LOS ANGELES – Even as President Donald Trump wraps up his first visit to the Golden State since the election, immigrant-rights groups are embracing California's new nickname as the "State of Resistance."

Last September, the president ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows work permits for people brought to the United States as children. However, a federal judge kept it going while litigation proceeds.

Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the nonprofit America's Voice, described himself as very pessimistic that this Congress will cut a deal to help the Dreamers.

"The Trump administration has declared war on refugees and immigrants; they are determined to kick out people who are here, either with no status or with an uncertain status," Sharry insisted. "So, this is a historic challenge to those of us who believe that America should be a welcoming nation."

Trump has defended his policies, saying the increases in immigration raids and deportations will protect jobs for U.S. citizens. He visited prototypes for a border wall and maintained that national security depends on its construction.

Attorney Joshua Rosenthal with the National Immigration Law Center said he supports comprehensive immigration reform, but noted there is no provision to help people who hadn't yet applied for DACA.

"It does leave out people who were not able to obtain DACA before the Trump administration ended the DACA program, because they were too young, or they hadn't finished enough education," Rosenthal explained. "And unfortunately at this point, those people are unable to apply for DACA."

California's "sanctuary state" laws prevent local authorities from handing over immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless the people have been convicted of a serious felony. Employers also are forbidden to grant access to their workplace or to employee records without a warrant.

The feds are suing over the issue, but Sally Kinoshita with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center is convinced the laws are constitutional.

"There's nothing in federal law that mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents to arrest people or identifying people," said Kinoshita, ILRC deputy director. "The federal government cannot require the state to participate in a federal deportation program."

And Hector Salvador with the California Labor Federation in Los Angeles is organizing rapid-response networks, sending teams of supporters to workplaces during raids.

"Though there is fear and a lot of anxiety because of all these increased levels of ICE raids and threats from this administration, there are groups of immigrants and allies that are fighting back," said Salvador.

Immigrant-rights groups are calling on voters to register their opinions at the ballot box in this fall's midterm elections, in hopes of voting in a new Congress that could be more amenable to the plight of immigrants.



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

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email