On Affirmative Action and Fisher v. UT: Why Asian Americans Will Lose if Fisher Wins

May 31, 2012

By Carolyn Hsu, Voting Rights Fellow, Asian Law Caucus and Winifred Kao, Staff Attorney, Employment & Workers’ Rights, Asian Law Caucus

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a potentially landmark case that could end the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. The Court ruled nine years ago that although quota systems in admissions processes were unconstitutional, race can be used as a positive factor, just not a decisive factor. The Court reasoned that considering race as a factor—or race-consciousness—in the admissions process is important because a diverse student body improves the education of all students. Fisher, a White woman, claims that she was unconstitutionally denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) as a result of its affirmative action policy.  With this new case, the Court’s previous ruling that race can be considered as part of the admissions process, is in danger of being overturned.

The Asian American Center for Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice)—Asian American Institute (AAI), Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), Asian Law Caucus (ALC), and Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) will be filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold race-conscious admissions.

We need affirmative action policies because not everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.   Universities should be allowed to consider the whole person, including one’s experiences as a racial minority, so that the opportunities that come from higher education are available to all qualified students.   Asian Americans may appear to be well represented at some of the most selective universities, but among the various Asian ethnic groups, many, like Southeast Asians, continue to be vastly underrepresented. A university should be allowed to consider race as one of many factors in order to promote equal opportunity and educational diversity in its classrooms and on its campus.  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Asm. Ammiano Formally Introduces “TRUST Act 2.0″ to Counteract Discredited Deportation Program

May 15, 2012

Sacramento, CA – As the imposition of the scandal-plagued “Secure” Communities or S-Comm deportation program in Massachusetts and New York today spurs fresh controversy, California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-SF) formally introduced a revamped version of AB 1081, the TRUST Act, to reform California’s participation in the program.

The new incarnation of AB 1081, which captured national attention last year, formally appeared “in print”  late yesterday and will pick up where the previous version left off, in the state Senate. The bill is expected to be heard in the Senate Public Safety committee next month. (Background information below.)

The new TRUST Act seeks to restore community trust in law enforcement and ease S-Comm’s unfair burden on local governments, who are pressured to hold for extra time even survivors of domestic violence for deportation. The bill comes as deportations through the program in California exceeded the grim figure of 70,330 as of March 31 of this year. Nearly seven in ten of those deported did not fall into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE’s) most serious category.

In a statement, Assemblymember Ammiano commented:

“Despite promises of ‘reform,’ each month, the terrible toll this program is taking on our safety, on our local governments, and on our communities, continues to rise. In just four months S-Comm deportations in California shot up from 63,000 to 70,000. Behind each one of those numbers is a human being. How many more parents, workers, crime victims and witnesses will ICE tear from our communities? Turning police into immigration agents is at the heart of the hateful laws in Alabama, Arizona and elsewhere – and it’s time to say, “enough.” It’s got to stop. The new TRUST Act is a crucial step toward rebuilding trust between police and immigrant communities and restoring some balance to a completely broken system.

The bill:

  • Sets a clear, minimum standard for local governments not to submit to ICE’s requests to detain people for deportation unless the individual has a serious or violent felony conviction.
  • Guards against profiling and wrongful detention of citizens and crime victims and witnesses. Localities that detain individuals with serious convictions for deportation would develop plans to ensure citizens are not subject to immigration holds, guard against profiling, and ensure crime victims and witnesses are not discouraged from reporting crimes

Despite the federal government’s attempt to force the state of California into participating into the sharing of fingerprints with immigration authorities through S-Comm, ICE’s “detainer” requests are clearly optional under federal law. Courts and ICE itself have confirmed this, and a number of jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, Cook Co, and New York City have limited their responses to detainer requests. A similar proposal is advancing in Washington, DC.

A steady stream of disturbing revelations in recent months – including the mistaken detention of US Citizens in Los Angeles and elsewhere, and the deportation of the wife of a US citizen protesting an unfair foreclosure – have underscored the Department of Homeland Security’s continued failure to repair the deeply troubled program. The tragic scandal at Miramonte School earlier this year – during which parents said they were afraid to work with LA Sheriffs due to S-Comm – further highlights the program’s detrimental impact on public safety.

About the TRUST Act: Passed by both the California Assembly (47-26) and the Senate Public Safety Committee (5-2) in 2011, the bill originally sought to modify California’s agreement with the federal government over S-Comm to curb the program’s well-documented abuses. However, in a stunning display of bad faith, ICE shredded all state agreements last year but claimed states still needed to send fingerprints. ICE’s surprise maneuver spurred a months-long process of consultation with groups across the state, resulting in the focus on ICE’s burdensome “hold” requests.

How detainers work: ICE “holds” or detainers are optional requests, frequently triggered by S-Comm, that ICE sends to local jails to ask them to place detained community members into extended incarceration so that the individual can be picked up for deportation. Local jails bear the brunt of the costs of responding to ICE holds, including the additional length of time individuals are held beyond the point they would be released if not for the immigration hold. ICE holds have come under increased scrutiny in recent months with revelations that they have led to the needless prolonged detention of immigrant domestic violence survivors, street vendors arrested only for selling food without a permit, and even U.S. citizens, trapped in local jails for the sole purpose of feeding an out of control deportation machine.

###

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Recap on San Francisco Local Redistricting

May 11, 2012

What do the new Board of Supervisor (BOS) districts mean for SF and the Asian American & Pacific Islander community?

By Carlo De La Cruz, Voting Rights Coordinator  & Carolyn Hsu, Voting Rights Fellow at Asian Law Caucus

Once every decade, following the release of Census data, our democracy goes through a redistricting process in order to ensure that all residents are represented fairly and equitably. The basic principle of redistricting is to ensure that the population in each district is nearly equal in number, so that each person’s vote will carry the same weight. Voters of color are uniquely impacted by the redistricting process because districts may be drawn to fairly reflect minority voting strength, or districts may be dismantled to deny minority voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Furthermore, it is important that communities of interest, particularly minority communities, be kept intact. Communities of interest-a community or neighborhood with shared interests, views, or characteristics-benefit from being maintained in a single district because they can better promote responsive representation by elected officials and protect against policies that fracture their communities.

Redistricting takes place on all levels of government, from our local school boards districts to our federal Congressional districts. In August 2011, the Redistricting Task Force was convened to adjust the Board of Supervisor lines for the City and County of San Francisco. From January to April, the Task Force held numerous community hearings in each of the city’s districts, providing a forum for community input and feedback in order to ensure that the final map indicating district boundary lines would reflect the diversity of San Francisco’s communities.

San Francisco Redistricting Process

Throughout the redistricting process, ALC provided guidance to and organized support for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities; worked with community based organizations and other stakeholders to minimize any contention that arose; and collaborated with leaders from other racial and ethnic communities to ensure that common interests and strategies were paramount from the outset. ALC concentrated its efforts on the communities of interest in Districts 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11, providing trainings for people of color communities to increase participation, and conducting outreach to media and policymakers on concerns relevant to those communities. ALC’s primary focus was to ensure that the voting power of minorities would not be diluted or divided, and to keep recognized minority neighborhoods intact, taking into account the diversity of San Francisco’s communities of interest, based on such factors as ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, limited English proficiency, and economic status.

