California Immigration Attorney Blog

Relief may be in sight for tens of thousands of green-card eligible foreign nationals who are married or related to a US citizen or legal resident. For those who have no criminal record and have filed a petition for immigration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are no longer looking to deport you, USAtoday.com reports.

On Aug. 20, ICE Director John Morton released a statement restating the agency's goal of first seeking to remove foreign nationals who have criminal records while dismissing proceedings for removal against non-criminals. For our Los Angeles immigration attorneys, who represent clients in Southern California facing a host of immigration issues, this is a positive step for comprehensive immigration reform.

With that said, earlier this week ICE reported that 370 "convicted criminal aliens and immigration fugitives" from 10 Midwestern states were arrested in the agency's largest ever three-day multi-agency targeted enforcement effort.

Charges for those arrested spanned sex crimes against minors to armed robbery to drug trafficking. More than half taken into custody have prior convictions for serious or violent crimes and 51 were immigrant fugitives.

This effort is similar to a series of "cross check" operations that have been ongoing since December 2009 across 37 states and have netted 2,064 criminals who have re-entered the US illegally.

"The record number of arrests made during this operation is a direct result of excellent teamwork among federal agencies who share a commitment to protect public safety," said ICE Director John Morton. "ICE is focused on arresting convicted criminals who prey upon our communities, and tracking down fugitives who scoff at our nation's immigration laws. The results of this operation demonstrate ICE's commitment to those principles."

Too often, it is these law enforcement crackdowns that make the news -- as if no criminal element exists within the native population. The truth of the matter is that most immigrants are hard-working, law-abiding residents who desire nothing more than an obtainable path to citizenship.

Continue reading "California immirgrant rights advocates applaud move toward green-card relief" »

Our Santa Ana immigration attorneys and Los Angeles immigration lawyers salute Mario G. Obledo, 78, a pioneer of Latino civil rights who passed away Aug. 18 at his home in Sacramento. He was 78.

The Washington Post reports that he died of a heart attack. One of 13 children, Obledo was raised by a single mother in San Antonio and has been called the Godfather of the Hispanic civil rights movement.

Obledo co-founded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in the 1960s, where he fought in court against discrimination in the workplace and public schools. He was also co-founder of the Hispanic National Bar Association and the National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations.

Ever a tireless advocate, Obledo also took a lead role in the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, which sought to boost the number of Latino voters.

In 1975, he was picked by the California governor to take over leadership of the Health and Welfare Agency, which included 50,000 employees and a budget of $11 billion. He held the position until 1982, when he resigned to launch and unsuccessful bid for governor.

In 1998, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton.

Outspoken and unapologetic, he created controversy that same year when he said "It's inevitable that Hispanics or Mexican Americans are going to control the institutions of the state of California in the not-too-distant future -- If people don't like that, they can leave."

He taught at Harvard University's law school before being appointed secretary of health and welfare.

Continue reading "Santa Ana immigration lawyers salute Mario G. Obledo" »

Having spent a decade aligning themselves with the sort of Draconian immigration methods that California voters have largely abandoned, the California Republican party is trying to rehabilitate its image in time to garner some of the Hispanic vote in the fall elections, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Conservative activists had hoped to win support at a weekend gathering of state Republicans to endorse Arizona's controversial immigration law. Partly leaders killed the measure in committee, reportedly at the request of GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers have been reporting on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, Whitman spent the summer bashing immigrants to win the Republican nomination and is now showing a softer side in an effort to court Hispanic votes in November.

Meanwhile, the party debuted two new websites aimed at courting minorities and the female vote.

Hispanics have become a powerful voting block, which is partly responsible for a mellowing of the political rhetoric in California in recent years. Latinos represent 21 percent of the electorate, compared to just 10 percent a decade ago.

The Public Policy Institute of California reports that 63 percent of Latinos are Democrats. Having promised to be tough on illegal immigration during the Republican Primary, Whitman is now running 14 Spanish TV ads and paying for billboards announcing her opposition to Arizona's immigration law.

Meanwhile, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is seeking Latino support despite supporting the Arizona law and is attempting to reframe the immigration debate as a national security issue.

Continue reading "Republicans courting Latino vote despite abysmal record of supporting immigrant rights in California" »

The Los Angeles Times revisited it's editorial in the wake of Proposition 187's defeat, after a federal judge's decision last week to issue an injunction prohibiting Arizona's controversial new immigration law from taking effect.

