Category Archives: Uncategorized

NILC Responds to Defeat of ACA Replacement Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 24, 2017

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

NILC Responds to Defeat of ACA Replacement Bill

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday failed to reach a consensus and were forced to abandon their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, dealing a blow to President Trump and GOP lawmakers who for years have promised to do away with the law passed under the Obama administration.

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

“For seven years, we’ve seen access to our health care system improve for millions of Americans thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which, while not perfect, has saved countless lives and livelihoods. Key components of this landmark law provide the cornerstone upon which our society should build a system that provides health care for all.

“This Republican health care legislation, in contrast, would have been worse than repeal alone. The proposed bill would have left tens of millions of people across our country—including many immigrants—without access to health insurance. It was a bad deal for everyone, and we are all better off for its defeat.

“President Trump should know by now that every one of his attempts to further disenfranchise vulnerable populations, including immigrants, will be met with resistance. This is the first of many fights to come. Whether it’s in Congress, in the courtroom, or working alongside our partner organizations and communities, we will continue to fight back against any attack on our families.”

# # #

Share

NILC Announces New Deputy Director Reshma Shamasunder

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 27, 2017

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

NILC Announces New Deputy Director Reshma Shamasunder

LOS ANGELES — The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is excited to welcome Reshma Shamasunder, a longtime champion for immigrants’ rights, as its new Deputy Director, Programs.

In this role, Shamasunder will oversee the organization’s legal, policy and advocacy, and communications strategies. She will also serve as a key member of NILC’s Senior Leadership Team.

“The National Immigration Law Center is and has been a leading advocate for low-income immigrants and their families for many years,” Shamasunder said. “In these challenging times, NILC’s role in fighting back against a xenophobic and nativist-driven agenda is crucial. I am humbled to take on a leadership role in these efforts at a time when they are more important than ever. I intend to take on my new role with the seriousness and passion this moment warrants.”

Prior to joining NILC, Shamasunder played a key role in state-level campaigns in California that benefit low-income, immigrant, and vulnerable communities. For 12 years she served as the executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC), helping to spearhead important policy wins, including placing limits on cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration authorities, preserving important health and human services programs, providing access to driver’s licenses for all Californians, and furthering important immigrant integration efforts. Under Shamasunder’s leadership, CIPC became a vibrant statewide organization that now not only helps shape California’s most inclusive policies, but also helps to build the capacity of nascent immigrants’ rights organizations and coalitions throughout California.

Shamasunder also served on the boards of Health Access California and the South Asian Network in Los Angeles, and was an inaugural fellow of the Rockwood Fellowship for a New California, a leadership program for California’s immigrant rights leaders. Shamasunder most recently received Families USA’s Health Equity Advocate Award. Last year she received a NILC Courageous Luminaries Award.

“I am thrilled to have Reshma join NILC’s leadership. For more than a decade she has helped transform the lives of countless California families, and she is poised to help us do the same across the country,” said NILC Executive Director Marielena Hincapié. “Her many years of service to immigrant communities will be a tremendous asset as we advance our mission of ensuring that all people, regardless of where they were born or their income, have access to opportunities that have helped generations of new Americans thrive and contribute to our communities. We are incredibly proud and grateful to welcome Reshma to our team.”

Shamasunder is the daughter of Indian immigrants and was raised in California’s Mojave Desert. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree from UCLA and a Masters in City Planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She will start in her new role at NILC on March 1 and will be based in NILC’s Los Angeles headquarters.

# # #

Share

DHS Memos Lay Out Mass Deportation Blueprint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2017

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

DHS Memos Lay Out Mass Deportation Blueprint

LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration today released documents laying out a plan for radical changes to immigration enforcement. The documents set into policy draconian and expensive measures outlined in President Trump’s immigration executive orders, including mandatory detention, rushed court proceedings, and a rollback in protections for unaccompanied children apprehended at the border.

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

“The Trump administration has created a blueprint for mass deportation like we’ve never seen. Today’s memos are breathtaking in scope, undoing decades of guidance and best practice intended to help protect vulnerable populations. If unhindered, they will wreak havoc on our economy, our communities, and our families.