Neighborhoods

For a detailed map of the new Board of Supervisors boundaries visit: http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3448

Chinatown (District 3)

San Francisco is home to one of the nation’s oldest Chinatowns, with a local history spanning almost a century. Chinatown is located at the geographic center of District 3, bordering the neighborhoods of Nob Hill, Russian Hill, North Beach, and the Financial District. Although the boundaries of Chinatown are generally understood as a compact neighborhood home to 15,000 residents, the vast majority of whom are Chinese Americans, many other Chinese Americans also live in the surrounding neighborhoods of North Beach and Nob Hill. Additionally, many important community institutions-health care clinics, public housing developments, schools, and community based non-profits-are located in these surrounding neighborhoods and make up the greater Chinatown community.

Throughout the redistricting process, maintaining the integrity of Chinatown’s extended community of interest was a top priority for ALC and other Chinatown community advocates who were involved in the process. Based on our collective testimony, the Task Force preserved the geographic integrity of Chinatown and its surrounding neighborhoods, including in District 3 important institutions that provide critical services to the community. Overall, many of the historic neighborhoods that have made up the core of the district’s community was preserved in District 3. Additionally, District 3 picked up several blocks in the Union Square area, while the northern boundary shifted slightly from Leavenworth to Jones Street.

Fillmore, Western Addition, and Japantown (District 5)

ALC provided critical support to a coalition in the northern District 5 area, which was primarily comprised of Japanese Americans and African Americans from the Fillmore, Western Addition, and Japantown areas. With ALC’s assistance, the coalition submitted several district-wide maps of District 5 to the Task Force, which supported their argument that it was possible to create a District 5 that included their community of interest as a whole. Additionally, ALC provided public comment during Task Force meetings to highlight the coalition’s community of interest and the importance of keeping together in one district all of that community’s resources, organizations, and housing associations, including: the Booker T. Washington Community Center, Japanese Community Youth Council, Westside Courts Housing Association, and Chibi-Chan preschool. The final Task Force map ultimately reflected the strength of the coalition’s efforts, as the Task Force went to great lengths to respect the boundaries requested, maintaining in District 5 all of that community’s key institutions.

South of Market and Tenderloin (District 6)

Among all of the districts, District 6 was expected to undergo the most noticeable shift in terms of population and neighborhoods that comprise the district, as the increase in population over the last decade had resulted in it having well over 20,000 residents above the ideal population size of a district. In District 6, the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood is comprised of one of the city’s largest Filipino communities.

A number of community advocates testified as to the various ways in which District 6 boundaries could be drawn. Supporters and members from the Filipino and other Asian American communities urged the Task Force to keep whole the historic Filipino communities in SoMa. The final set of lines kept nearly all of the Filipino community intact in SoMa. However, despite negotiations between community groups from SoMa and northern Mission to keep the Districts 6 and 9 boundary line around 14th and 15th Streets, the Task Force adopted a more northern boundary line that runs along Central Freeway. As a result, some Filipino residents, mainly those located in northern Mission, now find themselves as the newest residents of District 9.

Additionally, District 6 is home to the Tenderloin area, where a large Vietnamese and Southeast Asian population resides. The Tenderloin consists of many of the city’s public housing and Single Resident Occupancy developments. Because preserving not only the various ethnic communities, but also socio-economic communities of interest was at the heart of ALC’s involvement in the redistricting process, ALC, along with other community organizations and individuals, testified to keep the Tenderloin neighborhood intact with its sister working class neighborhoods in District 6. The final boundary lines shift the North-West boundary of District 6 from Gough Street to Van Ness Avenue, but still preserve in District 6 the low-income Southeast Asian community of interest. Although District 6 has more residents than any other district, it was able to maintain for the next decade the core communities and neighborhoods that have defined it.

Excelsior (District 11)

Throughout the redistricting process, ALC participated in and contributed to planning meetings held by the Filipino community to discuss their communities of interest in San Francisco, particularly in District 6′s SoMa area and District 11′s Excelsior neighborhood, one of the most diverse districts in the city. During the final stages of the redistricting process, the Task Force needed to lose population in District 11 and looked to the northeastern boundary of District 11 and southern boundary of District 8 to do so. Because a large number of Filipinos resided in that area, ALC spoke out on their behalf, requesting that the Task Force limit any boundary changes.

Simultaneously, ALC was supportive of the efforts by the community in Ocean View, Merced Heights, and Ingleside (OMI), to stay together. It was clear that one of the Task Force’s biggest hurdles process was maintaining in District 11 all its communities of interests, particularly OMI. Given the large population of OMI, the Task Force struggled to keep it intact in the district. Ultimately, the Task Force captured nearly all of OMI in District 11.

Portola and Visitacion Valley in District 10

ALC met frequently with members of the African American and AAPI communities in District 10 to discuss concerns surrounding: (1) reuniting the Portola area, home to a growing population of Chinese immigrants, which had been split into three districts during the last redistricting process; and (2) ensuring that the communities of interests that were primarily African American were not splintered. The Task Force was responsive to public comment and reunited the Portola area by placing it entirely in District 9. At the same time, the Task Force successfully kept together the African American communities in Bayview and Hunter’s Point.

Community Unity Map

Early in the redistricting process, several community groups came together to form a coalition to create a “Community Unity Map,” using the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a local progressive newspaper, as the platform. The coalition that transpired held several meetings throughout the process to receive feedback from supporters in San Francisco.

ALC played a crucial role in highlighting to the Community Unity Map group the growing coalition in the northern District 5 area. As a result, the Community Unity Map was subsequently revised to include the suggested District 5 boundary lines. Additionally, with regard to the area near the Districts 2 and 3 border, ALC provided input to the Community Unity Map, underscoring that the largely low-income Chinese American community could potentially be divided.

Implications for the future

Overall, the San Francisco redistricting process progressed smoothly and resulted in a map that ALC could support. ALC was successful in providing legal guidance, minimizing contention in areas that did arise, and serving as a bridge between communities so that common interests were identified and common strategies were pursued. By serving that role, ALC and its allies could provide constructive input to the Task Force members so they could redistrict San Francisco in a manner that was inclusive and reflective of its communities of interest.

Notably, the redistricting process went smoothly in large part because the Task Force members selected were not only diverse, active members of the San Francisco community, but also guided by principles of transparency and deference to the public, which they established at the beginning of the process. Notably, the Task Force’s draft maps were responsive to public comment, and closed sessions were held only to invoke attorney-client privilege over potential litigation issues. The Task Force revised their working map almost every other session and immediately posted their revisions online for community response. Furthermore, the Task Force’s collaboration with a non-profit organization to provide online mapping software was particularly useful, as the software was accessible to and helpful for all participants. As reflected in the final Supervisorial map that respects San Francisco’s communities of interest, the Task Force’s emphasis on transparency throughout the San Francisco process was key to minimizing conflict among the different stakeholders involved and to encouraging community input.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Review of the Latest Responses to the Foreclosure Crisis from an APA Perspective

April 3, 2012

By Omar Calimbas, Housing Rights Attorney at Asian Law Caucus

The Obama Administration’s comprehensive housing plan and the $25 billion mortgage servicing settlement agreement between 49 state attorneys general, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, HUD and the nation’s top five servicers (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally/GMAC) were announced this past February. These two represent the latest large-scale responses toAmerica’s foreclosure crisis. The President’s plan and the national settlement share several objectives, including the following: more refinancing to help non-delinquent yet underwater homeowners capture today’s historically low interest rates; more loan modifications, especially with principal reductions; and establishing new standards to prevent servicing abuses that ran rife in the industry and continue to do so today.

