Matilde Polanco (left), of Phoenix, kisses Linda Angeline, of Phoenix, after Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on SB 1070 at the State Capitol on Wednesday July 28, 2010.

PHOENIX – On Wednesday July 28, hundreds of people gathered outside the State Capitol for their 102nd day. They called it the “Gran Vigilia” or “Great Vigil,” and prayed that SB 1070, the controversial law concerning undocumented immigrants, would not go into effect Thursday July 29.

Within a few hours, some of their prayers were answered.

A federal judge issued an injunction blocking the harshest aspects of SB 1070 until the court makes a final decision on a lawsuit brought by the federal government against the State of Arizona. As of now, living as an undocumented immigrant in the state is still not a crime.

At the vigil, the relieved group prayed in a mass to give thanks for the news. But several people admitted the fight is far from over. They pointed out that law enforcement in Arizona has persecuted undocumented immigrants for years.

Despite the judge’s ruling, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has promised a large-scale operation to capture undocumented immigrants through traffic violations and bring them to his “tent city.”

Since SB 1070 was signed by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, hundreds of families have left the state.

But the majority have stayed put.

“We weren’t willing to jump this ship until we heard from the judge,” said Jaqueline Siensen, 38. “This was wrong all along, we come here to work, we are not criminals. And we feel we are a part of the economy of Arizona.”

Salvador Soza, an undocumented immigrant said he felt relief after hearing about the injunction. “Now I’m going to be able to drive freely,” said the 32-year-old immigrant.

The immigrant community rejoices after Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on SB 1070 at the State Capitol in Phoenix on Wednesday July 28, 2010.

Attorney Stephen Montoya, who represented a police officer in one of the pending lawsuits challenging SB 1070, stopped short of calling it a victory, but rather an opportunity to bring peace over an issue that has created division and tension in the community.

“It’s a significant decision politically, but legally, honestly it ought not to be a significant decision,” said Montoya. “I think the judge simply enforced the law that has existed in the United States decade after decade. The United States Supreme Court has always said that the federal government was in charge of immigration law.”

Other opponents of SB 1070 were skeptical as well.

“It means that we have a temporary breather,” said Salvador Reza, an organizer from the PUENTE Movement.

One of the law’s provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton left in effect allows local police to charge day-laborers (who are often picked up for a day’s work off the street) for impeding traffic.

“It’s just the beginning of the fight, we will continue with our civil disobedience,” said Reza.

The activists argue that immigrants are still in a very vulnerable position in Arizona, a place with several strict laws affecting immigrant communities, and infamous figures like Sheriff Arpaio who will continue to conduct raids.

Andrew Thomas, a co-author of SB 1070 and former Maricopa County Attorney lamented that the judge’s decision “cut the heart of the law.” He promised the ruling would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.

But Thomas celebrated that parts of SB 1070 will go into effect–in particular the provisions affecting day-laborers.

“We can sue police departments for not enforcing it,” he said.

(Photo: waynewhuang/flickr)

Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez was a guest today on PRI’s The World, speaking about the reaction to the injunction on SB 1070 in Arizona.

[Visit post to listen to audio]

Immigrants in Arizona can breathe a little easier–for now.

Less than 24 hours before SB 1070, the controversial new law making it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant in the state was scheduled to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton largely granted the U.S. government’s request for an injunction, and blocked the harshest provisions of the law.

In Phoenix, undocumented immigrants and their families had been nervously considering fleeing the state in the months since SB 1070 was signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

During three hearings Judge Bolton had directed pointed and difficult questions to lawyers for both the Department of Justice and the State of Arizona.  After considering the arguments, she ruled the federal government was likely to win in enough areas that an injunction was merited. In her decision, the judge concluded that the U.S. was likely to suffer irreparable harm and that stopping the law was in the public interest.

The judge did not enjoin SB 1070 in its entirety–she went through the law section by section and provision by provision, approving some and rejecting others. She didn’t halt the part of SB 1070 that makes it a misdemeanor to harbor or transport undocumented immigrants, for example. But the areas many opponents of the law were most vocal about, notably the requirement for local and state police to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws; for immigrants to carry papers at all times; and making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for work in public places, were put on hold.

As for the part of SB 1070 that would allow officers to arrest a person without a warrant if they had probable cause to believe that the person had entered the U.S. illegally, the judge wrote:

“By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

Judge Bolton’s ruling is not the end of the battle. There are currently 7 lawsuits challenging SB 1070 making their way through the legal system. The court is likely to make a final decision on the federal case soon, but either way it is likely to be appealed. Some experts predict the case will crawl all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ll have more reaction to the ruling tomorrow.

Amparo De Paredes (center) with two girls whose mothers were arrested in immigration raids. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

Arizona’s new law requiring local and state police to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants is scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, unless federal judge Susan R. Bolton rules otherwise.

Undocumented immigrants and their families in Arizona are living in limbo, and immigrants all over the nation are watching closely. ImpreMedia, one of the largest Spanish language news outlets in the U.S., launched a multimedia package this week focused on SB 1070 in an effort to clarify how the law will impact the Hispanic community. Visit Impre’s new site here.

Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez has been following the situation in Arizona closely. The following article, written by Fernandez, appeared in the July 25 edition of La Opinión. Translation by Elena Shore of New America Media.

PHOENIX – Amparo De Paredes fills a giant bucket with bottles of water as a bunch of girls run around the house, playing with two adopted puppies.

They aren’t her daughters, but these days it feels like they are her own, especially since their mothers were arrested by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in two raids on the Sizzler’s restaurant chain on June 12.

“I don’t have kids, but it touches my heart to see what is happening,” says Amparo, a 52-year-old Guatemalan immigrant.

As hundreds of immigrant families leave the state before the implementation of the new law, SB 1070, which makes it a state crime to be undocumented, those who stay are living in uncertainty.

“This is going to happen, whether or not the law goes into effect. There is going to be more crime. I can’t call the police; if I call the police, I’m the one that’s going to lose out, not the robber,” says Omar González, the father of four of the girls, and a native of Retalhuleu, Guatemala.

Blanca, his wife, wanted to stay until the last minute, to wait until July 29, the date the new immigration law goes into effect. Otherwise, the plan was to move to Los Angeles. They were afraid of being arrested in the street, but they never thought she would be arrested in the middle of a workday at the restaurant where she’s worked for 10 years.

Omar Gonzalez with his daughter. Her mother was arrested in a recent immigration raid at the Sizzler's restaurant chain - Photo: Valeria Fernandez

“It’s useless. It’s stupid what they’re doing, because they are not protecting the city by kicking hardworking people out of their jobs,” says Gonzalez, 40. “They would be protecting the country if they caught the people who sell drugs in the streets.”

Gonzalez blames the Obama administration for what is happening in Arizona.

“How many years has this black man been president, and there have been more deportations than under Bush. What is he doing? Nothing. When passing immigration reform was important. No, he threw himself into passing health care reform.”

Amparo’s house has become a neighborhood meeting place, and this afternoon dozens of people are arriving on foot for a meeting of the PUENTE movement, where they will be educated about their civil rights.

“How many people here are illegal?” asks Alma Mendoza, a Mexican immigrant who leads the neighborhood groups in the area.

Some raise their hands shyly.

“How many are immigrants?” she asks. Others respond. Mendoza says to them, “We are not illegal. We are not undocumented. We are human beings.”

Mendoza reminds the guests that on July 29, they are calling for everyone not to go to work or buy anything. The PUENTE movement already has several vigils and acts of civil disobedience planned if the judge allows the law to go into effect.

Meanwhile, Amparo and her husband, José de Jesus, pass around bottles of water for their guests under Arizona’s scorching afternoon sun.

“We want to unite to get rid of the police. A lot of people are afraid,” says Amparo. A few months ago a new Phoenix police station opened near the church and the park. But instead of providing security, it is making people afraid because of the new law.

Omar complains that in the last few months, the same police officer has arrested him three times, and impounded his car each time.

The neighborhood meetings help people not to feel helpless. People from all parts of the country have come to visit them to help.

But for Omar, it is a double-edged sword.

“The more united we are, the better. But at the same time, the more united we are, the more we are making ourselves known to the law,” says the Guatemalan.

Young girls in Arizona whose mothers were arrested in immigration raids. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

After the federal government and a coalition of civil rights groups presented arguments to overturn parts of the law, everyone was betting that Judge Susan Bolton would impose a moratorium, at least on some aspects of SB 1070.

