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

STATEMENT BY JU HONG UC BERKELEY DREAM ACT STUDENT

July 20, 2011

STATEMENT BY JU HONG

UC BERKELEY DREAM ACT STUDENT

“If not us, then who? If not now, then when? – John Lewis

My name is Ju Hong, and I am undocumented and unafraid.

On Tuesday, July 12, six other undocumented students and I conducted an act of civil disobedience to empower young undocumented immigrant youth and to protest the inhuman treatments of immigrants. We sat in the street nearby San Bernardino Valley College and submitted to arrest. We were taken to jail, and we are now being threatened with deportation. This is the first time in California, where undocumented youth participated in non-violent civil disobedience.

We chose to protest in San Bernardino County because organizations like the National Socialist Party (Nazis), the Minutemen, and anti-immigrant legislators have been terrorizing the immigrant communities. In San Bernardino, a 17-year old student was arrested and deported simply because he was riding his bike without the headlights on. Another student was arrested and deported because he was playing basketball on campus late at night. Where is the justice? Why are so many talented immigrant youth being targeted?

After our arrest, we were held in jail for almost 12 hours. All seven of us were confined to a single cell room with one toilet, one roll of toilet paper, and two long wooden benches. It was very cold.

One of the youngest participants, 19-year-old student Jorge Herrera, led the unity clap inside the cell. With our eyes closed, everyone followed by the rhythm of the clap. I shouted, ‘Isang Bagsak!’ a Filipino unity cry, “one down, one fall!” – meaning we must stand together and fight for justice. Even in jail, the room was filled with energy and strong determination.

Several hours later, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer came to our cell to interrogate us. The ICE agent looked directly at me and said, “I will not detain you today, but I will detain you soon.” In reality, the ICE agent has the authority to deport us, to separate us from our family and friends, and to send us to a country that is foreign to us.

ICE was notified because of the “secure communities” program that allows local law enforcement to share information with ICE to initiate deportation proceedings. This is an unjust program, because it leaves immigrant communities vulnerable and distrustful of the police.

A year ago, my family’s home was burglarized. The door was broken into pieces, the windows were completely shattered, and our valuable belongings were gone. All of my family was terrified. My immediate reaction was to call the police, but my mother stopped me, “Ju, do not call the police,” she said. “What if you get deported?”

Like many other undocumented immigrants, I was living in the shadows and living in a constant fear of deportation. However, I have decided to stand up and fight back. I am sick and tired of remaining silent. Today, I am proclaiming to the world that I am undocumented and unafraid.

In the next couple of weeks, I will find out if ICE will start removal proceedings on our cases. If ICE decides to put me in deportation proceedings, I will take full action and I will fight until I regain my basic human rights.

I risked my life because I wanted to empower other young undocumented youth. In particular, I strongly encourage my fellow Asian American undocumented youth to take the next step and come out of the shadows. Start sharing your personal story to your friends, your relatives, your counselors, and your communities. This is only way we can empower our communities and fix our broken immigration system.

I risked my life because I wanted to show that this is not only a Latino issue; in fact, this is a human rights issue. I hope we can stand united as a movement, and not let divisions hurt our work.

We are calling on President Barack Obama to stop the deportation of all undocumented students throughout the country. Please join us.

This is our home, this is our country, and we want to contribute to make this nation a better place.

You can make our dreams come true.  Thank you.

Isang Bagsak,

Ju Hong

Leave a Comment » | Politics, Stand Up Speak Out! | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

re: “Redistricting worries San Francisco’s gay leaders”

July 14, 2011

On July 1st, 2011 the San Francisco Examiner published an article entitled “Redistricting worries San Francisco’s gay leaders.”  In response to that article, Benjamin Leong Co-Chair of the Gay Asian Pacific Alliance wrote this letter to the editor on July 5th, 2011:

Your story last week regarding the redistricting “conflict” between the LGBT and Asian American SF communities oversimplifies a highly complex process.  Among other criteria, redistricting must comply with important factors including the Federal Voting Rights Act, contiguity, and, most importantly, population equality across all the districts.

At its heart, redistricting should be about the enfranchisement of all communities. While the LGBT community and Asian communities are quite different, there are many similarities between the two groups: namely, the constant struggle for fair and accurate representation in the Legislature.

Your framing inaccurately portrays the interests and values of the Asian American community and LGBT community as fundamentally conflicting with one another.  It also continues to make invisible the needs of the community that is both gay and LGBT-identified, many of whom reside in both LGBT and Asian American neighborhoods in our City.

