CPD IN THE NEWS

 The marker between two territories is not just a line on a map. Norma Casimiro knows this all too well. Seventeen years ago, she left her home state of Morelos, Mexico, with a young son. Since then, she has lived in Westbury, New York, a suburban town in Nassau County with a population of just over 15,000. She lives in a studio in a sublet single-family home with her husband, who is also undocumented, and their eight-year-old daughter who was born in the United States.

Now, in the aftermath of the presidential election, Casimiro is anxious. Westbury is 11 miles from Queens, which means 11 miles from the protections that a so-called "sanctuary city" offers undocumented immigrants.

"We’ve never really considered moving to the city because we have jobs here and we feel as if we’re a part of the community," Casimiro said. "But it does sometimes cross our minds because of what could happen after January 20."

She knows that New York City would provide better public services for her and her family. "You can feel safer over there," she said, "especially after I heard Mayor (Bill) De Blasio say he would defend all New Yorkers, regardless of their immigration situation."

Living in the middle-class suburbs comes with a number of everyday difficulties, like limited transportation, scant social programs and high cost of living. Now, Casimiro feels even more vulnerable, anxious over the president-elect’s campaign threat to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. She also lives in fear that Trump’s anti-immigration policies may leave her son without the benefits of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a type of administrative relief from deportation created during the Obama administration.

Since the election, she's perceived a change in the way people in the community look at her. "I have noticed some disapproving looks that left me with a bad taste," she said. "In Westbury, there are more Latinos than in other parts of the island and you feel safer. But I still feel afraid of going to some stores alone."

She and her family know that Westbury law enforcement has collaborated with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the past. That's why the family generally avoids any type of conflict and rarely goes out at night.

Once, Casimiro had an incident while cleaning a house in the area, which left her shaken.

“I was taking the trash out ... and the alarm went off in the neighbor’s home," she said. "The police cornered me and asked me lots of questions. They asked for my ID. I wish I had one of those IDs they give out in New York. I told them I didn’t have it on me because the owner had brought me in her car. Luckily, the babysitter, who speaks good English, came and intervened on my behalf."

In 2014, the Nassau Sheriff’s Department ceased cooperation with ICE and stopped holding immigrants in jail for longer than allowed by law. The Sheriff’s Department also adopted a set of recommendations, such as that agents not ask anyone about their immigration status.

The organization Make The Road New York explains the difference between living in a city or the suburbs. "The very structure of a city offers more protection because of the existence of public transportation, a more dense population and lots of diversity," organizer Natalia Aristizabal said. "The mere fact of being surrounded by neighbors in an apartment building makes people feel safer than living in an isolated house."

New York City offers access to social programs and diverse community centers. A policy, passed last year, states that municipal IDs can be used as official identification and to open bank accounts. There are also a number of reliable lawyers for low-income people at risk of being deported.

Legislation also exists in New York that prohibits the Department of Corrections from sharing information about any prisoner with ICE before sentencing. Nor can other law enforcement agencies provide the federal government with any information about the immigration status of New Yorkers.

These protections disappear outside the boundaries of the five boroughs. And Long Island’s geography does not help. Immigrants usually own a car because of the lack of public transport, but driving without a license creates risk. "The racial profiling techniques used in the past to intercept a Latino in a vehicle and automatically report their immigration status are well known," said Walter Barrientos, the lead organizer for Make the Road New York in Long Island. "In some places, measures have been taken to control these actions, but not so much in Nassau."

Scattered infrastructure and lack of diversity facilitate more discrimination. "This isn’t Manhattan," Barrientos said. "It’s really easy to see who does and who doesn’t have papers here. It’s those who drive old cars or are walking towards the train station."

Nassau’s Police Department reported 32 hate crimes in 2015. The department also reports an uptick in these types of attacks since the election. "Over the last few months, our people have clearly seen how there are people who are incorrigible when it comes to expressing who they do not want in their neighborhoods," Barrientos said.

In Nassau, legal advice for immigrants is almost non-existent. So it's difficult to explain, for instance, that pleading guilty to a traffic violation could affect an immigration process. "Any problem with the justice system opens a door to deportation. This is the biggest fear of our community: that Trump’s promise to deport all immigrants with a criminal history may come true."

Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, said it is important now to find creative ways to defend people against a Trump administration that "seeks to fulfill their promise of harassing immigrants." This includes establishing a network of allies within the community who are "willing to turn their homes into 'sanctuaries' where people can stay and feel safe," she said.

In the meantime, Norma Casimiro waits. In nearly 20 years of living in the United States, she has never felt so insecure about her future and the future of her children. "All we can do is fight so that our voices are heard," she said. "And hope that someday we will enjoy the same protections as those in New York City."

By María F. Blanco  

Source

If you were tuned into the Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday afternoon, you may have witnessed a confusing moment: Hours after Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, announced in a statement that he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he showed up late to the vote and then asked for a delay on the Senate floor vote, pending an FBI investigation. A quick vote along the roll call occurred...and then the hearing was abruptly adjourned.

Read the full article here.