“President Trump is governing by fear and not by what is best for the American people. As we have seen in the past few weeks, the consistency and uniformity required to have rule of law has gone out the window. Longtime community members and members of well-established families are being detained and deported. Everyone is now a priority for immigration enforcement.

“Our country is better than this, and better judgment will ultimately prevail, but this is a dangerous time that requires us all to fight back against these policies. We are committed to ensuring immigrants are well-informed about their constitutional rights so that they can make empowered decisions. Every single immigrant needs to have a safety plan in place. We are determined to do everything necessary to ensure that these policies don’t get implemented.”

Information about immigration enforcement–related rights is available at www.nilc.org/KnowYourRights (www.nilc.org/ConozcaSusDerechos) and www.nilc.org/know-your-rights/.

# # #

Share

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Anna Núñez, ACLU of Texas, [email protected], 713-325-7010

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

“Fearless Four” respond to judge’s demand for their personal data with amicus brief

LOS ANGELES — Four young immigrants whose private information was ordered disclosed by a federal judge in U.S. v. Texas filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case today, arguing that the judge’s order violates their constitutional right to privacy, runs contrary to precedent, and is unjustified.

The group, known as the Fearless Four, includes Juan Escalante of Florida, Angelica Villalobos of Oklahoma, and two others who filed anonymously. They are just a few in a group of about 50,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who would be impacted by an outlandish order by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in the case challenging the Obama administration’s immigration executive actions.

“I applied to DACA in 2012 with the understanding that my private information would be kept confidential, and in good faith provided every detail about my life the federal government requested,” said Escalante, whose DACA renewal was approved in December 2014. “Judge Hanen’s order seeks to undermine my constitutional right to privacy and could potentially expose personal information to individuals who may wish to retaliate against my family and me. Private means private.”

In addition to constitutional rights violations, the brief points to relevant case law that requires the courts to exercise discretion and restraint when it comes to forced disclosure of an individual’s highly sensitive information, even in cases of alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the brief argues that even if Hanen’s order was not precluded by precedent, it is not justified since it punishes individuals who are not party to the case, not those who committed the perceived misconduct, and would therefore not deter future misconduct.

“There’s no question Judge Hanen exceeded his authority with this order,” said Justin Cox, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But most importantly, he has not given sufficient weight to the privacy concerns of tens of thousands of individuals who have no connection to this case. Courts are allowed to sanction attorneys for misconduct, but this order is not aimed at the attorneys Judge Hanen said misbehaved—it’s aimed at DACA recipients.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements. In November 2014, the Obama administration announced that new and renewing applicants could get DACA for three rather than two years, and that the Department of Homeland Security would modify eligibility requirements to expand the applicant pool. At the same time, the administration announced another initiative, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of American children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily.

Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government to block the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA shortly after they were announced. That case, now known as U.S. v. Texas, was first heard in Hanen’s court in Brownsville, Texas, and eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February 2015, before DAPA and the expansion of DACA went into effect, Hanen issued a nationwide injunction that blocked both initiatives. However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had begun issuing three-year work permits to people whose DACA applications were approved as of November 24, 2014, in accordance with the policies laid out in the Dept. of Homeland Security memo accompanying the announcement.

In May 2016, Hanen issued an order in which he claimed the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers representing the federal government had misled him and the suing states by not disclosing that the government was issuing three-year work permits. As punishment, he demanded that the federal government turn over the names, locations, and other private identifying information of about 50,000 individuals who live in the 26 states involved in the lawsuit and who had received three-year work permits between November 2014 and March 2015. He also ordered all Justice Department lawyers who appear in court in any of the 26 states to attend a yearly ethics course for five years.

“It is shameful and sad that Judge Hanen would even try to abuse his power to violate my constitutional rights and the rights of 50,000 other DACAmented youth, with no real justification,” said Villalobos, a mother of four whose DACA renewal was approved in November 2014. “Our privacy should not be sacrificed for one judge’s political crusade against those in power.”

The Justice Department asked Hanen to stay his order while the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating in U.S. v Texas. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas also filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Fearless Four. A writ of mandamus allows impacted individuals to initiate a new action in the court of appeals to seek redress for a lower court order.

