By Mark Hedin, Ethnic Media Services / Broadcast version by Stephanie Carson
Reporting for the Ethnic Media Services-California News Service Collaboration

SAN FRANCISCO – Warning that the country is heading down a white-nationalist, nativist path, four immigrant-rights advocates issued a call to action last week just hours before the U.S. Senate rejected all four proposals to change U.S. immigration policy, and a second federal court found the president’s “Muslim ban” unconstitutional.

The advocates spoke at a national telebriefing for ethnic media sponsored by Ready California, a collaborative cross-sector effort led by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

“We’ve all learned to expect the unexpected,” said Sameera Hafiz, an attorney and ILRC senior policy strategist in Washington, D.C. “The reason we’re here is because of Trump’s decision in September to rescind the DACA program and throw the lives of close to 800,000 young people into chaos and uncertainty."

“But, while the Senate was ostensibly debating the future of the DACA program,” Hafiz argued, “the reality is that any DACA proposals go hand in hand with eliminating the diversity visa program, severely curtailing the family immigration program and expansive border enforcement measures – far beyond what we think about when we think about border security.”

“While we’ve been focused in D.C. on the legislative side, we’ve been distracted from what the administration is already doing,” Hafiz continued, citing attacks on jurisdictions with sanctuary policies and other enforcement actions against Dreamers, mothers and activists.

Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), agreed that what is underway is an attack on legal immigration itself which she called “a white nationalist agenda, [whereby] certain individuals are not qualified to come into the United States based on their country of birth and their religion.”

On average, Salas noted, “Our clients being deported from Los Angeles had been in the country more than 25 years. With the crippling of various legal channels like the Central American minors program, the separation of children from parents, the ending of diversity visas, the list goes on,” she said. "We’re destroying people’s lives.”

“This is not just about the immigrant community anymore," she continued. "It’s about what kind of country we want and who we are, as Americans.”

Zahir Billoo is the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a civil-rights attorney. She hailed the decision by the Fourth Circuit which joined a chorus of courts across the country who have said that the Muslim ban is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, she noted, “Whether you are from Iran or Somalia, it does not matter what your story is, you cannot come to the US.” Billoo quoted a Georgetown University estimate that 60,000 people had been impacted in their efforts to get an education or see their families.

“We’re optimistic,” Billoo said, but cautioned that what’s legal doesn’t always align with what’s moral. “The court in the past has allowed many unjust things, such as the Japanese internment.”

Adoubou Traore, director of the African Advocacy Network, which provides legal counsel for immigrants of the African diaspora, highlighted the dramatic growth of the African immigrant community, from 816,000 in 1980 to more than 4 million in 2016. Largely faceless and voiceless, this population has borne the brunt of every new restrictive immigration measure, from the Muslim ban to the removal of Temporary Protective Status (TPS).

As immigrants and as Blacks, said Traore, “We are the only group that has been named racially, and coming from countries that have been named in ways that I don’t even want to repeat, but we all heard it.”

Asked about the future of the immigrant rights movement, Salas noted the “tremendous mobilization by immigrant youth. This will only increase as people mobilize around the March 5 Congressional deadline for a solution on DACA."

“But this is a call to the broader immigrant community and Americans in general,” Salas emphasized.

“We need to stand up not just to be in solidarity with immigrants and refugees, and our brothers and sisters from the Muslim community," she added. "We need to stand up as Americans – as a country – saying this is not who we are or what our values are. I think this is what’s missing.”


The broadcast version of this story was produced by Stephanie Carson for California News Service in collaboration with Ethnic Media Services.


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

Both chambers of the New York state Legislature have included coverage for all legislation in their respective budgets.

The bills would update the state's Affordable Care Act Section 1332 waiver to make coverage available for all income-eligible people, regardless of their immigration status. Studies show half of likely undocumented immigrants and around 18% of lawfully present immigrants are uninsured.

Arline Cruz Escobar, health programs director for the group Make the Road New York, said the challenges stemming from a lack of coverage make life harder for the undocumented population.

"A lot of these preventable illnesses are going undetected and so, unfortunately, people are getting sicker," Cruz Escobar pointed out. "It also means that a lot of people who currently are sick aren't able to actually access the medication that they need."

One of the biggest obstacles to passing the bill is anti-immigrant rhetoric spreading across the country. However, many groups across the state submitted testimony declaring their support and need for this bill.

Cruz Escobar argued the growing migrant population in places such as New York City makes the bill more necessary. The New York City Comptroller's Office found the number of migrants not living in New York City but still in its care grew from 276 last May to more than 2,100 last September.

Beyond helping immigrants, supporters said the bill will benefit the state financially. The New York City Comptroller's office estimates passing coverage for all will generate $710 million in annual benefits.

Cruz Escobar described other elements of the bill.

"We have also included in our legislation language around giving the Commissioner of Health the ability to set up guardrails to ensure that for this expansion we don't over-cede the amount of surplus that's available."

She added the commissioner would also ensure there would be no additional cost through state dollars. Estimates showed New York State plans to spend more than $4 billion between 2022 and 2026 on issues related to migrants. Current spending is estimated at around $690 million.


get more stories like this via email