Mixed messages for immigrants in the National Budget

President Obama’s FY2012 federal spending bill includes two conflicting proposals for immigrant integration. On one hand, the President’s proposed $19.75 million for the Office of Citizenship marks an increase of $1.76 million compared with FY11 (which the GOP-controlled House of Representatives wants to completely eliminate). This is a critical commitment to helping already-integral legal permanent residents to fully participate in our civic life and democratic process by becoming US Citizens.

On the other hand, the President proposed deep cuts to Community Service Block Grants (CSBG), which has been the federal government’s only comprehensive approach to address the needs of economically vulnerable residents – helping immigrants and citizens get the services they need to recover from the recession. A cut in CSBG spending will decimate successful and fiscally-efficient programs such as the Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) and Tri-City Community Action Program (Tri-Cap) in Malden. These programs, along with the 1000+ agencies across 99 percent of U.S. counties, together retained over 18,000 jobs, and help provide critical support in employment, workforce training, housing, utilities, child care, disabilities services, etc.

MIRA and other immigrant advocates welcome the Office of Citizenship funding, with which it will continue the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, fee reform, public awareness initiative. The funding can also expand the Citizenship Resource Center, establish regional Citizenship outreach officers, and advance civics and literacy education programs.

However, without economic security, which the defunding of Community Action agencies undermines, it will encumber the naturalization process for many working- and middle-class legal permanent residents. While acquiring citizenship is in many ways a milestone for immigrant integration, the federal government’s role in improving economic security, community development and workforce training needs to go hand in hand to comprehensively integrate New Americans into our social, economic and civic future.

Displaced in Kenya

Written by Dani Grigsby, MIRA Intern

Immigration is traditionally considered an occurrence that requires crossing an international border. The latter portion of the 20^th century saw the emergence of a new area of academic study in relation to human movement, that being the movements of individuals, unwillingly, within a nation’s borders, qualifying them as the newly termed internationally displaced persons (IDPs).

The study of IDPs, their subsequent legal definition, rights, and social resources is complex and ever changing as the world’s complex political environment continues to create opportunities for the definition of an IDP to be tested, tried and redefined.

One such instance of IDP creation occurred in Kenya, the east-African nation, in the post-2007 presidential election violence.

I had the opportunity to participate in Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy’s sponsored field-based thesis research in relation to gender identity as a driving factor in the occurrence of violence in the east-African country of Kenya post-2007 presidential election. This fighting proffered another instance where IDPs were created and their treatment, rights and resources needed definition.

I conducted interviews with a survivor of the violence, an IDP and the following are my personal reflections:

By January 27, 2008 the violence had quieted throughout Kenya. The Burnt Forest region, one of the areas hardest hit, had been mostly stabilized. The warring parties were still living separately, as IDPs, devoid of a functional economy. The Kenyan police had moved into the area to assist in its stabilization and to provide a measure of services to these internally displaced.

On this particular day, the police from Eldoret were moving slowly down the road between Eldoret town and Burnt Forest removing the remaining roadblocks.

The IDPs and villagers of Burnt Forest were unaware of these actions and, upon seeing the roadblocks removed, began to scatter chaotically, fearing a reoccurrence of violence.

The police stationed in Burnt Forest, mandated to prevent the congregation of youth—or men, in general—in groups, began chasing after the villagers as they scattered, fearing they, the villagers, were about to incite violence.

These misunderstandings, from both sides, further contributed to the day’s chaos.

The woman, whose story I was collecting, was the mother of 11 children. Her eldest son and husband were in the town center as this madness ensued. Her son, a restaurant worker, retreated into his place of work and locked the door, hoping to protect it from looting. Seeing this action, the police broke down the door trying to disperse the young men, fearing their congregation. This young man and his co-workers fled out the back and began to run.

The police followed, armed, and began to fire at the young men. Moments into the chase a bullet tore through the back of this woman’s son’s skull. He dropped, deceased at 24.

Horrifically, his father, this woman’s husband, was a direct witness to his son’s death. In terror, he rushed to his son’s limp body. As he reached the boy and attempted to raise his son off the ground, he too was gunned down, dying in a heap on top of his son’s body.