As usual, the persisting question is the actual availability of these solutions to everyone. This article will strive to touch upon some pieces of the national strategy that appear to be promising, both in general and with respect to Asian Pacific American homeowners and renters, as well as mention some of the missing pieces.

Crisis Hurting Some Communities More Than Others

For many distressed homeowners in Asian Pacific American communities, foreclosure fatigue will be difficult to overcome. The Administration’s housing plan and the national settlement come at the heels of ongoing programs such as the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which has been heavily criticized for its limited success. According to the California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC), HAMP has been particularly challenging for communities of color. Canceled trial loan modifications, unsuccessful applications, and lower decreases in debt burdens were reported by CRC as disproportionately affecting minority borrowers.

A study of the foreclosure impact on Southeast Asians in the Central Valley of California reveals the heightened need to build capacity to address their housing issues. With one of the highest concentrations of Southeast Asians in the country, the Central Valley contains several cities that have been hit hardest by foreclosures nationally. According to the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (CAPACD) and the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, the general income and education levels of Southeast Asian communities, coupled with language and cultural barriers, expose them to subprime and adjustable rate loans. These types of high risk loans make Southeast Asians more vulnerable to foreclosure. Moreover, Southeast Asian renter households represent a higher proportion than renters in the general population. As a result, Southeast Asian communities tend to be more at risk of eviction from foreclosed properties.

Notable Aspects of Obama’s Plan and the Settlement

Notwithstanding consumer disappointment with government efforts, there are some items in both the Administration’s proposal and the $25 billion national settlement that are noteworthy:

Principal reduction. Long-touted by housing advocates and economists as an efficient tool in preventing foreclosures, principal reductions (or loan forgiveness) find its way into the Administration’s plan through tripling existing incentives to lenders. The increased incentives would also be available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The settlement would credit lenders for write-downs, which would be applied towards the $20 billion relief owed to consumers. Lenders have three years to complete this obligation.

Affordable housing. Unique to the White House plan is the dedication of funds towards housing for low-income families. CAPACD noted in particular the $1 billion in mandatory funding in 2013 for the Housing Trust Fund as a solid move towards the creation and preservation of affordable housing.

Due process and fair business practices. Pres. Obama is calling for a homeowner’s bill of rights to govern the mortgage industry, which would simplify and harmonize disclosure standards, servicing standards, establish a grievance procedure, and minimize conflicts of interests that have exposed consumers to servicing abuses. Now that the newly-established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a director, Richard Cordray, who would be responsible for promulgating and enforcing these rules, we expect some movement on this front in the near future. Analogous terms in the mortgage settlement provide a host of standards that would apply to servicers to prevent such abuses as robo-signing and dual tracking (pursuing a loan modification and foreclosure at the same time), while requiring a single point of contact for borrowers and oversight of the whole process.

Protecting Renters. Obama’s proposal intends to extend HAMP to protect homes that are rented out. In large, dense metropolitan areas like San Francisco and Manhattan, many low income families are renters of single family homes or secondary units on those properties. While it is unclear to what extent HAMP may help renters stay in their homes, it is theoretically a step in the right direction to the extent that it acknowledges the myriad forms of affordable housing.

What’s Left Out?

First, the mortgage settlement agreement doesn’t cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two combined own or guarantee over 60% of mortgages nationwide. Because no solution to the foreclosure crisis could leave out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the equation, a broad swath of elected officials and non-profit organizations continue to push the GSEs to reform. The Asian Law Caucus has joined one coalition led by the CRC to demand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac formalize policies to allow principal reductions, preclude dual-tracking and offer long-term leases to occupants residing in foreclosed properties.

Secondly, solving the housing crisis must not overlook patterns of racial discrimination in the industry, whether it’s with loan origination, servicing or modifications. Yet there is an alarming dearth of statistics on the demographics of the crisis. Most of the studies have been based in large part on grass-roots surveys with community-based organizations and housing counselors. CRC has been advocating for much-needed change here, both in having the mortgage settlement and existing federal law require proper collection of the demographics. A prime example would be the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which was enacted to collect industry data in order to ensure housing needs were adequately met with all communities, needs to be enhanced to provide for the collection and public reporting on loan modifications. Additionally, HMDA needs to disaggregate data on Asian Pacific American communities. It is clear that, given the sheer magnitude of the foreclosure crisis, any response must address the enhancement of the HMDA to prevent loan modification discrimination practices.


Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Ammiano unveils details of “TRUST Act 2.0” as hundreds take to streets in LA

February 23, 2012

 First-in-the-nation proposal seeks to rebuild community trust in local police, Damaged by disgraced “S-Comm” deportation program

 

February 23, 2012 – As hundreds of day laborers and advocates from across the country marched in Los Angeles Wednesday evening to protest the devastating impact of the so-called “Secure” Communities or S-Comm deportation program, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-SF) publicly unveiled the details of a bill to reform California’s participation in the troubled program. Retired Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas, Jr also attended the rally and expressed strong support for the new TRUST Act.

The announcement came in the wake of troubling revelations earlier this month that S-Comm made parents of Miramonte students in Los Angeles too fearful of deportation to contact law enforcement authorities to report their own children’s abuse,

The new incarnation of the TRUST Act, which captured national attention last year, seeks to restore community trust in law enforcement and ease S-Comm’s unfair burden on local governments, who are pressured to hold for extra time even survivors of domestic violence for deportation. The bill:

·       Sets a clear, minimum standard for local governments not to detain people for deportation unless the individual has a serious or violent felony conviction. These convictions are defined according to existing, clearly established state law.

·       Guards against profiling and wrongful detention of citizens and crime victims. Jurisdictions that do choose to detain people with serious convictions for deportation will develop common-sense plans to make sure others aren’t swept up.

“To advance public safety, the TRUST Act will create a desperately needed “bright line” between local police and the scandal-plagued Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). We need to rebuild community trust in law enforcement, which S-Comm has profoundly shaken,” said Asm. Ammiano in a statement from Sacramento. Further remarks from Asm. Ammiano are available at http://ndlon.org/en/blog-2/by-issue/1047-la-ammiano

Now amended, the bill will be heard in the Senate later this year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Request for Stories: How have the “Iran Sanctions” affected you or your family?

February 17, 2012

Posted on behalf of the National Security and Civil Rights Program at the Asian Law Caucus

Request for Stories: How have the “Iran Sanctions” Affected You or Your Family?

All information will be kept Confidential

The Asian Law Caucus, in collaboration with the Iranian American Bar Association (“IABA”), the National Iranian American Council (“NIAC”), and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (“PAAIA”), is documenting and collecting personal stories of Iranian Americans whose business, personal, family, or charitable affairs have been impacted by the Iranian Transactions Regulations (“Iran Sanctions”), or who would like to make a statement about their thoughts on the Sanctions.

We are gathering these stories for the purpose of an upcoming report on the impact the Iran Sanctions have had on Iranian-Americans and other people living in theUnited States.

All your information will be treated confidentially. We will not disseminate or share any personally identifying information without your written consent.

Please call the Asian Law Caucus at (415) 848-7711, or email Tina Sinha at christinas@asianlawcaucus.org.

To download a copy of ALC’s Know Your Rights guide to the Iran Sanctions, please visit http://www.asianlawcaucus.org/alc/publications/iranian-sanctions/. The report is available in both English and Farsi.

