N.Y. Lawmaker Aims to Give Voting Rights to Undocumented Immigrants
Reuters - June 16, 2014, by Curtis Skinner - A New York lawmaker wants to grant many of the rights of citizenship to...
Reuters - June 16, 2014, by Curtis Skinner - A New York lawmaker wants to grant many of the rights of citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and non-citizen residents, including the right to vote in local and state elections, under a bill introduced on Monday.
The New York Is Home Act is the first bill in the United States that would provide such broad rights to non-citizens who can show they have lived and paid taxes in New York for at least three years, according to the bill's sponsor, state Senator Gustavo Rivera.
"Nearly 3 million people in the state of New York currently reside here and make New York their home, but can't fully participate in civic, political, and economic life," Rivera, a Democrat who represents the Bronx in New York City, said in a telephone interview.
He described the bill as a response to the stagnation of immigration reform efforts in the U.S. Congress.
"With failure at the national level on comprehensive immigration reform, the question we have asked is what can states do?" he said.
The bill would provide benefits to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens who could prove they have resided in New York for at least three years and have been paying taxes for as long. They would also have to take an oath to uphold the state's constitution and laws, and pledge their willingness to serve on a jury, according to the bill summary.
In return, non-citizens would receive a form of state citizenship, including access to state tuition assistance and health insurance programs, the ability to apply for driver's and professional licenses, and the right to vote in state and local elections, the summary said.
Other states have moved forward on their own with respect to tuition assistance and driver's licenses, Rivera said, but no other state has considered such a broad package for its non-citizens.
The current legislative session ends on Thursday and Rivera said that he doesn't expect the bill to pass before then. Rather, he said, he hopes the bill will start a conversation both in New York and nationally about immigration reform at the state level.
Source
Are Scheduling Bills Like D.C.'s Helpful or Meddlesome?
The District of Columbia Council scheduled a hearing for Jan. 13 on a bill that would require stores and restaurants to...
The District of Columbia Council scheduled a hearing for Jan. 13 on a bill that would require stores and restaurants to tell employees what their work schedules will be several weeks in advance and require employers to compensate employees for last-minute schedule changes.
“This movement is under way across this country,” lead sponsor Vincent Orange Jr. (D-At Large) said when he introduced the measure Dec. 5. “San Francisco recently passed regulations to address this issue and bills have been introduced in seven states.”
The Hours and Scheduling Stability Act of 2015 wouldn't apply to all stores and restaurants, but it would have a big impact, Orange told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 17. If passed, the measure “will assist tremendously with providing [the district's] workforce and their families with certainty,” the councilmember said.
The bill would require employers to tell workers what their schedules will be at least three weeks in advance. A change in schedule less than three weeks out would require the employer to pay an extra hour of wages. Less than 24 hours' notice would require four hours of wages.
Orange's bill would cover any D.C. franchisee of a restaurant chain with at least 20 locations nationwide or a retail store chain with at least five.
Unpredicatability Affects Planning, Benefits Eligibility
It's hard enough for families to balance work and personal life, Orange said when he introduced the bill. “Having a schedule you can count on leads to a better work environment and better harmony in scheduling family obligations.”
Liz Ben-Ishai, senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, which supports legislation requiring employers to provide workers with advance notice of schedules, told California lawmakers in March of 2015 that volatile schedules affect workers’ ability to arrange child care. Such volatility also interferes with their ability to hold second jobs and pursue education or training, she said.
There's another problem with unpredictable schedules, Ben-Ishai told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 22. Many public assistance programs ask participants to estimate their income or number of hours they will work, she said. “Because they have these erratic schedules or insufficient hours they can't predict how much they'll make,” she said.
Utah is “an example of a good approach,” she told Bloomberg BNA. State eligibility assessors use “professional judgment” to draw on multiple sources of information, including paychecks and conversations with employers regarding anticipated hours and overtime, to determine an applicant's’ eligibility, Ben-Ishai wrote in a policy brief. Utah encourages workers to follow up on information applicants provide that may not reflect their current eligibility, such as out-of-date wage information
Ben-Ishai also suggested a different time frame for evaluating applicants’ incomes and work hours. She pointed to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which “requires a longer authorization period” and “accounts for fluctuation in people's hours.” This federally funded program allows states to determine eligibility “over a period of 12 months to provide a more realistic picture,” she said.