Through her tears my interviewee begged me for explanation.

“Why did they have to kill them? Worse, why did they have to kill BOTH of them?”

She lost her family’s two breadwinners that day.

Her home had previously been burned and she was summarily left without a home, an IDP, without skills enough to provide for herself, left without sons of age to assist, without enough money to educate her daughters beyond the standard age of eight.

And this is how I found her, her situation unchanged over two years later. While no longer qualifying as an IDP, she was granted access to housing through the charitable generosity of a neighbor, though without access to permanent housing and permanent sustainable livelihood she lives a day-to-day survivalist existence, with no capital accrued, and no option for self-promotion.

Her hands, work chapped, held tightly a photo album containing snap-shots of her son and husband. These few photos comprised the most modern possessions included in her wood-slated home.

Tears sting at my eyes. Asante sana. Profound.

What Would Martin Do?

Written by Sara Veliz, Communications Intern

“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress”.—Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It is grimly ironic that the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords occurred within days of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

This bloody assassination attempt, which left six bystanders dead, once again showed that the gun violence which ended Dr. King’s life still trumps his historic message of love, tolerance, and nonviolent action. Even more ironic is the fact that these bullets were fired in a particular place — Tucson, Arizona — at a particular person – a Democratic Congresswoman. This much is indisputable: Representative Giffords was a significant minority voice opposing a rising anti-immigrant political tide in Arizona. As the majority of Latinos and African-Americans in this country see it, this tide of anti-immigrant sentiment has the real potential of washing away the social progress Dr. King’s Civil Rights Movement had accomplished for many Americans.

Like most ironies, this one is about the stirring of feelings, about associations. It has nothing to do with the shooter’s “real” motives, or the lack thereof. No doubt, there’s plenty of evidence to show that Jared Lee Loughner was not influenced by political rhetoric from one party or another, but that he was acting out the impulses of a paranoid-schizophrenic. But while liberals are seen as opportunistically making this tragedy into a political pedestal from which to cast blame against conservative ranters like the Tea Party, no one can deny that the rhetoric from the right has become more heated, and that their political actions more extreme, than at any time since the pre-civil rights era that Dr. King worked so hard to change.

For many people, the apex of that extremism was the signing of SB 1070 by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. Though the law was largely enjoined by a federal judge last summer, SB 1070 was set to empower Arizona law enforcement to stop any person they suspected of being in the United States illegally. SB 1070 made it a crime not to carry federal documents identifying the legal status of the person in question. It also targets people who knowingly hire and transport illegal immigrants. As many of its critics have pointed out, all of these provisions are an invitation for harassment and racial profiling. In the words of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona, SB 1070 is not only “unnecessary,” it’s “unwise, it's stupid, and it's racist.” After the tragic shooting in Tucson, his conclusion about the groundwork for SB 1070 resonates all the more chillingly: “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous...We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

This is the atmosphere in which Representative Giffords worked, in which her campaign offices suffered physical attacks, in which a leading national politician felt it was appropriate to “target her” on a map with the crosshairs from a gun scope. The tragic shooting became a physical representation of the political and social insensitivity currently occurring in this nation.

No wonder a national tragedy has led many to question how far we have strayed from the values of Dr. King. I think we need to go further. Dr. King didn’t just stand for “peace” as an end to itself; he stood for peace as a means toward justice, toward human rights. Americans need to re-analyze not just the heat of their rhetoric, but its target too. And, yes, that means they need to re-consider where their opposition to immigrants stems from. As Sheriff Dupnik also said about SB 1070, it is a “national embarrassment,” and the embarrassment stems not just from its tenor, but its intent.

Pro-Immigrant State Bills 2011-2012

We are happy to report that TEN bills with positive impacts on immigrant rights and integration were filed for the new legislative session, including An Act Regarding Higher Education Opportunities for High School Graduates in the Commonwealth (formerly in-state tuition bill) by Rep. Wolf, Rep. Provost, and Sen. Chang-Diaz. (House Docket #2036, no bill number yet).

