ST. HELENS, Ore. - Oregon's immigrant community is raising concerns about public safety in light of a Homeland Security Department decision that individual states cannot opt out of the "Secure Communities" program.

That program gives local sheriffs the responsibility of turning over immigrants accused of crimes to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal immigration authorities. But an Oregon attorney says more than half the detainees are not criminals. Stephen Manning, with the Immigrant Law Group, says the program is alienating local police, who make the initial arrests, from those they are trying to protect.

"Those individuals, if they end up getting booked into the jail, they will be deported, they will be detained; they will be sucked into this very nebulous system. And the police take the blame for that - and it's not the police's doing. It's ICE's doing, and it's the sheriff's doing."

In rural areas, where local law enforcement is often focused on building relationships, Secure Communities has put police and sheriffs' departments at cross-purposes, according to Amanda Aguilar Shank, Columbia County organizer for the Rural Organizing Project, who says the result is less security.

"As we're in this budget crisis, it becomes even more important to have a level of trust and community-building in the community. When you're targeting one minority and making the community unsafe for them, that means that more crimes go unreported."

Manning says a simple traffic stop can throw a person into jail - and that person's family into turmoil.

"People call us in crisis all the time. They don't understand what's happening; it's a completely opaque process. And people call us frequently because people have disappeared - 'We don't know where this person is. They were coming home from work, and then suddenly, we get a phone call and they're now in this detention facility in Texas. How did that happen?' "

ICE sees Secure Communities as an effective partnership that has increased deportations. But three states - Illinois, Massachusetts and New York - have refused to be part of it. Oregon has not taken a stand on it, although Gov. John Kitzhaber has said he sees the need for clear boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for immigrants are pushing back on a bill signed by Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in the last few days of the legislative session, modeled on a recent, controversial Texas law.

Senate File 2340 gives local law enforcement officers and judges the authority to deport undocumented immigrants.

Erica Johnson, executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, argued the bill is an overreach, and said Iowa law enforcement officers are not authorized to enforce it.

"This is a pretty clear intervention into federal territory," Johnson pointed out. "U.S. immigration law is governed by federal law."

Much like the author of the Texas bill, supporters in Iowa blame the Biden administration for failing to slow illegal immigration, so the state has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Johnson contended the bill and other anti-immigrant sentiment during the just-completed legislative session target the very people Iowa, with its dwindling population, will depend on for its future workforce.

"What we need is communities that are safe, where workers have access to dignified, safe workplaces," Johnson emphasized. "The truth of what Iowa's future could be depends on immigrants and immigrant workers in our state, and unfortunately, this law could take us back, away from that possible future. "

Johnson added her organization will pursue legal ways to block the bill from taking effect in July.


get more stories like this via email

The future of Senate Bill 4 is still tangled in court challenges. It's the Texas law that would allow police to arrest people for illegally crossing the border. But groups are speaking out about the impact of "Operation Lone Star" on the youngest migrants. Governor Greg Abbott continues to bus migrant families to other states, many with young children - more than 100,000 families so far.

Robert Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, works to improve the quality of life for boys and girls in Texas, and contends the policy has put trauma on top of trauma.

"We never want children to be political pawns. We don't want maximum chaos on the backs of children. We want children to grow up and be assets for our community," he contended.

Sanborn points out that 2.2 million children in Texas are immigrants, and said it would be less stressful for kids if families were not bused in the middle of the night, and if they were allowed to pick their destination.

When immigrants arrive at the border, they are evaluated to determine if they're eligible for asylum.

Beatriz Zavala, clinical coordinator at El Paso-based Humanitarian Outreach for Migrant Emotional Health, or "HOME," said the children in this situation are at higher risk for mental health disorders.

"What is particularly troubling is the profound disregard for the stability and protection these families need. The impact on their mental health is undeniable. These are not just statistics. These are children, real children," she said.

As part of Operation Lone Star, families have been bused to Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The governor has said the practice is needed to keep the Texas-Mexico border safe.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email