For further information about our work, please visit www.asianlawcaucus.org.

—

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Why Jeremy Lin’s race matters

February 15, 2012

Note: Originally published on http://edition.cnn.com/ under “Opinion.” This article has been re-posted with the permission of the author.

Editor’s note: Ling Woo Liu is the director of the Fred T. Korematsu Institute for Civil Rights and Education, which helped pass California’s Fred Korematsu Day, the first day in U.S. history named after an Asian American. She is a former reporter and video producer for TIME, CNN’s sister publication, in Hong Kong.

Ling Woo Liu

Ling Woo Liu

(CNN) — A week ago, on feel-good Super Bowl Sunday, TV viewers in the U.S. state of Michigan were subjected to a racist campaign ad sponsored by former Representative and now-Senatorial candidate Pete Hoekstra. The ad, which suggests that his opponent, U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, spends too much government money, shows an Asian woman riding a bicycle in a landscape of rice paddies. “Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs,” says the native Californian actress in a mock Chinese accent while addressing “Debbie Spend-It-Now.” Hoekstra also appears, saying at the end, “I approve this message.”

Public condemnation ensued, with demands for an apology and the ad’s removal.

It’s not the first time that China, or any connections to China, have been used to stoke fear this U.S. election season. In early January, a group in support of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul released a campaign ad slamming then-candidate Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China. The “China Jon” ad showed Huntsman speaking Chinese and wearing a red tikka on his forehead (a sacred mark associated with Hinduism) and questioned his adoption of girls from China and India. “Jon Huntsman: American Values?” the ad asks, calling him “The Manchurian candidate,” “Weak on China?” with ostensibly Chinese music in the background.

Paul denounced the ad, telling CNN he had no control over his supporters’ actions.

Then on Thursday, a U.S. Marine sergeant was found not guilty of hazing Lance Cpl. Harry Lew, who committed suicide last April in Afghanistan. A Marine Corps report revealed that Lew had been beaten by his superiors with sand poured in his mouth for falling asleep while on duty. Another Marine was sentenced to 30 days in jail and demoted; a third faces court-martial over the death. Lew’s case along with that of Pvt. Danny Chen, who was found dead in October from an apparent suicide, have spurred Asian American members of Congress to demand hearings on hazing in the military.

Chen, the only Chinese American soldier in his unit in Afghanistan, was called “gook,” “chink” and “dragon lady,” forced to crawl on gravel while fellow troops threw rocks at him, and made to shout instructions in Chinese to fellow troops (no one else in his unit spoke Chinese). The Asian American civil rights group OCA has met with Pentagon officials to demand better treatment of Asians in the military.

Against all of this, Jeremy Lin, a Harvard grad and the NBA’s first U.S.-born player of Chinese or Taiwanese descent, has vaulted himself to stardom. On Saturday, Lin led the Knicks to their fifth straight victory. His 109 points in his first four starts this past week have surpassed Allen Iverson’s to become the most by any player since the NBA-ABA merger in 1976.

Lin’s popularity skyrockets

Jeremy Lin setting the NBA abuzz

Turning it around in China

Read about Linsanity vs. Tebowmania

For those who’ve been following the campaign ad controversies as well as the Lew and Chen cases, Lin’s meteoric rise has been a much-needed sign of hope. But the conversations on Facebook, in bars and living rooms are as diverse as the Asian American community itself. Some are pumped up about seeing an Asian face next to Kobe Bryant’s or moved by Lin’s public devotion to Christianity. Others are analyzing Lin’s academic and athletic prowess and thinking about the role model he’ll be for their children.

Jeremy Lin: The NBA’s breath of fresh air

Lin himself has been candid about the racism he’s encountered along the way. “It’s a sport for white and black people,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. “You don’t get respect for being an Asian-American basketball player in the U.S. … I hear everything. ‘Go back to China. Orchestra is on the other side of campus. Open up your eyes.’”

Read how Lin has a shot at basketball immortality

Unfortunately, success doesn’t stamp out racism. Minutes after Lin’s breathtaking career-high 38-point performance against the LA Lakers Friday night, FoxSports.com national columnist Jason Whitlock tweeted “Some lucky lady in NYC is gonna feel a couple inches of pain tonight.” After condemnation by the Asian American Journalists Association, he tweeted an apology, acknowledging that he had “debased a feel-good sports moment. For that, I’m truly sorry.”

Almost exactly a decade ago, some of us remember similar knocks against a certain 7’6″ new kid on the block. USA Today ran a column by Jon Saraceno in 2002 saying, “the [Rockets] franchise could wind up with egg foo yong all over its face” and “What happens the first time a bona fide NBA strongman, say Shaquille O’Neal, whacks [Yao Ming] in the chopsticks?”

Just this past week, a Manchester United fan, Howard Hobson, was banned from matches for three years and fined 200 pounds (US $315) for cursing and making monkey sounds at Stoke City’s Kenwyne Jones, who is from Trinidad.

To be fair, Lin and other minority athletes today have not been subjected to the level of racism that African American sports pioneers faced before them. Jesse Owens was a great American athlete who prevailed despite being born into an officially and unofficially racist society. The African American track star, who had to live in off-campus segregated housing at Ohio State University, went on to win four gold medals at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Germany, much to the dismay of Adolf Hitler.

Three-quarters of a century later, there are those who want to leave race out of the equation altogether and embrace minority athletes, actors and other pioneers for their skills alone rather than their skin color. “Many people want the debate to end,” says Laurens Grant, the director and producer of “Jesse Owens,” a forthcoming PBS documentary. “But the debate isn’t settled. It won’t end until there’s more opportunity.”

Many of us have been lucky enough to escape the burn of bullying and racism. We might have walked through our schoolyards without hearing taunts from fellow students. We might have gotten the promotions we deserved at work. Our perfect American English may have averted giggles and impatience. We may have served in the armed forces without being treated any differently from fellow troops. And we might have been lucky enough to escape the perpetrators of hate crimes, like the laid-off Detroit autoworkers who in 1982 beat Vincent Chin, a Chinese American, to death with a baseball bat after his bachelor party because they were bitter about competition from Japanese carmakers.

Such xenophobic sentiment gets eerily stirred up by ads like the ones attacking Sen. Stabenow and Jon Huntsman.

Hopefully one day, Americans of Asian descent will no longer be seen as foreigners, economic competition or anything less than equal Americans. Until then, race matters, whether we like it or not.

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus Staff, current events, In the media | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

“New Americans in California”: The #s on Our Growing Numbers

February 2, 2012

By Jenalyn Sotto, Communications Intern at the Asian Law Caucus

For longer than recent memory, every decade brings with it a plethora of changes: (r)evolutionary fashion trends, a series of technological advances, two (and a half) presidential terms, three Olypmic games, and the U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Facebook Page lauds itself as “[the] trusted source for quality statistics about people, places and our economy.” While its scope of information collecting remains unparalleled in its field–save for perhaps the State Government Tax Collections–rarely does the ordinary U.S. person (resident or citizen) see more of the U.S. Census’ data than the small, or sometimes lengthy, questionnaire during data-collecting.