The deadline for co-sponsorships is 5:00pm on Friday, February 4th. We need YOUR help to gather as many co-sponsors as possible!

Please ask to your legislators to co-sponsor the bills listed below ASAP. To co-sponsor a bill, legislative staff can use the State House electronic co-sponsor system and enter for example: “Higher Education Opportunities.” Let us know which legislators you’ve talked to so we can inform the bill’s lead sponsors.

We need to increase co-sponsorships for these pro-immigrant bills:

MIRA Coalition 2011-2012 State Legislative Priorities

Search for your State Representative and State Senator:
www.wheredoivotema.com
617-722-2000

DOWNLOAD PDF

Health care coverage for immigrants to be funded through June 2011 (FY2011)

MIRA welcomes the new year with great news — Just as it was about to run out at the end of January, the Commonwealth Care Bridge program has been funded until the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2011!

Governor Patrick submitted and the legislature passed the supplemental budget approving these funds shortly after a productive late December meeting with Secretary of Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez and Connector Executive Director Glen Shor. Hosted by Healthcare for All, the meeting was attended by MIRA, SEIU 1199, Mass Law Reform Institute, the American Cancer Society, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization and the MA Hospital Association.

Thanks to our members, partner advocates, and the administration for not forgetting the the group of over 20,000 tax-paying permanent residents, or AWSS (aliens with special status). The program (run by CeltiCare) was completely cut by the legislature last Spring during the FY2011 budget process, with the possibility of funding it via federal FMAP funding (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages). Although FMAP funding was appropriated for Massachusetts, the program eventually went unfunded, and was temporarily extended through the Commonwealth Trust Fund.

This latest decision to fully extend funding is significant relief for thousands of families, but comes with a caveat: it does not allow new enrollees. MIRA will continue to keep you posted on the program.

In addition, we are excited to share that the supplemental budget also included promised funding for the Department of Public Health line item which covers the RISE programs (Refugee Immigrant Safety & Empowerment), making good on the legislative promise that this line would not receive cuts if federal funding was granted.

Extending Gateway Communities: Immigrant population rises in small cities, suburbs

The latest American Community Survey, an in-depth look at US demography by the Census Bureau, indicates that more and more immigrants have begun to move into smaller cities and suburban areas in the past few years. Immigrants have found a piece of the American dream in cities like Everett, Malden, Revere, and many other surrounding towns. An increase in job opportunities and close proximity to Boston has almost tripled the population of immigrants in Boston-area cities since 1990.

Many immigrants are moving to cities like Everett because they can find work while remaining a part of a major metro area. Most importantly, moving to smaller cities often provides the chance to send their children to better schools. Suburban areas have also seen an increase in their immigrant population, including towns like Marlborough, Waltham, and Lexington. While immigrants will ultimately contribute economically and socially to these communities, it's important to educate the current residents about the positive contributions newcomers will make through programs like Welcoming America.

An increase in the immigrant population has also been seen in rural areas. Regions that have only seen a small increase in their population at 2% per year, have documented that 37% of that small increase consists of the foreign-born.

In the past decade the increased movement of immigrants into suburban and rural areas can be understood in relation to the growth of the construction and food industry. Both industries give many immigrants the opportunity to work and provide for their families--the main motivator for their hard work and sacrifice.

Cities close to Boston have seen the economic benefits that immigrant entrepreneurs have made to their cities. The diversity and contributions to the economy have been increasing as their numbers have. And with each step immigrants take out of the city, the wider their voices will be heard. Legislators will have to pay closer attention to these changing demographics as immigrants become important constituents in more and more districts.

Recent immigrants are settling beyond the urban core, and into suburban and rural regions, extending their hopes and dreams for a good life beyond city life.

More info:

Boston Globe Article

New York Times Article

WBUR

Many reasons not to implement Immigration program: "Secure Communities"

Currently, when the police arrests a suspect, their fingerprints are sent to the FBI, which checks a criminal database to verify identity and see if they are wanted in other places. Under “Secure Communities”, the FBI will run fingerprints against an immigration database. If there is no match for an existing record, fingerprints are added to the immigration database (no matter what the immigration status is of the person arrested). If there is a match, the FBI sends information to ICE to check status. ICE then sends information to the police and ICE's local Enforcement and Removal Office, who then determines to hold the individual until ICE can take custody. All of this can happen before formal charges are filed.