Bills Introduced Around the Country
The Washington, D.C., bill is one of several under consideration in state and local legislatures, as well as on the federal level. Within the past two years, there have been similar proposals in 13 other cities and states, plus one on the federal level.
San Francisco has been the first and, so far, only jurisdiction to pass a predictable scheduling law. It passed Nov. 25, 2014, by a 10-0 vote of the 11-member Board of Supervisors and became law without the signature of Mayor Ed Lee (D). Lee said he was “concerned about large numbers of impacted merchants who said there was little meaningful discussion” in the drafting of the law (243 DLR C-1, 12/18/14).
Lizzy Simmons, the National Retail Federation's senior director, government relations, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 30 that the San Francisco law has a “carve-out that allows unions and their collective bargaining agreements to waive out” of its requirements. She said she's concerned that allowing employees to contractually waive the law's requirements grants outsize influence to labor organizations “since a lot of the unions have been behind” efforts to pass predictable scheduling laws.
The San Francisco law actually “takes away and impedes on employee flexibility,” Simmons said. Retail managers and employees should work together to come up with schedules that can accommodate individual needs, she said. “A one-size-fits-all government mandate” makes that harder to accomplish, she said.
Part of the problem with scheduling bills is that there's little guidance on how to implement them, said Robin Winchell Roberts, the federation's senior director, media relations. For example, the San Francisco law exempts employee-requested changes from triggering schedule change compensation, which Roberts calls “penalty pay.” The key factor in determining when an employer must pay schedule change compensation is who requests the change, Roberts said. It isn't clear whether it is due when a retailer requires an employee who can't work a scheduled shift to find a co-worker to work the shift in her place, Roberts said.
The compensation might also be triggered if business is better than expected, Simmons said. For example, a store might want to extend a sale that's going well. If the store wants to staff up to respond to the additional customer demand, it might incur unexpected expenses on account of employees who weren't scheduled, she told Bloomberg BNA. “I don't think you can just say after the fact sales made up for that,” she said when asked whether the unexpected increase in revenue would offset the unexpected increase in expenses.
Flexibility Essential, Industry Group Says
“Flexibility is a trademark of the restaurant industry,” Christin Fernandez, director of media relations and public affairs at the National Restaurant Association, told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail Dec. 23. Businesses operate around the clock “with business models unique to each restaurant,” she said.
Starbucks is an example of a business that pursued its own scheduling model. The company announced in August 2014 that it would voluntarily change its scheduling practices. It said it would provide employees with schedules a week in advance. It also said it would prohibit scheduling employees to close a store one night and return a few hours later to open the next morning (157 DLR A-6, 8/14/14).
But 11 months later, a report by the Center for Popular Democracy, an organization that describes itself as advocating for a “pro-worker” agenda, concluded that the company hasn’t kept its promises. The report, “The Grind: Striving for Scheduling Fairness at Starbucks,” drew on comments from a survey of employees who say back-to-back closing and opening shifts continue. Reached for comment Dec. 22, Brent Gow, global director for payroll at Starbucks, told Bloomberg BNA he couldn’t speak on the record because the company is still working on the issue.
Reporting Time Pay Laws Exist in Some States
Predictable scheduling laws don't take into account that “some of the people that go into these jobs to begin with do it for exactly the flexibility that's being challenged here,” said Diane Saunders, a shareholder in the Boston office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C. who advises employers as co-chair of the firm's Retail Practice Group.
Saunders advises her clients to ensure that they comply with reporting time laws that are already on the books. In Washington, D.C., and eight states, employees are guaranteed a minimum number of hours of pay if they report to work but are sent home because business is unexpectedly slow, she wrote in a Novemberblog post.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's labor bureau chief, Terri Gerstein, wrote to 13 retailers in April 2015 as part of a review of on-call scheduling. In the letters, Gerstein reminded the companies that New York state law requires that an employee who reports for work must be paid four hours, or the number of hours of a regularly scheduled shift if that is less than four hours.
Gerstein told the retailers the attorney general's office had received reports that an increasing number of employers require their employees to call in “just a few hours in advance, or the night before.” Threatening enforcement action over this practice goes beyond what New York law says, said Jim Evans, a partner in Alston & Bird LLP's labor and employment practice who represents employers.
