Author Archives: Victoria Johnson

A Simple Way to Resist the Trump Anti-Immigrant Agenda? Refuse to Pay for It

A Simple Way to Resist the Trump Anti-Immigrant Agenda? Refuse to Pay for It

By Jackie Vimo, NILC economic justice policy analyst
June 1, 2017

With so much news coming out of the White House since late January, it can be challenging to keep track of all the ways the Trump administration is attacking immigrants and working families. However, it’s crucial that we pay close attention to one of the greatest threats to the health and safety of American families that this nation has ever faced: the devastating cuts the president’s proposed budget contains that are intended to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and to fund a massive deportation force that will tear families apart and spread fear across communities nationwide.

The federal budget process may seem overwhelming and unintelligible to many people outside Washington, DC, but it is more important than ever that taxpayers speak out to let Congress know that we will not allow our tax dollars to be used to fund Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda at the expense of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Congress controls the purse strings for the funds that the president requires to enact his agenda, and our best hope to defeat his proposals lies in telling Congress to deny him our tax dollars. Instead of building walls and spreading fear, Congress should be funding programs to create jobs, build a strong health care system, and educate our next generation.

Trump’s proposed Fiscal Year 2018 budget, released last Tuesday, threatens to decimate crucial economic supports for low- and middle-income families. The proposed budget slashes funding for Medicaid by nearly half over the next ten years, cuts food stamps by nearly 30 percent, breaks his promise to protect programs for the disabled because it cuts $72 billion from Social Security programs, cuts Environmental Protection Agency funding by a third, ends all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and eliminates programs to help kids afford college.

Trump’s budget uses these cuts to pay for his anti-immigrant agenda, including increased funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is currently under fire for fiscal mismanagement and allegations of agent misconduct. This budget is a “Robin Hood in reverse” that steals money from the nation’s vulnerable communities to fill the pockets of millionaires and corporations. It promotes policies that will scapegoat immigrants and terrorize communities by flooding neighborhoods with immigration agents operating under inadequate government oversight.

The Trump budget asks taxpayers to allocate $4.5 billion on top of the $19 billion we already spend on immigration enforcement to fund the president’s plans to build an ineffective and xenophobic wall and to deport millions of immigrants, tearing apart families and communities. Most of this funding would go to hire 1,000 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and 500 hundred new Border Patrol officers, and to build 74 miles of wall on the southern border.

DHS is already struggling to hire agents that the agency already has funding for, partly because two out of every three applicants for Border Patrol positions fail the required polygraph test. In response, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol’s mother agency within DHS, has suggested that it may loosen testing requirements, thereby putting badges and guns into the hands of people who can’t even pass a lie detector test.

More militarized immigration agents on our streets will only make our communities less safe and increase the levels of terror that already exist. In just the first few months of the Trump presidency, his policies’ chilling effects have led to a decline in the number of women reporting sexual assault and domestic violence and to an increased generalized fear of the police among Latinos. Furthermore, the Trump budget encourages increased collaboration between DHS and local law enforcement. Our communities are safer when all residents can feel safe interacting with their local police officers.

In addition to flooding our streets with immigration agents, the Trump budget would also swell our immigrant detention system by funding an additional 51,379 detention beds, an increase of almost 20,000 beds over last year’s 34,000-bed funding level. As Trump calls for increased detention of immigrants, his budget also proposes to eliminate protections currently provided by ICE detention standards and increase the average number of days that immigrants, including asylum-seekers fleeing horrific conditions and children, are detained.

In addition, the budget calls for making E-Verify, the federal government’s Web-based employment eligibility verification system, mandatory—an expensive mandate that would hurt employers, increase unemployment, and harm our economy. Finally, the Trump budget proposes restricting eligibility for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to only people who have Social Security numbers (SSNs). While the EITC already requires that the filer provide an SSN, this budget would require that both the taxpayer parent as well as the qualifying child have an SSN to receive the EITC or the CTC. This policy would primarily harm working-class taxpayers and millions of U.S. citizen children who live in mixed–immigration status families.

Budget negotiations can be complicated, but resisting the dangerous proposals in Trump’s proposed budget is simple.  We need to tell Congress that it cannot be complicit in Trump’s build-up of a deportation army at the expense of cuts to crucial social programs. In fact, Congress should be decreasing the funding for the bloated DHS enforcement and detention system that fails to adequately manage tax dollars and violates the rights of immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. Instead of building walls and funding fear to divide us, we should use our taxpayer dollars to build a stronger economy and healthier communities.

Resisting Trump’s agenda is as simple as denying the White House our tax dollars. You don’t need to be a budget expert to know that military boots and border walls don’t pay for themselves—we can stop the Trump agenda by refusing to pay for it.

