|
March 31 04: CLEAR Act update from National Immigration Forum Date: 3/31/2004 11:59:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
A. Next Steps to Fight the CLEAR Act and the Homeland Security Enhancement Act 1) Meet with your members of Congress while they are in recess - House members will be home April 4-19 - Senators will be home April 11-19 - Hearing from constituents remains their most powerful influence, and every member of Congress remains an important target (with some exceptions, like Rep. Norwood) 2) Prepare for Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing - Date still in flux, but April 22nd is under consideration - Need to target all members of Senate Immigration Subcommittee plus Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Subcommittee Chair Chambliss (R-GA); Grassley (R-IA); Kyl (R-AZ); DeWine (R-OH); Sessions (R-AL); Craig (R-ID); Cornyn (R-TX); Ranking Member Kennedy (D-MA); Leahy (D-VT); Feinstein (D-CA); Schumer (D-NY); Durbin (D-IL); Edwards (D-NC) - In addition to meetings and phone calls, send them letters, stories, other information that they can use in their statements and to insert into the hearing record 3) Reach out to new House targets, based on our latest intelligence - Judiciary Republicans who are not on the Immigration Subcommittee: Chair Sensenbrenner (WI); Bachus (AL); Carter (TX); Chabot (OH); Coble (NC); Feeney (FL); Forbes (VA); Goodlatte (VA); Green (WI); Hyde (IL); Jenkins (TN); Keller (FL); Pence (IN) - Judiciary Democrats who are not on the Immigration Subcommittee: Baldwin (WI); Boucher (VA); Meehan (MA); Nadler (NY); Schiff (CA); Scott (VA); Waters (CA); Watt (NC); Wexler (FL); Wiener (NY) - Appropriations Republicans who are on the Homeland Security Subcommittee: Subcommittee Chair Rogers (KY); Vice-Chair Young (FL, who is also chair of the full committee); Wolf (VA); Wamp (TN); Latham (IA); Emerson (MO); Granger (TX); Sweeney (NY); Sherwood (PA) 4) Contact the White House and Department of Homeland Security leaders about the problems with local enforcement of federal immigration laws - DHS targets: Secretary Tom Ridge; General Counsel Joe Whitley; Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Michael Garcia; Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson 5) Communications: The National Immigration Forum will be sending a “state of play” memo to Hill staff and editorial boards this week or next. We also remain available to assist you in planning local media work, whether you are interested in designing a press event, responding to a news article with a letter to the editor, or authoring an original op-ed. 6) Offer to assist with the tri-caucus Hill briefing (tentatively scheduled for the week of 4/12) - Katherine Newell Bierman of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium has been talking to Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Mike Honda’s (D-CA) staff about a staff briefing on the CLEAR Act sponsored by CAPAC, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus - They are looking for ideas on specific African-American civil rights or other groups that may be interested in partnering for the hearing - Katherine is also looking for a volunteer to cross-reference the names on our House target list with members of the three caucuses and the Congressional Hispanic Conference, to see which staff we should especially encourage to attend - Email Katherine for more info or to volunteer (knewell@napalc.org) B. Advocacy Tools: Guidance on how to advocate against the legislation: http://www.immigrationforum.org/CurrentIssues/articles/Advocacyideas.pdf. Contact information for some key members of Congress: http://www.immigrationforum.org/currentissues/articles/CLEARCongresscontacts.pdf. For all others, use the Congressional web sites: www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. To reach the Department of Homeland Security, visit http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus; select the immigration category for email. To reach the White House, your members of Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security (soon) quickly and easily, visit the American Immigration Lawyers Association web site at: http://capwiz.com/aila2/home/. For media guidance (including sample press releases and how to write letters to the editor), email ltramonte@immigrationforum.org. On local ordinances, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) compiled a list of places that have already passed confidentiality policies: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/Local_Law_Enforement_Chart_FINAL.pdf. Anita Sinha of NILC is also working on a sample ordinance and a sample anti-CLEAR/HSEA resolution, which will be available soon. If you have any questions, email her at sinha@nilc.org. Miscellaneous CLEAR Act resources: http://www.immigrationforum.org/currentissues/clear.htm. C. Summary of the “State of Play”: People are asking: what is going on with the CLEAR Act? In January President Bush re-ignited the immigration reform debate by announcing principles for a temporary worker program and calling on Congress to work out the details. Since then, Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have introduced thoughtful bi-partisan reform legislation and the Democratic caucus has re-issued its own principles for comprehensive immigration reform. The increased attention to positive immigration reforms in the 108th Congress has given pro-CLEAR members the platform and incentive to speak out about their harmful legislation. The CLEAR Act and its Senate counterpart (the Homeland Security Enhancement Act) have come up in several unrelated hearings on Capitol Hill, whenever a Department of Homeland Security official is called to testify on basically any issue related to immigration policy or funding. Proponents are trying to position this legislation as the necessary enforcement component of any immigration