Whether the proposals become law, employers should focus on “the human aspect” of predictability in scheduling, he said. Employers that voluntarily change their practices and lawmakers who draft predictable scheduling laws should consider the “harsh economic consequences” of last-minute shift cancellations, he said.
New Application for Existing Laws
The New York attorney general's letters were sent to companies with household names such as Gap Inc., J. Crew and Burlington Coat Factory. One recipient was Abercrombie & Fitch Co., which is facing a class action in California over its use of on-call scheduling.
In the absence of laws requiring pay for on-call shifts, one team of lawyers is attempting to use wage and hour laws that are already on the books to help their clients. Hallie Von Rock and Carey James, of Aiman-Smith & Marcy, filed a lawsuit in December against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of C’endan Claiborne and a class they estimate includes between 15,000 and 65,000 members in three states.
In the lawsuit, Von Rock and James allege that the company's practice of requiring California employees to call in one hour before their scheduled start time in order to find out whether they're required to work the shift should be considered reporting to work. When an employee calls and is told to stay home, the employee is entitled to a few hours of pay, Von Rock and James told Bloomberg BNA.
Under wage and hour laws already on the books, Abercrombie should pay its employees for the time they spend calling in, Rock and James said. The calls last between two and 20 minutes, which adds up to several hours of unpaid wages per month, they said.
Von Rock and James contend that employees—who aren't paid for the time they spend on these phone calls—are reporting for work when they make these calls. “Even though they're not physically showing up” at the store, the phone call is the beginning of a work shift, Von Rock said. Abercrombie, which is represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, denies the lawsuit’s allegations.
James said the law “is undeveloped in California” as to what qualifies as reporting for work under the reporting time law. “To me, report is a straightforward word and it could just as easily mean call,” he said.
Von Rock expressed concern about a power imbalance between employers and employees. Predictable scheduling laws attempt to level the unequal bargaining power, she said.
Simmons, with the National Retail Federation, views it differently. These laws insert friction into the employer-employee relationship, she told Bloomberg BNA. “These bills punish job creators,” the federation says in its restrictive scheduling toolkit. A better approach would be to continue to allow the market to strike a balance, Simmons said.
Common Ground
One thing on which supporters and opponents of predictable scheduling laws agree is that it's too soon to tell what kind of impact San Francisco's law is having. Ben-Ishai, the policy analyst, and Simmons, of the National Retail Federation, told Bloomberg BNA it is too early to have meaningful research.
Evans, the employer-side attorney, offered advice on balancing employers' need for flexibility with workers' need for predictability. “Focus on the human aspect of it,” he said. “I represent large corporations, many of which are very focused on the human aspect of it. I think that the human aspect of the legislation and the impact of the practices can't be overemphasized.”
“It's just not fair to subject people to that last minute change and kind of harsh economic consequences,” he added. “When you measure who has the ability to absorb the impact of a last minute change in schedule, the answer's kind of obvious.”
Source: Clasp
Peralta pushing to pass Carlos’ Law
Peralta pushing to pass Carlos’ Law
“Citing a 2013 report by the Center for Popular Democracy, Peralta said that between 2003 and 2011, three out of four...
“Citing a 2013 report by the Center for Popular Democracy, Peralta said that between 2003 and 2011, three out of four victims in fatal construction accidents in the United State were immigrants or U.S.-born citizens of Latino heritage.“Among the cases investigated by [the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration] in New York state that number is 60 percent,” Peralta said. “In New York City it’s 74 percent. And in Queens it’s 88 percent.
Read the full article here.
Object Action: The "F" Word in a Post-truth Era Opening Reception to Collect For Change Inauguration
Object Action: The "F" Word in a Post-truth Era Opening Reception to Collect For Change Inauguration
Object Action: The "F" Word in a Post-Truth Eramarks the inauguration of Collect For Change-an initiative which...
Object Action: The "F" Word in a Post-Truth Eramarks the inauguration of Collect For Change-an initiative which collaborates with artists across disciplines, offering artwork with a portion of sales benefiting a charity personally selected by each artist. As a feminist response to the one-year anniversary of the current administration, the group exhibition highlights "objects" and works by female artists "objecting" to a dominant paradigm through innovative media in the feminist realm.
Featured artists Ana Teresa Fernández, Chitra Ganesh, Michelle Hartney, Angela Hennessy, Nadja Verena Marcin, Sanaz Mazinani, and Michele Pred will donate a portion of all artwork sales to Art & Abolition, The Center For Popular Democracy's Puerto Rico Rebuilding Fund, Girls Garage, Girls Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice California, Planned Parenthood, and 350.org.