Share

Lawyers for First Known Deported DACA Recipient Ask the Court to Bring Juan Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, media@nilc.org, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, media@nilc.org, 202-384-1279

Lawyers for First Known Deported DACA Recipient Ask the Court to Bring Juan Home

Amended complaint makes new allegations against the federal government

LOS ANGELES — Lawyers for Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez, a 23-year-old DACA recipient, filed an amended complaint in federal district court today alleging their client was unlawfully expelled from the United States in violation of the Constitution and federal law and requesting that he be returned to this country, which is his home.

The original lawsuit against U.S. immigration authorities, filed on April 18, 2017, sought only additional documentation to explain why Montes was removed from the country. This amended complaint challenges the unlawful nature of Montes’s removal. It comes after the federal government initially and erroneously denied that Montes had DACA and provided some limited documentation concerning Montes’s removal.

“We initially sought an answer to one simple question: What happened to Juan Manuel?” said Mónica Ramírez Almadani, an attorney with Covington & Burling LLP in Los Angeles. “The government’s response to date has been woefully inadequate. Their minimal responses have made only one thing clear: that Juan Manuel should never have been taken from his home in this manner.”

Before he was removed from the country, Montes worked in area agricultural fields and was pursuing a welding degree at his local community college.

The amended complaint alleges that Montes was stopped and questioned by a Border Patrol agent while he was walking to find a taxi near the Calexico port of entry. He was detained by the Border Patrol agent and, a few hours later,  was expelled from the country.

Montes was a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that allows immigrant youth to apply for temporary work authorization and deferral from deportation for two years, subject to renewal for another two years. Though the federal government initially denied that Montes had DACA when he was removed from the U.S., it later acknowledged that Montes did have DACA at the time he was removed and that it was not set to expire until 2018.

“The federal government made a promise to Mr. Montes,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center. “He came forward, paid a fee, subjected himself to a background and biometric check. In return, he was promised that he would be protected from deportation. The federal government broke its promise without providing due process and by violating federal laws and regulations.”

For more information about Montes Bojorquez v. USCBP, visit www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/montes-v-uscbp/.

A copy of the complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Juan-Manuel-Montes-Bojorquez-Amended-Complaint.pdf

# # #

Share

UndocuBlack and NILC Seek to Uncover the Truth Behind Trump Administration TPS Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, media@nilc.org, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, media@nilc.org, 202-384-1279

UndocuBlack and NILC Seek to Uncover the Truth Behind Trump Administration TPS Decision

Civil Rights and Social Justice Groups to Urge the Trump Administration to Reauthorize Temporary Protected Status for Haitians

WASHINGTON — Days before the Trump Administration announces whether it will re-authorize Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants, civil rights and social justice leaders emphasized the importance of the program for Haitians in the United States and in Haiti, as well as for the national interests of both countries.

The call for reauthorization of TPS for Haitians comes after the Associated Press last week exposed leaked emails from high-ranking DHS officials requesting data on Haitian nationals’ use of public benefits and crime rates. Although DHS officials have denied any connection between these requests and the timing of their decision, the news sent shockwaves through the Haitian community.

UndocuBlack and NILC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the agencies involved in the adjudication process to uncover the administration’s decision-making. Those agencies are the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DHS sub agencies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, representatives for the National Immigration Law Center, the UndocuBlack Network, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) urged the administration to extend the program beyond its current July 22 expiration, noting that recovery efforts following the devastating 2010 earthquake and, more recently, Hurricane Matthew in 2016, have been uneven.

Lys Isma, a student who works in a Biology Genetics lab at her University in Florida, described the consequences of the 2010 earthquake for her and her family and what could happen to them if TPS for Haiti is not renewed. Isma is a member of UndocuBlack who has lived in the United States since she was nine months old.

“It shouldn’t be an easy decision to send somebody to the poorest country in this half of the world, where they don’t have any memories and where they can hardly speak the language,” Isma said. “Where you live should never determine if you live.”

TPS gives individuals from designated countries temporary permission to live and work in the United States on humanitarian grounds if they are here at times of great natural disaster or civil strife in their home country. Thirteen countries, including Haiti, are currently designated for TPS.

According to media reports, 58,000 Haitians stand to lose TPS and would be forced to return to their ravaged homeland if the designation is withdrawn. The Trump administration has until May 23, 2017, to announce its decision.