reform plan, thereby extending the shelf-life of their idea well into the next Congress, when a more robust immigration debate may bloom. Proponents are scrambling to be relevant in large part because you all have done such an effective job in your advocacy! The national groups working in coalition against this legislation (immigrants’ rights and civil rights groups, domestic violence prevention advocates, state/local government associations, civil liberties watchdogs, et cetera) recently visited key Congressional offices in earnest to discuss the legislation. We met with House and Senate leadership, key committee members, and White House staff. At every turn we learned that your letters, visits, and coalitional work with local law enforcement and government allies has paid off in a big way. Staff are often familiar with the arguments against this legislation and with the impressive number and variety of groups that are working to defeat the bills. Both Congressional leadership and the White House told us that these bills are not currently on track to come to the floors of the Senate and House this year, given the limited number of legislative days remaining and other priorities. However, proponents are taking intermediary steps that present both challenges and opportunities for us. Moreover, we know the tide can change at any minute, and that bills can become laws bypassing the normal deliberation process, which requires us to remain focused on monitoring and fighting this legislation. In the House of Representatives, rumors abound that CLEAR Act proponents would like to bring the bill to a mark-up. Currently, they do not have the votes in the Immigration Subcommittee to pass the bill as-is, since all Democrats and two Republicans (Representatives Cannon (UT) and Flake (AZ)) have expressed opposition to the bill. However, the CLEAR Act proponents are not daunted by that seeming roadblock. They may try to bypass the subcommittee and go to a full committee mark-up. We are not yet sure where everyone in the House Judiciary Committee stands on this bill. Proponents could also try to attach the bill to something that does move, either something entirely unrelated that has to pass or something positive like AgJOBS or the Student Adjustment Act. Finally, there are also rumors that Rep. Norwood (R-GA), the CLEAR Act’s chief sponsor, may be considering changing his bill so that it can garner more support. All of these are still very real threats in the 108th Congress. Moreover, the bill was spoken of favorably by a few Republicans on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee in a recent hearing. This is the first time it has come up with appropriators in this way, and it’s clear that they haven’t yet considered the fiscal implications of the legislation. If something does happen in the House, it may happen very quickly and we will have little time to react. Therefore, it’s critical that we all continue to advocate against the bill with our members of Congress, Congressional leaders, and members of key committees (Judiciary and Appropriations). In the Senate, we have heard that Immigration Subcommittee Chair Saxby Chambliss is trying to re-schedule the hearing on the Homeland Security Enhancement Act for late April. Once a date is nailed down we will let you know. Our activism around the hearing will be incredibly important so that we can influence its outcome. Democrats will have only one witness on their side and the Republican Chair will likely call several witnesses that favor the legislation. That is why it is critical for all members of the subcommittee to hear from us and to be able to explain why this legislation is harmful to their constituents. Letters to the Hill, phone calls, meetings, and other advocacy initiatives are critical. As far as the Bush Administration goes, various national groups met with Domestic Policy staff at the White House, who agreed that this legislation is counter-productive to the President’s goal of extending legal status to “willing workers.” They also said that they have "philosophical" concerns in line with ours. However, when asked to make this position clear to their colleagues in Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Michael Garcia, they balked. They said that the White House doesn't have an official position, pointed to the possible impasse in the 108th Congress on this bill, and suggested we continue our advocacy work. In other administration news, the same House Appropriations/Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing mentioned above featured ICE Director Garcia as a witness. Garcia reportedly indicated that he continues to be skeptical of the argument that police enforcement of immigration laws chills crime reporting by victims, even victims of domestic violence. Coupled with troubling comments from Secretary Ridge and General Counsel Joe Whitley previously, it’s clear that we cannot neglect the DHS in our advocacy even if the White House is giving us good signs. D. News Clips: 1) CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Bill imperils immigrants' fragile