Read the full article here.
May Day rallies across U.S. target Trump immigration policy
May Day rallies across U.S. target Trump immigration policy
Labor unions and civil rights groups staged May Day rallies in several U.S. cities on Monday to denounce President...
Labor unions and civil rights groups staged May Day rallies in several U.S. cities on Monday to denounce President Donald Trump's get-tough policy on immigration, a crackdown they said preys on vulnerable workers in some of America's lowest-paying jobs.
Protests and marches challenging Trump's efforts at stepping up the deportation of illegal immigrants drew crowds by the thousands to the streets of New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco, with smaller gatherings popping up across the country.
Read full article here.
Labor Activists Applaud First Statewide ‘Fair Scheduling’ Law
Labor Activists Applaud First Statewide ‘Fair Scheduling’ Law
Starting next summer, companies in Oregon will have to give workers at least seven days’ notice about when they’ll have...
Starting next summer, companies in Oregon will have to give workers at least seven days’ notice about when they’ll have to work, according to legislation signed Tuesday by Governor Kate Brown. A handful of major cities have passed “fair scheduling” laws, but Oregon is the first state to do so and the biggest victory on the issue so far for labor activists.
Read the full article here.
What Will a Trump Administration Mean for Supporters of Public Education?
What Will a Trump Administration Mean for Supporters of Public Education?
We don’t know very much about President-Elect Donald Trump’s ideas about education. Although, during the campaign,...
We don’t know very much about President-Elect Donald Trump’s ideas about education. Although, during the campaign, Trump briefly presented a plan for a $20 billion block grant program for states to expand market-based school choice, and although he has hinted that he will reduce the role of the U.S. Department of Education and particularly its civil rights enforcement division, there has been no substantive explanation or discussion of these ideas.
One thing we do know for sure, however, is that every branch of our federal government will be dominated by Republicans—the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.
A new President whose plans we do not know. The absence of checks and balances. Federal public education policy that has for years been undermining support for the institution of public education. Those of us who believe improving the public schools is important have good reason to be nervous, even afraid.
After all, in 2000 and especially after we were distracted in September of 2001 by the attacks on the World Trade Center, we were unprepared to speak to the federal test-and-punish education law, No Child Left Behind. We failed to connect the dots between an accountability-driven, poorly funded testing mandate and the destruction of respect for school teachers and the drive for school privatization that lurked just under the surface of federal policy. And in 2008, we didn’t anticipate the collusion of government technocrats and philanthro-capitalists that emerged when the federal stimulus gave billions of dollars to the U.S. Department of Education for competitive experiments with top-down turnarounds to close and privatize schools and attack teachers.
Advocates for improving public schools—particularly the schools in the struggling neighborhoods of our cities where poverty is concentrated—were unprepared. We struggled to define what it all meant. Why had accountability replaced nurturing children as the mission of the schools? How are achievement gaps affected by opportunity gaps? What did it mean that everyone had come to define school quality by test scores without any attention to the capacity of communities to provide the necessary conditions for teaching and learning? How had it happened that everybody was suddenly focused on so-called “failing” schools? Why did everyone suddenly feel that it was appropriate to blame and castigate school teachers who were said to be protecting adult interests instead of putting students first? And how had it happened that so many people prized the innovation that was supposed to come with charter schools unbound from bureaucratic regulations, and yet those in charge no longer worried about strengthening the oversight necessary for protecting children’s rights and the expenditure of tax dollars? How had so many people come to accept that the market would take care of all this?
We watched with dismay as all this came to pass, but we were unprepared to name it, unprepared to think through how it all worked, unprepared to do something about it.
But there is an important development these days among advocates for public schools—the people who agree that we need to promote equity and justice in education’s public sector. Advocates today share broad consensus around the following priorities:
• driving long-denied public investment to improve the public schools in our poorest communities where family poverty is concentrated, and correcting inadequate and inequitably distributed school funding;
• addressing family poverty that, research has demonstrated again and again, is likely to undermine children’s achievement at school;
• ensuring that public dollars are not diverted and that charter schools do not operate as parasites destroying their host school districts;
• supporting school teachers as a strong, stable cadre of professionals;
• reducing reliance on standardized testing and eliminating high stakes punishments including turnarounds;
• rejecting privatization of education and ensuring strong oversight by government of the institutions that serve our children and spend our tax dollars;
• eliminating widespread overuse—especially in the schools serving our society’s poorest children—of the practices of suspending and expelling students and the widespread obedience-driven discipline practices imposed on poor children when more privileged children attend schools where they are encouraged to question and engage.