But during this election year, where the stakes are even higher for under-represented communities, it is vital that we know and acknowledge changing demographics.  The Immigration Policy Center released a detailed set of infographics on Latino and Asian immigrant populations taken from–you got it!–the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census. Updated from the released data and special reports from the 2010 Census and the 2010 American Communities Survey and re-released with state-specific infographics for distribution, the study entitled “STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY: The Economic and Political Clout of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the United States” serves to breakdown, demystify, and debunk popular tropes about the growing immigrant populations with specific emphases on the Latina/o and Asian populations through numbers. Referred to as “New Americans,” the study enumerates the national and state-by-state economic and political growth of foreign-born naturalized Latina/o and Asian Americans as well as their native-born children.

For California:

California’s New American population is robust and makes California robust.

  • More than 1/4th of Californians are immigrants. *
  • More than 1/2 of Californians are Latina/o or Asian–and they vote. *
  • Immigrant workers, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers are integral to California’s economy. *
  • Immigrant, Latina/o, and Asian entrepreneurs and consumers add hundreds of billions of dollars and more than a million jobs to California’s economy. *
  • Most native-born Californians have experienced a wage gain from immigration. *

Therefore, California policies sensitive to the Latina/o and Asian populations should be considered with great legislative and community, grassroots care. Over half of the state identifies as Latina/o or Asian! But, as made evident by campaigns past and present, diversity in these groups causes mobilization difficulties. The issues of immigration policing in California alone makes heads spin–what more when it comes to small and medium business tax reform, redistricting, voting rights, language access, healthcare, education, public health and safety, and government representation?

This California infographic–and all other state infographics–is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, only going so far to as to whet your appetite by leaving that almost insatiable craving for clarification, qualification, and denouement. This offering by the Immigration Policy Center should serve as a first course for the type of awareness and data collection that our community organizations, legislators, and local officials should enact in order to better cater to the growing New American populations. Even more important, New Americans should become better versed in their numbers in order to harness that salient power. The national discourse has been long dominated by the see-saw of ambivalence and disfavor (heavy on the disfavor) towards immigrants and their progeny, but with the American imaginary increasingly interchanging “immigrant” with Asian or Latina/o it is high time for our communities to seize the day(ta) and make ourselves well and truly known.

*: These statements were taken from the Immigration Policy Center’s The Political and Economic Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the Golden State (Updated January 2012).

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus, civil rights, Immigration, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Celebrating Civil Rights: Korematsu Day events in the Bay Area and at the Smithsonian

January 27, 2012

By Jenalyn Sotto, Communications Intern at the Asian Law Caucus

This coming Monday, January 30th California will celebrate its 2nd annual Fred Korematsu Day in commemoration of the struggle for justice our Japanese American community faced during and after WWII. With the specter of 9/11 haunting our Middle Eastern, Arab, and South Asian American communities in ways similarly faced by the Japanese American community following the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor, Fred Korematsu Day stands as a reminder of the need for vigilance in protecting civil rights. American citizens and residents should not have to incur dramatic alterations to self–like eyelids or surnames–just to fit in, avoid surveillance, or–more drastically–evade unwarranted and indefinite detention for crimes one had nothing to do with. Korematsu Day is a reminder that racailization is an invalid means of ensuring national security when it is one’s own nationals being targeted. And while in the U.S., that might seem ambiguous, just peruse the “The Struggle for Justice” website for a fuller perspective on how racialization operates against the tenets of life, liberty, and the American Bill of Rights.

While Korematsu Day is a California state holiday, across the nation in Washington, D.C., the Smithsonian now includes the civil rights activism Fred Korematsu and his team of pro-bono attorneys stood for. The first Asian American in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery Civil Rights Exhibition, the work and message of Korematsu Day represents the first of many steps necessary to achieving social justice in the United States.   Below are links to the Korematsu Institute press release on the unveiling of the Fred Korematsu installations at the “The Struggle for Justice” exhibit as well as a link to other Korematsu Day events throughout the Bay Area:

1. Press Release: “Fred Korematsu Becomes First Asian American in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery Civil Rights Exhibition“

2. Korematsu Day Events in the Bay Area: Fred Korematsu Institute for Civil Rights and Education: Fred Korematsu Day Events

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Law Caucus events, civil rights | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Trashing Transparency

December 19, 2011

NOTE: Originally published on the ACLU’s  Blog of Rights on December 19, 2011. This article has been re-posted with the permission of the author.

By Nasrina Bargzie, Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus

In November 2005, U.S. marines in Iraq were involved in the killing of 24 civilians—including women and children. Shortly after the story became public, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents related to the incident and other civilian casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although we received thousands of documents in response, the government did not give us a single document relating specifically to the killings at Haditha.

Apparently, it threw them away instead.

Last week, The New York Times reported that it had found hundreds of pages of records relating to the horrific incident in Haditha . . . in a junkyard, being burned as kindling to cook a dinner.

The U.S. government could have turned these documents over and, in the process, helped Americans obtain the information they need in order to critically reflect on our conduct in Iraq and other theaters of war. Instead it chose to trash transparency, and as a result, strangle any chance of proper accountability.

The documents discovered by The New York Times reflect a disillusioned and tragically misdirected mission that resulted in death and suffering in Iraq and among the Marines themselves. Ironically, the military’s attempt to fog the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has worked doubly against the interests of the American people. First, the American public was denied access to records reflecting its government’s conduct for years. Second, its servicepersons were forced to operate in an environment where the death of innocent civilians was considered a “cost of doing business,” resulting in severe damage to the servicepersons themselves.

These documents should have been made public. Throwing away documents relating to atrocities in Iraq will not make those atrocities go away. Instead, it only breeds distrust in our government and deprives us of the information we need as citizens to hold our leaders accountable and to make informed choices about our policies.

Leave a Comment » | Asian Law Caucus, Asian Law Caucus Staff, civil rights, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

TRUST Act 2.0″ to be unveiled in January as Ammiano urges State officials to step up leadership

September 11, 2011

As ICE shreds state contracts, Ammiano bill to protect California from failed S-Comm program moves forward

Sacramento – As the controversy surrounding the “Secure” Communities or S-Comm deportation program reaches a national boiling point, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D – SF) announced today that after a 4-month process of consultation with community leaders and legal experts, the TRUST Act (AB 1081) will be re-tooled in early January and then continue to move through the State Senate.

“Regardless of the Obama Administration’s blatant on-going deception about S-Comm, every day Californians are being unfairly deported leading to tragic consequences for communities both here and across the country.  Now more than ever we need to restore trust and I urge that our state leaders take a more active role on this critical issue as we continue to work towards suspending this damaging program. Together we need to do what is right for California,” said Assemblymember Ammiano.

AB 1081 passed the Assembly (47-26) and the Senate Public Safety Committee (5-2) earlier this year before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stunned the public and legislators by shredding all S-Comm agreements on August 5. DHS and ICE then declared by fiat the program would be “mandatory” without any mechanism for local oversight. ICE provided no sound legal basis for the move, which California leaders slammed as “an affront to democratic governance” and “a stunning display of bad faith.”

The bill’s goal is to reform California’s participation in the troubled S-Comm program, which has come under fire from law enforcement leaders and civil rights advocates for deporting large numbers of innocent community members, including victims of domestic violence and street vendors arrested for nothing more than selling food without a permit. Originally, the bill would have ensured Californians were protected from the program by amending the state’s Memorandum of Agreement with ICE that the agency has now unilaterally shredded.

“The bad faith move to take away state’s role in the process and conscript local police into the federal scheme is just one more legally dubious maneuver by ICE. We’re exploring every legal option available to hold the agency accountable and continue to protect California residents,” said Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus.