“Common sense and the Constitution lead to one conclusion: nothing that has happened in this case could possibly justify the massive invasion of DACA recipients’ privacy that the order would cause,” said Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On June 7, Hanen granted the Justice Department’s motion to stay his order, and he set a hearing to reconsider the sanctions for Aug. 22. Last week, he rescheduled that hearing for Aug. 31.

The amicus brief filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Villalobos-Amicus-Brief-2016-08-12.pdf.

# # #

Share

Expanded Medi-Cal for undocumented kids: What it means and how to apply

Expanded Medi-Cal for undocumented kids
What it means and how to apply

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Gabrielle Lessard, NILC health policy attorney
JULY 28, 2016

This summer, California kids have access to more than the state’s famous beaches. Under a new law that took effect this spring, all low-income California residents under age 19 are eligible to receive comprehensive health care through Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Children and youth who did not meet immigration status requirements were previously eligible for only “restricted scope” emergency and pregnancy services.

California is not the first state to provide comprehensive health care to low-income children regardless of their immigration status—New York, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts and Washington, DC, all preceded California. However, the number of undocumented residents in California is significantly higher than in the other states. Just prior to the implementation of the Medi-Cal eligibility expansion, there were close to 135,000 children and youth enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal. These beneficiaries are being transitioned into full-scope coverage without having to submit an application; however, they need to choose a primary physician and, in some counties, a health plan.

Many newly eligible children and youth were not enrolled in restricted scope coverage and will need to submit a Medi-Cal application. These include a significant number of children served through a program operated as a charitable activity of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, children enrolled in county-operated programs, and those without a current source of health care or coverage.

Advocates for children, immigrants, and access to health care recognized that outreach and education were needed to reach families whose children were not currently connected to the health-care system. Resources were required both to inform families about the Medi-Cal expansion and to reassure them that it was safe to enroll their children. The advocates collaborated in the development of a Health4AllKids website that provides information in English and Spanish and a toolkit for community-based organizations to use in doing outreach. The California Endowment, a statewide health foundation, developed and distributed signs, shirts, flyers, and other resources to support outreach, and produced and placed advertisements informing consumers of the expansion.

Expanding Medi-Cal to all kids was an important step forward for California. But until all California residents have access to comprehensive, affordable health care, our children and youth will continue to suffer the financial insecurity and emotional pain of having family members without insurance. NILC and our partners will continue working until we have #Health4All

Share

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 18, 2016

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

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

LOS ANGELES — Following a Supreme Court deadlock in June that left millions of immigrant families across the country in limbo, the U.S. Department of Justice today filed a motion for rehearing in United States v. Texas, the case involving the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration executive actions.

If granted, a rehearing would allow both sides to reargue the case before the nation’s highest court after a ninth justice is confirmed, making it much less likely that the result would remain a stalemate. A favorable decision in the case would provide much-needed clarity for the country and finally free up for implementation the administration’s deferred action initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

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

“The Supreme Court failed millions of immigrant families, and our country as a whole, when it deadlocked in U.S. v. Texas. Now, the justices have an opportunity to right this wrong and fulfill their duty to the American people.

“U.S. v. Texas is without a doubt one of the most consequential immigration cases in recent history. It is appropriate and, in fact, necessary for the Court to rehear the case with a full bench and deliver a decisive ruling. We commend the Justice Department for taking a necessary first step toward ensuring that those whose lives are hanging in the balance get a fair day in court. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize that the millions of families living in limbo—and our country as a whole—deserve better than a nondecision. We beseech the justices to grant a rehearing.”

Announced by the Department of Homeland Security in November 2014, DAPA and the expansion of DACA are programs intended to build off the success of the administration’s 2012 DACA initiative, which allows eligible undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work here temporarily without fear of deportation. DAPA would extend similar benefits to certain undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, while the expansion of DACA would broaden eligibility for DACA, making the program available to a larger range of people.

The original (2012) DACA initiative was not challenged in U.S. v Texas and remains open to eligible applicants.