At the national level, organizations supporting justice and equity in public education are now unified across a range of constituencies and sectors to endorse and work for these values and priorities. Here are just some of the centers of advocacy these days:
• The Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools is a broad coalition of unions—the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Service Employees International Union; civil rights and community organizing groups–Advancement Project, Alliance for Educational Justice, Center for Popular Democracy, Journey for Justice Alliance; and academic, philanthropic and justice advocacy groups—the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, the Gamaliel Network, and the Schott Foundation for Public Education.
• The NAACP and Black Lives Matter have recently come together in the civil rights community to challenge privatization and lack of oversight as charter schools have expanded.
• The Network for Public Education is an alliance of advocates including school teachers, activists, and bloggers in support of strong and inclusive public schools and in opposition to unregulated charter schools and to over-reliance on high stakes testing.
• The National Education Policy Center, located at the University of Colorado, publishes academic research and reviews research from other agencies on education policy.
• The Education Law Center, and its Education Justice program, and Public Advocates and other school law attorneys are working for school funding equity and civil rights protection.
Last week the education writer, Jonathan Kozol, reminded us about what most of us now know how to articulate but what, ten or fifteen years ago, we would have struggled to say: “Slice it any way you want. Argue, as we must, that every family ought to have the right to make whatever choice they like in the interests of their child, no matter what damage it may do to other people’s children. As an individual decision, it’s absolutely human; but setting up this kind of competition, in which parents with the greatest social capital are encouraged to abandon their most vulnerable neighbors, is rotten social policy. What this represents is a state supported shriveling of civic virtue, a narrowing of moral obligation to the smallest possible parameters. It isn’t good… for democracy.”
Today we are well-aware of the organizations that have persistently undermined support for public education and at the same time pressed for an unregulated school marketplace as the alternative: the Hoover Institution; the Heritage Foundation; the American Enterprise Institute; the Thomas Fordham Foundation; Michigan’s Dick and Betsy DeVos and their many far-right organizations; New York hedge fund managers spreading their billions across New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts via the dark money Families for Excellent Schools; the New Schools Venture Fund; the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington that promotes portfolio school reform; the Gates, Walton, and Broad venture philanthropies spending billions promoting charter schools; the U.S. Department of Education under Arne Duncan that granted billions of dollars—without much oversight at all according to the Department’s own Office of Inspector General— to states to expand charter schools; and the American Legislative Exchange Council that promotes school privatization across the states via its large membership of state legislators.
The same election that brought us President-Elect Donald Trump also brought evidence that today’s public school advocates have become organized and effective. Question 2 to expand the growth of charter schools went down to resounding defeat in a Massachusetts referendum, and Georgia Governor Nathan Deal’s plan for state takeover and charterization of Georgia’s struggling public schools was also soundly defeated at the polls. Voters responded to protect the idea of public education when the stakes for public schools were clearly defined by well organized and well informed advocates.
During a Donald Trump administration we must stay organized, raising our voices persistently to name and frame our concerns with precision and passion. A public education system is the best institution to meet the needs of all kinds of children and protect their rights through law. Our public schools are, of course, imperfect. It is our responsibility to pay attention and ensure that our schools work for all children. Democracy makes our role as citizens possible and requires engaged citizenship.
Looking back on his life as an education professor and advocate for education, Bill Ayers suggests something that will be particularly important for us to remember under the presidency of Donald Trump: that public education is the institutional embodiment of the values that define our democracy. “Education for free people is powered by a particularly precious and fragile ideal. Every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a work in progress and a force in motion, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, moral, and creative force, each of us born equal in dignity and rights, each endowed with reason and conscience and agency, each deserving a dedicated place in the community of solidarity as well as a vital sense of brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect. Embracing that basic ethic and spirit, people recognize that the fullest development of each individual—given the tremendous range of ability and the delicious stew of race, ethnicity, points of origin, and background—is the necessary condition for the full development of the entire community, and, conversely, that the fullest development of all is essential for the full development of each. This has obvious implications for education policy.” (Demand the Impossible, p. 161)
By janresseger
Source
Be Our Guest: The downside of immigration reform is increased deportation of immigrants who don’t deserve it
New York Daily News - February 25, 2013 - Nisha Agarwal - President Obama and Congress have not addressed the federal...