We can find a solution that is win-win, but it takes commitment from both sides to make it happen.

Benjamin Leong

Co-Chair , Gay Asian Pacific Alliance

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Redistricting: What It Is and Why You Should Care

June 21, 2011

By Ana Duong, Intern- Voting Rights Project

San Francisco – Quiz of the day: In 2001 California had one Asian American elected official representing our communities on the State wide or Federal level—Mike Honda.  How many API elected officials did we have in 2010? Answer: Ten!  In 2010, ten API elected officials were representing our communities across the state in the State Assembly, Senate, and US Congress. 

In less than ten years the API community has grown from having one elected official on the state wide or federal level to having ten, this growth is due in part to the growing numbers of Asian Americans as well as increased civic engagement from the Asian American community.  But the political representation for our community is by no means guaranteed for the next decade; in fact, our community’s ability to have a meaningful voice and vote in the political process all depends on a few lines and maps being drawn right now by the California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC).  After each Census, redistricting takes place to redraw districting plans to reflect the demographic changes and equalize district populations.

The Commission is required by law to hold two sets of public hearings, the first one before maps are drawn and second one to receive feedback on the first draft maps. For a schedule of the public hearings, please visit http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/hearings.html. The implementation of this new commission gives other California voters the opportunity to get involved in the redistricting process.

On June 10, 2011, the Commission released its first round of draft maps for Congressional, State Assembly, State Senate and Board of Equalization districts.  The maps can be viewed online on the CRC’s website at www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov.   The Commission is currently in the process of holding public hearings throughout the state to collect public input on the maps and will do so until July 12th.  That leaves less than one month for community members, leaders, and advocates to testify before the commission to ensure that the AAPI community is not divided by the redistricting process. Therefore, this time period is crucial for community testimony and public input to ensure the final maps reflect the needs of the community.

District boundaries drawn in the past have resulted in fragmented communities, including AAPI communities. Without public input, the commission will most likely remain unaware of the existing communities of interest and their respective geographic parameters.  The final lines and maps that the CRC adopts will affect elections for the next decade, determining if communities have the ability to vote as one bloc and have a meaningful role in the political process.  In order for our community to protect and extend the gains we’ve made in political representation we must engage in the redistricting process.

The redistricting process is particularly important for the AAPI community in the Bay Area as it means either representation or a silenced voice in the political process.  For example, in the 2001 redistricting, the San Jose neighborhood of Berryessa was split among four State Assembly districts, even though over half of Berryessa’s population is AAPI. District boundaries that split AAPI communities weaken the political voice of AAPI communities. When AAPI communities are fragmented, they do not make up a significant portion of any one district, diminishing their ability to get their elected representatives to address their needs.

In another more recent example, Indian Americans in southern Alameda County said “an early version of the map split Fremont’s fast-growing South Asian community into two congressional districts, diluting its political power” (sfgate.com).  Thanks to community testimony and a large showing of community support, the lines were modified to protect the growing South Asian community in southern Alameda County.   The commission has demonstrated they are committed to hearing and considering public testimony, but that can only happen when the community is present and engaged.  Learn how to testify to the commission at http://www.redistrictingca.org/more-info/.

The Commission will be holding a public hearing on June 25 in San Jose and June 27 in San Francisco to receive more public input before the release of the second draft maps. If you are interested in testifying before the Commission or learning more about the Asian Law Caucus’s Redistricting effort, please contact Carlo De La Cruz at CAPAFR2011@gmail.com.

Want to learn more? Watch the following video brought to you by the Greenlining Institute: http://youtu.be/eqBRz7yu4vs.

1 Comment | Asian American, Census, community organizing, current events | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Due Process for Some Immigrant Youth is Progress, But It’s Not Enough

May 11, 2011

 San Francisco – Civil rights groups are applauding Mayor Ed Lee’s decision to immediately begin implementation of a city law, passed in November 2009, that restores due process for immigrant youth in San Francisco’s juvenile justice system and ensures that innocent youth are not torn from their families for deportation.  However, at the same time, the groups are expressing disappointment that the Mayor will only be implementing the policy for accompanied youth (i.e., youth who have immediate family here) and not for unaccompanied youth.  The groups urge him to fully implement the duly-enacting, common-sense law so that all innocent youth receive protections.