# # #

Share

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Supreme Court Rightly Upholds Women’s Constitutional Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2016

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

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, U.S. Supreme Court Rightly Upholds Women’s Constitutional Rights

WASHINGTON — The National Immigration Law Center applauds the 5-3 decision announced today by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Texas law, HB2, that severely restricted a woman’s constitutional right and ability—no matter where she lives—to make her own decisions about her health, family, and future.

The court found in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that HB2, which forced the shutdown of more than half of the abortion clinics in the state, infringed upon a woman’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights. The decision means that the clinics that remained open after the law was enacted will be able to stay open and others can resume services to meet the health needs of women in the many underserved areas of the state.

More broadly, the court established a strong legal standard that will protect women’s constitutional rights in states beyond Texas.

The following is a statement by Marielena Hincapié, NILC’s executive director:

“The Supreme Court rightly struck down a law that unlawfully interfered in a women’s right to make her own health decisions. By removing needless barriers, the Court has affirmed that all women, regardless of where they live, have the right to be treated with the same compassion, respect, and dignity as anyone else.

“In March 2015, I had the honor of serving as a human rights commissioner during the Nuestro Texas Women’s Human Rights Hearing—organized by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health—and met courageous and resilient women who spoke of unconscionable barriers to their reproductive health, including accessing critical preventive care such as cervical and breast cancer screenings. I also had the opportunity to visit Whole Women’s Health and witnessed first-hand how empowering and necessary their services are for low-income immigrant women in the Rio Grande Valley.

“The Texas law was especially harmful to Latinas of reproductive age who already face significant barriers to accessing health services, including poverty, immigration status, distance, inability to take time off from work, and lack of child care. Even before enacting HB2, the state gutted public family planning services that many Latinas depended on for contraception and other reproductive health services.

“Policymakers and advocates alike know that much more needs to be done to ensure that all women have access to meaningful, quality care. Today’s decision helps prevent a dangerous erosion of health access that could have made efforts to create truly healthy communities difficult, if not impossible.”

# # #

Share

NILC to Honor Visionary Civil and Human Rights Leader Wade Henderson

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 9, 2016

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

NILC to Honor Visionary Civil and Human Rights Leader Wade Henderson

WASHINGTON — The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is proud to pay tribute to national civil rights leader Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund, at its awards reception to be held on June 14, 2016, at the Darlington House in Washington, DC.

Henderson, who directs The Leadership Conference’s coalition of more than 200 national civil and human rights organizations, will be honored for his steadfast commitment to equality and justice for all.

“For the last two decades, Wade’s visionary leadership has created landmark protections for marginalized communities in all sectors. It is clear that he envisions a world in which all people, regardless of income, immigration status, gender identity, or race, are able to achieve their full human potential, and for that, we show our gratitude to him,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of NILC.

“Wade’s advocacy for the rights of immigrants has been particularly crucial to our movement. Whether the battles have been against hateful anti-immigrant laws in states like Alabama, or in Congress or the courts, Wade and The Leadership Conference have aggressively called for just and moral solutions so that all people are treated with dignity,” Hincapié added.

Before taking the helm of The Leadership Conference in 1996, Henderson served as the Washington Bureau director of the NAACP. He began his career as associate director of the Washington national office of the American Civil Liberties Union. He is a graduate of Howard University and the Rutgers University School of Law and is a member of the Bar in the District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court. Henderson is also the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Professor of Public Interest Law at the David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia.

For more information about NILC’s 2016 DC Awards Reception, please visit https://nilc.z2systems.com/np/clients/nilc/event.jsp?event=18&.

# # #

Share

NILC Applauds Justice Dept. Effort to Block Extremist Federal Judge Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 31, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Adela de la Torre, [email protected], 213-400-7822

NILC Applauds Justice Dept. Effort to Block Extremist Federal Judge Decision

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Department of Justice today sought a stay of an outlandish order issued by a federal district court in Texas last week, while it prepares an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the district court’s order. The order demands the personal data of tens of thousands of Dreamers who received three-year work authorizations through the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative.