New York Daily News - February 25, 2013 - Nisha Agarwal - President Obama and Congress have not addressed the federal Secure Communities program, which has created a deportation pipeline that tears apart thousands of immigrant families.
In recent weeks, the federal fight for immigration reform kicked off in earnest, with Congress and the White House issuing their legislative principles, and the White House “leaking” specific proposals for a bill. Reform offers the bright possibility of legalization for 11 million, including more than 700,000 New Yorkers who live and work in, contribute to and sustain our richly diverse city and state. But the dark side of reform — its painful compromise — may be an increase in federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The Senate and the President’s proposals demand further fortification of the borders and better tracking of visa-holding immigrants. They also do not address the federal Secure Communities program, which has failed utterly in its objective to identify violent and dangerous criminals and, instead, creates a detention and deportation pipeline that has torn apart thousands of immigrant families.
New York City is poised to alter the terms of the national debate, however, by pushing back against Secure Communities and highlighting the destructive impact of the program for New York’s immigrant communities and the city itself. Recently, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito introduced two bills that will limit the extent to which the Department of Corrections and the NYPD collaborate with federal Immigration Customs and Enforcement officials through the Secure Communities program.
These bills, which are due to pass this week, build upon a law enacted in 2011 that would prevent the Department of Corrections from turning over to federal immigration authorities certain individuals being held at Riker’s Island who posed no public safety threat. Before this law went into effect, thousands of immigrant New Yorkers were held at Riker’s Island every year in order to be turned over to ICE for eventual deportation. A large segment of those held posed no threat to public safety, including those who were long-term, legal permanent residents, juveniles, people seeking asylum and protection under the Violence Against Women Act, victims of human trafficking and many individuals who may have been arrested for minor infractions such as selling merchandise on the street or hopping a turnstile. What is more, the city was under no legal obligation to hold these individuals for federal authorities, but it continued to do so, spending nearly $20 million a year in city funds to subsidize a senseless and harmful federal deportation process.The new law ended this practice, better focusing the city’s limited resources, targeting enforcement and ensuring that immigrant families were not afraid to step forward as victims and witnesses to crime or to interact with their local government.
With the enactment of Secure Communities in New York in May 2012, ICE has been able to “flag” immigrants moving through the criminal justice system far faster and earlier in the process than had previously been possible because it allows for the sharing of fingerprint data almost instantaneously between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and ICE. A bad system of indiscriminate immigration enforcement was made much worse under Secure Communities.
Now, New York City is once again faced with the challenge of having to subsidize and support a broken and deeply flawed federal immigration enforcement system. Immigrant New Yorkers are coming into our courts and through our police precincts at risk of being siphoned into deportation proceedings, even if they have committed no crime, are themselves victims of crime or domestic violence or have committed only minor status-related crimes such as driving without a license. Perversely, many immigrant defendants now arrive at arraignments already having been identified by ICE and therefore find it in their best interest to be sent to Riker’s Island rather than released on bail because they are at risk of being turned over to immigration authorities upon release.
The new bills introduced in the City Council will put a stop to these perverse outcomes, ensuring that individuals who have no criminal record, immigrants who have committed only low-level or some status-based offenses, and immigrant youth, among others, are not ensnared by the deportation dragnet when they pose no threat to the public.
This legislation was developed in partnership with Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD, as well as in collaboration with the immigrant community and others impacted by the harmful and inappropriate conflation of the criminal justice process with civil immigration enforcement. It is New York City speaking with one voice, reaffirming our collective values: the importance of trust between government and the people it serves; the commitment to diversity, openness and inclusion; and the enduring, stubborn passion to be a city that attracts and supports a world of talent and human potential. The proposed legislation is also New York’s call to the rest of the country, as national attention focuses on the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform.
The era of exclusion and impunity is over. We must choose a path forward that protects our families, sustains our communities and promotes the hard work and opportunity that boosts our economy.
Nisha Agarwal is deputy director of the Center for Popular Democracy (www.populardemocracy.org) and a lecturer at Columbia Law School.