Tia Oso, National Organizer at the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), said:

“TPS for Haiti is a vital program, not just for the Haitian community, but for everyone that lives and works alongside them in Boston, Miami, Brooklyn and beyond. The Black Alliance for Just Immigration is calling on everyone to stand with the Haitian diaspora in the U.S. and fight for TPS, and condemn the Trump administration’s racist, xenophobic witch-hunt against Haitian TPS holders and other immigrants.”

Olivia Golden, Executive Director at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a national anti-poverty organization, said:

“The federal government’s probe into public benefit use—which in practice mostly means health and nutrition supports for children—is deeply concerning. It is clearly part of a larger agenda by the Trump Administration that began in January to create fear and a chilling effect across immigrant communities, threatening access to the fundamental health care and nutrition that families need and deserve. Scaring parents away from accessing critical services for their citizen children as well as potentially deporting thousands of Haitian TPS holders would have deeply damaging long-term consequences for not only Haitian TPS holders, their families, and their communities, but also our shared national interest.”

Alvaro Huerta, Staff Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said:

“TPS has been an economic lifeline to Haitians both here in the United States and in Haiti. Haitian-Americans have built economic and social ties to this country, and they have friends and family here. These ties would be severed if these individuals lost TPS designation, and the economic ripple effects would extend far beyond TPS holders themselves. We are deeply concerned that the rules for TPS may be shifting for Haitians, and we want to know why.”

Jonathan Jayes-Green, Co-Creator and National Coordinator of the Undocublack Network, said:

“Renewing TPS is about maintaining the dignity of human lives and protecting their choice to migrate to avoid extreme circumstances in Haiti and live. We’ve seen the extraordinary measures and the discriminatory factors the administration is taking into consideration while weighing this decision. As Black immigrant communities, we are very aware of how agencies, organizations and institutions have sought to equate Blackness and poverty with criminality, and used that mantle to deny our communities of our human rights. That’s why today we took the unprecedented step of filing this FOIA Request, our first as an organization.”

Audio for today’s call is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HAITI-051717.mp3

A copy of today’s FOIA request is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Haitian-TPS-FOIA.pdf

###

Share

NILC Responds to Defeat of ACA Replacement Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 24, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, media@nilc.org, 213-375-3149

NILC Responds to Defeat of ACA Replacement Bill

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday failed to reach a consensus and were forced to abandon their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, dealing a blow to President Trump and GOP lawmakers who for years have promised to do away with the law passed under the Obama administration.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“For seven years, we’ve seen access to our health care system improve for millions of Americans thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which, while not perfect, has saved countless lives and livelihoods. Key components of this landmark law provide the cornerstone upon which our society should build a system that provides health care for all.

“This Republican health care legislation, in contrast, would have been worse than repeal alone. The proposed bill would have left tens of millions of people across our country—including many immigrants—without access to health insurance. It was a bad deal for everyone, and we are all better off for its defeat.

“President Trump should know by now that every one of his attempts to further disenfranchise vulnerable populations, including immigrants, will be met with resistance. This is the first of many fights to come. Whether it’s in Congress, in the courtroom, or working alongside our partner organizations and communities, we will continue to fight back against any attack on our families.”

# # #

Share

Federal Court Blocks Trump Muslim and Refugee Ban

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, media@nilc.org, 213-375-3149

Federal Court Blocks Trump Muslim and Refugee Ban

WASHINGTON — A federal court in Hawaii today blocked key parts of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order barring entry to the U.S. from six Muslim-majority countries and suspending refugee resettlement. The court found that the Muslim and refugee bans were likely to be unconstitutional, and ordered that the federal government not reduce refugee admissions from 110,000 to 50,000. The court’s temporary restraining order is in place nationwide.

The decision comes just hours before the revised executive order, signed by Trump on March 6, was scheduled to take effect.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Trump’s discriminatory Muslim and refugee ban, in any iteration, is a clear example of how this administration uses the politics of fear and hate to enact its xenophobic agenda. The courts—and the country—saw through this effort, which has been roundly rejected over and over. It’s clear that no amount of tweaking will undo the discriminatory intent behind this policy. Today’s decision is a victory for the rule of law and reminder that no one—not even the president—is above the Constitution.”

In a separate case, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), with our partners at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Maryland, sued on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project of the Urban Justice Center, HIAS, and the Middle East Studies Association, along with individuals, including U.S. citizens, affected by the ban. A federal judge in Maryland is expected to issue a ruling in that case later today.

The temporary restraining order can be viewed here: www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/HI-TRO.pdf.

# # #

Share

Ninth Circuit Keeps Muslim Ban Temporary Restraining Order in Place

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 9, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, gastelum@nilc.org, 213-375-3149

Ninth Circuit Keeps Muslim Ban Temporary Restraining Order in Place

LOS ANGELES — A panel of federal judges today rejected the Trump administration’s request to stay a temporary restraining order that temporarily blocks key sections of President Donald Trump’s Muslim and refugee ban executive order, which he signed on January 27.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today acted, as the courts are supposed to, as a necessary check on the blatantly unconstitutional overreach President Trump made in issuing this unlawful and un-American executive order.