Univision - February 16, 2015 - Un juez federal de Texas suspendió temporalmente el lunes la entrada en vigor de la acción ejecutiva del presidente Barack Obama, un día antes de que comenzara la inscripción a la primera parte que frena la deportación de unos 2.4 millones de dreamers.

“No está permitido hacer nada para implementar ninguno de los nuevos programas que Obama anunció.”   El beneficio migratorio, anunciado el 20 de noviembre del año pasado por Barack Obama, en total, protege de la deportación a entre 4.5 y 5 millones de indocumentados, entre ellos, padres de ciudadanos y residentes legales permanentes (DAPA, por sus siglas en inglés) que están en el país desde antes del 1 de enero de 2010 y carecen de antecedentes criminales.   También amplía la cobertura de la Acción Diferida (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés) del 15 de junio de 2007 al 1 de enero de 2010, cuya entrada en vigor estaba prevista para este 18 de febrero. El juez Andrew S. Hanen dio la orden de frenar la medida y dictó que el gobierno federal no tiene permitido hacer nada para implementar ninguno de los nuevos programas que Obama anunció en noviembre.   Minutos después de haberse emitido la medida cautelar, el gobernador de Texas, Greg Abbott, quien lidera la demanda, anunció el fallo provisional a través de su cuenta en Twitter. Juez federal acepto su pedido para detener la orden ejecutiva para indocumentados bajo el programa de DAPA. El fallo provisional de Hanen es en respuesta a una demanda presentada en diciembre por 26 estados, liderados por Texas, contra la acción ejecutiva. Veinticuatro de ellos, gobernados por republicanos, argumentan que Obama se extralimitó en sus funciones y que la medida viola la Constitución.   La decisión de Hanen significa que aquellos dreamers (soñadores) que tenían pensado enviar sus solicitudes para evitar ser deportados a partir de este miércoles, no podrán hacerlo. El dictamen provisional ocurre mientras la Corte Federal para el Distrito Sur de Texas, que preside Hanen, sigue revisando la demanda.   En su fallo, el juez asegura que "al haber hallado que al menos un demandante satisface todos los elementos necesarios para mantener la demanda", concede "un mandato judicial temporal" para suspender la aplicación de las medidas hasta que haya "una resolución final de los méritos de esta causa o una orden ulterior de este tribunal".   La acción ejecutiva frena temporalmente por tres años las deportaciones y concede un permiso de trabajo por el mismo periodo de tiempo. Al tercer año se esperaba que pudieran renovarse ambos beneficios.   Los demandantes habían pedido a Hanen que emita una "orden judicial preliminar" que bloqueara temporalmente tanto DACA como DAPA en tanto la querella sigue su curso. El Servicio de Inmigración comenzará a recibir solicitudes de quienes califiquen para Acción Ejecutiva Extendida. Wendy Feliz, representante del American Immigration Council, había advertido en la víspera que Hanen no estaba obligado a tomar una decisión antes de este miércoles, “pero se esperaba que lo hiciera”, reportó la agencia mexicana Notimex.   Otra de las opciones que tenía el juez, además de suspender temporalmente la acción ejecutiva, era no tomar acción alguna y también rechazar el otorgamiento de la suspensión pedida por los demandantes. También Hanen pudo haber emitido una orden de suspensión parcial contra algunos de los beneficios contenidos en la acción ejecutiva.   La decisión de Hanen ocurre en momentos que el Congreso, controlado por los republicanos, debate si aprueba el presupuesto del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) para lo que resta del año fiscal 2015.   A finales de enero la Cámara de Representantes aprobó incluir dos enmiendas al proyecto, una que anula la acción ejecutiva y otra que prohíbe al DHS utilizar dineros del presupuesto en la ejecución de la medida.   El Presidente Barack Obama había advertido que vetará cualquier iniciativa de ley que frene la acción ejecutiva. Pero no puede vetar la medida de Hanen. Solo apelarla.   De no aprobarse el presupuesto antes del 27 de febrero, el DHS se quedará sin fondos para seguir operando, excepto áreas de emergencia de seguridad nacional.   Los republicanos, sin embargo, han dicho que seguirán desafiando la medida ya sea en el Congreso o en las cortes, y exigen al gobierno que escuche la voz del pueblo expresada en las urnas el martes 4 de noviembre del año pasado cuando concedió a los republicanos la mayoría en ambas cámaras del legislativo.   La demanda del 3 de diciembre fue entablada por el entonces gobernador electo de Texas, el republicano Greg Abbott, y luego secundada por otros 25 estados, 24 de ellos gobernados por republicanos. West Virginia y Montana están gobernados por demócratas, pero sus fiscales son republicanos. Nevada, un estado gobernado por el hispano Brian Sandoval, es otra de las sorpresas de esta demanda.   Los demandantes argumentaron en ella que Obama no siguió la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo en la emisión de su directiva migratoria. Y sostienen que la acción ejecutiva de Obama, en la propia admisión del presidente, "cambia la ley y establece una nueva política, excede su autoridad constitucional y perturba el delicado equilibrio de poderes".   “La extralimitación constitucional por el presidente Obama es clara y muy preocupante”, señala el recurso.   El Center for Popular Democracy comentó que el fallo del juez Hanen es una medida cautelar temporal y que “no cambia el hecho de que la orden ejecutiva del presidente Obama sea una victoria para las familias inmigrantes.   “Hacemos un llamado al Departamento de Justicia para que presente inmediatamente una instancia ante el Quinto Tribunal de Apelaciones de Circuito para que sea desechada esta demanda sin mérito que se traduce en un ataque a las familias inmigrantes y una pérdida de dinero de los contribuyentes, dijo Joaquín Guerra, del Proyecto Organización de Texas (Texas Organizing Project) en un comunicado poco después de conocerse el dictamen de Hanen.   A mediados de enero, luego de una audiencia en la que ambas partes presentaron y defendieron sus argumentos, Hanen dijo que no emitiría un fallo sobre la solicitud de interdicto sino hasta antes del 30 de enero.   Señaló que el caso era "un área de debate legítimo" y que "no hay tipos malos en esto". Dijo que Brownsville y el sur de Texas han visto tanto los beneficios como los inconvenientes de la aplicación estricta de las leyes de inmigración y de lo que "algunas personas llaman una política laxa de aplicación".   Durante la audiencia Hanen admitió que había criticado la política de inmigración de Estados Unidos en dos fallos previos, pero también señaló que en ambos casos su determinación fue a favor del gobierno federal.   Además de Texas, los estados demandantes son Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Carolina Norte, Carolina del Sur, Dakota del Norte, Dakota del Sur, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia del Oeste y Wisconsin.   Los estados que se oponen a la acción ejecutiva no solicitan una indemnización, sino que quieren que los tribunales bloqueen la acción ejecutiva y señalan que el mandatario se extralimitó en sus poderes.   Esta no es la primera vez que Hanen se pronuncia en contra de los inmigrantes. Hanen, el año pasado, acusó al gobierno de participar en conspiraciones criminales para llevar al país niños de contrabando al reunirlos con los padres que vivían en el país de manera ilegal.   Source