Our Los Angeles immigration attorneys have reported on our California Immigration Attorney Blog about the many comparisons being made between Proposition 187 and Arizona's new law. It's not so much that the laws are similar -- California's Proposition 187 sought to withhold education and social services form illegal immigrants, while Arizona's measure seeks to prevent them from working and requires law enforcement to check their legal status -- as the fact that both laws were enacted during periods of similar frustration over the federal government's utter failure to act.

The federal judge's decision to prevent most of Arizona's law from taking effect comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Obama Administration, which said such laws violate the rights of the federal government.

The Times' editorial regarding Prop 187 said: "(The judge) put the responsibility for immigration reform where it always has rightly belonged -- with the federal government."

In both cases, voter frustration was real enough. In both cases, the influx of immigrants, and the failure of the federal government to do much about it, resulted in state laws. "Even as the fate of Proposition 187 was being weighed by the court, Congress began to debate immigration reform once again," the Times wrote in November 1995.

More than a decade has passed and Congress has still failed to act in every regard. As the Times pointed out in its Proposition 187 editorial 15 years ago, Congress had been trying to tackle the issue since 1986.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights no closer to reality after quarter-century of inaction in Washington" »

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the federal government, demanding that a system be created to determine the mental competency of detained immigrants who represent themselves, the Orange County Register reported.

Our Orange County Immigration attorneys and Costa Mesa immigration lawyers have reported on the challenges immigrants in Southern California frequently have in navigating the legal system. Just recently, our California Immigration Attorney Blog reported criminal charges involving dishonest legal services companies that preyed on immigrants in need of legal representation.

In this case, the class action lawsuit seeks to protect the rights of mentally disabled individuals held in immigration detention.

"The Constitution demands fair treatment for people with severe mental disabilities," said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants' rights and national security for the ACLU Southern California. "If someone cannot understand the proceedings against them, due process requires that they be given a lawyer to help them."

One of six plaintiffs named in the lawsuit spent five-years held in detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE released him soon after he was named in a previous lawsuit. The agency refused to address his situation directly but promised it was working on "sweeping reforms" to enhance the medical and mental health conditions of immigrant detainees.

The previous lawsuit accused the government of holding two detainees without due process and of violating federal discrimination laws designed to protect people with disabilities. Advocates claim one of the men was held in custody for 5 years without an opportunity to challenge his detention. The 29-year-old man has the mental capacity of a child and cannot tell time or remember his birthday.

Some reports indicate as many as 19,000 people detained by immigration officials could be suffering from a mental disability. And the immigration system lacks standard procedures to ensure the basic rights of detainees with mental disabilities.

In this case, the defendant was in the process of obtaining permanent residency when he was arrested for throwing a rock during a fight between two gangs in 2004. His family said he is not a member of either gang. He pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and spent a year in jail before being turned over for deportation proceedings. A month later, a judge closed the case against him after declaring he had no clue about the proceedings.

He spent the next five years lost in the system.

Continue reading "Lawsuit seeks to protect the rights of California immigrants with mental disabilities" »

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request for expedited oral arguments has been denied in the wake of Thursday's preliminary injunction, which prevents portions of the state's controversial immigration law from taking effect, CNN reported.

While our Los Angeles immigration lawyers understand all too well that the outcome of any courtroom argument is never certain, we fully expected the government to halt Arizona's immigration law and believe it will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued the preliminary injunction on Thursday, blocking requirements that police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. As our Riverside immigration attorneys have been reporting, immigrant rights advocates across the country have decried the measure as legalized racial profiling and a return to America's racist past. The Obama administration sued Arizona, claiming the law infringed upon the rights of the federal government. Thursday's ruling is the first in what will undoubtedly be a protracted legal battle.

Bolton also blocked provisions making it a crime for people to fail to apply for or carry "alien registration papers," or for an undocumented worker to apply for or perform work. The judge also forbid the warrantless arrest of those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The judge's ruling essentially gutted the controversial new measure, though it did permit a provision to take effect that prevents local governments from enacting laws meant to provide undocumented immigrants with safe haven.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, who authored the law, said he expects the issue to go to the Supreme Court.

"I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem," Pearce said. "My message to the judge, is uphold the Constitution. Uphold states' rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government."

Arizona is arguing that it had no choice but to act on the issue of illegal immigration after decades of useless squabbling by the federal government.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights advocates applaud injunction of Arizona's new immigration law" »

Mexico's Human Rights Commission is sending inspectors to U.S. border crossings to monitor deportations that could result when Arizona's new law goes into effect on Thursday, the Associated Press reported.

