Reading this recent Reuters article, from the headline to the end, I’m not sure what offends me most. Is it the Trump Administration’s concerted effort to scare people away from seeking safety in the U.S.? That’s pretty disgusting. Is it the fact that those threats only work if people believe our government would deprive them of the due process promised by our country’s founding principles? Maybe. But, I think what really gets me is the repeated use of the term “illegal” when it comes to families fleeing to the U.S. and seeking refuge under our asylum laws.
It is not illegal to seek asylum.
Continue reading ‘Say It with Me: It Is Not Illegal to Seek Asylum’ »
We, the American people, have elected our 45th president. Today, as we all go on with our daily routines, a new era is beginning. Today we must search deep within and find a renewed commitment to our nation, to unity, and to the belief in the wisdom of our founding fathers who established our nation and our system of governance in the name of freedom and democracy. Though the political debate surrounding immigration has always been contentious, the presidential campaign revealed a divisive and ugly rhetoric unbefitting our country.
As a woman, an immigrant, a former asylee, an immigration attorney, and a proud U.S. citizen, I feel the election boils down to one clear fact: that we must continue to work towards acceptance and inclusion because within our borders, our citizens feel excluded. We must figure out a way to address that while highlighting the ways in which the values our forefathers held to be true continue to define America as a nation.
Continue reading ‘The American People Have Elected the 45th President’ »
Why do we ask? And why particularly of Donald Trump and not Hillary Clinton? While the devil is always in the details, it is clear that Secretary Clinton has a more favorable view of immigration and has laid out a fairly clear strategy for how she would reform the current system.
But the question of what Mr. Trump would prioritize on immigration, should he be elected to hold the highest office in our nation, remains unclear. First he called for massive, yet “humane” and “nice” deportation of the estimated 11+ million undocumented individuals in this country. He has also repeatedly reaffirmed that a wall must be built along the southern border. He has noted that he wants people (who are deported) to come back legally because “they want to be legalized.” The candidate has also said that in the wall, there will be a “tremendous beautiful wide open door.” (Donald Trump on mass deportation).
Recently however, reports have Mr. Trump possibly “softening” his stance on immigration noting that “to take a person who has been here for 15-20 years and to throw them out is a very, very hard thing.” The outline of a plan appears to have similarities to proposals made by former presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who Mr. Trump previously criticized as “weak on immigration.” Yet there does not yet seem to be any clear and definitive proposals of what his immigration policy would look like in actuality.
Continue reading ‘What is Donald Trump’s Position on Immigration?’ »
“Apurar, cielos, pretendo,
Por qué me tratáis así,
qué delito cometí
contra vosotros naciendo.
Aunque si nací, ya entiendo
qué delito he cometido;
bastante causa ha tenido
vuestra justicia y rigor,
Pues el delito mayor
del hombre es haber nacido.” ~ by Pedro Calderón de la Barca
Outrage is the only word that comes to mind to describe the Obama Administration’s recent admission that they are aggressively pursuing enforcement against families and children. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a 30-day “surge” of arrests focused on mothers and children who have been ordered removed by an immigration judge. It was also reported that the operation would cover minors who have entered the country without a guardian and since turned 18 years of age.
Continue reading ‘Outrage’ »
It was early Monday morning in Los Angeles and all along the West Coast of the United States, people were just waking up. Cars were jamming the freeways, lines were forming at coffee shops and TVs were tuned to the morning news. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., the five men and three women who currently sit on the U.S. Supreme Court were hearing oral arguments in what is likely to be a seminal case involving immigration policy and more broadly, the president’s executive authority. The case seeks to resolve the controversy around the immigration initiatives President Obama announced in November 2014. For many who anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision, a resolution as to whether the expanded DACA and DAPA initiatives may proceed is a life-changing matter.
United States v. Texas traveled to the Supreme Court on a politically charged highway along which advocates and opponents threw many punches. The road was lengthy, and as the case made its way to the Supreme Court, many speculated as to its fate. Significantly, this past February, the Court lost Justice Antonin Scalia. As one of the most conservative justices on the court, his passing could have an impact on the result of the case.
I had the privilege of sitting in the courtroom and listened first-hand as Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., representing the Obama Administration, and Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, delivered their arguments. Certain intervenors were permitted to make statements, including Tom Saenz at MALDEF, who forcefully represented the voices of three undocumented mothers, but the crux of the case was presented and argued by the parties’ respective attorneys.
Continue reading ‘What Happened Yesterday’ »
On Monday, April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the controversial case, United States v. Texas, to determine the fate of more than 3 million undocumented individuals. The lawsuit, filed by Texas and 25 other states shortly after the administration announced the expansion of DACA (DACA+) and DAPA in November 2014, blocked implementation of the programs which have been held hostage ever since.