But with or without the law, the persecution of undocumented immigrants in Arizona can continue at the hands of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has said he is planning to conduct a raid on July 29. The controversial sheriff, who is under investigation for the use of racial profiling in his operations, also opened a special outdoor section in his so-called “Tent City,” where he will jail the undocumented immigrants he arrests.

“This law hasn’t even gone into effect yet and the community is already devastated,” says Luis Fernández, a member of the Repeal Coalition. For nearly a year and a half, the group has organized immigrant communities at the neighborhood level. It also visits family members in detention, connects them with lawyers, and accompanies them to court.

“Unfortunately, there is a huge need. What we are doing is a drop of water in the ocean,” he says. “The atmosphere is extremely polarized in Arizona and it is already expanding nationwide. I suppose that what we’re experiencing here is going to be felt elsewhere, especially in November [during the elections].”

(Photo: waynewhuang/flickr)

The first in a two-part series.

“Light on one and heavy on the other” is more than a bartender passing judgment on two brands of beer.

The statement defines the U.S. government’s border control policy: Sporadic fencing along the Canadian border; a tough set of rules, a high fence and 1,200 National Guard troops (by August 1) along the Mexican border. The double standard is not lost on some Latinos, who are left to wonder whether the policy has become too personal: “Why Mexico and not Canada?”

The answer is fairly easy to discern, but somewhat difficult for some immigrants to digest.

While the U.S., Canada and Mexico belong to the trading triumvirate called NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), immigration is not one of the perks of the treaty. Mexicans fall in line for a visa and wait months to have it approved, just like any foreigner seeking to enter the U.S.  Those with means enter as tourists or students, and those who cannot enter legally try the backdoor.

Meanwhile, an entirely different set of rules applies to Canada, America’s largest trading partner.  As a “low risk” country, it has a cozy, visa-free arrangement with the U.S. The average Canadian citizen can show up at a port of entry with nothing but a valid passport, an ID card (usually a driver’s license), and a border crossing card. The need for a visa is waived for a limited time period, except for Canadian minors, fiancées and traders.

“NAFTA does not include immigration,” Cesar Romero, press attaché of the Mexican Consulate in New York, told FI2W. If the Canadians appear to enjoy preferential treatment, he said it’s not because of NAFTA. “It’s something else,” he said, and stopped there.

The 5,525-mile U.S.-Canadian border was practically non-existent for decades as the two countries enjoyed an “open and trusting relationship,” according to a study by the International Boundary Commission. Many towns shared libraries and opera houses, with neighbors able to walk across each other’s yard to cross the border without having to flash a passport or ID.

The post-9/11 era

But with the specter of 9/11 hanging dark and heavy over the U.S., Washington began a review of the northern border. What they found out were occasional incidents of drug and firearms smuggling, human trafficking, random violence, and unsuccessful terror attempts using the Canadian border.

To be fair, the Mexican border with almost 2,000 miles of concrete walls, mountain ranges, rivers and rickety fences winding from California to Texas, did not initially have an unsavory reputation. The aftermath of the U.S.-Mexican war of 1848 led to the annexation of other border states after Texas. Lots of jobs were available then, and Mexicans found work in American factories and farms, and in construction. By 2007, there were 29.2 million Hispanics of Mexican origin in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Pew Hispanic Center said that of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants, more than half (55 percent) may be Mexican.

Drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border intensified over the years, straining the resources – as well as the friendship – of both countries. The U.S. has been pressuring Mexico to do more to contain narcotics smuggling and prosecute corrupt officials. Mexico insists trafficking wouldn’t flourish if the U.S. wasn’t such a profitable market for drugs. The U.S. estimates the business to be worth anywhere from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually.

Frustrated by the lack of action from Washington, some Americans have taken up the Second Amendment option to arm themselves, fearful that crime would spill into their backyards. In response, Arizona passed a law making immigration – which is traditionally a federal concern — a matter for the local police. Under SB 1070, which takes effect July 29, cops will have the authority to question anyone they suspect is illegally in the country. Polls show many Americans support the law, which immigrant advocates fear may promote racial profiling.

“Yes, the cartel violence we are seeing in Mexico is not taking place in Canada, but there is human and drug smuggling that must be addressed,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a 2009 speech before the Border Trade Alliance International Conference.

“We cannot pretend that there are no borders even though we have close, close relationships with Canada and with Mexico.”

She reported more than a million illegal persons have been arrested at the border in 2008, and 2.7 million pounds of narcotics were seized, making the control of illegal immigration “a priority.”

Queens College Professor of Sociology Andrew Beveridge, who tracks immigration trends, is aware of the double standard, but does not believe there is discrimination.

“I doubt that,” he said, noting that Americans value Mexico’s “hardworking immigrants.” He also said the Mexican population continues to increase.

While the approach to protecting the country’s northern and southern boundaries “will not be the same,” Homeland Security said policy will remain sensitive to the differences between Mexico and Canada – a policy that balances the time-honored tradition of friendship against the emerging threats.

Tomorrow, Ewa Kern-Jedrychowska of Nowy Dziennik/Polish Daily News reports on Polish immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally from Canada.

Gerardo, an undocumented immigrant, earns money by selling used machine parts. (Photo by Valeria Fernandez)

Listen to Valeria Fernandez’s story about Irene and Gerardo this week on NPR’s Latino USA.

[Visit post to listen to audio]

PHOENIX – In these days of continually breaking news from Arizona it’s hard to stop for a minute — take it all in — and listen. But that was my assignment. Listen.

Seems fitting for a radio piece.  Yet, sometimes our expectations of what a story should be tend to get in the way.

Since the passage of SB 1070, a new law that makes it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant, I find myself pulled in many directions. One day I’m sitting inside a courtroom trying to wrap my mind around legal arguments on the law. The next second, I’m in the street putting my microphone between two people who are yelling at each other.

It’s usually more of a shouting-match than a conversation. When something is so personal I know it can be hard to even want to concede that the other person may have a point. And it gets even worse when language barriers stand in the way.

Arizona is divided on SB 1070.  But viewpoints are not black and white.  If there is agreement on anything it’s that everyone is frustrated.

That’s what I found when I spent some time interviewing Irene Littleton a resident of the town of Casa Grande and Gerardo and undocumented immigrant from Mexico.

There’s another thing that unites people who are divided by their views on the new law.  It is fear. Some fear for their security, their retirement, their homes. They want the police to do more to protect them and they feel the protection will come by giving the authorities immigration powers.

Immigrants are so fearful that they are worried if there’s a police station near the park or the church in their neighborhood because if they get stopped, their trip may end up on the other side of the border. Their entire life in the U.S, the life they built for years, is at stake.

I met Irene outside the Arizona State Capitol. We were both very early for a Tea Party event. She was under a gazebo seeking shelter from the heat and wearing a T-shirt with an American flag on it.

I have a heavy Uruguayan accent.  When I do interviews about immigration issues in English with supporters of SB 1070, my accent sometimes puts people off.  It also inevitably leads to questions about my nationality and whether I entered the country illegally.

I’ve gotten used to it, but at times it has made it difficult to establish trust with people who assume I write only in Spanish and feel they haven’t been portrayed fairly by the Spanish-language press.

Irene didn’t focus on my accent. She was mostly interested in having a conversation.  She told me she lived in Casa Grande, Arizona about 60 miles from Phoenix, and that she was afraid for her safety because the town was a known corridor for human smuggling.

She moved from New Hampshire two years ago, fulfilling a dream to live in Arizona, the Grand Canyon state. But things didn’t turn out as she expected.  She hasn’t been able to find a new job in IT and her home was broken into last August.

She doesn’t know who did it. She can’t blame undocumented immigrants.  But it adds to her concerns as she hears in the news about a deputy being shot by alleged smugglers in her area. On top of that, the federal government is putting signs near her town warning that it’s a dangerous smuggling corridor.

Because of all these things, Irene feels she needs to live her life differently -put in a security system and be watchful, even though media reports say that crime is down in Arizona.

When SB 1070 passed it gave her a new sense of security.  And it’s not because she fears immigrants that work on landscaping or thinks that they are all coming here to commit crimes. She believes the new law, scheduled to take effect on July 29, will send a message to the federal government that it needs to secure the U.S. – Mexico border.

There are other things that concern Irene. She is bothered by the fact that at the grocery story she seems to be surrounded by people speaking Spanish who she can’t understand.