trust in police March 31, 2004 Once fearful of Police Officer Kevin Crocker and his badge, the Mexican immigrants at the East Park apartment complex in Rolling Meadows now see a man they can trust. Children teach him soccer moves, and teens tell him which classmates have joined gangs. In a sure sign that they feel at ease, several immigrants have confided that they are here illegally. The result of this trust, Crocker said, is that residents now help police identify drug dealers and gang members, improving the safety of the area. But a growing number of lawmakers think police officers like Crocker should take advantage of their good rapport with immigrants and help federal agents track down those who are here illegally. A bill called the CLEAR Act, which stands for Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal, would affect a long-standing quirk of law enforcement. Now, only federal agents can ask about a person's immigration status. Local police can't get involved, and many, like Crocker, don't want to. But under the bill, cities and states could lose some federal grants if their police refuse to help the Department of Homeland Security track down illegal immigrants for deportation. The bill has become a major point of contention, with several conservative lawmakers warning that they will not support President Bush's proposal to legalize some undocumented immigrants unless the CLEAR Act is approved. Congress has held hearings on the proposal, which is in committee. "We have been invaded by illegal immigration," said U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.), the bill's chief sponsor. "For cities not to want to do their part, I think it's absolutely nuts." Norwood said he is especially concerned about apprehending the 80,000 immigrants sought by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because they have been convicted of crimes and have evaded attempts to deport them. Although some police agencies and associations back the bill, other law-enforcement officials say they worry that the new duties would backfire. "I don't know how anyone would expect me to say, `Oh, you don't have your papers? Come with me,'" said Crocker, who is based at East Park's Police Neighborhood Resource Center. "It would absolutely be a huge step backward after all the work we've done." The bill calls on local and state police to enact policies that let officers ask for immigration papers as easily as they do driver's licenses. If an immigrant is found to be undocumented, the local officers could arrest him. The bill takes aim at cities such as Chicago that have explicit "don't ask" policies for city employees, including police. Local police also would find information on immigration violations through the criminal database they now have access to. The American Civil Liberties Union, labor unions and other groups filed a lawsuit last year in an attempt to stop the federal government from entering that information into the database. More than 115 lawmakers, including U.S. Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), have co-sponsored the bill. Supporters say local and state police are the first line of defense and would supplement overburdened federal immigration agents. In the six states included in the Chicago district, nearly 11,000 immigrants have orders for deportation but remain at large, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman in Chicago. Because the agency's focus is on suspected terrorists and convicted criminals, officials say they sometimes cannot respond when police notify them about encountering people they believe to be illegal immigrants. "If I have a van full of construction workers three hours away, do I send someone to pick them up or do I go out and pick up the gangbanger and sex offender?" said Matthew Albence, associate special agent in charge of the Chicago immigration office. Brian Perryman, formerly the top immigration official in Chicago, said the lack of manpower was often frustrating. He isn't sure the CLEAR Act is the answer, but argues: "We need to start somewhere. This type of bill is driven by a frustration in the complete failure to enforce our immigration laws." Police officials from Des Moines to Los Angeles, however, say the law would be counterproductive, and Illinois immigrant advocates say defeating the bill is one of their top federal legislative priorities. Because a badge is a badge to many immigrants, police departments face an uphill task to build trust. A Boy Scout leader in the northwest suburbs told a story about how one mother was scared silent when he showed up in a jacket bearing a prominent scout logo. In West Rogers Park, several Indian and Pakistani cabdrivers were robbed last fall but failed to report the crimes immediately because they were undocumented, neighborhood activists say. Likewise, Chicago police suspect that several undocumented Hispanic immigrants in January failed to report a man disguised as a police officer who detained them and stole their money. At the East Park apartments, part of a strip that includes several taquerias and other businesses that cater to Hispanics, Rolling Meadows police say they have come a long way. In the early 1990s, few residents cooperated, even after a gang brawl that drew 200 fighters and police in riot gear. By contrast, Crocker recalled a recent case of a drunken man who smashed a bottle over the head of an elderly Hispanic resident. More than a dozen neighbors, some with the perpetrator's license plate number written on their hands, ran to the apartments' police center to help officers catch the assailant. Critics of the federal bill such as the ACLU have other concerns, including doubts that local police would receive adequate training to properly fulfill their new duties. They worry that racial profiling would occur if police assume all immigrants are here illegally. Norwood acknowledged that local police already can assist in immigration enforcement through a compact with the Department of Justice. He said the bill would eliminate any "gray areas" and provide an incentive for police departments reluctant to participate. Laimutis Nargelenas, manager of governmental relations for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, which supports Norwood's bill, said even overstaying a visa or another relatively minor violation could have serious consequences if committed by terrorists or dangerous criminals. "Some [illegal immigrants] are good people who, because of deplorable economic conditions in their country, are coming here to start a life. I can understand that," he said. "But the question is: Are we going to be serious about our immigration laws or are they just going to be a joke?"