Our Los Angeles immigration attorneys and Lancaster immigration lawyers are watching to see what impact the new law has on California's immigrant population. As we have reported, many expect border states to experience an influx of immigrants who choose to flee Arizona.

The federal government is suing the state over the law, which requires authorities to question those suspected of being in the country illegally and to take those without proper documentation into custody for deportation proceedings.

The Mexican government said it will send monitors to border gates in Tijuana, across from California, Nogales, next to Arizona, and Ciudad Juarez and Reynosa cross from Texas. The monitors will be in place to ensure that immigrants are treated properly.

"The implementation of the Arizona Law SB1070 represents a threat to migrants' full exercise of their human rights," the commission said in a statement. "The law violates the principles of nondiscrimination, equality before the law and freedom from arbitrary arrest."

Supports continue to argue the law is necessary to deal with the issue of illegal immigration in the wake of the federal government's failure to enact comprehensive reform. Opponents argue it will lead to racial profiling, trample the rights of millions of immigrants and result in a return to the legalized racism of America's past.

Continue reading "Mexican officials to monitor immigrant rights as Arizona immigration law goes into effect" »

The Washington Post reports that immigration has increased during the two-decades of increasing border security and that the largely neglected issue of jobs is the real driver of illegal immigration.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported earlier this week on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, Obama has approved a $500 million plan to add 1,200 soldiers to the border. The move is largely political and will have little practical effect -- the 20,000 troops already patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border is double the number of troops that were stationed on the border in 2004.

In an apparent effort to please hardline Republican's, Obama acknowledged the need to tough border security, both in a Fourth of July speech on immigration reform and in moving additional troops to the border on Aug. 1. The Post noted that "sealing" the border was a precondition of Republicans during 2007's failed attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Congress ordered more than 670 miles of border fencing, walls and spikes in 2006 and that work in nearing completion at a cost of $4 billion. Border patrol costs another $4 billion annually. Including the cost of National Guard troops, the cost is about $10 billion a year.

Research by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey found that increasing border security actually discourages seasonal laborers from going back to Mexico when they are not working. The Post article even contends that Arizona's tough new immigration law is a byproduct of tighter border security in Texas and California, which sent immigrants following the path of least resistance through Arizona's Sonoran Desert.

For 150 years, American's immigration levels have been trailing indicators of its economy -- increased immigration follows good economic times and low immigration levels follow economic downturns.

The Great Recession has been no different. In the past three years, more than a million illegal immigrants have left the country, or about 10 percent of the nation's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants.

Continue reading "California immigration impacted by jobs, not border security " »

An opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee argues that we must support a state's rights to act on immigration reform in the absence of a federal response.

The piece comes as a federal judge hears a lawsuit that seeks to block Arizona's immigration law from taking effect on July 29. As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported last month on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, the federal government argues that the Arizona law circumvents federal authority, upsets the balance of federal law enforcement priorities and could even impact homeland security.

The article cites the removal of some 30,000 illegal immigrants who were criminals. We won't waste our breath on that here, other than to point out that the criminal issue is nothing more than a scare tactic by anti-immigration advocates. The vast majority of immigrant families are hardworking, law abiding, would-be citizens. In reality, a greater percentage of criminals would likely be found upon studying the areas legal residents.

What our Riverside immigration attorneys find to be a more compelling argument is the contention that states' rights should not be infringed. We think simply flipping the table and looking at the issue from the other direction dilutes that argument. After all, what would have happened, if instead of cracking down on undocumented immigrants, Arizona had thrown open the border and welcomed Mexican citizens with open arms?

We think the government's argument about homeland security and law enforcement priorities would look much stronger -- which means it must be viewed so in this case. Yet isn't that what California has done with the medical marijuana issue and the upcoming ballot issue aimed at legalizing marijuana?

Taken something that is against federal law and legalized it?

Does that mean that when the federal government ultimately passes immigration reform, states that are in disagreement will be free to change the law by adopting state rules and regulations? We think we will be hearing much more about the issues of state's rights before the issue of immigration reform is ultimately settled.

Continue reading "States' rights a hot-button issue as Californians ponder immigration reform" »

Temecula city council officials unanimously passed an ordinance this week requiring all local businesses to use the E-verify system to confirm eligibility for employment in the United States.

The Southwest Riverside News Network reported the vote came as more than 100 protesters gathered outside City Hall. Most of the protesters were anti-immigration advocates who identified themselves as members of the Tea Party movement.

Under the new ordinance, a business that fails to comply could risk having his or her license revoked. However, business owners should understand the risk of using the system, which could include employment discrimination lawsuits. Our Temecula business defense lawyers offer confidential appointments to any business owner threatened by the city under this new ordinance.