The due process policy is a city law passed by a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. The law ensures that all immigrant youth receive their day in court for any alleged charges and that only youth who are found to have committed a felony are reported to ICE for deportation.

Implementation of the broadly-supported law, endorsed by over 70 organizations, had been stalled until today due to former Mayor Newsom’s refusal to enact the law.  Under Newsom’s direction, Juvenile Probation reported over 160 youth to ICE at the point of arrest, prior to the youth receiving due process, based only on a juvenile probation officer’s “reasonable suspicion” that a youth is undocumented.  The problematic past policy tore innocent youth from their families and spread fear among immigrant residents of coming forward to cooperate with police.   

Juvenile Probation Department (JPD)’s prior policy of reporting youth for life-altering deportation at arrest went well above and beyond any obligations under federal law.  As a cadre of legal scholars, including University of San Francisco Law Professor Bill Ong Hing, have repeatedly made clear, there is no requirement imposed on city officials under federal law to ask about immigration status or to report individuals suspected of being undocumented. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Wong Kim Ark, Constitutional Citizenship & Asian Americans

April 13, 2011

NOTE: Originally published on Asian Pacific Americans for Progress on April 7, 2011.

This article has been re-posted with the permission of the authors.

By Karin Wang, Vice-President, Programs & Communications, Asian Pacific American Legal Center

On March 28, 2011, the New York Times picked up a story that ran a few days earlier in the Pasadena Star-News, a local Southern California newspaper, about the discovery of a home in the Los Angeles area catering to Chinese “maternity tourists.”  In doing so, it touched off the latest round of debate on the 100+ year legal principle that confers U.S. citizenship on anyone born in the United States.  Two days later, a subsequent investigation by the same Star-News reporter concluded that incidents of “maternity tourism” are isolated and the numbers of births are very low.  But by then, the media had picked up the story and it took on a life of its own.

Lost in the frenzy of reporters and bloggers trying to weigh in on this issue was a more important reason for March 28 being a notable date in the history of “birthright” citizenship:  More than 100 years ago, on March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that children born in the United States, even to parents not eligible to become citizens, were nonetheless citizens themselves under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The 14th Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Adopted after the Civil War, it was intended to prevent states from deciding on their own, particularly with regard to the children of freed slaves.  In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court confirmed that this right extended to the children of non-citizens as well.

Born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who were barred under the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever becoming U.S. citizens, Wong was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, on the grounds that the son of a Chinese national could never be a U.S. citizen.  Wong sued the federal government, resulting in the Supreme Court’s seminal decision that for 113 years has shaped the uniquely diverse character of our nation, by giving root to countless immigrant communities from all races and ethnicities.

For Chinese Americans and in fact all Asian Americans, Wong Kim Ark’s courage has subsequently and significantly led to the growth and integration of a community that a century ago lived in dwindling isolation and segregation under the Chinese Exclusion Act.  By confirming the U.S. citizenship of children born in the United State to immigrant parents, the Wong Kim Arkdecision allowed Asian migrants to slowly gain a toehold in American society, creating generations of Asian Americans who know no other home than the United States and who have fully integrated into American society and culture, as scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, lawyers, teachers, artists.  In fact, through immigration and births, Asian Americans have emerged as the fastest-growing community over the past decade, jumping 34 percent in California and at least 43 percent nationally.

In context of the rapid growth and integration of the Asian American community, it’s clear that the “maternity tourism” case in Southern California represents an aberration in the Chinese immigrant experience.  The New York Times reported that in 2008 (the most recently available data), out of approximately 4.3 million total births, only 7,462 were to foreign residents overall – a tiny 0.17% of the births in that year – and births to “maternity tourists” would comprise an even smaller subset of that tiny number.  Those who clamor to abolish the long-standing right of constitutional citizenship would eliminate a fundamental principle cherished by all Americans, in order to punish a few individuals.  Such a sweeping reform would be an outsized response to a non-issue.

So, while the sensationalized story of “maternity tourism” grabs headlines, the more important story of the 14th Amendment is in how it laid the foundation for our extraordinarily diverse nation, by granting citizenship to the children of freed slaves and immigrants from around the globe.  While challenges to birthright citizenship will likely continue, all Americans should celebrate Wong Kim Ark’s courage and defend his legacy of guaranteeing the constitutional right to citizenship.

For more information re the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, visit us at: www.apalc.org or www.facebook.com/APALC.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Undocumented and Unafraid: May

March 25, 2011

 

By May, ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education) Member

In honor of National Coming Out Week: Undocumented and Unafraid we are featuring stories of API dreamers.  The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students that arrived before the age of 16 in the US a pathway to legalization.