Irene is a first-generation Italian who loves her culture and grew up in a home where Italian was spoken. She’s upset that many immigrants come to the U.S. and don’t seem to learn the language.

Gerardo, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, would beg to differ with Irene on many points. I met him about two years ago, and I know he has been trying for quite a while to come to terms with whether to stay in Arizona.  SB 1070 seemed to be the tipping point for him.

I learned he had decided to go to Canada and gave him a call. He was packed and ready to go. Two weeks later, when I called him again, Gerardo had changed his mind.

His children convinced him that it was better for the family to stay together rather than risk moving from Arizona and being caught by immigration authorities.

He speaks fairly good English, but for this story I interviewed him in Spanish because he felt that way he could express himself better –from the heart.

He understands why some people like Irene are afraid of illegal immigration. He believes it’s because of the way the media has portrayed people like him, and the way Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has put out a message saying immigrants smuggle drugs across the border, that there are beheadings in the desert.

Of course, he says, they are afraid. But he feels workers like him, who have been here for over a decade, are being shortchanged and thrown into the mix with criminals.

He wonders why all the focus is on smugglers and drug dealers. What about the reality of people that are working day to day at golf courses, hotels, restaurants, landscaping and constructions sites?

It hurts him to see the looks on people’s faces when he takes his family to a store and they speak Spanish among themselves. One part of him believes this is no place to raise a family. He also believes there’s more to Arizona’s SB 1070 than security concerns.  He calls it “racism.”

Gerardo and his family have applied to remain in the U.S. legally. But his greatest frustration is that it may take years for the application to be approved.

The more I spoke with Gerardo and Irene, the more they seemed to be in agreement over one thing: the country needs to change the way it deals with immigration.

They both say that it would be good if people already here could become part of a process in which they are given a document to stay.  Irene goes as far as saying, “until they can become a citizen.”

They both agree good people should be allowed to stay in the U.S. even if they entered illegally.

Irene said she didn’t want people to be uprooted and displaced by SB 1070. Gerardo said that’s what will happen, they may have to “run when the witch hunt begins.”

Gerardo and Irene will probably never meet. If they did, it probably would be while standing on different sides of the street, perhaps holding signs in support of or against the new law.  If they ever struck up a conversation they would surprise each other over how much they have in common.

But that only can happen if they do one thing. Listen.

]]> http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/23/listening-to-both-sides-in-arizonas-immigration-debate/feed/ 2 http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/16/in-a-city-of-immigrants-support-for-a-middle-path-for-the-undocumented/ http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/16/in-a-city-of-immigrants-support-for-a-middle-path-for-the-undocumented/#comments Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:54:15 +0000 Cristina DC Pastor http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/?p=15455

Cynthia Otero With Her Son Christian at New York Immigration Reform Rally. (Photo: Cristina DC Pastor)

NEW YORK – In his July 1 speech on immigration, President Obama gave a broad hint of an immigration reform law that would provide a path to legal status for nearly 12 million undocumented immigrants. He declared that immigrants who crossed the U.S. border without papers would not get blanket amnesty, even if “compassion drives this argument,” nor would they be deported en masse, because that would be “logistically impossible and wildly expensive.” Polls show the majority of Americans support changes in immigration policy, but there is no consensus on how do it.

Feet in Two Worlds spoke to a variety of New Yorkers about their views on immigration and their ideas for possible solutions. What emerged in this city of immigrants is a centrist position that echoed the values of fairness, accountability, common sense and the rule of law.

Lower East Side resident Cathy Barna said she would like to see undocumented immigrants come out of hiding, apply for legalization, pay taxes and learn English.

“My brother married a Mexican woman who runs a taco van and is making a nice living doing that. She works very hard. The couple in my neighborhood, the cleaning woman who stocks shelves in the store, they’re all nice people. They came here, work hard so they can have a good life,” said Barna, a manager at a chiropractor’s office. “But we have rules for a reason.”

Barna, whose husband is of Ukrainian descent, said his family and grandparents all learned to speak English.  “That’s what needs to be done.”

She is not in favor of the government fining immigrants, saying it would be an added burden to them.

An NYPD officer from Brooklyn said the government should take stock of which immigrants the country needs most and make that the basis for documentation. For example, he would like to see day workers on the priority list.

“Let’s document them, get them apprenticeships as electricians or plumbers, and get them into the unions,” said the officer who declined to give his name. “A lot of them are so skilled, they just don’t have the resources to get training and licensing.” He disagreed with observations that communities with day workers clustered outside Home Depot become a hotbed of crime. “A lot of them are really good people,” he said. The officer said he is not opposed to the government offering amnesty to day laborers and teachers because these are skills the country badly needs.

He was also a strong proponent of border security, because of drug smuggling.

Everyone should be documented and everyone should pay taxes, suggested New School student Kia Lee.

Her idea of legalization involved a probation period during which applicants are screened for possible violation of the law.

“Those that passed on good behavior should be allowed to continue to keep the jobs, family and property that they have accumulated while being here illegally. They have to start the correct paperwork to become citizens the legal way,” said the Astoria, Queens resident.

There has to be accountability, stressed Swedish-born environmentalist and educator Erik Mortensen. He thinks that immigrants must pay fines and learn English as part of the pathway to legal status.

Immigration reform is a universal problem,” said Mortensen, a UN consultant. All parties should aspire to reach agreement first on issues that are easily “solvable and reachable.” He says one of these is for immigrants to learn the language and be culturally functional “as quickly as possible.”

The law, to be truly comprehensive, should apply to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families as well, said Tom Tierney of the grassroots advocacy group Out 4 Immigration. He said there are about 36,000 bi-national LGBT families marginalized by current immigration laws. In bi-national relationships, one partner is in the U.S. and the other is in the country of origin because of deportation or awaiting a visa.

“Right now, if you’re a gay or lesbian couple, and you have a marriage license in Connecticut, Vermont or Massachusetts, that license is not federally recognized,” Tierney explained. That means same-sex couples who are married are currently not allowed by law to sponsor their spouses for citizenship. The proposed Uniting American Families Act — sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D – NY) — seeks to change that. The bill was prompted by the case of lesbian couple Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado, a Filipino-American. Tan,  from the Philippines, was threatened with deportation for overstaying a visa. They have two sons.

“I’m in favor of [immigrants] coming forward, learning English, getting back at the end of the line,” Tierney said. But he would like LGBT couples to have the same legalization opportunities as heterosexual couples. “We’re not asking for special treatment.”

Taxi driver Victor Salazar told FI2W he is in favor of granting blanket amnesty for all undocumented immigrants, but the Ecuadoran immigrant said his views do not reflect the prevailing sentiment in Hispanic communities.  He argued his objections to Obama’s general plan: making English mandatory would promote “individualism,” border patrols create divisions rather than unite people, and imposing fines would penalize immigrants.

Drugs and immigration, stressed this leader of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, are two separate issues and should be dealt with separately.

“Drug smuggling cannot be solved by making walls,” he said.

New York City is a place where nearly 40 per cent of the population is foreign born, so sympathy for immigrants not surprising. Even Mayor Bloomberg is lobbying for immigration reform with a new coalition of political and business leaders, “Partnership for a New American Economy.” The mayor says that immigrants are crucial for the country’s economic growth, and are hard working people who turn the wheels of the city.

Protest Against SB 1070. (Photo: rjosef/Flickr)

Compiled by Erin Rosa, Media Consortium blogger

Senate Bill 1070, Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, is set to go into effect on July 29. With days left to go, Organizers are in a race against the clock to minimize the bill’s impact on immigrant communities. Meanwhile, legal experts are examining the strategy behind a federal Department of Justice suit recently lobbed against the Arizona law, and other immigrant rights supporters continue to pressure the state via boycott. All of these acts are contributing to a tumultuous fight that’s escalating by the day.

A top concern is that SB 1070 will increase racial profiling and harassment against Latinos due to a provision that requires local law enforcement to check an individual’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person is undocumented. The bill also requires immigrants with documentation to carry papers at all times.

At ColorLines, Jamilah King reports that “activists nationwide are stepping up their protests against the measure.” As part of a new campaign called “30 Days, 30 Events for Human Rights,” a variety of actions including works shops, concerts, and protests have been planned for each day leading up to July 28, the day before the bill is set to become law.

Border governors boycott Arizona

GRITtv has more coverage of the Arizona debacle, including commentary from Arizona state lawmaker Kyrsten Sinema and Suman Raghunathan of the Progressive States Network.