The lawsuit alleges that DACA+ and DAPA violate the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution which requires that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In addition, the states argue that DAPA and DACA+ violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious initiatives that are contrary to our immigration laws, and that the government did not comply with the procedural requirements of the APA before announcing these initiatives.
The so-called “standing” upon which Texas and the 25 other states brought the lawsuit was that these federal initiatives would unduly burden the states by requiring them to issue and subsidize driver’s licenses – $130 per license for Texas.
Continue reading ‘The End Nears for this Politically Charged Game of Chess’ »
The American people are frustrated by the inability of Congress to take action and tackle the challenging, yet not insurmountable, task of reforming our immigration system and bringing it into the new century. That shouldn’t be too much to ask now that we are already well over a decade into the 21st century.
The Administration attempted to alleviate this frustration in November of 2014 by announcing plans to keep families together, ensure our communities are secure, and enable employers to keep the talent they need to remain competitive. Though many of these actions are still pending implementation by DHS, the litigation brought by Texas and other states has delayed implementation of President Obama’s signature initiative which would grant a reprieve from deportation to many undocumented individuals who have extensive, long-term ties to the United States.
Continue reading ‘New Opportunities to Move Forward in 2016’ »
Image: Sophie Cruz/First Focus
Sophie Cruz became an instant celebrity when she approached Pope Francis’s motorcade to hand him a letter begging him to help her keep her parents in the United States. Her message was simple, coming from a five-year-old, yet it carried more power and conviction than any of the hateful rhetoric that has been dominating the airwaves. Sophie Cruz wants to stop living with the fear that her undocumented parents may, at any time, be taken from her and deported. You see, Sophie is a full-fledged U.S. citizen, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to all who are born in the United States. Her parents, however, are undocumented immigrants living in the confines of the underground world that our current immigration system has created. They are unable to legalize their status, yet work hard and contribute to their communities. Sophie’s father, Raul, came to the United States ten years ago and works long hours at a factory to provide for Sophie and the rest of his family. Like many aspiring Americans, they are struggling to make ends meet, stuck in the purgatory of our unworkable immigration laws. Sophie’s parents represent our country, they represent the opportunity for a better America, and the future that Sophie herself dreams of.
But what is Sophie asking for?
Continue reading ‘Can the Innocence of a Child Soften the Hearts of Anti-Immigrants?’ »
On July 24, a federal court in California ruled that the Obama Administration’s policy of detaining mothers and children violated the 1997 Flores Agreement. In a 25-page ruling, Judge Dolly Gee noted she found it “astonishing” that immigration authorities had adopted a policy requiring such an expensive infrastructure without more evidence that it would be compliant with the agreement.
What is more astonishing is the government’s argument that detention was necessary as a deterrent for migrants – a policy reflecting complete disregard and understanding of the despair felt by those who flee for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Judge Gee disagreed and ordered the government to comply with the Flores Agreement.
The government now has filed an appeal to the July ruling, and while it is still unclear what legal arguments the government will set forth in their appeal, Secretary Johnson made it clear that the government disagrees “with portions of the legal reasoning in the decision.” Let’s look at some of the government’s past arguments.
Continue reading ‘When Our Government Operates in Its Own Flawed Reality, the Most Vulnerable Suffer’ »
Brazen incendiary rhetoric, ignorance of the facts, and bias fueled anti-immigrant sentiment are polluting the immigration conversation.
There is no question Donald Trump is out to make a name for himself in the political arena. Having declared his candidacy for the presidency, Trump has embarked on a full-blown attack on immigrants – especially undocumented immigrants – perhaps forgetting at some point that his own ancestors were immigrants seeking a better life in the United States.
You see, although Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in Queens, NY, his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was a Scottish immigrant. Trump’s paternal grandparents were German immigrants. Trump speaks little of his immigrant ancestry, yet engages in aggressive posturing against today’s immigrants.
Trump wants to build a wall on the southern border of the United States to keep “illegals” from invading our country. Trump implies that “illegal” immigrants to the United States enter only through the southern border and as such we need increased enforcement at such border. Facts, however, show the contrary. Studies indicate there has been a significant decline in immigrants crossing the southern border and overall the undocumented immigrant population has fallen from an estimated high of 12.2 million undocumented immigrants in 2007 to roughly 11.2 million undocumented immigrants in the United States as of January 2012.
Continue reading ‘GOP Candidates are Wrong When Talking About Immigration’ »