The court filing comes after U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a highly unusual decision last Thursday ordering the Justice Department to turn over the Dreamers’ information and requiring all department lawyers to submit to five years of ethics courses before presenting any cases in the 26 states involved in a lawsuit, United States v. Texas, now awaiting decision by the Supreme Court.

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

“We commend the Justice Department for acting swiftly to protect the privacy of tens of thousands of Dreamers who have no bearing in this case. Legal experts on all sides have spoken up against Judge Hanen’s latest order, which is clearly out of bounds and should not be allowed to take effect. We are glad to see the federal government taking a stand against this judge’s latest attempt to intimidate immigrant youth who only want to live without fear of being separated from their families and contribute more fully to their communities.

“This latest order is yet another sign that United States v. Texas is a politically motivated lawsuit, and real families are suffering the consequences. We hope the Supreme Court sees through these legal theatrics and moves swiftly to allow these important initiatives currently blocked in the lawsuit to take effect. In the meantime, we will continue to fight—in the courthouse, if necessary—to protect the privacy of those who have already come forward to apply for the opportunity to contribute more fully to their communities.”

# # #

Share

15 Years After Coming to the U.S. Undocumented, I Became a Lawyer. This Week I Was in the Supreme Court

Nora-KAPA215215 Years After Coming to the U.S. Undocumented, I Became a Lawyer. This Week I Was in the Supreme Court

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Nora Preciado
APRIL 22, 2016

This week, I was fortunate enough to be inside the U.S. Supreme Court for the argument in the U.S. v Texas case challenging the president’s immigration relief initiatives, known as DAPA and the expansion of DACA. While I entered the courthouse as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, having practiced law for 10 years, this scene would’ve seemed but a dream not too long ago.

My parents brought me to Garden Grove, Calif., from Mexico undocumented when I was 13 years old. As a teenager, it was a tough transition being in an unfamiliar place and not knowing a word of English. But with my family’s support — and not without some setbacks — I was able to excel in school and embark in a rewarding career that led me to this surreal point: sitting right in front row, across from Justice Sonia Sotomayor and behind Attorney General Loretta Lynch, two women I deeply admire.

DAPA and the expansion of DACA would provide deportation relief and work authorization to certain young, undocumented people, as well as to certain parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Being inside the courtroom and watching attorneys expertly make the legal case for the administration’s initiatives, reminded me of the limitations my own immigration status imposed on me when I was growing up. Though I excelled in school and got an associate’s degree from a local community college, I could not transfer to one of the several California universities that accepted me because nonresident tuition was prohibitively expensive for my minimum wage–earning parents, who had three college-age children at the time.

I continued taking classes, obtained a second degree, and volunteered extensively at the community college for four more years, waiting for my immigration status to change. Finally, in 2000, I became a lawful permanent resident and was able to transfer to U.C. Davis to finish my degree, which in turn opened the door for me to attend U.C. Berkeley Law School.

I’ve always wanted to help people, such as my family, who could have avoided so many difficulties and heartache if we only had access to more information and resources — if we only understood the legal system better. Knowing that law is a powerful tool, I became a lawyer 15 years after arriving in the United States.

Monday was a full-circle-moment for me. I watched attorneys argue the law and knew that some of them had in mind the practical, real-life consequences of what was happening in that courtroom. I felt proud to be sitting there with some of the families whose lives will be impacted by this case.

If DAPA and the expansion of DACA are allowed to go into effect, families around the country will no longer have to live in fear of being separated. Not only that, but entire communities will benefit from increased tax revenue and newly authorized workers will no longer be subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Our whole country will reap the moral and financial benefits.

The most unforgettable part of Monday was coming out the front door of that magnificent Supreme Court building, walking down those marble steps alongside many of the amazing people who will benefit from DAPA and expanded DACA, and hearing the thousands of immigrant families outside chanting and clapping. I had to fight back tears as I descended those steps, looked out over that beautiful crowd, and felt its overwhelmingly positive energy.

I do not for a minute forget the sacrifices my family made to come to this country or the many years I spent undocumented and living in fear of being deported. I know how privileged I was to be there Monday and to walk among all those families fighting for the same thing my family wanted: a better life and an opportunity to thrive and give back.

Share
111