Chan and a team of attorneys are currently conducting a new, in-depth analysis, to be released in the coming days, of internal ICE documents unearthed earlier this year through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The new analysis will provide documented proof that ICE repeatedly conveyed to state officials that California’s approval was required for fingerprints to be shared with ICE under S-Comm. A preview of the analysis is available by contacting Chan.

The recent doubling down by the White House in defense of the program has only inflamed nationwide opposition with walk outs and peaceful civil disobedience occurring at S-Comm hearings across the country and localities passing new legislation in protest of the program and to protect the community policing initiatives which S-Comm threatens.  Just yesterday, in a decision with national implications, Cook County, IL (where Chicago is located) voted to refuse to comply with ICE requests to hold immigrants needlessly in jail unless the county receives full reimbursement from the Federal Government.

Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network added, “The need for the TRUST Act is greater now more than ever. Californians are stronger and more united in our determination to keep our communities safe, prevent the destruction of civil liberties, and end the dragnet separation of families.”

###

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Post-9/11, A Decade Later: Keeping Immigrants Out

September 9, 2011

NOTE: Originally published at the Immigration Symposium at Penn State Law School on September 16, 2011. This article has been re-posted with the permission of the author.

By Sin Yen Ling, Senior Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus

On May 1, 2011, major television stations interrupted the evening with the announcement that Osama Bin Laden was dead.  President Obama went live at 11:00 p.m. pacific standard time.  As the details trickled in, I felt an immediate rush of emotions: grief, sadness, and anguish.  Memories came rushing back to me.  I remembered where I was when the World Trade Center came down that morning.  I remembered the immediate days after 9.11 when I was triaging emails and phone calls at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (“AALDEF”) concerning hate incidents targeting Sikhs in New York City and around the country.  I remembered the hundreds of South Asian, Arab and Muslim men I represented in immigration detention months and years after September 11th.  While the memories seemed so long ago, on the night of May 1st, the memories came back like it had all happened yesterday.

In the immediate aftermath of 9.11, the Bush Administration implemented policies such as secret detention, special registration and the absconder initiative, specifically, targeting South Asian, Arab and Muslim communities.  On September 21, 2001, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a memorandum ordering all courts to be closed and to adhere to secret procedures when an immigrant detainee is labeled as “special interest.”  In August 2002, the call-in registration portion of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (“NSEERS”) mandated that certain men (and boys over 16) from twenty-five predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea were required to report to local immigration offices between November 2002 and April 2003.  At the conclusion of the special registration program, 82,581 individuals nationwide had been questioned, fingerprinted and interrogated under oath. These blanket policies were intended to racially profile these communities, indefinitely detain them pending terrorism investigations based solely on race and religion and then deport them back to their home countries without ever charging them with terrorism.   There is no question as to the racial and religious overtones of these policies.  At AALDEF, in New York City, I represented many of these individuals from 2001 to 2005.  These individuals were predominantly male, 16-45 years, and recent immigrants from South Asian, Arab and Muslim countries.

Throughout this decade, many of these post 9.11 policies have reached beyond the racial scope of the South Asian, Arab and Muslim diaspora.  The threat of another 9.11 has become a reason to expand these policies to exclude all immigrants, regardless of their race and religion.  It was no longer just about race and religion, but about national origin.  Many of these policies are now aimed at preventing noncitizens from obtaining immigration status including political asylum and lawful permanent residency by alleging that these individuals engaged in “material support to terrorism.”  These same allegations were used to prevent individuals from immigrating to the United States to join their families or to work or attend conferences in the U.S.  Other remnants of post 9.11, called the FBI “Name Check” delayed applications for citizenship because of a “hit” using some variation of their names.   Communities impacted by these policies expanded to include Asians, Latinos, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and Africans.  While the earlier policies worked towards ferreting out individuals based on their race and religion, later policies aimed at excluding individuals and keeping them out of the country because they were not American citizens.

After four years of post 9.11 cases, I was burnt out and exhausted.  I moved to San Francisco, California hoping to take a break from these cases to focus on broader immigrants’ rights issue.  To my surprise, I found that it was impossible to avoid these issues because the post 9.11 policies became deeply entrenched in the immigration system. Since 2006, I have been working at the Asian Law Caucus, the first civil rights organization serving the Asian Pacific American community.  At the Caucus, my work ranges from representing immigrants facing deportation while in ICE custody to affirmative litigation in the SB1070 cases in the South, ie., Georgia and Alabama.

On July 2, 2007, the Asian Law Caucus, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), ACLU of Northern California and Council for American Islamic Relations, brought a lawsuit in the Northern District of California challenging the FBI “Name Check” process as applied to the naturalization process.  Lawful permanent residents eligible to become a citizen must file an N-400 application.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) runs each of these applications against a number of databases including the FBI “name check.”  In response to 9.11, the FBI “name check” was expanded to include not only the FBI’s “main files” but also “references.”  Applicants’ names register a “hit” if they were merely a witness or victim of a crime, if they had assisted with the FBI with an investigation, or if they had undergone an employment-related security clearance in the past.  The name checks also turn up a high number of false positives because they use alternate permutations of applicants’ names.  If there is a “hit,” CIS will not continue to process a naturalization application even when the law required that an adjudication be made within 120 days of an examination. By May 2008, the number of pending citizenship cases had ballooned up to 329,000 cases, with 64 percent of these cases stalled for more than 90 days.

In Ahmadi v. Chertoff, our class plaintiffs came from countries including China (including Hong Kong), India, Pakistan, Russia, Canada, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Afghanistan.  At the Asian Law Caucus, we received over 300 intakes involving naturalization delays due to the FBI name check, with a disproportionate impact on the Chinese, Russian and Muslim communities.  The expansion of the FBI “name check” after 9.11 was intended to exclude as many noncitizens from obtaining the rights and benefits of citizenship which includes the right to vote, the right to file visa petitions for immediate family members, and the right to federal benefits.  Ahmadi v. Chertoff settled in 2008 as did most of the class action lawsuits filed in response to the FBI “name check.”

On January 25, 2002, the Department of Justice issued the Absconder Initiative Memorandum which outlined the goal of identifying, apprehending and deporting individuals with final orders of removal.  Individuals arrested under the Absconder Initiative in the months following 9.11 were predominantly Muslims.  By 2008, 33,997 noncitizens were detained as part of the Fugitive Operations Apprehensions which morphed from the Alien Absconder Initiative initially targeting terrorists.  Ten years ago, I only represented Muslims who were arrested under the fugitive operations initiative.  Today, in California, there isn’t a week that passes where I do not receive a phone call involving a fugitive operations case except the person is no longer Muslim, but Asian and/or Latino.  The most notable fugitive operations case I recently handled involved the arrest of Steve Li, a Peruvian Chinese DREAM Act student whose case garnered national attention.  He was 12-years old when he came to the United States.  He was 15-years old when he was ordered removed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  He was 20-years old and studying at City College of San Francisco when ICE raided his home and arrested him.  He was involuntarily transferred to the Florence Detention Center in Arizona and detained for approximately three months before California Senator Dianne Feinstein intervened with a private immigration bill. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin cited Steve’s case when he reintroduced the DREAM Act on May 11, 2011.  Steve is not South Asian, Arab or Muslim, nor is he a terrorist or has never engaged in terrorist activities.

