NDN Blog

According to Ken Dilanian of the Los Angeles Times Illegal immigrants held in isolated jails struggle for legal help.

A survey finds The majority are in facilities beyond the reach of legal aid groups, resulting in caseloads of 100 detainees per attorney, a rights group reports. An additional 10% have no access to any legal aid.

The Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center has released a survey of immigration detention facilities nationwide, and found that:

1. More than half did not offer detainees information about their rights

2. 78% prohibited private phone calls with lawyers

3. More than 80% of detainees were in facilities that were isolated and beyond the reach of legal aid organizations

4. This has created heavy caseloads of 100 detainees per immigration attorney, the survey found

5. Ten percent of detainees were held in facilities in which they had no access at all to legal aid groups.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has increased the numbers of immigrants detained which has created a need for an increase numbers of detainee centers:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, detains about 400,000 immigrants annually at a cost of $1.7 billion this fiscal year, its budget documents say. Agency head John Morton has pledged to overhaul the detention system after years of news reports spotlighting poor treatment and deaths of detainees.

This has stretched the network of lawyers who provide legal counsel to immigrant groups:

Illegal immigrants facing deportation proceedings have no guaranteed right to a lawyer, but a network of nonprofit organizations offers legal help to immigrants in detention. That network is overstretched, and immigrants are often moved to facilities that are far from legal support groups, said the report by the justice center. The report surveyed 150 immigration detention facilities that accounted for 97% of the detention beds.

According to the Migration Policy Institute providing legal counsel to immigrants would actually save citizens money:

Granting immigrants better access to counsel could even save taxpayer money, the immigrant justice group argues, because detainees often would be released sooner, saving the $122-a-day cost of detention.

Immigration Activists have long championed passing the DREAM Act, as the Senate comes back into session this week, momentum is building to finally achieve this goal.

According to America's Voice, the DREAM Act is:

"bipartisan legislation that would give eligible young people who were brought to the U.S. as children the opportunity to legalize their immigration status and work towards citizenship."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has indicated that he would like to bring the DREAM Act to the Senate floor this session. From an interview in El Tiempo:

El Tiempo: On immigration, it seems any hope for a reform is at a standstill. Is there any chance left?

Reid: Contrary to what people think, I don’t think immigration is at a standstill. It’s not at a standstill.The problem is Republicans won’t let us move forward on immigration, it is a federal problem. As I said before, the two Arizona senators are the most opposed to this legislation. Our federal system needs to be fixed. You can’t have states making their own immigration laws, we need comprehensive immigration reform.

And I am going to continue pushing for it, but I can’t do that unless we have a few Republicans supporting us. I have people asking me, “why don’t we put it to a vote?”, and I won’t do it until I know we have the votes because losing the vote would set back immigration for a long time and I don’t want to do that. Republicans will have to get moving because I know what my Democrats will do.

Now, the other issue that lingers is that if I can’t get immigration reform, there is the Dream Act, because I don’t see why someone who has been in the country at least five years should face tough legislation. All we are saying is that these young folks should be able to go to college when they graduate from high school, and when they graduate they should be able to have a work permit, or if they wish, serve in the military two years. What is wrong with this?

Republicans don’t want me to do this either, but I will keep fighting for it. I have five or six calls I need to make to Republicans senators to see if they will work with me on this. I will call them to see if they are willing to support this.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a story up on a U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision which struck down a state passed  anti immigrant ordinance.

A city may not punish employers who hire illegal immigrants or landlords who rent to them, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Thursday, asserting that immigration is "clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."

This particular piece of legislation is seen by many as an antecedent to Arizona's controversial anti-immigrant law SB1070. The court's ruling sends a clear message, the federal government is the sole enforcer of immigration laws:

The decision strikes down an anti-immigrant ordinance adopted four years ago in Hazleton, Pa., that inspired a wave of similar measures elsewhere, including in Arizona. The court's unanimous decision is the latest to send the message that Washington sets the rules on immigration, not states or localities.

"Deciding which aliens may live in the United States has always been the prerogative of the federal government," said Chief Judge Theodore McKee of the appellate court. "If Hazleton can regulate as it has here, then so could every other state or locality."

The court case against the legislation is fairly comprehensive, noting that similar legislation has been struck down elsewhere:

The court cited 11 states and several municipalities, including two in California — Mission Viejo and Escondido — that have passed similar laws to punish illegal immigrants or those who do business with them. Most of those measures have been prevented from taking effect.

However, this is not the final work on employer sanctions, the Supreme Court will hear a case in December on an Arizona law which levies steep fines on employers who hire undocumented immigrants:

The ruling is not the final word on this issue, however. In December, the Supreme Court is set to hear an Arizona case to decide whether a state may take away the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

This law, passed when Democrat Janet Napolitano was Arizona's governor, was upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that states traditionally control the licensing of businesses. The Supreme Court's conservative justices may be inclined to give state and local officials more leeway to enforce their own laws on crime, employment or housing.

