Archive for the ‘Interior Enforcement’ Category.

Offering the Community Your Expertise Post-Election

shutterstock_522382048There is fear in our communities. In the days following the presidential election, I heard from a lot of people who want to help, but aren’t sure exactly how. Though there are many ways to get involved, I want to offer an example of how a fellow AILA member and I volunteered a couple of weekends ago. Perhaps it will serve as a road map for others to follow.

Two Sundays ago, AILA member Brad Thomson and I spoke at a large community gathering at the St. Mary’s Student Parish in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The event was organized by the fantastic folks at Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) and was supported by a number of other community organizations.

Continue reading ‘Offering the Community Your Expertise Post-Election’ »

The World is Watching

shutterstock_81287065By now, it is no longer a surprise to learn that many immigration lawyers, and the clients they serve, live in certain “hostile jurisdictions,” where it is almost impossible to win an asylum case no matter the facts. In places like Atlanta, Georgia, and Charlotte, North Carolina, people seeking asylum, and the attorneys fighting for them, know they are likely going to lose no matter how strong the case, or how real the fear. Going into this kind of battle expecting to lose takes a special type of courage, and a lot of support, because as a lawyer, you know that no matter how well prepared you are, no matter how much you think the law is on your side, the deck is still stacked against you.

But the deck shouldn’t be stacked against anyone because immigration law in the United States is, after all, federal law, and as such should be applied uniformly, from California to Georgia and from New York to Florida. An asylum claim presented in a court in California should be evaluated under the same law and have the same chances of approval as an asylum claim in Georgia or North Carolina. But AILA members know that this is simply not the case. We know that, no matter the facts, the claim of an asylum seeker in a hostile jurisdiction like Georgia or North Carolina is not evaluated under the same standards as asylum seekers in the rest of the United States.

Continue reading ‘The World is Watching’ »

Hostile Jurisdictions

shutterstock_372661681U.S. immigration lawyers, members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), practice in every state in the union and other countries besides. We fight for clients no matter where they are, to the best of our abilities. However, we are currently wrestling with an elephant of a problem – hostile immigration court jurisdictions – best illustrated by the fact that the Atlanta immigration court consistently produces grant rates of relief far lower than the national average.  When you know that your client has virtually no chance of obtaining relief in your city and also know that if they were simply located in a different city they would have a better than two-thirds chance of relief, it can be disheartening, to say the least. Thus, there is an understandable reluctance among many attorneys to practice removal defense in Atlanta, one of the worst of our nation’s “hostile jurisdictions,” where no amount of time and effort can overcome a deck stacked firmly against the defense.

Continue reading ‘Hostile Jurisdictions’ »

Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano: Immigration Detainers Require a Warrant

shutterstock_407008447The interior enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employs various ways to co-opt state and local law enforcement to help it enforce the immigration laws. One of those tools, an immigration detainer, asks local law enforcement to hold the subject of the detainer for up to 48 hours so that ICE can take the person into immigration custody. The problem is that these detainers are issued without any regard for due process, and often without actually speaking with the subject of the detainer. Because of this, it is not surprising that ICE often gets it wrong.  For example:

Jose Jimenez Moreno, a 40-year-old United States citizen, was arrested in 2011 in Rockford, Illinois. Without ever interviewing or speaking to him, DHS issued an immigration detainer against him, and only canceled the detainer after a federal lawsuit was filed.

Continue reading ‘Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano: Immigration Detainers Require a Warrant’ »

Enforcement Off the Rails

shutterstock_159241919There’s been a lot of news coverage of the ICE raids, of the aggressive tactics used to arrest vulnerable families at their homes and to arrest children on the way to school. But what hasn’t received as much coverage is the damage that raids victims endure after their arrest. Some remain trapped in prolonged ICE detention and suffer psychologically and physically.

My client Johanna* was subjected to three straight days of solitary confinement at an ICE detention center in Georgia. She is just 18 years old – a victim of rape and severe domestic violence in El Salvador who fled to the US over two years ago, all alone.

Continue reading ‘Enforcement Off the Rails’ »

Outrage

shutterstock_294714656

“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’ »

The Un-American Nature of Prison Bed Quotas

shutterstock_170934761It has never been easy to be an immigration attorney.  Faced with combatting injustice without sufficient resources, those of us who represent detained immigrants have seen these challenges increase with the recent hyper-growth of the private prison industry (PPI): 1600% increase in the number of beds from 1990 to 2010.

More than half of the industry’s $3 billion in profits comes from the detention of immigrants.  Not surprisingly, due to PPI’s muscular lobbying efforts, there is scant congressional oversight of the industry.  Over time, GEO and CCA, the two largest for-profit prison companies in the U.S. have given more than $10 million to individual politicians and spent almost $25 million on lobbying Congress.

As a result, we now live in a country where immigrants are treated as commodities.  There are more than 200 detention facilities in the U.S. that operate under a congressional mandate of keeping 34,000 available beds per day.  Despite testimony by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson that the 34,000 bed mandate is more of an availability target than a quota, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spends almost $2 billion a year, in part, on keeping these beds occupied. The result: a huge portion of the money is funneled to PPI.