Secure Communities often ensnares hard-working immigrants guilty of no crime:

• "Secure Communities” has not done what it is supposed to do – go after dangerous criminals. 75 % of those deported under this program have NOT been dangerous criminals.
• In Boston, over half of the deportees – 53% -- have not even been accused of any criminal offense whatsoever.
• By clogging up the system with low-level or civil cases, “Secure Communities” takes ICE’s resources from actually pursuing real criminals.

“Secure Communities” breeds distrust between police and the community, decreasing safety for everyone:

• Community members are already expressing alarm and are fearful to have any interaction with police.
• The program COULD encourage racial profiling. Police would know that everyone they arrest would get an immigration check. We have already heard cases of racial profiling in the Western & Central Mass.
• Victims of domestic violence are often accused by their abuser and subsequently arrested, making them prime targets for deportation through“Secure Communities”. The program may even discourage women from reporting life-threatening conditions.

The mechanism of “Secure Communities” is seriously flawed:

• There is no way to appeal for people who believe they have been wrongly identified in ICE’s database.
• There is no program oversight, to be sure that any of the abuses, such as racial profiling, are not taking place.
• The governor rightly said before that we need much more data about the program before spreading it widely. We still do not have that data.

Massachusetts already has an effective system for identifying and deporting criminals.

• MA already has a 287 g accord with the house of corrections, so criminals who are actually convicted already go through the deportation process after serving their time.
• This system could potentially tie up bed space in local jails, where people are held before transfer to ICE.

The governor’s rationale for signing on now doesn’t make sense.

• The Governor claims that he is legally required to sign-on to Secure Communities. This is false — there is no legal requirement to sign-on. ICE plans to make Secure Communities national by 2013, but they will do so regardless of whether a jurisdiction wants it or not.
• The Governor is claiming that he is signing on to Secure Communities in order to "have a seat at the table". There is no table. In prior discussions between state officials and ICE, ICE has said that there is no flexibility and that they are not willing to put any limitations on their enforcement authority.

ICE’s claim that this program focuses its efforts on “Dangerous Offenders” is dubious for three reasons:

• There is no reason to believe that ICE resources are that limited.
• ICE resources expand every year, so even if this claim is true now, it won't be true in the near future.
• The majority of dangerous offenders are serving time in prison. ICE resources won't be used on them until their prison terms are up, leaving resources free to go after other immigrants.

This is a problematic program that will not properly secure our communities!

Stand for Public Safety

The Patrick Administration abruptly reversed course last week and announced it would sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), entering the state into the controversial "Secure Communities" program. (See previous post for details)

Law enforcement enrolled in the program automatically runs fingerprints of all arrested persons against an ICE database.In practice, however, the program has had numerous problems. Nationally, almost 80% of those deported have not been dangerous criminals, and in Boston, over half of those deported have not been guilty of any crime (immigration violations are generally a civil, not a criminal, offense).The program is also criticized by immigrant and civil rights advocates for potentially increasing racial profiling, and for decreasing levels of trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities

CALL Governor Patrick NOW at 617-725-4005 and tell him that you disapprove his agreement with ICE and not to implement this racial bias program in our state!

Sample Script:

My name is ­­­­­­­­_____________ and I live in the city/town of ___________. I am calling Governor Patrick to say that I disapprove his intention to sign the Secure Communities agreement with ICE, when it's NOT mandatory. The Governor should cancel his decision that will increase racial profiling and decrease trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. Thank you!