On top of that, ColorLines’ Daisy Hernandez also writes that an annual meeting of Mexican and US governors set to take place in Arizona has been canceled over the controversial law. “Six governors of Mexico’s border states have basically said there’s no way in hell they’re stepping foot in Arizona,” Hernandez reports.

This year it was Arizona’s turn to host the meeting, which has taken place for the last 30 years. But Arizona Governor Jan Brewer 86′d the event, citing lack of attendance.

Another lawsuit?

One might think Arizona officials have enough to worry about after spurring international outrage, boycotts, and countless lawsuits with the passage of one law. But now there are reports that the state may get sued by the Justice Department again if documented cases of racial profiling occur after SB 1070 takes effect.

As Gabriel Arana at The American Prospect explains, the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona centers around the legal question of “whether the state is pre-empting the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration,” not the potential for civil rights abuses.

But New America Media notes that “in six months or a year, the Department of Justice plans to study the impact of the law on racial profiling,” and if civil rights violations are found, Attorney General Eric Holder won’t hesitate to take action.

Still hope for the DREAM Act

While media outlets direct their attention to Arizona, other immigrant rights supporters are actively working to support the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act on the national level. The DREAM Act is a federal bill that would provide a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants who were brought into the United States as children and have no control over their immigration status.

Feministing reports on the Campus Progress National Conference that took place in Washington DC last week, which featured David Cho, whose parents immigrated from South Korea when he was nine. Because he is undocumented, Cho, through no fault of his own, is barred from most schools and jobs.

Immigration’s Impact on Metropolitan Areas

Next American City’s June podcast Metro Matters tackles the question of how immigrants benefit–and pose challenges–to cities and their surrounding areas. NAC editor-in-chief Diana Lind interviews demographer Audrey Singer of the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program.

Trapped in an ‘invisible prison’

“My dad believed that my two younger sisters and I could fulfill the American dream,” said Cho, who would like to be able to serve in the US Air Force. “But I feel like I am living inside an invisible prison cell. Because there are these invisible bars in front of me that limit me from doing the things I want to do.”

The DREAM Act would benefit people like Cho, by allowing immigrants who came to the country before the age of 16 to obtain citizenship after graduating from high school by either going to college for two years or serving in the armed forces.

Mikhail Zinshteyn at Campus Progress reports that if the DREAM Act were enacted today, “800,000 individuals would qualify for legal status on a conditional basis or having already completed a high school degree,” while an additional 900,000 would qualify upon turning 18. But it all depends on the Senate, and it remains to be seen if it will can tackle the issue by the end of the year.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse . This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

A still from Arigona Zogaj's video, in which she pleads for asylum. (Photo: Alex Barth)

VIENNA -– After eight years struggling for asylum, 18-year-old Arigona Zogaj has been ordered by Austria’s highest court to leave her adoptive home in Austria and return to Kosovo, the country she barely knows.

The Zogaj family has been the focus of international media attention since 2007 when, facing deportation, then- 15-year-old Arigona ran away from home and sent numerous letters and a video broadcast threatening to commit suicide if her family was not allowed to stay in Austria.

The young girl’s plight has since been part of a public debate and has garnered the sympathy of many Austrians, some of whom came together at Vienna’s Ballhausplatz square on July 1 under the slogan “Enough is Enough” to protest the country’s increasingly restrictive asylum laws and the last in a series of court decisions that call for the Zogaj family’s deportation.

The thousands of protesters were joined by several prominent public figures, including the Nobel Prize in Literature recipient Elfriede Jelinek who sent an audio message of support.

Anna Babka, a member of Austria’s Green Party who has campaigned for the Zogajes to stay in the country, called the Constitutional Court of Austria’s decision “inhumane.”

“They have nothing there (in Kosovo), and here they are very well integrated,” she said.

In her first emotional appeal to the public in 2007, Arigona spoke in perfect German, an indication of her successful integration in a country where command of the language is often promoted by the government as a measure of both the willingness and the ability of migrants to become a part of the society.

Advocates for the Zogaj family have emphasized their integration into the social fabric of the Austrian town in which they live. Arigona successfully finished her mandatory education and has been going to a school to prepare her for university studies.  Many of Arigona’s supporters feared that the court’s ruling of “immediate departure” would mean that she and two of her siblings would not be able to stay in Austria to finish their school year, but the family was allowed several weeks to settle its affairs.

Sign that translates as "No Human is Illegal" at a protest in solidarity with the Zogaj family. (Photo: Jelena Kopanja)

Arigona’s father brought his wife Nurie and their five children to Austria from Kosovo in 2002 even though his original application for asylum had been denied.  The family was ordered to leave in 2007, and Arigona’s father and siblings returned to Kosovo.  Arigona evaded the expulsion and went into hiding, soon after sending out her desperate plea that mobilized the support of the public and much of the media.  Her mother was allowed to stay in the country and look for Arigona who, it turned out, was being harbored by a local priest. Mother and daughter were granted a permission to stay in Austria until Arigona’s school year was over.

In 2008, Arigona’s father abandoned the family in Kosovo. In an act of desperation upon hearing the news, Arigona’s mother tried to commit suicide.  Both Nurie and Arigona were diagnosed as suffering from emotional distress, a condition that prolonged their stay in Austria where they could receive adequate health assistance.  In 2009, the four Zogaj children attempted to reenter Austria through Hungary, succeeding on their second attempt. Since then, the two eldest brothers have voluntarily gone back to Kosovo, while Arigona, her mom and her two younger siblings remain in Austria.

Austria’s asylum laws, considered to be among the toughest in Europe, have become even more restrictive and convoluted in the past few years, “bordering arbitrary,” as the major newspaper Der Standard reported. The latest changes that took effect in January 2010 add five new grounds for the detention of asylum seekers facing deportation. Earlier this year, the Interior Minister Maria Fekter suggested an additional mandatory detention of all asylum-seekers– for up to 28 days while their applications are reviewed.

Fekter has often linked migrants and asylum seekers to security concerns, reinforcing a criminal image that both local NGOs and international human rights bodies like UNHCR have criticized.

Woman wearing a "We are Arigona" shirt in solidarity with the Zogaj family's quest for asylum. (Photo: Jelena Kopanja)

Some say that Arigona’s case is an opportunity for the conservative People’s Party (OEVP) Minister Fekter to prove herself as a hardliner when it comes to immigration, one of the most prominent and contentious issues on the country’s political agenda. The right wing has been unwavering in their opposition to the family’s stay and has welcomed the court’s decision, saying the Zogajes should have left a long time ago. Even the left-leaning Social Democratic Party’s (SPOE) response has been weak, according to Stefan Etzelstorfer, a member of Socialist Youth Austria.

The Green Party, on the other hand, has been consistent in its support for the Zogajes and has turned in 10,000 signatures to Austria’s president Heinz Fischer , who, while hoping for a humanitarian solution, said that the court’s decision must be respected.

Minister Fekter urged the family to leave voluntarily, warning that a forced deportation would mean that they could not return to Austria for the next 18 months.

The Zogajes are getting ready to go, and are spending their last days in the country saying goodbye to friends and suppoters.  Arigona’s school said that they would gladly accept her, should she return in the fall.

Once in Kosovo, some of the family members could apply for one of the limited number of seasonal worker visas that would allow them employment in several specific sectors such as agriculture or construction.  Arigona could also seek a student permit, a visa that had been denied to her siblings in the past.  While the Interior Minister Fekter suggested at one point that she could marry an Austrian citizen, this is not an option for the 18-year-old Arigona as she would need to be 21 in order to do that.

The family could also take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in what is likely to be a lengthy procedure that must be initiated outside of the country.

Etzelstorfer, who knows Arigona personally, says he will not give up.

“We will try to force the discussion in public and to support Arigona if she wants to come back,” he said.

Redesign of Arizona Flag by Andrew Huff/Flickr

With the country’s harshest immigration law scheduled to take effect in just two weeks and a lawsuit filed by the Obama administration that attempts to block the law–Arizona is at the epicenter of America’s battle over immigration.

90DAYSTOPHOENIX.com is a new independent media project sifting through the truth and lies clouding the immigration debate. Journalists, photographers, filmmakers and citizens contribute on-the-ground accounts of SB 1070 developments, and provide an inside look at this unfolding historic moment in Arizona. Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez is one of the creators of the project.

On April 23, 2010 Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law which gives Arizona authority over the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws.  The Arizona measure requires each police officer who stops, detains, or arrests people for violating even the most minor city ordinance to ask for immigration papers if they have “reasonable suspicions” that the people are unauthorized immigrants.