“This decision means, for now, that people seeking refuge from horrific conditions will not be turned away, that families torn apart by this discriminatory policy can reunite, and that America can continue to benefit from the contributions of immigrants who have long fueled the engines of innovation and helped our communities thrive. We are grateful to the state of Washington—and to all the other states, business leaders, and others who filed friend-of-the-court briefs—for being leaders in the fight to stop President Trump’s shameful actions.”

The complaint is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf.

# # #

Share

First Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump’s Order Banning Refugees from the United States

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 28, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, gastelum@nilc.org, 213-375-3149

First Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump’s Order Banning Refugees from the United States

NEW YORK — Today some of the nation’s leading civil rights groups filed the first legal challenge to the Trump administration’s executive order banning refugees and other individuals from certain countries from entering the United States. The complaint was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of two Iraqi men who were targeted by insurgents for their associations with the U.S. military and who were approved for resettlement in the United States earlier this month. They were denied entry and detained at JFK Airport, though one has now been released.

Karen Tumlin, legal director at National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Trump’s order keeps some of the world’s most vulnerable people in life-threatening danger. This order has wreaked havoc on the lives of the thousands of refugees who desperately need safe refuge from violence and terror, many of whom have already been approved to resettle in the United States and are traveling to be reunited with family and loved ones right now. Many refugees, like our clients, risked their lives to help the United States government. The fact that the government has now decided to turn its back on those who served and protected us isn’t just unconscionable—it’s unconstitutional.”

Today’s filing is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/1-complaint.pdf.

More information about this case is available at www.nilc.org/darweesh-v-trump/.

# # #

Share

NILC Decries Justice Denied to Millions of Immigrant Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 3, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, gastelum@nilc.org, 213-375-3149

NILC Decries Justice Denied to Millions of Immigrant Families

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to rehear arguments in United States v. Texas, denying millions of immigrant families who would benefit from the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration executive actions their fair day before a full court.

The decision to forego a rehearing comes after an eight-justice Court failed to reach a majority in the case last session, letting a lower court ruling stand that blocked the implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The two initiatives would have allowed eligible undocumented immigrants to remain with their families and work in the U.S. temporarily without fear of deportation.

The Justice Department filed a petition for a rehearing in July, asking to reargue the case before a full bench once a ninth justice is confirmed.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Once again, the Judiciary has allowed the politics of obstruction to prevail over justice. Legal experts across the board agree that a rehearing was not only appropriate, but necessary, in U.S. v. Texas. And yet, the Justices failed to do what’s best for the country by allowing this case to be reconsidered once the Supreme Court is fully staffed.

“The issues in U.S. v. Texas are too big for our country to accept a decision by default by the nation’s highest court. DAPA and the expansion of DACA would provide much needed relief to millions of families who live in constant fear of being separated from their loved ones. Furthermore, the two initiatives would reap sizable economic and public safety gains for our country.

“The fact that the Supreme Court has continued to fail to act on the nation’s most pressing issues only serves to remind us that we need a fully functional court today, not next year. We call upon the Senate to do its job and provide that ninth justice without delay. Today’s decision raises the stakes for the November elections even more. Voters must turn out to ensure that we elect a president who will shape the future of the country – not just for the next four years but for decades – as she or he will get to nominate several Supreme Court justices. ”

###

Share

Civil Rights Groups: House Hearing Just Another Anti-Immigrant Sideshow

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, gastelum@nilc.org, 213-375-3149
Adam Luna, United We Dream, adam@unitedwedream.org
Carl Lipscombe, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, carl@blackalliance.org

Civil Rights Groups: House Hearing Just Another Anti-Immigrant Sideshow

Political Leaders Should Move Past Xenophobic Rhetoric

WASHINGTON – As the House Judiciary Committee plans for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversight hearing with ICE Director Sarah Saldaña tomorrow at 10 a.m. ET, we call on those looking to be leaders on immigration to cast aside harmful and xenophobic rhetoric that divides our communities and instead focus on realistic, humane and just reforms. House Judiciary Committee members, along with Ms. Saldaña, have a long history of using irresponsible rhetoric that paints our country’s diverse and vibrant immigrant communities in a sweeping and denigrating light and ignores their enormous social and economic contributions.