I am undocumented. There, I wrote it. I have proclaimed it. And although those are just three simple words, the devastating thought behind them has been instilling fear and anxiety in my life ever since I was small. Until now.

I can get into the details of my family’s past, about how my PhD neurosurgeon and eastern medicine practitioner “Dr. Dad” survived his first few months in the United States as a dishwasher, about how after only one year he made enough to send the rest of his family, including his wife and twin daughters, to his new home in Oakland, CA, and about how my parents became entrepreneurs opening business after business only five years after immigrating, but I won’t get into it. That story has been repeated to no avail.

I can also get into the details of my own personal past, about how I learned enough English through ESL and watching TV from first grade that by the middle of second grade, I had no trouble getting A’s in all my classes, about how I took AP everything I can get my hands on in high school, about getting accepted into a prestigious university, and about how people ask me why I don’t have an accent or why aren’t I getting my driver’s license, but many people whom have the same dilemma as I do have the same experiences which they have already shared.

What I want to share are my experiences about planning my future and staying positive about the present. At this point in our immigration situation, I feel that I have nothing to lose and so I share.

Currently, I am in my 3rd year at UC Berkeley studying biology and am on the pre-med pathway. I cannot wait until I graduate! I hope to go to a healthcare vocational school afterward, maybe medical or physician’s assistant or an EMT/Paramedic. After that I hope to get a job doing what I have been training in school for a couple of years. Then I want to go into the Peace Corp. Maybe after that, I’ll apply to medical school (UCSF!) if I still think it’s the path I want to take. This is my ideal future. But this is the future I face. After graduating, I will have a BA degree from a prestigious university but I cannot get a job because I am not permitted to work in the US. Even if I do go to a vocational school, I cannot get a job afterward. The only things I can do are become a babysitter, or a nanny, or a tutor, or even a maid. Hopefully I can, at best, become a personal assistant. The Peace Corp is out of my reach because one has to be a US citizen in order to join. Medical school is just too expensive without any financial assistance and my parents have paid enough as it is for my undergraduate education.

Another aspiration I have is to get married to the man I love. I met him in my 2nd year of high school and it’s now been five years. He knows everything about me, including my status, and loves me anyway. It took me three years to finally tell him and ever since then, he has been supportive. We went to prom together, helped each other on college applications, fought and made up, taken care of each other when we were sick, distracted each other from homework, and everything else that all loving, young couples do. I want to get married because we truly and honestly love each other. But this is what the law automatically thinks. I want to get married because it’s a way for me to get my status changed from undocumented to legal. I am a fraud and our love is a lie. In order to prove that a marriage between us is real, we have to get a lawyer, go through an extensive interview process where family and friends are questioned about our relationship, we are questioned about intimate details like what kind of shampoo I use or what kind of razor he shaves with, have inspections of our home to make sure that we live together, and other fantastic ways that breach invasion of privacy. After all this, I will still have a three year probation period where I am issued temporary legalization. If we fail at any of these tasks, our love and marriage is deemed fake and I will be deported. I want to get married for love, but they will always assume that it’s a lie.

So how do I stay sane and even positive when my future looks so bleak? After years of lying to friends, avoiding conversations, and staying quiet I finally have had enough. I decided that even though my undocumented status is the most negative thing in my life, I will not let it take over. I will live the life I want, the life I and my family have been working hard for and will not take no for an answer. I have the mind and am just stubborn enough to keep trying. I can be sad and angry about it, but I would rather join ASPIRE and fight for what is right for all the other undocumented students who have worked just as hard and suffered just as much as I did. I have hope that something good will happen out of all this bad and all of our combined anger can generate enough noise to wake up the government to do the right thing. And when my love and marriage is investigated, I will comply with dignified anger the whole way through.

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

Undocumented and Unafraid: New

March 24, 2011

By New, ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education) Member

In honor of National Coming Out Week: Undocumented and Unafraid we are featuring stories of API dreamers.  The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students that arrived before the age of 16 in the US a pathway to legalization.

The fact that I’m an undocumented student.

My whole life has been fueled by this fact.