In the heightened atmosphere of an election year, proponents argue that SB 1070 will keep Arizona safe while critics argue that SB 1070 will encourage racial profiling of American citizens, and funnel police resources away from fighting real crime. Multiple lawsuits have been filed on constitutional grounds that seek to stop SB 1070 from going into effect on July 29, 2010 — 90 days after the Arizona legislature session ended.

Read more at 90DAYSTOPHOENIX.com

March for Immigration Reform. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr)

In the weekend after the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for pre-empting federal immigration policy, political leaders were all over the national media talking about the issue. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, sparred on ABC’s “This Week.” with Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus,   Pushing his own immigration reform proposal, Rep. Gutierrez said the country needs to think beyond just enforcing the border. He made the point that 40% of undocumented immigrants didn’t smuggle themselves across the U.S,-Mexico border–they came here on legal visas and overstayed them. But Rep. Bilbray countered with, “why can’t we give enforcement a chance?”

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper brought up the fact that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer told a lie when she said that the majority of border-crossers are drug smugglers. Rep. Bilbray admitted that statement was incorrect, but was sympathetic to Brewer’s “perception” of immigrants as criminals, saying it was true of many residents of the southwest. (OK…so he’s saying that “perception” is an excuse for public officials to misconstrue reality?)

Over at CNN, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod said the president was fully committed to immigration reform, despite being an issue that “lends itself to demagoguery” and it being a tough election year. He said the American people are looking to the federal government to take action, but that requires the buy-in of the Republican party.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder riled up people all over again by telling the public on CBS’s Face The Nation that it’s possible Arizona will see a second lawsuit concerning SB 1070, if it turns out police are using racial profiling in its enforcement. The current lawsuit is over the issue of “pre-emption” of federal jurisdiction over immigration.

The lawsuit is making many politicians on both sides of the aisle uncomfortable. In an important election year, Democrats are worried that the thorny issue will hurt their chances of being reelected. The New York Times reports that at the annual National Governors Association meeting, Democratic governors were bemoaning the fact that immigration has taken precedence over the economy. (Of course, as the President said in his speech, the two go hand in hand.)

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

The state leaders would prefer to gloss over the issue of immigration until they are firmly in their seats. But many local urban leaders, who tend to both reap the benefits and bear the cost of immigrants, say the nation can’t wait. Last month the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a resolution supporting comprehensive federal reform that “preempts any state actions to assert authority over federal immigration law” and calls for federal money to be channeled to states and localities that “disproportionately [shoulder] the costs of the current broken immigration system.”

It might be making politicians squirm in their seats, but immigration seems to be edging towards a breaking point.

Dream Act Protesters Mohamed, Lizbeth, Tania and Yahaira in Tucson, Ariz. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

Prying open the door of citizenship for young, undocumented students in the country through no fault of their own is the goal of the Congressional proposal known as the DREAM Act.  But it seems the youth will have to jump through many hoops to get past the threshold.

A study released July 8, by the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington DC, estimates that though there are currently more than 2.1 million potential beneficiaries of the legislation, only 38%, or 825,000 people, would actually obtain permanent legal status through the DREAM Act’s education and military routes.

“Many potential DREAM Act beneficiaries would face difficulties in meeting the legislation’s higher education or military service requirements because of hardship paying for college tuition, competing work and family time demands and low educational attainment and English proficiency,” said Margie McHugh, who is co-director of MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy.

According to the study, entitled “DREAM vs. Reality: An Analysis of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries,” only about 726,000 undocumented immigrant youths would be “immediately eligible” for conditional legal status, and could apply for permanent status after a six year wait. Of that number (assuming they have maintained “good moral character”) roughly 114,000 are shoe-ins because they already hold an associate’s degree. The act would also allow an estimated 934,000 children under 18 to age into conditional status eligibility in the future.

But the remaining 489,000 young undocumented adults between 18 and 34 years old who currently have neither a high school diploma nor a GED will face tough challenges.  To get conditional status, they’ll have to meet those educational requirements, plus go to college or enter the military for two years. About 19 percent of this group would need English language instruction in order to do it.

“They are not eligible at this time, but they can try under the provisions of the new law,” said McHugh in a conference call with reporters.

Study co-author Jeanne Batalova said this group faces the “most arduous path” to legal status.

Poverty is another hurdle. Half of potential beneficiaries eligible for conditional status come from families with lower than a $40,000 median annual family income. The others are from families with even lower financial resources. The average cost of two years of post-secondary college will be beyond the means of many, and the study reminds readers that the DREAM Act “explicitly bars beneficiaries from accessing Pell Grants, the main federal grant program for higher education that provides support to low-income students.”

Authors say that in addition to financial barriers, poverty negatively impacts a student’s “ability to concentrate, learn academic content and perform in and graduate from school.”

The study also released the following findings:

56 percent of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are male;

62 percent of potential beneficiaries are from Mexico;

Among young adults, more women (52 percent) than men have at least an associate’s degree;

1.6 million (75 percent) of potential beneficiaries live in 10 states, led by California (26 percent), Texas (12 percent), Florida(9 percent), New York (7 percent) and Arizona (5 percent). The others are Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado.

To qualify under DREAM Act legislation, the youngsters must satisfy some basic requirements – to have been under 16 when they arrived in the U.S.; to have been living in the U.S. for at least five years; to have obtained a high school diploma or equivalent; and to be under 35 when the law is enacted. With continuous good behavior over a period of six years, they can apply to elevate their conditional status into a permanent status. The study makes clear that “all must satisfy the good moral character requirement.”

The DREAM Act – formerly known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act – has a good chance for passing Congress if filed as a “standalone bill in a piecemeal legislation,” Muzaffar Chishti, director of the MPI office at the NYU School of Law, told the conference call. He said the DREAM Act has a legislative history dating back to 2001 and has consistently passed both the Senate and the House. The latest version is a bill filed in 2009 by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). It enjoys “huge support” from Congress and major universities and colleges, he said.

MPI said the DREAM Act may be up for discussion by the Senate later this month.

Immigrants detained by sheriff deputies in Maricopa County, Arizona. (Photo: José Muñoz)

“S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.”

The U.S. Justice Department wrote it plainly, dismissing any ambiguity or confusion of how the Obama Administration views Arizona’s new law making it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant.

Less than a week after the president gave a speech to the nation on the subject of immigration in which he revealed nothing about a court challenge, the federal government is now officially calling SB 1070 unconstitutional, and joining five other lawsuits, including one by the ACLU, in an attempt to block the law. With only a few weeks before SB 1070 is scheduled to go into effect, the nation will be watching closely to see if the judge assigned to the case grants a temporary injunction.

Valeria Fernandez reported in New America Media that Alfredo Gutiérrez, a former Democratic Arizona state senator and editor of La Frontera Times, described his response to the lawsuit as “a real sense of relief.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was the first administration official to let it slip that a federal lawsuit was coming. Immigrant rights advocates have been putting the pressure on the administration to take a stand and block the law.

In its brief, the Justice Department listed what it sees as the dangers and negative outcomes of SB 1070, saying that it would disrupt federal enforcement, and place an unfair burden on federal agencies, “diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority.” Though Arizona is partnered with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the 287(g) program to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the state, the Justice Department says SB 1070 crosses the line and is a preemption of federal authority.

“Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

This is an issue guaranteed to fan partisan flames–as it’s really a question of federalism vs. states’ rights. Predictably, Republicans in Congress were up in arms about the lawsuit. 20 members of the House criticized it in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. John McCain and Jon Kyl, the U.S. Senators from Arizona – both Republicans, put out a joint statement saying that “the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.”

Even though President Obama dedicated a lot of his speech to better enforcement, and was sure to mention that there are “more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any other time in our history,” Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says the lawsuit will weaken security in the state.

“As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice,” Brewer said. “Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

Many immigrant rights groups applauded the administration’s move, and asked for more. “The federal government is taking an important step to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the United States,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, in a statement. “While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won’t resolve the public’s frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government’s constitutional authority to manage immigration.”

But others worried that the lawsuit would hurt the chances for comprehensive immigration reform. “I worry about the political consequences,” said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorksUSA, a non-profit group that organizes the business sector around immigration reform. “I’d like the administration to make its views heard in another way.”

A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans are about equally divided — 50% to 45% — over whether the government’s main focus should be on border enforcement to stop the flow of immigrants coming into the U.S., or on developing a plan to deal with those already here.

