ACLU Wins $200,000 Settlement from Maricopa County Sheriff for Illegal Detention of Citizen and LPR

68-year old Julian Mora and his son were driving in their truck when they were pulled over by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. They had not violated any traffic laws, but were nonetheless ordered out of the truck, zip-tied, and transported to a nearby work-site immigration raid that was being conducted. After being transported to the raid, they were detained for three hours by the police.

After three hours, they were given the chance to prove that they were lawfully in the U.S. Because Julian Mora is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in this country for over 30 years and his son is a U.S. citizen, they were easily able to do so.

The American Civl Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona brought suit on behalf of Mora against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and yesterday a settlement was reached for $200,000.

New state laws seeking to further involve local police in immigration enforcement will make these scenarios more and more common. Law enforcement officers in states with new "papers please" laws will inevitably detain U.S. citizens and some of these detentions will end up being for far more than three hours. Imagine the case where a U.S. citizen speaks with an accent and does not have ready access to his birth certificate or passport. Where the citizen is mentally disabled and is unable to explain his situation to the police. There are infinite complications that can and will cause people to be unable to prove their legal status at the drop of a hat. With time, these "papers please" laws will result in more and longer detentions by local police officers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who can't prove their status on the spot. And when that happens, the taxpayers will be on the hook for more expensive lawsuits and settlements.

See the ACLU press release here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Major Portions of Harsh Arizona Immigration Bill Remain Blocked

Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift a stay that blocks major sections of last year’s tough immigration enforcement bill, passed in Arizona. The law, SB-1070, was set to take effect last July 29, 2010. However, the U.S. Justice Department sued to block the law, arguing that the Arizona law violates the constitution because immigration is a federal issue. The day before the law was set to take effect, a federal judge ordered an injunction blocking the enforcement of many parts of the law. Arizona governor Jan Brewer filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied today. You can see the full article here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Prisons + Profit = SB1070?

A recent story by National Public Radio details the origins of Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070 ("SB 1070"). According to the report, a company called Corrections Corporation of America sent executives to a meeting with Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce. Corrections Corporation of America reports reveal that the Corrections Corporation of America is aggressively pursuing the immigrant detention market and expecting a significant portion of its revenue from contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At their meeting, the company executives and Senator Pearce discussed created a model for the bill that would months later become the finalized version of SB 1070. The NPR story reports that the sponsors of the legislation soon began to receive significant campaign donations from the same private prison corporations that had been pushing the bill.

In sum, the same corporations that will profit enormously from the increased "civil" detention of immigrants pushed and helped formulate the policy to increase instances of such detention in Arizona. This may be a good way to increase corporate profits but it sure is a vulgar way to make public policy.

Read the NPR piece here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Legal Costs to Defend Arizona’s Immigration Law to top $1 Million

USA Today reports that defending the state of Arizona against lawsuits related to its new immigration law could cost more than $1 million. To date, more than $440,000 have been paid in legal fees; and these fees only account for charges incurred through the end of June. Legal costs related to the lawsuit filed in July by the U.S. Department of Justice have not yet been calculated.

Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, has a legal defense fund, which is used to fund the state’s legal expenses. Taking in to account all of the current outstanding bills, expenses could top $1 million or more.

Since Arizona’s immigration law took effect on July 29, seven federal lawsuits have been filed.

To read more, please visit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-03-arizona-lawsuits_N.htm

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Colorado Representatives Meet with Arizona Lawmakers

On Tuesday, Colorado Republicans met with lawmakers in Arizona to discuss that state’s new, controversial immigration enforcement law, and to get pointers on how to implement a similar law in Colorado. As reported by the San Francisco Examiner, Colorado representative Kent Lambert indicated that he and the other representatives wanted to present similar legislation in the state of Colorado because "We have sort of the backfield problems with employment, jobs, and unemployment and picking up the costs of health care and things like that which seem to fall upon the state of Colorado." Rep. Lambert is one of 11 members of Colorado's Republican Study Committee who are meeting with Arizona legislators this week. Colorado joins Tennessee and Utah in having sent a delegation to Arizona to discuss the new law.

In fact, undocumented immigrants have been found by economists to have little to no negative impact on employment, job availability, or wages, and many pay taxes. Additionally, the presence of immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, actually boosts local economies and creates jobs, as immigrant families spend their incomes on American goods ranging from cars to groceries.

A law like Arizona’s is not the answer to the U.S.’s economic concerns, as it does nothing to address job creation or a path to legalization for undocumented workers, but instead encourages fear and invites discrimination. Let’s hope that it’s all talk and no action.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner, National Public Radio, and the ACLU websites: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/colorado-gop-wants-immigration-law-like-arizonas-100909199.html#ixzz0wypMEMg2

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigrants-and-economy

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Critics Question Lack of Crackdown on Sanctuary Cities

More than fifty cities in the United States, believing that enforcement of immigration laws is the responsibily of the federal government, are offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants. Given the administration's lawsuit against Arizona, critics are asking why these cities are "getting a pass" for ignoring the law. According to Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-IL, the statement they are making is that it is not up to them "to preemt the federal government." Others, like Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Liberty Commission and a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, oppose sanctuary cities. "We can't have government officials deciding which laws they are going to enforce or not enforce. That undermines the rule of law." To read more on this issue, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

GOP Senators and 9 States Back Arizona Law

Yesterday nine states, led by Michigan’s attorney general, Mike Cox, filed a legal brief in support of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Arizona’s law, which makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally, has been challenged in court by the U.S. Department of Justice as overtaking federal authority to enforce immigration laws. Michigan was joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia in filing the brief.