Continue reading ‘The Un-American Nature of Prison Bed Quotas’ »

Can the Innocence of a Child Soften the Hearts of Anti-Immigrants?

Image: Sophie Cruz/First Focus

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?’ »

Getting a Little Serious about the Need for Immigration Reform

shutterstock_197321441This is a post adapted from my speech last week in accepting an award from AILA for outstanding contributions made as a young lawyer in the field of immigration and nationality law. While the occasion was a happy one and I was honored to receive that award, I took the opportunity, as I do here, to emphasize what is wrong with our current system and that we desperately need to fix it.  I hope you find it of interest:

As I think about the great migrations of people, I’m reminded of my own “gringa” migration from the heartland of Iowa to Washington, D.C. While my own journey was not nearly as harrowing an experience, it is that journey that led me to practice immigration law, to AILA, and to the work that I’m so passionate about.

I have been incredibly lucky to have several amazing people guiding me throughout my journey. My parents who taught me that everyone no matter their background deserves the chance to pursue their dreams. My wonderful husband Justin, whose constant love and support sustains me. Michelle Mendez, my friend and co-professor in the Catholic University immigration clinic who is the most selfless, passionate advocate that I know. The dedicated staff of Benach Ragland, and my partners who I deeply respect and admire; there is no one else I would rather work with in pursuit of our shared mission. Finally my mentor, the late great Michael Maggio: despite his busy immigration practice, he always found time to contribute to our field as a policy advocate, a pro bono champion and a mentor. I have strived to use Michael’s well-rounded approach to our work as a model in contributing through my own practice, especially as I’ve observed the developments in our field over the last few years.

We’re going to get a little serious now.

We are now faced with a humanitarian crisis at our borders.  CBP and ICE officers are using excessive force, inhumane detention conditions, and “no process” removals. We are faced with immigration courts fighting against insufficient resources, overcrowded dockets and cabined legal discretion. And we are faced with a renewed assault on our asylum system by Congress and the agencies themselves.

Yet, no actions are taken by those in power to fix our system. Instead we have a Congress that points fingers and strikes a pose in Capitol Hill hearings and an Administration which, on the back of an immigration reform-focused campaign, has taken to putting Band-Aids on gashes rather than treating the underlying wounds.

Until we have leaders who are going to work together to solve real problems that affect real people, American businesses, and separated families, it is up to us. It is for these reasons that this award is only the beginning of my journey.

Thank you so much for this honor and I hope you will join me in restoring due process and humanity in our immigration system.

Written by Dree Collopy, 2014 Joseph Minsky Young Lawyer Award Winner

 

Cities and Counties Stand Up for the Constitution

shutterstock_103176035Cities across the country have been following a federal policy that law enforcement officials increasingly describe as harmful to public safety and that courts now call unconstitutional.  I’m glad to know that Philadelphia is no longer one of them.

My mayor, Michael Nutter, signed an executive order last month preventing law enforcement officials from keeping people in jail on the basis of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request, unless it’s accompanied by a judicial warrant and the person has been convicted of a violent felony.  These detainers request that state and local police hold people in jail, without a warrant or the guarantee of a prompt hearing before a judge.  States, counties and cities have spent millions of their own tax dollars complying with detainers that jail people who may (or may not) be deportable from the United States.  As an immigration attorney, I know first-hand the disastrous impact that reckless immigration enforcement practices can have on families and communities and I’m proud that my city and mayor have said no.

When issuing the order, Mayor Nutter cited the impact on public safety as one reason for his decision. “As a result of overly aggressive use of these detainers, there has been a negative impact on some immigrants who will not report crimes to the police, don’t want to be witnesses, and suffer accordingly.”  The University of Illinois at Chicago recently found that 44% of Latinos were less likely to call the police if they became the victim of a crime, when they live in jurisdictions where police are heavily involved in immigration enforcement.

Philadelphia is not the only place that’s saying no. More states and localities around the country, from  California (San Diego County and San Francisco just announced as well) to Connecticut, are refusing to honor these hold requests.  And the courts are agreeing with them.  In the last few months, three separate federal cases have confirmed that detainers are voluntary requests and that local law enforcement can be sued for violations of the Constitution if they choose to honor these ICE requests, including a case involving Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. And just recently, a federal judge held Clackamas County, Oregon liable for violating the Fourth Amendment for holding an individual solely on an ICE detainer without probable cause.

The Oregon decision sent shockwaves through counties all over the Northwest. Sheriff Joe Pelle of Boulder County, Colorado called the judge’s decision in this case a “game changer.” Law enforcement officials from counties in Oregon, Washington and Colorado immediately announced they would no longer continue business-as-usual with respect to these immigration holds—joining places like Philadelphia that have already said no.

Detainers are fundamentally flawed. They are not making communities safer. They are expensive. That’s why states and localities are pushing back.  They’re making their own decisions about what’s best for their communities. As the president of the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association Gary Bettencourt said, “We will no longer violate anybody’s constitutional rights, I can guarantee that.”

If AILA members and the public want to advocate against detainers, it’s plain to see we have plenty of company from law enforcement and the courts. Let’s work to get more cities and localities across the nation on board.

William Stock, AILA Second Vice President