Avideh Moussavian, Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center: “Anyone serious about ICE oversight should be asking why ICE is criminalizing immigrant communities through aggressive tactics like home raids that create a ripple effect of fear. Why is ICE targeting vulnerable populations of women and children seeking asylum in the U.S. and flagrantly violating due process by denying immigrants any meaningful opportunity to present their case to a judge? Meaningful oversight means ensuring that ICE is held accountable for complying with civil rights laws, and that there is transparency for how the agency operates.”

Carl Lipscombe, Policy & Legal Manager, Black Alliance for Just Immigration: “ICE policies are destroying black and brown immigrant communities. On one hand, you’ve got lawmakers on all sides calling for criminal justice reform, and the Department of Justice saying it rejects destructive labels like “felon” and “convict” and that it wants to cut ties with prison profiteers. In alarming contrast, DHS continues to incarcerate immigrants at record levels and promote damaging stereotypes about our communities.”

Greisa Martinez Rosas, Advocacy Director, United We Dream: “Our country needs fewer deportations and more relief on immigration. Instead, this Congressional committee is demanding more deportations and less relief. Director Saldaña leads an agency that is guilty of abusing our communities. Director Saldaña and her agency should be held accountable for this abuse but instead, Congressional leaders are berating her for not separating families quickly enough.”

Tomorrow’s hearing will be streamed on https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/oversight-united-states-immigration-customs-enforcement/.

###

Share

Arizona Attorney General Issues Opinion Establishing Constitutional Standards for Enforcement of Key SB 1070 Provisions, Ending Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, gastelum@nilc.org
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540, skilar@acluaz.org
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU National, 212-284-7347, isarda-sorensen@aclu.org
Sandra Hernandez, MALDEF, 213-629-2512 ext. 129, shernandez@maldef.org
Armando Carmona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 951-966-6500, armando@ndlon.org

Arizona Attorney General Issues Opinion Establishing Constitutional Standards for Enforcement of Key SB 1070 Provisions, Ending Lawsuit

Immigrants’ and civil rights groups vow to monitor enforcement of “show me your papers” law

PHOENIX — The Arizona Attorney General’s Office today issued an opinion establishing guidelines for the implementation of two remaining provisions of the state’s 2010 racial profiling law, SB 1070.

With the opinion, the organizations that brought Valle del Sol et al. v. Whiting et al. have agreed to conclude this challenge to SB 1070, which the courts have largely rendered unenforceable.

Every criminal provision of SB 1070 has been blocked, and today’s attorney general opinion, which will be sent to law enforcement agencies across the state, sets down narrow guidelines for how two remaining provisions of the law, sections 2(B) and 2(D), can be enforced. The opinion dictates that officers may not use race or ethnicity to develop reasonable suspicion that someone is unlawfully present in the United States, may not stop people solely to investigate immigration status, and may not hold people in order to investigate immigration status if it will extend the stop beyond the time necessary to address the state law basis for the contact.

“Arizona blazed a trail of mean-spirited policies intended to starve and isolate immigrants six years ago, and many states followed this flawed path,” said MALDEF’s National Senior Counsel Victor Viramontes. “After millions of dollars spent on lawyers, multiple federal decisions blocking key provisions of the law, and finally a state-issued opinion severely constraining local law enforcement, Arizona’s policies have failed to serve anyone living in Arizona.”

“This last step in the SB 1070 litigation makes it clear that what the legislature intended—and much of the immigration enforcement that police in Arizona previously engaged in—is unlawful,” said Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The attorney general’s legal opinion makes it clear that no one can be detained based on suspected immigration status, and no one can be targeted because of their race. Officers who do not pay scrupulous attention to the limits of their authority will be held accountable, just as Sheriff Arpaio has been held accountable.”

“Thanks to the inspiring people who brought this lawsuit, the state of Arizona is finally making a public commitment to permanently uphold basic civil rights protections threatened by its misguided 2010 anti-immigrant law,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director at the National Immigration Law Center. “While this important agreement marks an end to a hard-fought legal battle, we will continue to be vigilant to ensure that local law enforcement doesn’t violate these important protections. A recognition of the rights of communities of color on paper is not enough until it is reflected in the lived experience of all Arizonans.”

Plaintiffs in the case include Valle del Sol, the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Service Employees International Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church of Tucson, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, the Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, the Arizona Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, and Tonatierra Community Development Institute.

Counsel on the case include the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Day Labor Organizing Network, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Ortega Law Firm, P.C., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The Arizona Attorney General opinion filed today is available here: www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1297-1-Exhibit-A-Proposed-Attorney-General-Opinion.pdf

The joint agreement to end Valle del Sol et al. v. Whiting et al. is available here: www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1297-Joint-Case-Disposition.pdf

# # #

Share