DANBURY — Mayor Mark Boughton called Thursday for a federal policy to address the financial burdens undocumented immigrants place on cities like Danbury. The city's population is officially 75,000, but the city also offers social services, education, and medical services to more than 10,000 undocumented immigrants. It is unacceptable that federal government largely ignores them when providing financial aid to cities and towns, Boughton said Thursday. "Local communities can no longer manage the tremendous burdens of a weak federal immigration policy," the mayor said. Instead of easing the burden on cities, Congress is discussing controversial legislation to have state and local police share responsibility with immigration officials for enforcing federal immigration laws. The bill would authorize local police to investigate and detain illegal aliens. Called the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, or Clear Act, the bill may create new costs for local governments. Many police departments and immigrant advocates object to the bill. On Wednesday, Boughton sent a letter urging U.S. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd and U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5th Dist., to address "the challenges of Danbury and communities across the country." "I want the federal government to recognize the 10,000 to 14,000 undocumented immigrants and provide necessary funding to go with that extra amount of population here in the city," the mayor said. In an interview, Boughton said he could apply additional federal fund funds to schools, police and social services. Pre-existing programs for immigrants, like English as a second language classes in public schools, could benefit, and so could new initiatives, like a shelter for day laborers that the mayor proposed. To respond to immigrants crowding into illegal apartments, the city has created a task force to crack down on overpopulated homes, the mayor noted in the letter. Boughton also called for stronger borders, especially to screen out potential terrorists. "We have 500 people here from one village in Ecuador. How hard would it be for a terrorist to make it in?" he said. Boughton opposes the Clear Act, and said, "The federal government needs to do its job, not create more work for police." Supporters of the legislation argue that the nation's 2,000 immigration agents are stretched too thin and they need the help of some 650,000 local police officers. The bill, which is in a judiciary subcommittee, has more than 100 co-sponsors. "Passing the Clear Act will ensure that we finally start getting serious about the criminal alien crisis and that we stop giving (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), state and local law enforcement, and concerned Americans lip service – and start providing real help," the bill's sponsor, U.S. Rep. Charles W. Norwood (R-Georgia), has said. Although critics have said the bill amounts to an unfunded mandate, the legislation calls for some $13 billion over several years, including $2 billion each year to aid police, jails and prisons. States could opt out, but they would lose certain federal aid. Local governments and police departments have a broad range of concerns with the plan. Police fear the law calls for racial profiling and would undermine their relationship with immigrant communities and inhibit the reporting of crimes. "We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce the law in those communities," said James Strillacci, head of the Connecticut Police Chief's Association. "With this, there's no protection for them." Strillacci said the bill would interfere with the basic mission of police departments. "We're trying to catch people doing evil, not trying to make a better life for themselves," he said. Still, David Ray, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, touted the legislation as empowering for municipalities. Police cannot depend on immigration authorities respond to their complaints about illegals, he said. "The federal government just isn't doing its job," Ray said. Whether or not the Clear Act will solve Danbury's problems, the mayor's letter echoes "a long-standing call from states and local governments" to Congress, which has "largely fallen on deaf ears," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum. In response to the letter, Johnson, a Republican who represents the Danbury area, and Dodd, a Democrat who represents Connecticut, expressed sympathy for Danbury. "This is a serious issue for all Danbury residents with a significant impact on city schools and services. It needs to be addressed," Johnson said. She called on Congress to enact "an enforceable guest worker program" in an apparent reference to President Bush's plan to give legal status to undocumented and legal immigrant workers for three years. Bush called for the immigrant worker reforms in January, and Dodd said the Bush administration to "must do more than make a speech or two about what such reforms might include." "It must transmit a concrete legislative proposal to the Congress and work to garner bipartisan support for its package," said Dodd. "Any reform should include relief to communities who have up to now borne the lion's share of providing community services for these individuals." Contact Joe Gould at jgould@newstimes.com or at (203) 731-3411.
|