Our California Immigration Attorney Blog has continued to report problems with the E-Verify system. One recent case in Chicago involved a 25-year UPS employee. Despite being a U.S. citizen who had worked for the company for more than two decades, she was flagged as a possible illegal due to a name change resulting from marriage. She was forced to prove her identity or risk losing her job.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reports the system is wrong in 4 percent of all cases and is so unreliable the federal government is searching for alternatives. Our Temecula immigration lawyers encourage employees who are harassed as a result of E-verify results to contact our office for a consultation to discuss your rights.

Having survived the Republican primary by trotting out the ghost of California's anti-immigration past, Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman is now singing a different tune ... en Espanol.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, during the primary Whitman combated Poizner's anti-immigration stance by trotting out former Gov. Pete Wilson, who said "Meg will be tough as nails on illegal immigration."

Wilson rode the state's anti-immigration frenzy into office more than a decade ago and was involved in the state's Proposition 187 initiative, which attempted to deny educational and social services to illegal immigrants until it was ruled unconstitutional by the federal court.

But our Costa Mesa immigration attorneys continue to report one clear fact: It is unlikely that Whitman can win statewide office without the support of the enormous Hispanic vote. Voter activism is one reason for the mellowing of California's political climate when it comes to immigration. And, with the Republican primary now behind her, it seems Whitman is dancing to a different tune ... one with a decidedly Latin flare.

The Auburn Journal reports that Whitman needs at least 30 percent of the Latino vote to win. The Hispanic population controls over 20 percent of the total electorate and Whitman's reputation among those voters is decidedly shaky. As is the reputation of most Republicans. "This issue is killing the Republican Party," said Republican Strategist Allan Hoffenblum, of the perception of the GOP within the Latino community.

Now Whitman has released two expensive Spanish language ads. One highlights her opposition to the controversial Arizona law and says she opposed Proposition 187. The other focuses on jobs for Latinos.

The reference to Proposition 187 is particularly hypocritical, having invoked it with the help of former Gov. Wilson during the primary. And she has said she opposed Arizona's law because she had a tougher plan in mind.

Continue reading "Whitman singing in Spanish, dancing to the Latin beat as courtship of California immigrants begins" »

The California Independent Voter Network reports the conclusions of a study that found the state pays $22 billion a year for social services to undocumented immigrants. The study was conducted by the Federation for Immigration Reform.

Our Riverside immigration lawyers and California immigrant rights attorneys believe this report is a prime example of the kind of "studies" conducted by anti-immigration groups that leaves voters uncertain about the issue.

While the group likes to go by the acronym FAIR, it is about as "fair" as FOX news is impartial and balanced. The group seeks immigration policies that would result in a significant reduction in both legal and illegal immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the organization as a hate group and author Andrew Wroe has written that the group is viewed by many as an extremist organization.

When it comes to the argument that undocumented families contribute substantially through all sorts of taxes that each of us pay -- and that comprehensive reform would better allow state and local governments to collect such taxes -- the article falls apart. FAIR claims only about one-third of the money government's spend on undocumented immigrants are recovered in federal taxes. And only about 5 percent are covered at the state and local level.

The article inexplicably produces these numbers as a qualifier for the argument that immigration reform will better assist with tax collection. Yet these are FAIR's reported figures today -- not after reform. And, frankly, they are as suspect as the rest of the reporting in the organization's "study" regarding the cost of immigration.

To the extent that immigrant families are not paying taxes, it is because they are kept from participating in the system that is available to the rest of us. This is a group of people that would like to pay taxes and become fully vested in the United States of America. How can we fault them for the disjointed and unfair patchwork of immigration measures that have been allowed to fester in this country through decades of half-hearted debate in Washington?

As we reported earlier this year on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, reputable studies suggest illegal immigrants employed in the U.S. have contributed more than $1.5 trillion to the economy in the last decade, while deporting them likely results in a net negative for federal, state and local governments.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights groups continue to refute biased "studies" on the cost of immigration" »

Having signed into law a racist immigration measure under attack by border states and the federal government, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has now apparently canceled a critical meeting among governors of border states, the New York Daily News reported.

Our Anaheim immigration lawyers continue to report the deteriorating relations the Arizona law has caused among the border states of California, New Mexico and Texas. The leaders of these states are heavily influenced by an activist Hispanic voting block and are facing a number of consequences of Arizona's new law. As we continue to report on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, thousands of immigrant families are fleeing Arizona, many to California, and dozens of California governments have boycotted the state of Arizona in response to its unprecedented new law.