Ever since I immigrated to the United States at the age of nine, my number one priority has been to do my best to excel in academics. My parents had told me that our immigration statuses were complicated and were to be ignored. My sole focus, as I began to believe, was to go to school, make friends, learn English, and get A’s. In fact, that’s what I did and I was allowed to temporarily forget about what it meant to be without proper documentation in the United States.  I had hoped that someday and somehow, my hard work in school would be the savior of all my problems. By the time I had entered high school, I had mastered the English language as well as any American teenager. Still, a perfect academic record could not shield me from reality.

-When all of my friends were first getting driver’s licenses and driving cars to school: I couldn’t afford a car.

-When all of my friends flaunted their IDs at the box office to watch 300 and Superbad: I didn’t get a chance to make one yet.

-When all of my friends told me to fill out my FAFSA: I’ll do it before the deadline.

These were my excuses. When topics of financial aid, work, or ID’s ever came up, I stayed silent and hoped that nobody talked to me; that noone pointed the conversation my way. I hated making excuses and I was afraid that my usual attempt to cover up would fail. One of these times, I thought, I would choke up, and everyone would know. But it never happened, because I made sure to stay away from the law. My dad, as good of a driver as he is, has gotten stopped several times for minor traffic violations. Sitting in the backseat, watching as the policeman lit up the car with probing flashlights, I would be gripped with fear. My arms and legs froze and I made sure not to give the cops any reason for suspicion. The only sound in the air would be that of my heart beating faster and faster trying to burst out of my chest.

My whole life has been consumed by this fact. I was afraid.

As it turns out, though, my step into higher education at UC Berkeley became nothing less than life changing. Through no strength of my own, my eyes were allowed to be opened to new cultures and new groups. I met other non-citizen students, allies, supporters, and considered for the first time in my life “coming out” to even the closest of friends. I learned of hardships that were more extreme than mine and of the activism many are doing to try to change and absolve those challenges. I realize that there are always opportunities out there for me to reach for–I just need to grab it. I wanted to be a part of that movement; to be one of the aspiring DREAMers. I want to be able to use my degree to support myself and my family when I graduate. I will pursue my passion for medicine. I want to put a face to my story and I want to show everyone why I, too, belong here, in America.

So Here I Stand. I am undocumented and am now unafraid.

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

Nelson: Undocumented and Unafraid

March 23, 2011

By Nelson, ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education) Member

In honor of National Coming Out Week: Undocumented and Unafraid we are featuring stories of API dreamers.  The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students that arrived before the age of 16 in the US a pathway to legalization.

Tuesday morning.

I wake up to the alarm clock’s buzz; it’s 8:30 AM.

I hit the snooze button and throw it under the covers. For the next hour, I lie half-awake, wishing the morning sun hadn’t risen yet. For the next hour, I struggle against myself, trying to rally myself to rouse, all the while berating myself for being so lazy and so worthless.

Eventually, I roll out of the bed. I take a shower and brush my teeth. Hurriedly, I munch down a small oatmeal bar, and I’m off to school. Carpooling with three of my roommates, I’m thankful for the lift. But all the while, I’m dreading the trip. I’ve got two more midterms, a couple more labs, and several more papers before this week is up. And all the while, I wonder about how my mom is doing, while she’s in back in Macau.

As a single mother with three kids, she took a big risk when she brought my sister, brother, and I to America. Hardship is nothing new to her; as the eldest of five siblings, she worked hard to make sure her three young brothers were fed and cared for after her dad passed away when she was 8. She went off to work at the local hospital as a teenager, and by age 23 had ample experience as a nurse. My father swept her off her feet and they were married, but a decade after they had exchanged vows, demanded that she leave the family so that he could situate his mistress in her place.

Desperate to protect my siblings and I, she brought us to America to stay with her relatives. While the three of us were distracted by the sights and attractions of a new land, my mom tried to sort out her marriage. When it was apparent that there was nothing for us to return to in Hong Kong, she sought help from her family her in the United States. She asked her brother, a naturalized citizen, to help petition her for residency, but misunderstandings made that plan fall apart. Instead, her cousin helped us get student visas and enroll into public schools in the city. Meanwhile, she bought a house and worked through her other cousin’s laundry business, with the intent that she’ll eventually naturalize herself and my family.

Unfortunately, that plan never worked out the way she wanted. The cousin who employed my mom, and eventually my brother and sister, paid below minimum wage and worked them for longer hours. That cousin’s parents had an eye on my mom’s house, and wanted my mom to marry their son and take care of their family, under the premise that the marriage would grant her and my siblings status. Feeling threatened, my mom broke those ties and sought work at a textiles sweatshop, while my siblings worked elsewhere. Through arthritic hands and food pantries, my mom and siblings saved up enough money to afford my sister’s college education.