On the streets of Phoenix, the immigrant population is reacting positively. Marcelo Quiñonez, a 26-year-old high school English teacher, described the move as “a monumental step” by the federal government to show other states that are trying to pass anti-immigrant legislation that they’re going down the wrong path.

“It’s also telling the nation as a whole that racism won’t be tolerated,” he said. “It’s a great victory for the immigrant community in Arizona.”

President Obama. (Photo: The White House)

President Obama’s speech on immigration on Thursday morning was eloquent, heartfelt and rational. He strove to reach all concerned parties: secure border advocates; immigration reform activists; undocumented immigrant youth who desire to attend college; the agricultural community; the business community and members of Congress.

Did he satisfy everyone? Of course not.

The major criticism of the speech was that while the president reiterated his commitment to reform, he did not lay out a road map. No specifics, no time-line, no concrete promises. Basically, nothing new here.

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an outspoken supporter of reform, told National Public Radio that he thought the speech was great, “but even a great speech at this moment was not enough. We want action.”

Obama began by saying that his administration would not shy away from tackling immigration because it’s a contentious issue. He listed the many accomplishments immigrants have contributed to building this country, and the importance of diversity to global competition and the new economy.

The president also acknowledged that immigration has been a painful and divisive issue throughout the nation’s history. “The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious, and that remains true today,” Obama said. He swallowed the blame on behalf of Washington, for failing to fix a broken system.

Overall, his portrayal of immigrants was very positive, as hard working people seeking a better life. He listed the grave risks of not fixing the system: the difficulties it poses to local law enforcement; billions of lost taxes; exploitation. He also listed the negative consequences of the current legal immigration system. “The presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of those who are going through the process legally.”

Speaking to the pro-immigrant rights front, the president said flatly he did not agree with amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Yet he was clear that doesn’t mean the government will just deport all the undocumented.

“Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover it would tear at the very fabric of our nation, because immigrants who are here illegal are now intricately woven into that fabric,” he said. “So even if it were possible a program of deportation would upset our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.”

Arizona’s move to take immigration policy into its own hands was understandable because of frustration with the lack of federal reform, Obama said, but it was ill-conceived. A patchwork of immigration laws will not solve anything, when a national policy is needed. He said nothing about a potential Justice Department lawsuit against the state, but didn’t deny it either.

After stating he was ready for reform, Obama then squarely placed the issue at the feet of the Republican Party. Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute commented that one of the goals of the speech was “to make it more difficult for Republicans to keep saying no.”

Four years ago, there were 11 Republicans who supported reform, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).  Now none of these members of Congress support an immigration reform bill. “Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes,” said Obama. “That is the political and mathematical reality.”

In an nod to Republicans who say they won’t support reform until the borders are secure, the president was crystal clear that he will not stand for porous borders, nor will he wait until comprehensive reform is passed to improve enforcement. “Today we have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any other time in our history,” and there’s been a reduction in crime and people crossing. “The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years,” and as his recent announcement to send more troops to the border demonstrates, he’s committed to keeping it that way.

But the reality is, the border is too vast to be secured simply by fences and patrols, “it won’t work,” he said.

He essentially said that his view of immigration reform includes a path to citizenship for those here already, but that those who came illegally should be held accountable–pay taxes, fines, admit they broke the law, and learn English. But in perhaps the most remarkable moment in the speech, Obama said their children should not be punished and openly gave his support to the DREAM Act. Rosenblum took that to mean that the President would support that bill on its own this year, as a down payment on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

But what would that CIR look like? The president did give a shout-out to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) for introducing their blueprint for reform–but after some initial fanfare, that framework hasn’t moved much–and Sen. Graham has now backed away. Leaving the ball in the Republican court was a politically calculated move–since it’s unlikely to budge, it buys Obama some time.

Less than a month before Arizona’s law is scheduled to take effect, the climate around immigration is so heated that Obama had to address the issue. Yet it’s still a tremendous long shot that we’ll see an immigration bill go through Congress this year. The president can try to shame Republicans into debate, but ultimately, if they decide it’s not in their political interest it will not happen. When they are, the president says he is ready.

“The president had some other things that were higher priority like health care reform, financial reform, energy reform, and as he said in his speech, we’ve sort of crossed those off the list, and it’s time to get down to immigration now, that’s next on his to-do list,” said Rosenblum.

President Barack Obama meets with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room of the White House, June 29, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

*This post has been updated to include a video of the President’s speech.*

Citizens and non-citizens across the nation were holding their breath in anticipation of President Obama’s speech on the iron-hot subject of immigration. Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez was a guest on PRI’s The Takeaway hours before Obama took the stage. Listen to her speak about the immigrant community’s expectations for Obama and immigration reform:

The President spoke at American University in Washington, D.C. “on the need to fix our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform.”  The speech came in a week in which Obama reentered the fray of immigration. On Monday, he spoke with immigration reform advocates, and on Tuesday, he met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to talk about immigration reform, after which the White House released a readout.

Watch the speech below, courtesy of The Uptake:

The event was attended by a number of high profile players in the immigration debate, including newcomer Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, who recently announced the creation of a Partnership for a New American Economy that he hopes will lead to immigration reform.

Some reform advocates are hopeful that Obama’s words will signal a true commitment by the White House to move forward on policy that does more than secure the border. Congressman Luis Guttierez (D-Ill.) was reported on abc.com to be optimistic:

“For months we have been demanding that this administration take action and be the lead on comprehensive immigration reform. And then, from the White House, we hear a president that’s committed and assertive and in command and in charge,” he said following the meeting. “So I think this Thursday we’re going to hear the president speak to the nation to have comprehensive immigration reform and why it’s important for him as a president.”

Others were skeptical, and anticipate more empty promises by the President in a tough election year for Congress. The Washington Post interviewed a number of advocates who met last weekend in San Diego to discuss prospects for reform:

“At this point, we’re looking at George W. Bush longingly,” joked Louie Gilot of the Border Network for Human Rights, based in El Paso. “We were promised change by the administration. But we’re not only getting the same enforcement-only policy, we’re getting even more of it.”

A big question is how the president will address SB 1070, and whether or not he’ll announce a lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Many reform advocates desire a court challenge, but not all.

We’ll be posting analysis of the speech tomorrow.

Photo: Santi/flickr

….An undocumented immigrant in New York is deported while her daughter is in day care….A Haitian woman in Ohio is deported, leaving her husband to raise their three U.S.-born children. The husband became disabled and can’t work. The mother is injured in the Haiti earthquake….

It’s one heartbreaking story too many for the church to ignore. Now a coalition of clergymen, pastors and ministers are calling on the government to pass an immigration reform law that is “compassionate” and “moral.”

Speakers on a recent national conference call warned politicians running for midterm elections not to use immigration for political gain, and urged voters to “shame” and “rebuke” those who do.

“Jesus said the way we treat strangers is the way we treat Him,” said Rev. Jim Wallis at a June 24 teleconference titled “Faithful Perspectives:  A Conversation on Immigration and Your Congregation,” organized by  Sojourners, a Christian group based in Washington, DC that Wallis heads.

For many church leaders, immigration is viewed as a pastoral rather than a political issue. The estimated 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are “our people,” Wallis said–the congregants who attend services, receive communion, and pray at churches. That’s why, he added, immigration enforcement that breaks up families is “unacceptable to us.”

Increasingly, religious groups are becoming outspoken advocates for immigration reform, and critics of harsh laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070.

Rev. Gabriel Salguero of the multicultural Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York, said the clergy cannot help being involved because their congregation seeks them out for guidance and advice.

“Our parishioners say they feel comfortable talking with the clergy,” he said. “There is overwhelming hunger for discussion [on immigration] from the pew.”

In another reference to the immigrant as the “stranger” Jesus instructed Christians to embrace, Salguero said, “If we want to obey the rule of law and welcome that stranger, why don’t we enact laws that speak of love of neighbor?” He stressed that society needs to hold the government and its officials to higher moral standards.

Catholic and evangelical churches have become forums for the immigration debate not only due to scripture–but because of the population filling their pews.

Rev. Rich Nathan of the Vineyard Church of Columbus, Ohio said immigrants from 92 countries form his congregation. He said he didn’t know the extent of his parish’s diversity until he began hearing stories of folks being “rounded up” because of immigration.

Rev. Nathan asks an immigrant in his congregation to do a responsive reading of the Scriptures in his or her native language every month. Through this segment, he said “People see these folks in front of them as being part of them.”