The law permits law enforcement to request documentation from those suspected of being undocumented immigrants and to turn those found in violation over to authorities for deportation proceedings. It has been decried as a return to America's racist past by numerous human rights organizations and is being challenged in federal court by the Obama Administration.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson want the meeting of border governors to go on, despite Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's decision to cancel the meeting, which had been scheduled to occur in Phoenix in September. The 28th Annual meeting was to have included six governors from northern Mexico and the four border governors in the United States.

The Mexican governors said they would boycott the meeting because they are against Arizona's new immigration law. Schwarzenegger and Richardson said they would reschedule the conference to another state, without Arizona's participation. Brewer said she didn't know whether she'd be able to attend.

"Gov. Brewer doesn't have the authority to cancel the Border Governors Conference," Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesperson for Richardson, told Fox News. "She may not want to host it for political reasons, but that's not a reason to sidestep the tough issues that border governors must address, including migration and border violence."

Continue reading "California wants conference of border governors to continue despite Mexican boycott of Arizona" »

Arizona immigrant rights advocates hope to get out the Hispanic vote to combat the state's anti-immigration policies, taking a play from the playbook of California immigrant rights advocates, who used the same tactic more than a decade ago, The L.A. Times reported.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers have reported on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, immigrant rights advocates continue to pressure California politicians, most recently by issuing scorecards on how well elected officials are doing in representing Hispanic voters.

Immigrant rights advocates in Arizona are going door-to-door to turn out the vote, registering some Hispanic residents who have been U.S. citizens for decades but have not voted. One 60-year-old resident said he registered after his 39-year-old daughter, a Phoenix native, was stopped by officers multiple times and asked in broken Spanish to say where she was born.

Advocates hope opposition to Arizona's new immigration law -- which permits law enforcement to stop and question suspected illegals and take those without proper paperwork into custody -- will galvanize the Hispanic vote.

The same thing happened in California after the passage of Proposition 187 in the 1990s. That law sought to withhold public education and social services from illegal immigrants and was ruled unconstitutional in federal court. The active Hispanic voice in California politics has been a primary reason for the shift in support toward more compassionate reform measures supported by many California politicians.

After Proposition 187 passed in California, more than 1 million California Latinos became citizens. The uprising changed the entire political landscape of the state, pushing it solidly into Democratic hands and pushing the crackdown on illegal immigrants onto the margins of political issues in the state.

"It's the same energy I saw with 187," said Ben Monterroso, a Service Employees International Union official who spearheaded voter registration in California in 1994 and now oversees the Arizona operation. "People are saying enough is enough."

Perhaps the Republican party will have to lose big there as well. More likely, it will find its office holders have all manner of compassion for the plight of Arizona's Hispanic residents when it becomes evident that to do otherwise will mean losing an election.

The new immigration law is popular among Arizona residents, except among Latinos, who oppose it by a margin of more than 80 percent. Nearly 1 in 5 of the state's voters are Hispanic.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights advocates assisting in rallying the Hispanic vote in Arizona" »

The U.S. Department of Justice has officially filed a lawsuit attacking Arizona's tough new immigration law, CNN reported.

Our Orange County immigration attorneys and Costa Mesa immigration lawyers applaud the government's action even as we continue to point to the federal government's inaction in passing comprehensive immigration reform as the primary reason for Arizona's aggressive immigration stance.

The Arizona law permits law enforcement to seek identification from those suspected of being in the country illegally and to detain those in violation and turn them over for deportation proceedings. States bordering Arizona, including Texas and California, are bracing for an influx of immigrants from Arizona as hardworking, law-abiding families are uprooted by fear and intimidation.

On Tuesday, the federal government also asked for an injunction to stop enforcement of the Arizona law, which took effect last month. The government argues that the state law is invalid because it circumvents federal authority when it comes to issues dealing with immigration.

"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the brief said. "The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer immediately went on the attack.

"Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Brewer said. "These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona."

The federal court filing argues that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to develop a patchwork of policies throughout the country. "The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line," the government argues.

The brief argues that the Arizona law disrupts federal law enforcement priorities and poses a threat to national security and public safety. The sheriff of Santa Cruz County in Arizona and several officials from the Department of Homeland Security have voiced support for the federal government's quest to stop the measure from being enforced.

In a speech last week, President Obama prodded Congress to begin working on comprehensive immigration reform and said the majority of Americans are in favor of a measure that would resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

Continue reading "Feds sue over Arizona immigration law, Southern California immigrant rights advocates watch and wait" »