Last week, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner rejected bipartisan legislation that would set up a system of Automatic Voter Registration and make it easier for millions of Illinois residents to exercise their right to vote.

It is disappointing that Gov. Rauner would stand in the way of such visionary reform, especially when the need to protect voting rights is front and center in the national consciousness. Court decisions in the past month from North Carolina to Kansas have rolled back laws that put unnecessary and discriminatory restrictions on the right to vote. These decisions specifically called out lawmakers for leaning on illusory claims of voter fraud to support voter IDs and other discriminatory obstacles to voting, obstacles that disproportionately hurt communities of color.

Rauner used the same misleading arguments to justify blocking the law, singling out the possibility of non-citizen voting – even though voter fraud by citizens and non-citizens alike is miniscule, in Illinois and elsewhere. But Rauner ignored that fact, instead tapping into a dangerous national narrative used to spread fear and hatred against immigrants and other minority groups.

Automatic voter registration, in fact, makes registration more secure and more accurate. Voter restrictions, not the phantom menace of voter fraud, are the real threats to our democracy.

We hoped that Gov. Rauner would reject such specious claims and put himself on the side of more access to voter registration, not less.

Rauner’s veto comes just days after a lawsuit was filed to try to block the state’s 2015 same-day voter registration law from going into effect this November. Like automatic voter registration, same-day registration reduces unnecessary barriers to registration so that all eligible voters can make their voices heard. The attack on same-day registration resembles recent efforts to suppress voter registration and turnout in other states.

Now, with this one-two punch, Illinois’s democracy could take a hit, closing off viable paths to the polls for many of its citizens.

Rather than maintaining unnecessary barriers, lawmakers should be expanding access to the franchise. After all, we have seen what happens without such proactive efforts. In the past few years, 17 states enacted new laws restricting the right to vote, emboldened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted decades-old protections against discriminatory voting rules.

Until this veto, Illinois was set to go down a different path. A majority of Illinois lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, came together to strengthen our democracy. They supported a commonsense law that would simply add eligible citizens to the rolls by default when they sign up for a driver’s license or change their address – while including safeguards to ensure only eligible voters could be signed up and an option for residents to opt out of registration. The Illinois law would sweep aside barriers to registration that have disproportionately hit communities of color, young people and low-income communities for far too long.

In passing the law, the Illinois General Assembly followed in the footsteps of four other states who have passed automatic voter registration: Oregon, West Virginia, Vermont and California. And with automatic voter registration under consideration in a slew of states across the country, the Illinois law could serve as a model for other states to follow.

However, this veto doesn’t mean we should sit back and accept defeat. The right to vote—and a fair, efficient, and modern registration system that allows everyone to access that right—is too important for all of us not to fight for.

Later this year, the Illinois General Assembly will consider overriding the veto in a special session. We urge Illinois lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to once again stand up and ensure automatic voter registration goes into law.

Yet the message Gov. Rauner sent with his veto will not go unheard. He has put himself firmly on the side of those seeking to weaken voting rights, rather than strengthen them.

We hope the Illinois lawmakers who worked hard to pass this important legislation will vote in a different direction this fall. With the stakes high, it is critical Illinois ensures all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote.

By Lawrence Benito and Emma Greenman

Source