As a pastor, he said his response has always been to “shape the inclination of people’s hearts” towards greater understanding of people in need. He cautioned people about using hurtful language to refer to immigrants, saying slanderous language robs people of their dignity.

“We need careful use of language,” he said. “When we call foreigners ‘gatecrashers’ or ‘parasites’ or ‘wetbacks’ or ‘pariahs,’ that’s slanderous and attacking the image of God.”

The American immigration debate, said Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress (CAP) a public policy research organization, has been clouded in misunderstanding. She says there are many ways immigrants enter the country legally – through family, through employment, or as asylum seekers – but over the years the rules have become tighter.

Kelley said 40 percent of undocumented immigrants entered the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas, and that nearly half are couples with children–either born in the U.S. or brought here as young migrants. That family connection is “at the heart of the comprehensive immigration reform debate.”

It’s also a core Christian value, says Jenny Hwang of World Relief, a Christian aid organization. “Keeping families together is of utmost importance to many in the faith community,” wrote Hwang, in an article titled, ‘Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law is also Anti-Faith.’ “Families are the building blocks through which individuals are able to grow and stabilize within society.”

NYC Mayor Bloomberg spoke on Fox News in favor of national immigration reform.

NEW YORK – Mayor Michael Bloomberg has waded into the fight for immigration reform with a new strategy – and a new message – designed to win over reluctant conservatives who oppose reform efforts.  Bloomberg on Thursday joined a number of other big-city mayors and chief executives of major corporations to  announce a “Partnership for a New American Economy” which has the primary goal of obtaining immigration reform. Their message: immigration reform will stimulate the economy.

The high profile politicians and businessmen in the Partnership are voicing what immigrant-rights groups have been saying for years.  To kick off their campaign, Bloomberg took the message to a largely skeptical audience.  He appeared on Fox News to discuss the effort, along with Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp, which owns Fox.

“Immigrants can come here and create jobs. There’s this belief that immigrants come here and take jobs away, and that’s not true,” Bloomberg told viewers. He is lobbying Congress to not only secure the U.S. borders, but to give green cards to immigrant entrepreneurs so they can come to the U.S. and start companies that hire 10 or more Americans.

“We’re just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen,” Murdoch said. “I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.”

According to the group, immigrants generate 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product and own companies that have created 400,000 new American jobs since 1990. Allowing hard working immigrants in is “in our interest” said the mayor.

Numerous reports support the claim that legalizing undocumented immigrants would stimulate the American economy, including a prominent one by the Center for American Progress.

Representatives from the agriculture industry, the tech industry, science and the creative fields have long said immigration reform is critical if they are to remain competitive. Bloomberg said hurdles in the current immigration system make it difficult to attract the global talent America needs.

Another member of the group, J.W. Marriott, Jr.,  CEO of Marriott International, said it would be impossible to run his hotels in the U.S. without immigrant workers.

Bloomberg said the coalition will expand and recruit members that support comprehensive immigration reform that secures U.S. borders and helps America remain economically competitive “by keeping and attracting the world’s best, brightest and hardest-working.” The group will be paying for polls, forums and public education campaigns to support reform.

They want Congress to pass immigration reform this year.  Our current system is “national suicide,” Bloomberg said.

In New York, the mayor’s words resonated with the city’s huge immigrant population. In a statement, Chung-Wha Hong, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition, applauded Bloomberg and said she hopes this effort “will build on the momentum generated by immigrant community, faith, and labor leaders over the past year, and provide that extra push to break through the legislative logjam in Washington.”

But some local immigrant advocates expressed frustration that while Bloomberg lobbies for reform, funding for the city’s Immigrant Opportunity Initiative, which provides legal assistance and English classes to immigrants, is slated to be cut in next budget.

“What we need to do is bring it back to a very local level. While these other things are important,” said Danny Dromm, the chair of the City Council’s Immigration Committee. “What matters most to the people here is getting them some services so they can transition into productive lives in New York City, where he is the mayor.”

The Partnership co-chairs are Mayor Bloomberg; Mark Hurd, Chairman, CEO and President of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, President and CEO, Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.; Jim McNerney, Chairman, President and CEO of Boeing; Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, CEO and Founder of News Corporation; Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio; Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles.

Harvard Library. (Photo: Will Hart/flickr)

Two weeks ago, Eric Balderas, a 19-year-old sophomore at Harvard, thought his life was over.

The star biology student interested in cancer research was arrested by immigration authorities while trying to board a plane back to Boston from San Antonio, TX. He had lost his passport, and tried to fly with a student ID.

That was a dangerous no-no for Balderas, who in addition to his achievements, is also an undocumented immigrant from Mexico. On Sunday, after pleas by Harvard University, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), sponsor of the DREAM Act, and other high-profile advocates, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Balderas’ deportation would be deferred, and yesterday they announced it would be deferred “indefinitely.”

Now, Balderas can get back to the lab.

The Boston Globe reported Balderas’ supporters will work to ensure he can stay and contribute to advancements in modern science.

“We’re just now in process of trying to figure out’’ how to obtain permanent legal status for him “in the long run and secure his future,’’ said one of his pro bono lawyers, Deborah Anker, director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at the university’s law school “It’s not a permanent solution.’’

Balderas’ case was high profile because he’s highly skilled. It’s probable that any potential immigration reform that Congress approves will provide incentives for workers like him (as long as they apply from their home countries). The technology sector has repeatedly called for reform of a system that is blunting its edge. In 2009, Microsoft’s Fred Humphries, Managing Director U.S. Government Affairs wrote:

“High skilled immigration reform is absolutely critical to American economic recovery, and to the success of any comprehensive reform effort. It will take those on all sides of this issue to work together to fix the system.”

But is it American to prioritize some types of workers over others?  What about the rest of the undocumented immigrant population that hasn’t made it to Harvard yet…but continues to turn the gears of the American economy?

Either way, Balderas was an exception. According to immigration-foes, amnesty even for superstars like him should not be tolerated.

Fremont, NE Chamber of Commerce Building. (Photo: llis45/flickr)

After a two year battle, voters in a small city in Nebraska have decided that they will essentially make it impossible for paperless immigrants to live or work within city-limits. Under the harsh new law local businesses will be banned from hiring undocumented immigrants and landlords prohibited from renting to them.

The Fremont Tribune posted unofficial results from the Dodge County Clerk’s Office showing voters approved the measure 57 percent to 43 percent in the special election. With approximately 45 percent voters turnout, 3,906 ballots were cast in favor of the ordinance and 2,908 against.

Immediately, the ACLU of Nebraska announced it would file a suit against the law, saying it was un-American and unconstitutional.

In a striking difference from Arizona, which passed a controversial law targeting undocumented immigrants in late April, Fremont has a relatively small undocumented immigrant population: an estimated 2,000—about 10 percent of Fremont’s population. Yet they’ve set off a passionate battle that is dividing the city. In the past few weeks, vandalism and contentious arguments have been documented in local newspapers. Opponents of the law say it will spur discrimination and hurt the city economically. Supporters allege that immigrants are stealing jobs and causing crime to rise in the community of 25,000. Yet there is no data supporting those claims, and statistics show the perception of civil ills caused by undocumented immigrants is much greater than the reality.

In an interesting twist, Fremont has a low employment rate of just 4.9 percent, well under the national average of 9.7 percent, signaling that job competition probably is not the real motivation behind this law. Hispanic immigrants have been subject to racial slurs on the streets of Fremont, and some wonder if the law stems from discomfort about the changing face of a city that was once a mostly-white farming and railroad town.

Voters had to respond Yes or No to the question below:

PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 5165

“Shall the City of Fremont, Nebraska, enact proposed Ordinance No. 5165, amending the Fremont Municipal Code to prohibit the harboring of illegal aliens or hiring of unauthorized aliens, providing definitions, making provision for occupancy licenses, providing judicial process, repealing conflicting provisions, and establishing an effective date for this ordinance?”

Kristin Ostrom, who opposes the measure, said that fear was motivating people in Fremont. “Fear is kind of guiding,” Ostrom told the Associated Press, adding that frustration about immigration issues nationwide has fanned the misconception that all Hispanic immigrants in Fremont are illegal.

In the absence of national immigration reform, many other states have introduced similar legislation to Arizona’s SB 1070. But Fremont’s case is somewhat unique, because the city’s local political leaders refused to approve the law, saying it would be too costly to pay for litigation. Subsequently, a group of residents forced it all the way up to the Nebraska Supreme Court, where they got approval to take the issue to voters in a referendum. Its an instance where citizens took immigration policy into their own hands, despite the fact that it virtually assures expensive legal challenges for stepping into the jurisdiction of the federal government. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaked that the Department of Justice will sue Arizona over SB 1070.