Additionally, GOP Senators Jim DeMint and David Vitter have voiced resistance to the Obama administration’s challenge of the Arizona law. The senators have announced that they will be introducing an amendment into a small business bill that would prohibit the Obama administration from participating in lawsuits against the Arizona law. For the full article click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

AZ Immigration Law First Court Hearing

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will hear arguments on Thursday, July 15, 2010, over whether Arizona’s new immigration law should take affect later this month. This will be the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict law. Arguments will include Governor Jan Brewers’ request to dismiss the challenge filed by Arizona’s police Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa. Brewer’s attorneys ask to have the officer’s lawsuit thrown out because his arguments are based on speculation rather than a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law. Similar hearings for the lawsuits filed by the federal government and civil groups will be heard on July 22, 2010. Other challenges to the law were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, clergy groups, a researcher from Washington and a Tucson police officer.

To read the entire article, please visit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_arizona_lawsuit_6

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Utah investigates mailing list of alleged illegal immigrants

As reported on MSNBC.com, an anonymous group in Utah released a list containing personal information of more than 1,300 people who are supposed illegal immigrants. Information contained on the list includes social security numbers, birth dates, work places, addresses, and phone numbers. It is reported that several media outlets, law enforcement agencies and other organizations began receiving the list in the mail this week. The anonymous group demands that those on the list be immediately deported.

A spokeswoman for the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, indicates that it will be several days before it is known whether the list was leaked by state workers. Many state agencies are being reviewed; however, the investigation is focusing on just three. This is yet another incident to spread panic through the Hispanic community since the recent passing of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. It is also reported that some Utah lawmakers are considering implementing a similar law in the state of Utah.

To read the full article, please visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38245822/ns/us_news-life/

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Department of Justice sues Arizona over new immigration law

Yesterday, July 6, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, seeking to block Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, from taking effect. The law is scheduled to go into effect on July 29th.

The DOJ suit challenges the law as unconstitutional. It states, “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

Not surprisingly, many people were upset to see the U.S. Government suing one of the states. But the DOJ made clear that the suit was not politically-motivated. A senior DOJ official explained, “We’re charged not with doing what’s popular or partisan or political, but doing what we think is right.”

The lawsuit proceeds on the legal theory of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. It argues that because the Federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” SB 1070 should be struck down. It also argues that SB 1070 would unduly burden the Federal agencies that regulate immigration, since Arizona would be referring certain immigrants to those agencies. The concern is that unduly burdened agencies would be distracted from its higher priorities, such as immigrants involved in terrorism. The suit also claims SB 1070 would make local law enforcement more difficult, as it would create a divisive line between immigrant communities and local police forces. Victims and witnesses will likely be too afraid to come forward with information about crimes occurring in their communities. Several local law enforcement officials provided declarations in support of the lawsuit.

The nation will anxiously await the court’s decision. It is likely that this challenge will reach the Supreme Court. According to Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University, the DOJ makes a “strong argument,” but that the case “could go either way,” since “there is precedent on both sides of the question.”

For more information, please visit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/united-states-v-arizona-drawing-clear-line-between-federal-and-state-immigration-au

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Requirements of Employers for Determining the Employment Eiligibility of Foreign Workers

As individual States continue to pass laws in an effort to “protect” their citizens from what they perceive to be harm from undocumented immigrants, the constitutionality of the laws continues to be challenged in our federal courts and courts of appeal. Last week, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, an Arizona state law prohibiting employers from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized immigrant was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.


The petitioners allege that the Arizona statute is unlawful because it is preempted by federal immigration laws that regulate the employment of non-citizens. The lower courts upheld the statute, finding that it was not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court will address three questions; 1) Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2); 2) Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note, and 3) Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the "comprehensive scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

This proves to be a fundamental decision for many states, as once determined it will serve as precedent and a number of states have similar laws governing requirements of employers for determining the employment eligibility of foreign workers.

http://www.legalactioncenter.org/supreme-court/court-consider-legality-arizona-law-sanctioning-employers-who-hire-unauthorized-worker

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Crime Rates in Arizona Unrelated to Immigration

Neil Conan, of NPR’s Talk of the Nation, recently interviewed James Alan Fox, crime expert and Northeastern University law professor regarding recent FBI statistics showing that crime rates dropped significantly in Arizona since 2000, despite the perception that undocumented immigrants are responsible for increased criminal activity. Debate swirled around the statistics as evidenced by blogger Tim McGuire’s statement that crime had increased in the rural counties along the Mexican border. James Fox debunked Tim McGuire’s arguments, stating “the fact is that crime has not increased in Arizona. In fact, it’s gone down mostly. And trying to blame illegal immigrants for rising crime just isn’t fair." Read Neal Conan’s interview with James Fox in its entirety:

 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128058773

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Immigration Reform: Federal or State Issue

With the recent passage of the Arizona Immigration law, many states have jumped on the bandwagon of finding immigration reform. In a recent article, it is found that Nebraska is following suit. The new ordinance which will be voted on today, Monday June 21, 2010, if approved, would prohibit businesses from hiring illegal immigrants and halt landlords from renting to them. However, as our precedent shows, if this ordinance passes it will most likely be struck down and bring about many legal issues. The article highlights similar laws that have been voter approved in Pennsylvania and Texas, only to be later struck down by the courts. In 2007 it is stated by a federal judge that immigration laws should be left solely to the federal government. In Texas, 2008, it was found that a law that bars landlords from renting to illegal immigrants was unconstitutional. Nebraska’s ACLU executive director said that “it’s the federal government’s responsibility to set immigration policy and we are not well-served when communities or states try to set policy on their own.” It’s the lack of federal immigration reform that is causing states to take matters into their own hands. This is, again, a call to federal action of comprehensive immigration reform. With federal reform comes secure borders and logical and enforceable immigration policies.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/21/fremont.immigration.ballot/index.html

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Associate Attorney, Aaron Hall: Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law Casts Shadow on Cinco de Mayo Celebrations

Happy Cinco de Mayo! Well, maybe not the happiest for those in Arizona. On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army triumphed in a battle over the French and spawned an annual commemoration which has evolved into a passionate celebration of Mexican culture and heritage. As people of all origins across America observe this day by going to parades, fesitivals , or just by enjoying some Mexican cuisine and a margarita, all is not well for Mexican-Americans.

Frustration and exasperation over the failure of the federal government to address this country's broken immigration system has led to the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, a law which will make being present in Arizona without immigration status a state crime and require Arizona police officers to ask for proof of legal status based on "reasonable suspicion." Unfortunately, the new Arizona law is ill-conceived and will inevitably result in the unfair and illegitimate detention of United States citizens, permanent residents, and those here in legitimate non-immigrant status. The new Arizona law will also create an inherently offensive system of law enforcement through racial profiling.

United States citizens, lawful immigrants, and those here in other lawful status will be detained if they cannot produce a document showing their status on the spot. The problem is that many people may not be able to produce such documents for various reasons. Some people may not have ready access to birth certificates due to having lost it, due to having had it stolen or destroyed, due to family separation mental illness, homelessness or a myriad of other reasons. These people, having committed no other offense, could be detained for hours or days while they seek a way to prove legal status. Also, certain persons in lawful status simply will not be able to show proof of such based on the complications inherent in immigration law. For example:

• People with with pending applications for extension or change of status will have an I-94 card that is expired, but while the application remains pending, they are in a period of stay authorized by the attorney general;



• Students are admitted for duration of status and their I-94 cards do not have an expiration date;



• Applicants who have applications for adjustment of status that are pending are in a period of stay authorized by the attorney general but will not have a document to prove it;



• Individuals who have conditional permanent residence based on a marriage and have filed a petition to remove the conditions but have not yet received the actual card;



• Individuals who are in removal proceedings or have cases on appeal.

Furthermore, the legal determination as to whether an individual is in lawful status is one that often requires thorough investigation or litigation, during which the person presumably could be detained under Arizona law. An officer on the street does not have the time, training or resources to make such a determination on the spot. Yet, under the new law, the police department can be sued by any private citizen if that citizen does not believe the police are enforcing the new law and he or she thinks they should.

Apart from those who are lawfully here who would inevitably be harmed by this law, the very notion that any of us can be required to produce papers at any time to prove our right to be in Arizona based on some nebulous concept of "reasonable suspicion"is an affront to individual liberties. Though the law says that race, alone, cannot form the basis for reasonable suspicion, we have yet to hear other specific factors that would combine with race to form a "reasonable suspicion." It seems that race and accent will clearly be the dominant factors in forming this determination. Unfortunately, this is likely to cause fear of and animosity towards law enforcement by immigrant communities, including U.S. citizens and documented and undocumented immigrants. Such distrust and fear will only hamper state police in investigating serious crimes which truly deserve the attention of their talent and resources.

Federal action must be taken to secure our border and fix the current irretrievably broken system. This Cinco de Mayo will feature an annual celebration of the wonders and contributions of Mexican culture in America against the backdrop of Arizona Senate Bill 1070--a law which demands a wasteful use of resources, inevitable mistaken detention of U.S. citizens and others in lawful status who have committed no other offense, costly litigation against the state, and a repugnant institutionalization of racial profiling. In Arizona, Mexican Americans will suffer the brunt of this clumsily drawn attempt to address our broken system. All of us, however, should recognize this legislation as a call to demand federal action in the form of comprehensive immigration reform. Only after such a reform can we have secure borders, sensible and enforceable immigration policies, and a future of fifth days of May where we can celebrate the cultural richness and economic benefits of legal immigration without the shadow of hastily drawn patchwork laws like Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•