Join Centro Presente and advocates TOMORROW in denouncing Massachusetts' intention to sign on to 'Secure Communities'

When: Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Where: In front of Massachusetts State House

Gov. Patrick to sign "Secure Communities" agreement

Immigrant and Refugee Community Oppose Patrick's"Secure Communities" Accord
Agreement called premature and potentially dangerous

BOSTON -- The Patrick Administration abruptly reversed course today and announced it would sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE), entering the state into the controversial "Secure Communities" program. Law enforcement enrolled in the program automatically runs fingerprints of all arrested persons against an ICE database. The federal government's intention is to flag and detain those with immigration violations, thus improving the apprehension and deportation of dangerous criminals, or "Level 1" offenders. In practice, however, the program has had numerous problems. Nationally, almost 80% of those deported have not been "Level 1" violators, and in Boston, over half of those deported have not been guilty of any criminal behavior whatsoever (immigration violations are generally a civil, not a criminal, offense). The program is also criticized by immigrant and civil rights advocates for potentially increasing instances of racial profiling, and for decreasing levels of trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

Governor Deval Patrick had previously named these and other systematic concerns as issues needing further scrutiny before the state entered into any formal "Secure Communities" accord. Nationally, the program has been slowed in jurisdictions that expressed similar misgivings, which has called into question the ability ICE to appropriately implement "Secure Communities" nationwide by 2013.

"Governor Patrick has previously shown great sensitivity to the concerns expressed by the state's immigrant and refugee communities," said Eva Millona, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "That is why we were shocked and deeply disappointed that he would reverse course without any apparent need. We continue to believe that the state should hold off from signing any "Secure Communities" accord until the program is fully scrutinized and its serious flaws addressed. We can only conclude that the governor is receiving faulty legal advice, and we urge him and his advisers to reconsider this unnecessary and potentially dangerous decision at this time."

Press Contact: Franklin Soults, Communications Director 617-350-5480 ext. 204, 216-849-2271, fsoults@miracoalition.org

The charts below, compiled by ACLU, show ICE data of Secure Communities program implemented in Boston. Even though ICE claims that the program is targeted at serious "Level 1" offenders, more than half of all detainers placed and deportations carried out are of non-criminal individuals.

Senate Votes Tomorrow on DREAM Act

Sixty votes needed to overcome Republican-led filibuster

Last night Senate majority leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on the DREAM Act and a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The procedure locked in a vote on the DREAM Act for Saturday morning at around 10 a.m. The DREAM Act would allow undocumented immigrant youth to earn their citizenship by attending college or serving in the military for two years. The bill passed the House of Representatives last week, but faces uncertain prospects in the Senate, where it must obtain 60 votes to overcome a Republican-led filibuster.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry supports the DREAM Act, but Senator Scott Brown declared his opposition to the bill as recently as Monday. His opposition stands in stark contrast to the endorsement of DREAM by university presidents from Bunker Hill to Harvard and editorial boards from the Boston Globe to the Boston Herald.

The following is a statement from Eva Millona, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition."Hundreds of thousands of innocent youth across this country are waiting on the U.S. Senate to end their legal, social and economic limbo by passing the DREAM Act. The version now before the Senate is the toughest yet devised, with provisions that limit its one-time applicability to youth under the age of 30 who came to this country at age 15 or younger, and who completed their high school studies here. The parents of these children would generally not be eligible for any benefit from this act, and the children themselves would have to pay for college without the benefit of any government assistance."

"Massachusetts has the seventh largest immigrant population in the nation, with one million foreign-born residents," Millona continued. "This week, the census bureau release information that confirms the diversity and vitality of that population, which represents 17 % of our workforce and has helped keep our economy among the nation's strongest in these difficult economic times. The youth that this bill serves would only further bolster our communities and our economy. As the Congressional Budget Office has shown, these youth would contribute billions in additional tax receipts to our states and our nation, if only we give them a chance. We hope that Senator Brown and others who have been opposed to DREAM will reconsider their position, allowing these youth to become a full part of the only country they know as home."

MIRA urges everyone to contact the Senate at the following numbers:

Contact YOUR Senator (these lines patch you directly to your state senator)
Spanish: 866-961-4293
English: 866-996-5161

Contact a TARGET Senator (this line randomly routes to senators who need to hear from voters)
Spanish 866-956-3902
English: 866-587-6101

Watch the Senate Debate LIVE Saturday starting at 10:00AM:


Photo: Students gathered for “United We Dream! Commencement Ceremony,” in Washington, D.C. Photo: NIKKI KAHN/KRT/Newscom