request, which was filed on November 20. Critically, this time frame presents the opportunity for the Supreme Court to accept and decide the case this term (by June 2016). Below is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“This is a welcome development that brings the five million U.S. citizen children whose parents are DAPA-eligible closer to having their fate decided by the Supreme Court this term. Our communities have waited far too long already for much-needed relief, and Texas’s request for a full month of extra time to prepare its response would only have exacerbated the pain we already feel. The Supreme Court’s decision means there is a greater probability that the Court will hear this case in a timely manner.”

# # #

Coalition Files Amicus in U.S. v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2015

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Center, 213-400-7822, [email protected]
Wendy Feliz, American Immigration Council, 202-812-2499, [email protected]
Beatriz Lopez, Service Employees International Union, 202-412-7396, [email protected]
Amaya Smith, AFL-CIO, 202-637-5142, [email protected]
Ricardo A. Ramírez, Advancement Project, 202-728-9557, [email protected]

Coalition of Immigration, Civil Rights, Labor, and Social Service Groups Urges Supreme Court to Protect President’s Executive Actions on Immigration

Legal brief filed by 224 groups asks high court to hear landmark immigration case, Texas v. U.S.

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 224 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups has filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case, that has temporarily blocked some of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The filing comes less than a month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction put in place by a Texas federal district court that blocked implementation of protections for millions of immigrants across the country.

The filing from the National Immigration Law Center, American Immigration Council, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Advancement Project, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, among others, comes only ten days after the formal request, known as a petition for writ of certiorari, from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Supreme Court to review the case. Amicus briefs in support of a “cert” petition are usually due 30 days after the petition is filed. The amici coalition acted swiftly, since the Justice Department has requested a briefing schedule that would allow the Supreme Court ample time to hear the case during the current term and issue a decision by June 2016.

“The breadth and depth of support for the president’s executive actions is clear,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “It’s now up to the Supreme Court to take the case up this term and put the legal questions to rest so that the over 5 million U.S. citizen children whose parents are eligible for DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] can finally have stability and be free from the fear that they will one day be separated from their parents.

“With more than 200 organizations joining this amicus, including labor groups that represent millions of immigrant workers, there’s no question that the president’s immigration initiatives are necessary and backed by the majority of the American public,” said Rocio Saenz, executive vice president of SEIU International. “The Supreme Court has a responsibility to take this case, just as we have a duty to mobilize our communities to continue to defend the immigration action and push lasting immigration reform to the forefront of the agenda with our vote.”

The brief provides personal stories and testimonials about potential beneficiaries of expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA and explains how these deferred action initiatives would positively impact millions of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children, family members, employers, employees and other community members. The groups explain that the sweeping injunction upheld in the lower court directly harms people who have either been in the U.S. since they were children or are the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

“The individuals profiled in the brief illustrate the havoc this case has wreaked on the lives of millions of immigrants who remain in legal limbo,” added Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case and give hardworking immigrant families the chance to live and work without fear of deportation.”

The immigration programs, which were announced by the president in November 2014, would expand eligibility for the existing DACA program and expand protections for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents through a program known as DAPA. Together, the programs would allow millions of undocumented people to remain in the United States without fear of deportation and apply for work permits for a period of three years, with the possibility of renewal.

“The DAPA and expanded DACA policies will help ensure that families are not needlessly separated and that immigrant workers can speak up for basic safety and fairness on the job without facing retaliation,” said Tefere Gebre, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO. “We urge the Supreme Court to take up this case right away.”

The full legal brief is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/US-v-TX-amicus-scotus-2015-12-01.pdf.

For more background on the legal challenges to executive action on immigration, see www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-legal-challenges-executive-action.

# # #

U.S. v. Texas: DOJ Letter Opposing Extension

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 24, 2015

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

Department of Justice Takes a Stand for Immigrant Families

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice today submitted a forceful letter to the Supreme Court opposing Texas’s request for additional time to reply to the Obama administration’s petition for certiorari in Texas v. United States, the case that has put DAPA and the expansion of DACA, two of President Obama’s executive initiatives on immigration, on hold. Below is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“The Obama administration recognizes that justice delayed is justice denied in Texas v. U.S. We applaud the administration for boldly defending its policies and urging the Supreme Court to review this case this term. Our families have waited long enough. It’s time for the Court to deliver justice for aspiring Americans and their children.”

# # #