Today’s post 9.11 policies aim at preventing Muslims from entering the country even if they were properly petitioned by family members and then granted an immigrant visa.  In February 2010, the Asian Law Caucus filed a complaint with the Northern District of California on behalf of Fauzia Din, a U.S. Citizen and Afghani national, who petitioned her husband, an Afghani citizen.  Fauzia’s husband was employed as a government clerk in the Afghan Ministry of Education since 2003. His job duties involved processing paperwork and other low-level administrative duties.  From 1992 to 2003, he worked as a payroll clerk in the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare, where he processed payroll for school teachers and performed other low-level administrative duties.  From 1996-2001, during the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan, he continued to work in the Ministry of Social Welfare in the same capacity as before, and after, the Taliban occupation.  During the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan, he never implemented any policy changes on the Taliban’s behalf.

In 2006, Fauzia filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative for her husband and it was approved on 2008.  On July 13, 2009, the American Embassy denied the visa petition under INA § 212(a)(3)(B), a provision of the Act applicable to “terrorist activities.”  However, the Government never explained what the terrorist activities involved.  Under consular process rules, a consulate decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to either administrative or judicial review unless the denial of the visa implicates the constitutional rights of American citizens.  Our lawsuit argued that the consular officer’s denial of her immigrant visa petition on behalf of her husband violated her constitutional right to due process.  The case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Fauzia has been separated from her husband for the past five years.

Similarly, in 2009, the Asian Law Caucus represented the family member of Umar Hayat.  Hayat is best known for his association with the Lodi Terrorism Case.  Umar Hayat, an ice cream truck driver, and his son, Hamid Hayat were arrested in 2006 when an informant provided bad intelligence claiming that Osama Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, had visited Lodi, California.  Later, this intelligence turned out to be false.  The Government dropped charges against Umar Hayat, but his son was sentenced to 24 years in prison for attending a training camp in Pakistan.  In 2009, Mr. Hayat’s relative was granted an immigrant visa based on his U.S. Citizen wife’s visa petition. He interviewed at the American Embassy in Islamabad and consular processed with a visa issued on September 2009.  Mid-air through his travels and before he arrived at the San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”), the Government revoked his visa without explanation and instead, paroled him into the United States.  He was detained at SFO for approximately five hours. He was allowed to enter the U.S. through the parole status, but was not considered to have been admitted for the purposes of immigration laws.  About three months later, he was given an appointment to return to Borders and Customs expecting that he would be issued a Notice to Appear and be allowed to appear before an Immigration Judge.   Instead, he was interrogated for several hours, arrested, detained and expeditiously removed after hours of interrogation.  As his counsel, I was not allowed to represent my client and was kicked out of the interview when I asked to speak with my client privately when he was asked whether he feared returning to Pakistan.  A frail, old, diabetic man who requires insulin shots was hauled off to a local county jail before he was put on a plane back to Pakistan.  It was clear that Mr. Hayat’s relative was paroled into the U.S. only for the purposes of gathering intelligence.  As soon as they obtained information, they deported him from the United States.

On the night of May 1st, we all watched images broadcast from outside the White House and near Ground Zero in New York City.  We watched hordes of young people, mostly college students, celebrating in jubilation and extreme jingoism.  These are the children of 9.11 — young people who were only 8-10 years old and are now in their late teens and early 20’s.  They grew up with catch phrases like “war on terrorism” and “weapons of mass destruction.”   The celebrations in front of the White House were seen and heard around the world.  These disturbing images reflect on all Americans and the fact that we have not progressed in the past decade.  In spite of the great work of lawyers and advocates immediately after 9.11, we have failed to learn and reflect from lessons of the past, times like Japanese American internment when we forfeited people’s rights in search of a false sense of security.

On September 11th of this year, we will mark the ten year anniversary of the day that changed all of our lives, and particularly, the lives of immigrants, South Asians, Arabs and Muslims.  A new paradigm was created after 9.11 where the balance tipped in favor of creating greater power in government over the rights of the people.  It permits us to interpret the Constitution in a way that justifies the detention of individuals in Guantanamo for nearly a decade without charging them.  It refuses these men access to civilian courts so that they can be properly tried.  The new norm justifies acts of water boarding and other forms of torture, because we have convinced ourselves that the information we retrieved led to Bin Laden.  It is a paradigm that fails to question government conduct that includes illegal wiretapping and then permits the government to hide behind the doctrine of “states secrets.”  When we look at the images of the young people in front of the White House that night, sitting on trees, and celebrating like it was the Super Bowl, I am anxious at how much we are willing to give up and accept as the norm. If we do not challenge this paradigm, it will continue to be sanctioned by the courts and supported by the Obama Administration.

1 Comment | Asian Law Caucus, civil rights | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

ICE Forced to Release New “Embarrassing” Documents On Controversial Secure Communities Program

August 18, 2011

Documents Show Broad Deception and Disagreement Within Federal Agencies on Opt Out; Raise New Questions About ICE’s Mandatory Stance

New York, August 18, 2011- In the wake of protests and civil disobedience in Chicago yesterday and across the country criticizing the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, immigrant advocates called on the government to turn over remaining documents about the program sought in a Freedom of Information lawsuit and to halt the controversial program.

A batch of unredacted documents released by court order this week, which federal district court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin called “embarrassing,” included acknowledgement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys that they would have to “rewrite” memos on whether the program is mandatory for states and localities and revealed schisms between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the right of states and localities to opt out of the program.  In her order, Judge Scheindlin chided the agencies for going “out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities,” and pointedly stated that the “purpose of the [Freedom of Information Act] is to shed light on the operation of government, not shield it from embarrassment.”

The judge has not yet ruled on whether the government must release other documents relating to the legal authority to make Secure Communities mandatory.  Strikingly, the government continues to attempt to withhold documents that shed light on that policy.  ICE will be back in court today arguing it should be able to keep secret documents relating to the agency’s purported legal basis to impose S-Comm on unwilling states like Massachusetts, Illinois and New York.

The documents are being sought in a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organization Network.

One previously redacted email chain of over 100 pages shows the director of Secure Communities, David Venturella, dodging questions from Margo Schlanger, an important official from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL). When ordering release of this document, Judge Scheindlin observed that the exchange showed “clearly obfuscating” and “non-responsive” answers from ICE in response to a request for clarification from OCRCL about Secure Communities policy.  DHS000196-000317.

Another email chain from July 2010 discussing a draft response to Representative Zoe Lofgren’s letter requesting clarification on the agency’s opt-out policy indicates that the FBI was considering an opt-out option.  The FBI had concerns that if no opt-out was allowed, states might consider not sending fingerprints to the FBI for other purposes.  The email notes that “moving away from the mandatory stance” would require “S1” (Secretary Napolitano) and AG approval. ICE FOIA 10-2674.0002039.

The back-and-forth and deception was clearly frustrating to ICE officials.  In an angry email dated August 6, 2010, a Secure Communities employee comments: “We never address whether or not it is mandatory – the answer is written to sound like it is but doesn’t state it.  It’s very convoluted – or is that the point?  I’m all about shades of grey but this really is a black and white question…Is it mandatory?  Yes or No.  Ok, so not such an easy question to answer.”  ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011165-ICE FOIA 10-2674.11171.

Commenting on the documents, Sunita Patel, staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights said, “The previously redacted portions of these documents—now public for the first time—reveal the extent of ICE’s deceit and political game-playing in its communications with states and localities.  Perhaps more disconcerting, though, is the confusion and flip-flopping within the agency about their own policies and plans for deployment of such a high-impact and unprecedented program.”