Source
SF Finalizes Settlement in Nevada ‘patient dumping’ Case
SF Finalizes Settlement in Nevada ‘patient dumping’ Case
A $400,000 “patient dumping” ...
A $400,000 “patient dumping” settlement with Nevada approved Tuesday by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors also requires that state to regularly report to The City for the next five years regarding any patients sent to California.
The settlement establishes criteria for sending those patients to California in the first place.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera had sued Nevada two years ago over the state’s improperly discharging psychiatric patients and sending them on Greyhound buses to San Francisco with little means and nowhere to stay, a practice first exposed by the Sacramento Bee.
The Nevada Board of Examiners, which reviews claims for payment, approved the settlement Oct. 13 and on Tuesday the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved it, making it official.
As part of the settlement agreement, made public Tuesday, Nevada agreed to only provide travel assistance for released patients based on certain criteria. That would include, for example, cases where the patient was a California resident at the time they were admitted for treatment in Nevada.
Other criteria includes cases where a clinic has agreed to accept the patient in the destination city in California or an acquaintance or family member has agreed to care for the patient.. The agreement also requires the discharged patient to have a travel chaperone, like a family member, who must be present when released in Nevada and accompany the patient on the trip to California.
“I’m pleased we reached an agreement that will assure the well-being of psychiatric patients when they’re transported, and that also offers a model for how jurisdictions can work together to better protect our patients and taxpayers,” Herrera said in a statement released shortly after the Board of Supervisors vote.
When the proposed settlement was reported by the San Francisco Examiner on Oct. 5, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval said in a statement, “We look forward to working with California to ensure all patient transfers to and from both states are managed using these best practices and adhering to conditions detailed in the agreement.”
The settlement agreement requires Nevada to provide San Francisco with a semi-annual report regarding any patients Nevada’s state mental health system sends to to California between January 1 and December 2019. The report must include patient information like date of discharge and eligibility for travel under the agreement.
Since April 2008, San Francisco identified 24 patients bused from the state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas to San Francisco, with 20 in need of medical care “some within mere hours of getting off the bus,” said the lawsuit. Over the past five years, Nevada sent a total of 500 patients by Greyhound bus to cities and counties in California,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit sought $500,000 in expenses for the medical care of the patients.
Also on Tuesday, San Francisco increased gun control regulations, which has prompted the closure of the last remaining gun store.
Supervisor Mark Farrell, who introduced the legislation, offered no apologies for the pending closure of High Bridge Arms at 3185 Mission St., which plans to shutdown on Oct. 31.
“I believe all of us in San Francisco will be better off,” Farrell said of the anticipated gun shop closure. The store was opened by Bob Chow, a Chinese American who competed in the US Olympics, in 1952, operating primarily as a gunsmith. In 1987, it was sold to Andy Takahashi, who before coming to San Francisco via Alaska lived in Japan.
The legislation requires the video recording of all firearms sales, which would be available to the police with a search warrant. The legislation would also require at least weekly reporting the Police Department of store bought ammo. The law was supported by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“Even though our city and our state have some of the toughest gun control laws on the books there still remains more that we can do to protect public safety,” Farrell said.
The legislation was approved in a 9-0 vote. Supervisors Eric Mar and John Avalos were absent from the meeting. Both were attending the Local Progress convention in Los Angeles.
Source: San Francisco Examiner
Maggie Bulmer: Pause Charter School Expansion
Providence Journal - January 27, 2015, by Maggie Bulmer - Does supporting two parallel school systems make sense?...
Providence Journal - January 27, 2015, by Maggie Bulmer - Does supporting two parallel school systems make sense?
Did The Providence Journal editorial board research thoroughly before deciding to support the expanding of charter schools in Rhode Island (“Expand R.I. charters,” editorial, Jan. 25)?
There are several reliable studies that advocate caution before jumping into support for charters schools. The studies have uncovered waste, fraud and abuse totaling over $100 million in taxpayer loss in 15 large charter markets: Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Texas.
My notes, from the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, indicate that half of the $100 million was spent on federal prosecution of charter school officials and staff.
The Center suggests pausing charter school expansion until problems are addressed. I agree. Inadequate oversight hurts kids and taxpayers. Let’s not plunge into the newest privatizing idea without studying the data and getting the facts.
Maggie Bulmer
Middletown
Source
7 days ago
7 days ago