PHILADELPHIA – Pennsylvania faith leaders are asking lawmakers to reject an anti-immigrant bill they say will make communities less safe. More than 200 faith leaders from across the state have sent a letter opposing House Bill 1885.

According to Peter Pedemonti, the executive director of the New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia, by encouraging police to question and detain those suspected of being undocumented, the bill would destroy trust between the immigrant community and police.

"This would push people back into the shadows, greatly increase fear in the immigrant community, increase racial profiling, and also, this would tear more families apart," he explained.

Supporters of the bill say it would protect the interests of Pennsylvanians over those of foreign nationals who are here illegally.

HB 1885 also would penalize localities that limit their cooperation in deportation efforts. Pedemonti said Philadelphia, which is a sanctuary city, is now growing for the first time in 60 years, growth he credits to a thriving immigrant community.

"So policies like sanctuary-city policies allow us to grow and to thrive," he said. "And I'm not talking just about the immigrant community; I'm talking about all of us."

Currently, there are 32 counties across Pennsylvania that have some type of restriction on their cooperation with immigration authorities.

Pedemonti said the faith leaders who signed the letter opposing HB 1885 come from all over the state and from a wide variety of religious denominations.

"The faith letter shows two things," he added. "One, it would greatly harm immigrants and non-immigrants throughout Pennsylvania, and, two, that this bill would be a serious violation of our faith values."

HB 1885 passed in the House last week and Pedemonti said it could come up for a vote in the Senate as soon as today.


get more stories like this via email

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Faith leaders are urging tobacco companies to support migrant workers employed by their contract farms.

A group of clergy will meet next week with representatives from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company about North Carolina farmworkers' right to organize for better wages and working conditions without retaliation.

Julie Taylor, executive director of the Raleigh-based National Farm Worker Ministry, said advocates want British American Tobacco, R.J. Reynolds parent company, to negotiate a memorandum of understanding which would guarantee freedom of association without retaliation and ban contract growers and H2A farm labor contractors from retaliating against farmworkers.

"If they wanted to sign union cards, if they wanted to advocate for higher wages, if they wanted to organize for better living or working conditions," Taylor outlined.

In a statement responding to a letter written by faith leaders earlier this year, R.J. Reynolds said employers must not retaliate against workers for exercising their rights and appreciates the upcoming meeting as a chance to describe its supply-chain responsibility program.

Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee for the AFL-CIO, which represents migrant farmworkers in the Midwest and South, including more than 6,000 workers in North Carolina, explained migrant workers have little recourse because they have been left out of federal labor laws.

He added current North Carolina law makes it illegal for farmers to deduct voluntary union dues from their paychecks, and also prohibits workers from reaching a legal settlement as part of a union agreement.

"Based on the historic abuse, exploitation of agricultural workers in North Carolina, excluded from major labor laws that would protect them and give them the right to speak for themselves," Velasquez asserted.

He added the abuses faced by tobacco farmworkers are well-documented, including inadequate housing, pesticide and nicotine poisoning, wage theft and long work hours without breaks in extreme temperatures.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Refugee advocates are cheering a decision by an immigration judge to terminate deportation orders for a Minnesota man, who had sought to clear a criminal conviction from his youth.

His supporters hope it renews interest in changing some key policies.

Ge Vang, a Permanent Legal Resident, came to the U.S. with his family from Southeast Asia as a young child. As a teen, Vang had an encounter with the law and took a plea deal, not knowing the ramifications tied to federal law changes.

Jenny Srey, senior manager for civic power for the Coalition of Asian-American Leaders (CAAL), said like so many other refugees, he became a productive member of his community, but eventually faced the risk of being separated from his wife and kids.

"Families are tagged with a label and not really looked at holistically or seen as how valuable they are in the community," Srey asserted.

After he was flagged for deportation, Vang's conviction eventually was vacated, with the backing of the Ramsey County attorney, through a post-conviction relief petition.

In the next legislative session, the group CAAL hopes Minnesota lawmakers reconsider a bill to expand the scope of the law, allowing people to seek a review of their conviction. The bill has bi-partisan support, but has been mired in a legislative logjam.

Srey contended it is important to add a new circumstance under the law, one centered around people facing deportation who felt their conviction stemmed from substandard legal advice.

She noted many individuals caught up in the system speak little to no English, and have to plead their case while their family is left in turmoil.

"Sometimes people have lost their jobs because they haven't been able to get the proper documentation in time because it takes a long time," Srey explained.

Supporters of the law change say deporting someone such as Vang to the country they were born in creates even more personal challenges because many of these refugees are long accustomed to life in America. They argued these individuals have little recollection of life in their native country, and would have trouble adapting, in addition to being separated from their family.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The deadline for public comments on proposed rule changes to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) is Nov. 29.

Advocates say it is important for students, employers and communities affected by the policy designed to protect immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, to submit their input.

Jazmin Ramirez, Latinx community organizer, Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, pointed out among the changes proposed by the Biden administration, individuals could apply for deferred action or employment authorization separately, which would reduce the cost of the application process.

"People can apply for a work permit if they want to, but they don't have to do it," Ramirez explained.

Comments must be submitted online through a federal portal.

The move follows a decision earlier this year by a federal court in Texas, which ruled DACA was unlawful.

Ramirez noted while the federal government has appealed the court ruling, the proposed changes are an attempt to square it with existing legislation. She also emphasized while new applications are no longer being accepted, DACA renewals still are being processed.

The new rule would clarify deferred action granted under DACA would make a person, quote, "lawfully present" but would not authorize them to stay in the U.S. indefinitely.

Ramirez added although advocacy groups welcome the proposed changes, she believes they are only a stopgap solution.

"The only way that we are going to get a permanent solution, without the fear or the constant battling back and forth in courts that the program will end, will be through a pathway to citizenship," Ramirez contended.

Over the past decade, more than 835,000 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as children have been granted DACA status. A 2020 poll found more than 70% of Americans support giving DACA recipients a pathway to citizenship.