Added Bridget Kessler, an attorney with the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, “These newly unredacted documents signal that the fight is not over yet.  ICE’s purportedly ‘mandatory’ S-Comm policy appears to lack a sound legal basis, and is certainly misguided and confused as a matter of policy.  Massachusetts, New York and Illinois should continue to push the federal government to honor their rejection of S-Comm.”

Sarahi Uribe, national organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said, “Even as they moved full-speed-ahead with deploying this program across the nation, at times top-level agency officials didn’t seem to fully understand—or disagreed about—how the program would work.  Everywhere around the country people are resisting—there have been walkouts and arrests during S-Comm hearings, rallies, and thousands of petition signatures delivered to President Obama.  The time has come.  It’s time to halt S-Comm.”

The groups said they will continue to litigate this case to obtain the full information about S-Comm that the public is entitled to.

Visit CCR’s NDLON v. ICE case page or the joint website, UncovertheTruth.org, for an index of the newly released documents, the text of the FOIA request,  the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York and all other relevant documents.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.

The mission of the National Day Laborer Organization Network is to improve the lives of day laborers in the U.S. by unifying and strengthening its member organizations to be more strategic and effective in their efforts to develop leadership, mobilize day laborers in order to protect and expand their civil, labor and human rights. Visit www.ndlon.org.

The Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law was founded in 2008 to provide quality pro bono legal representation to indigent immigrants facing deportation. Under the supervision of experienced practitioners, law students in the Clinic represent individuals facing deportation and community-based organizations in public advocacy, media and litigation projects. Visit www.cardozo.yu.edu.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

New Authoritative National Report Condemns “Secure” Communities Program

August 16, 2011

National Leaders, Experts, and Victims of S-Comm Conclude Program Should Be Ended

08.16.2011 –  Today, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, along with Northern California organizations Asian Law Caucus and Immigrant Legal Resource Center, made public an authoritative report condemning the so-called “Secure” Communities or S-Comm deportation program and recommending its termination.

The release comes on the heels of a major protest in Los Angeles yesterday against the program, which is facing significant opposition nationwide for undermining public safety and operating without transparency or local oversight.  Meanwhile, a Northern California Community Forum on S-Comm, planned for August 27th in Oakland, will bring together community organizations and political officials from throughout the region to discuss how to end S-Comm in California.

The report includes expert testimony from San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, University of San Francisco law professor Bill Ong Hill, former District Attorney of New York Robert Morgenthau, heads of law enforcement, and victims of S-Comm like Isaura in Los Angeles whose 911 call for help resulted in her deportation proceedings.

The report recommends that the program be terminated, that the current Office of Inspector General investigation of S-Comm be expanded to other, related programs, that the Department of Justice begin its own investigation into the mysterious role of the FBI in Secure Communities, and that states not be compelled to share biometric data with ICE.

The following statement can be attributed to the National Community Advisory Commission:

“This report confirms what immigrant communities have long known. The program called Secure Communities results in the opposite. Entangling local police in immigration enforcement is not just bad policy as the experts testify. Conscripting local police into immigration enforcement has provoked a massive civil rights crisis our country now faces. The only suitable approach is to end Secure Communities.”

The Commission includes:

American Friends Service Committee, Project Voice New England, Asian Law Caucus, CASA de Maryland, CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, Detention Watch Network, Grassroots Leadership, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyer’s Guild, Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Rights Working Group, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, We-Count!

The report is available at http://altopolimigra.com/s-comm-shadow-report/

Background on S-Comm is available at www.uncoverthetruth.org and in a press brief at http://ndlon.org/pdf/scommbrief.pdf

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

ICE’s Shredding of “S-Comm” Agreements: A Stunning Display of Bad Faith

August 5, 2011

August 5, 2011 – Amid a growing chorus of national criticism of the flawed “Secure” Communities or S-Comm program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) earlier today unilaterally canceled memorandums of agreement with 39 states over the program (including California) and announced that those states would still be forced to participate in the program without any sort of local oversight or accountability. S-Comm has faced significant opposition for undermining public safety and operating without transparency or local oversight.

Background: ICE’s maneuver follows decisions by the Governors of New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois to end or suspend participation in the program earlier this year, and comes just days before an “Advisory committee” – which advocates had deemed “wholly inadequate” – was to begin a series of hearings on the program. Meanwhile, California’s TRUST Act (AB 1081-Ammiano), which would limit the state’s participation in the flawed program and allow counties to tailor participation based on local needs, passed the State Assembly (47-26) in May and the Senate Public Safety Committee (5-2) in July.  Below are statements by Assemblymember Ammiano, author of the TRUST Act, and a coalition of leading civil rights and community groups:

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-CA 13): “ICE’s outrageous announcement is an affront to both public safety and the most basic principles of democratic governance and transparency. If the Administration truly had the authority to force this dysfunctional program down the throats of every local government, why would they waste thousands of hours signing binding contracts with state officials across the country?”

Ammiano continued: “S-Comm has torn more than 40,000 Californians from their families, 70% of whom were presumed innocent or brought in for crimes as minor as selling food without a permit. Immigrants want to live in safe communities, but the program is shattering trust between immigrant victims and witnesses of crime and police. It’s far past time to pull the plug on this disastrous program, and I will continue to push for California to take a leadership role in advancing real solutions.”

The following statement is released on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, the ACLU of California, the California Immigrant Policy Center, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and PICO California:

“Today’s announcement is a shocking display of bad faith on the part of an agency that continues to overstep its bounds and trample on basic constitutional precepts in the process. US District Judge Shira Scheindlin’s strong condemnation of ICE’s deception in her ruling last month bears repeating: “There is ample evidence that ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about its ‘Secure Communities’ program.

We call on California Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris to exercise leadership at this critical time, and launch a thorough review of ICE’s repeated misrepresentations and deception.

The fact is, neither the federal government nor states like Arizona and Alabama can force our local police to act as immigration agents, especially when public safety is grievously harmed. Today’s attempt to tie the hands of states who are seeking to uphold signed agreements does nothing to fix our broken immigration system, and everything to make matters worse. In fact, it confirms that the Department of Homeland Security’s much celebrated “reforms” to S-Comm and “Advisory committee” are nothing more than window-dressing.”

Additional background information: Internal ICE documents show state Memorandums are required

Internal ICE documents uncovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit reveal a drastically different position from today’s announcement.  In August 2010, then S-Comm Assistant Director Venturella further clarified to Barbara Leen, Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and staffer for Senator Feinstein, in a meeting with aides from offices within the California Congressional Delegation that S-Comm requires a state MOA because the State Identification Bureau possesses and controls how fingerprint data is used

From document ICE FOIA 10-2674.0013231:

“Ms. Leen said she has received conflicting information that suggested the local jurisdictions would have to enter into an agreement with ICE under SC, but based upon the information being provided, it appears that the agreement is with the state. Mr. Venturella confirmed that the formal agreement is with the state because they own the data systems at the state level and control what is submitted to federal authorities. Further, state and local law enforcement agencies are “users” of the system so any requests related to how information is used is made by the state.”

Press Release from Asian Law Caucus, ACLU of CA, CIPC, CHIRLA, NDLON, PICO California, and Asm. Tom Ammiano.  Posted by Angela Chan, Staff Attorney, Asian Law Caucus.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.