The court decision can be seen here and a press release from ACLU can be seen here.

David Bauder of The Associated Press highlights a pretty incredible feat in his story Nielsen: Univision Hits a T.V. Ratings Milestone.

For the first time ever Univison was the most popular television station among 18 to 49 year olds

Univision was the most popular network among television viewers aged 18 to 49 years old last week, the first time a Spanish-language station has beaten the English ones in this key demographic in the United States.

On television, the 18-to-49-year-old demographic is considered so important to advertisers that ABC, NBC and Fox pay more attention to these ratings than they do for viewership as a whole.

Equally important, compared to the other big networks, Univision skews decidedly younger:

Compared to the other broadcasters, Univision's audience is markedly younger. Last week, 2.1 million of Univision's prime-time average of 3.8 million viewers were in that youthful demographic, the Nielsen Co. said. By contrast, 1.8 million of CBS' 5.7 million viewers were in this group.

Univision has made a conscious decision to go after these viewers, said Cesar Conde, president of Univision Networks. In some cases, that means supporting programming that would be familiar to English-speaking viewers: a reality series "Desafio: La Gran Batalla" ("The Challenge: The Big Battle") is popular now, and a celebrity dance competition is coming in the fall.

The article notes that this milestone may not be an outlier, but rather a common occurrence in the future:

In July, Univision beat all the broadcast networks for the month among viewers aged 18 to 34, Nielsen said. With a growing Latino population and that youthful audience, last week's milestone could become commonplace.

Richard Esposito of ABC News has written an article detailing the contents of an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report that shows that three out of four guns used in Mexican violence come from the United States.

The article entitled Mexican Crime, American Guns shows that rising violence in Mexico can be partly attributed to American appetites for Drugs and Guns.

The study, based on Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) data and prepared by the advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows that three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing were sold in the four U.S. states that border Mexico.

The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country's unprecedented bloodshed – 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 – is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons.

The ATF report which spans the time from 2006 - 2009 shows that:

19,000 guns used in crimes in Mexico were traced to an original sale at a US gun dealer, and the bulk of the guns came from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Texas supplied four in ten of those weapons, and the other three border states provided an additional one third. Mexican law places stringent restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, though it does permit ownership of shotguns and pistols.

The ATF Report also shows:

The numbers showed that Arizona, Texas and New Mexico had an export rate 169 percent greater than any other states, which the authors suggest may be due in part to less-restrictive gun laws in those states. The top ten source states for supplying crime guns to Mexico in 2009 were Texas (2076 guns), California (1011), Arizona (690), New Mexico (173), Florida (113), Colorado (100, Oklahoma (90), Illinois (84), Nevada (56), and North Carolina (56). In total, the top ten supplier states contributed more than 4,449 guns, or about 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico that were originally sold in the US.

Former President of Mexico Vincente Fox had some interesting observations on the report:

"What is happening is that this huge market of the United States in drug consumption, the largest in the world, is generating the weapons that are sold to Mexican cartels, and is generating the money that is laundered in the United States and brought to Mexico," Fox said.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has a story up that shows just how expensive Arizona's controversial anti-immigrant law SB1070 has become.

The article, State Paid 365 K in June to Defend SB1070, details the various legal costs that the state is incurring while defending multiple lawsuits. 

Arizona paid another nearly $365,000 in legal fees in June to defend the state’s new immigration law. ...The June invoice is on top of more than $77,000 the state paid the law firm of Snell & Wilmer in May, after the first lawsuits were filed.

So far the legal bills have not been passed on to tax payers.

But so far it isn’t directly costing taxpayers anything. Gubernatorial press aide Paul Senseman reported Thursday that total donations to a special defense fund Gov. Jan Brewer has set up now top $3.6 million. That includes a single donation of more than $1.5 million from Timothy Mellon of Wyoming.

However There have been a large number of legal filings already filed.

“There have been over 900 legal filings containing over 12,160 pages of legal briefings and new filings are received every day,’’ he said. And aside from the individuals who have sued to overturn all or part of the law, Senseman said 63 others have filed “friend of the court’’ briefs that need to be reviewed and, in some cases, responded to."

As the legal costs continue to mount as new lawsuits continue to be filed, media attention fades, the money from donations will eventually run dry and tax payers will likely be on the hook for large sums of money.

But the amounts to date are likely to be dwarfed with what is to come: The invoices do not reflect the fact that three of the cases actually went to hearings in July before U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, something that likely required a lot of pre-trial preparation. And the state already has filed papers with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn an injunction Bolton ordered blocking the state from enforcing several key provisions while the issue of its legality winds it way through the legal system.