Eventually, my mom began her process to legalize, but it wasn’t out of the recognition of her strong work ethic, her contribution to the nation’s economy, her dedication to her children, or to her many hours of volunteering for the community. No, the only pathway she had was through an immediate family member who was a naturalized citizen.

I arrive at the library. It’s 11:00 AM.

I whip out my notepad, and start to write. For the next hour, I wrack my brain, trying to remember past testimonies I’ve written and heard. For the next hour, my headache, from sleeping at six hours this morning and two hours the previous, beats against my skull.

Finally, the migraine gets too much. I down a couple Tylenols, and take a walk outside. I grab a croissant, and take bites between sips of water. It’s not much, but it keeps my stomach from grumbling. All the while, I worry about how this week will turn out. And all the while, I wonder about how my sister got through school, when she had so much on her plate.

See, the only way for my mom to legalize was if one of her children got married. And so, my sister got married.

It was a big risk for my sister to take that leap of faith. All the legal advice she had was from a legal clinic in Chinatown. She wasn’t entirely sure if her high school sweetheart was the “one,” but she took the chance. They took their vows and filed the paperwork, but unfortunately he ended up cheating on her. Luckily, his parents sided with my sister, and the two of them stuck through it until she was naturalized. After she received her citizenship papers, the two divorced, and my sister submitted petitions for my family to become legal residents.

My mom was the first one to receive her green card. She petitioned my brother and I soon after, but we later learned that the two of us could benefit not from the petitions, since our student visas expired long ago. If the visa numbers come up for our petitions we would have to consular process at the risk of a 10 year bar on re-entering the country, a decade from our family and friends, and from our life and home in America.

It’s been over 18 years since we first arrived in the United States. When we first got off the plane, we were excited to see Hollywood, eat Big Macs, and ride cable cars (I still have yet to ride on a cable car, actually). But it’s been 18 years since we thought of America as a foreign place, since we were tourists since we were blind to the socioeconomic woes that plague this country.

Our country. My brother and I, like all the other members of my family, are emotionally invested to America. This is where my siblings and my mom’s children grew up. My brother, sister, and I went to American schools, we share American values, we speak the American language, and we embrace the American culture. We still believe that, through hard work and perseverance, anyone can achieve their dream. But it’s been hard.

I stuff up my thoughts and head off to class. It’s 4:00 PM.

On my laptop, I load up today’s lecture. I had the chance to read ahead, so I’m only half-listening to the professor. While she goes over templates and Thursday’s upcoming midterm, I keep on trying to work on this post.

Unfortunately, I’m a slow writer. It takes me a long time to jot down a sentence, and ages more to finish a written assignment. I have a hard time finishing lab reports and papers, so I often give up some hours of sleep to get these assignments done. At least, this week, I can still pull out some time to share my story. At least, I can find some optimism in this otherwise dreadful semester.

My family is struggling. My mom no longer sews for a living, because her joint pains make it difficult for her to work. My brother has a hard time finding work, and is limited to odd jobs at restaurants and bars through referral by friends. My sister, an accountant, was recently laid off. To make ends meet, we rent out parts of our house. I try to do my part by tutoring a few hours a week – it’s not much, but it pays for food. With the fee increases for colleges, my mom had to take out equity on our home to fund my education.

Every day, I’m struggling to keep my morale up. The stress and uncertainty is stifling, and it’s been hard for me to relax and breathe. I’m scared that I’m going to fail, that I’m going to crash and burn before this semester is up. I’m worried that I’ll repeat what happened two semesters ago, when the daily barrage of negative self-talk and inability to meet deadlines on my assignments drove me into a spiraling depression and got me disqualified from my program. I’m scared that I, age 23, with no work experience in my field of study, will amount to nothing when I’m out of college.

I’m working hard, trying to excel in my classes and comprehend the material, trying to prove that I’m worth educating and worth society’s efforts to fund my attendance in these classes. I’m working hard trying to live up to my family’s expectations and sacrifices, and trying to prove to the university that I’m going to be an excellent engineer and worth readmitting back into the college.

But all the while, I’m questioning my ability, and doubting my worth. And all the while, I long to get back into the covers, and bury my thoughts in sleep.

I get back to my place, and try to finish my blog. I didn’t expect to sleep tonight, but I pass out anyway.

It’s 2:00 AM, Wednesday.

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

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.