Tension rose in Fremont from the fact that immigrants have become a visible part of the workforce at local meatpacking plants. In March, immigration officials arrested 17 workers in an “enforcement action” at the Fremont beef plant. Under the new law, employers will be required to use the E-Verify system to determine the legal status of employees. But ironically, the meatpacking plants are outside the city limits and won’t be subject to the ordinance. Supporters say that doesn’t matter. “‘We have to start somewhere,’ John Wiegert, a resident, told The New York Times.

The Washington Post reports that city leaders say the ordinance will cost Fremont at least $1 million a year to implement and enforce, and they’ll have to raise taxes and cut services to pay for it.

“It’s the wrong solution,” said longtime resident Don Hinds, owner of a commercial investment business in the city. It would be a “tremendous burden on landlords, city officials and the police department.”

Despite the passage of Ordinance No. 5165, and potentially additional anti-undocumented immigrant legislation in other parts of the country, there are no signs from the Obama Administration or Congress that a comprehensive immigration bill will be considered this year. In the meantime, we’ll be seeing a lot of court battles.

Katherine Figuera in Washington, DC. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—It was her first flight on an airplane. The cars and houses out the window looked like toys to 10 year-old Kathy Figueroa, as she landed in the nation’s capital.

It was also the first time she’d been away from her parents since the day they returned home from three months in Arizona detention centers, after being arrested by Maricopa County sheriff deputies in a carwash raid in Phoenix a year ago.

Figueroa traveled to Washington D.C. to share her story at an ad-hoc committee hearing held by Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva to assess the potential impact of Arizona’s new immigration law on women and children.

“I come here to tell President Obama and Congress that he needs to put a stop to SB 1070,” she said in an interview about the new law taking effect on July 29, that makes it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona.

Figueroa’s testimony last Thursday took place at a time when the author of SB 1070 is promoting additional legislation that would deny an Arizona birth certificate to children like her who have a parent who is an undocumented immigrant. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are about 4 million U.S. citizen children in that situation.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) says he is prepared to challenge the lawsuits that would surely follow such legislation.

The hearing, on June 10 took place just a few days before the one-year-anniversary of the arrest of Figueroa’s parents, Carlos and Sandra.  A backlog in the immigration courts has bought them time to stay in the U.S. as they fight against deportation.

“It was very hard for me. Every time when I went to school I kept thinking that maybe I would see my parents when I came home,” she said during the hearing. “I would also have bad dreams, like the deputies were taking my family and me to jail.”

She is still afraid.

Listen to Katherine Figueroa’s testimony:

[Visit post to listen to audio]

Figueroa has become a poster child for the immigration movement since she appeared in a YouTube video asking Obama, as the father of two daughters, to pass immigration reform and help release her parents. She also marched with other children to protest the actions of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“Not only are parents fighting back; their kids are doing the same thing to change the laws that are separating us from our parents,” she said. “Please help us. Children don’t know what to do without their parents.”

From left to right: Celia Alejandra Alvarez, Alma Mendoza, Silvia Rodriguez and Katherine Figueroa at a congressional committee hearing on SB 1070. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

A few minutes before the hearing started, as people and media filled the room, Figueroa was self-composed. She said she has to be calm if one day she is to become an attorney. Speaking to members of Congress, she commented, was a little bit like being an attorney for others, acting as an advocate for children like her.

“Please tell President Obama to stop putting parents in jail, when all they want is a better life for their kids,” said Figueroa to an audience that included 6 members of Congress. Earlier in the day she testified at the Labor Department and to administration officials.

Congressman Grijalva said this was the first time that a congressional committee heard the testimony of child on the controversial and emotional issue of immigration. He said he hoped the hearing would take the shape of a letter signed by members of Congress to President Obama, asking him to have the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) join the ongoing lawsuits against SB 1070.

The administration is expected to make an announcement later this week in reference to the new law.

At the end of the hearing, a pack of reporters rushed in to interview Figueroa. She retreated a little in her chair, then took the interviews, one by one, sometimes in English, other times in Spanish.

She stuck to her message, telling Congress to take action on immigration reform, and reminding President Obama that SB 1070 needs to be stopped.

“I don’t want any other children to have to go through what I did,” she said.

When she had a break she said the most difficult part of the trip was missing her parents. She is still constantly worried that they could be taken away.

“Our children are on a constant emotional roller coaster. Their innocence is being robbed by putting them in a situation where they have to take on adult responsibilities,” said Dr. Silvia Herrera, an organizer with the PUENTE movement, who also testified.

On Friday, Figueroa got a chance to visit a few places she had always dreamed of seeing.  She could forget for a moment the reason why she was in Washington, and just be a kid, amused at seeing squirrels running around the grounds of Capitol Hill. Kathy ran up the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial, and stood on the spot where civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a dream” speech.

Figueroa has many dreams. One of them is to stand in the very same place and give a speech about immigration. But for now, her most important dream is to never be separated from her parents again.

It's Just a Bad Hand. (Photo: Malinkrop/flickr)

Despite thousands in the streets marching for immigration reform; civil disobedience; law suits; and hunger strikes, Congress has barely moved a toe towards passing “comprehensive immigration reform.” A proposal was introduced in the Senate, but it’s so flawed that politicians are finding it easy to ignore. The president hasn’t exerted much leadership on immigration, except for appeasing Republicans by agreeing to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwestern border. Meanwhile, July 29 is quickly approaching, the day SB 1070 will be implemented in Arizona.

Immigration is a tricky issue, and may be just as incendiary as health care.  At this point, even members of Congress who openly support immigration reform say it’s unlikely to pass this year, as they prep for midterm elections in a difficult political climate.

But if not now, when?

It’s universally accepted that Democrats will lose some seats in November. That makes it unclear why passing an immigration bill would be easier in 2011 than it is now.

I wouldn’t say that immigration reform advocates are in outright despair, but some have taken a cue from Congress and given up on lobbying for full-blown immigration reform. This is a game of politics, and some players are betting that singular pieces of legislation, namely the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act and the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act (AgJobs) have a better chance of passing. The DREAM Act would provide a path to legal status for youth brought to the U.S. before the age of 16, and AgJobs would do so for farm workers. These two bills have bipartisan support.

That’s why there are 10 young immigrants on hunger strike outside of Sen. Schumer’s (D-NY) office. They’ve refused to budge until Schumer supports the DREAM Act as a standalone bill. He doesn’t want to, because he favors fighting for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shares the same position.

“We can’t just do the DREAM Act,” Sen. Reid told Latina Lista. “Republicans would have a field day with adding amendments to it.”

Even Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.) the main sponsor of the DREAM Act, is holding back in deference to his congressional leader. “I’m not going to push for that because I don’t want anyone to think I’m pushing the DREAM Act at the expense of comprehensive immigration reform,” Durbin told The Hill.

Some immigration reform proponents worry if Democrats push the DREAM act and fail, it will make it impossible to pass broader legislation. In essence, they believe they only have one shot to pass an immigration bill, so they have to pick the bigger fight.

Robert Gittelson of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform told The Hill that Senate Republicans will not support broad reform. He believes the DREAM Act and AgJobs bills could pass separately, yet he’s still advocating for a bigger bill.

“I feel that by taking off what would be the low-hanging fruit, it takes away significantly from the full coalition advocating for comprehensive immigration reform,” he said. “It would be a long-term mistake to try to pass this short-term, temporary piecemeal solution.”

But some DREAM Act proponents are questioning this strategy. If comprehensive immigration reform will plainly not happen this year, and possibly not happen in the remainder of this presidential term, is this just stalling? The Dreamers are refusing to wait. As a blogger named Mohammad wrote on DreamActivist.org last week,

“We have two options right now: either we continue to play this waiting and pandering game to these groups that want nothing to do with us and care nothing about our futures, or we take a risk, we take a stand, and we push for the DREAM Act to pass as a stand alone bill.”

Tension is clearly mounting within the immigration reform movement. Calling it a “moral crisis,” Mohammad continued: “If you are not making the DREAM Act happen as a stand-alone bill, then you are a roadblock to DREAM, and we are going to call you out in a very public way.”

As can be seen in the comments to the blogger’s post, immigration reform advocates are by no means universally in agreement. It’s a poker game. What hand to play?