According to the Sedona Times, an Arizona paper, the state faces a budget deficit of 3.2 billion dollars. With legal costs mounting, in these hard economic times, does the state really need to be paying to defend Governor Jan Brewers bad immigration policy?

The commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Alan Bersin said that sealing the border between the United States and Mexico is unrealistic. 

Brady McCombs of the Arizona Daily Star has the full story in his article entitled CBP Chief: Sealed Border is Unrealistic.

Chairmen Bersin noted that sealing the border was unrealistic before the United States and Mexico came to some sort of agreement on labor:

The commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agrees that Arizona's border needs to be better controlled, but he said completely sealing the international line is unrealistic.

"This is not about sealing the border," Commissioner Alan Bersin said Friday in Tucson. "Until we have a legitimate labor market between Mexico and the United States, people will attempt to come here to work."

Chairmen Bersin contends that reaching an agreement between the two countries on labor cannot be achieved by sealing the border, but rather by legislative action in congress:

To get that legitimate labor market, though, will take immigration-law change, he said. To get backing for it will require reducing the flow of illegal immigration in the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector - the busiest for apprehensions, drug seizures and border deaths for a decade - to levels similar to those of other sectors

He does note that there have been great accomplishments along the border, but more can still be done:

A steady decline in apprehensions in the Tucson Sector over the past six years is a good trend, but it's still unacceptable that the sector has more than three times as many as the next-busiest sector. However, with more agents, fencing and technology than ever before, the agency is ready, he said.

"We are also better prepared, better resourced, here and elsewhere, to accomplish the completion of this task, which is to achieve a secure border and one that is perceived as secure." But there is no numerical goal for apprehensions that would constitute a "secure border," he said. "Our job is to detect and apprehend the large majority of them."

Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico has a story up that shows that 20 of 37 Gubernatorial candidates both Democrat and Republican endorsed anti immigrant legislation.

The article Gov. candidates in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws does an excellent job of contextualizing the larger problems associated with so many candidates endorsing these anti immigrant legislation:

Way back in August, NDN came across a YouTube video that Phoenix-based KPHO News Station had produced which highlighted the connection between Jan Brewer, SB1070 and the private prison system in Arizona.

That post can be seen here

The story noted that while tourism and the state economy is taking a beating due to the curious habit of many of the states political elites constantly characterizing Arizona as a war zone to the national media, there is one business that still made tons of money off of SB1070: the private prison system.

The news story purported that many of Gov. Brewer's staff have connections to the private prison system, which granted state contracts and large amounts of money to detention centers that housed immigrants before they were deported.

This story has gone national, and is currently at Huffinton Post here.

The original news clip is below:

Arizona's Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio is legendary for his anti immigrant crack downs.

As this America's Voice backgrounder, The Notorious Record of Maricopa County, AZ’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio, makes clear he has gone above and beyond merely enforcing state immigration laws. Now the justice department has taken action.

From the Justice Departments Press Release:

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), Maricopa County, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for refusing full cooperation with the department’s investigation of alleged national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs that receive federal funds, and also requires grant recipients to cooperate with investigations of discrimination by providing access to documents, facilities and staff.  MCSO signed contractual assurance agreements as a condition of receiving federal funds, and promised that it would cooperate with investigations of alleged discrimination.

The department filed today’s lawsuit after exhausting all cooperative measures to gain access to MCSO’s documents and facilities, as part of the department’s investigation of alleged discrimination in MCSO’s police practices and jail operations.  Since March 2009, the department has attempted to secure voluntary compliance with the department’s investigation.  MCSO’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation makes it an extreme outlier and the department is unaware of any other police department or sheriff’s office that has refused to cooperate in the last 30 years.

Sherriff Arpaio's lawsuit comes as some are beginning to question whether the cost of the states immigration crack downs are doing more harm than good.

David R. Francis of the Christian Science Monitor in his article Costs will rein in Arizona's immigration crackdown: Arizona can arrest illegal immigrants now, but then what? Prison and deportation are both too expensive to sustain notes:

Beside the moral, humanitarian, and legal issues surrounding illegal immigrants, their apprehension poses a sizable financial cost. In Arizona, police could arrest them under the new state law, but keeping them in already crowded jails costs roughly $100 a day per person. For 5,000 people, imprisonment costs could add up to $182.5 million a year. That's a hefty charge for a state struggling with a budget deficit of at least $368 million.

Presumably Arizona could save money by handing illegal immigrants over to the federal government for deportation. In fiscal 2008, the US deported 369,221 people. Deportations rose to 389,834 in 2009 under the Obama administration, and are predicted to reach 400,000 this fiscal year.