Like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Trump's proposal to exclude all Muslims is "induced by blind racism and eagerness to deflect blame onto other groups." Also like the 1882 Act, it's unconstitutiona. See, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
See my 2011 blog on Birthright Citizenship and the Wong Kim Ark case. http://sinelson.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a0133f23c744d970b01348562293e970c/search?filter.q=Wong+Kim+ark
Texas had to change it's rules in order to license the Karnes County Residential Center as a child care provider, but the Texas Department of Family and Protective services has done it. The license was issued for 60 days, giving the facility time to correct problems found in a March 29, 2016 inspection.
The Karnes County Residential Center is located southeast of San Antonio, Texas, and consists of barracks behind brick walls. It holds a maximum of 580 migrants, most mothers and children apprehended crossing the border and is run by the GEO Group, a private correctional detention company.
This is a shame. Painting Sponge Bob Square Pants on wall murals does not a child care center make.
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Texas Government Makes Strong Case for Moving DAPA Forward
April 18, 2016
Washington D.C. - Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas. The highest court will now decide whether the President’s deferred action initiatives announced in November 2014, known as expanded DACA and DAPA, move forward.
“The lawyers arguing for the deferred action initiatives made a convincing case that the law and the Constitution are on our side. As expected, the Justices asked probing questions to both sides, demonstrating they understand the high stakes involved this case,” said Beth Werlin, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.
According to the Council’s Legal Director Melissa Crow, “Much of the argument focused on whether Texas really has standing – a sufficient stake in the outcome of the case to file a lawsuit. The arguments highlighted the fact that this is a political dispute about enforcement policies, not the type of legal dispute that should be before the Supreme Court. Texas’ arguments on standing are unconvincing. As Justice Breyer noted, a finding by the Court that Texas has standing could flood the courts with lawsuits based on all kinds of political disagreements between States and the federal government.”
President Obama’s deferred action initiatives advance common-sense enforcement priorities. To qualify for deferred action, individuals must have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, register with the government and pass a criminal background check. Instead of tearing apart families through broad enforcement actions, the President is letting law enforcement officials focus their attention on those who pose the greatest threats to public safety.
The American Immigration Council and 325 other immigrants’ rights, civil rights, labor and service-provider organizations filed an amicus brief in the case outlining how families and communities would benefit from the initiatives.
In a recent study, The Perryman Group analyzed the economic benefits and costs of the undocumented workforce to Texas. The results indicate gains of millions of jobs and billions of dollars to taxing entities.
Undocumented Workforce Benefits to the Texas Economy
Output (Gross Product)
Direct Net Benefits*
$326.1 billion per year
$144.7 billion per year
*Based on the best available information regarding employment patterns of undocumented workers translated into overall measures of resulting output income, and spending based on the coefficients of the impact assessment model used in this analysis. Fully adjusted for the wage and productivity characteristics of the relevant population.
TOTAL Net Benefits, including multiplier effects**
$663.4 billion per year
$290.3 billion per year
**Based on the total economic benefits of the undocumented workforce adjusted to net out costs such as education, social services, and health care
Subtracting the costs from the total fiscal benefits yields an estimate of the net fiscal effect of the undocumented population. The Perryman Group estimates that the total net fiscal effect of the Texas undocumented population includes benefits of $32.9 billion each year, including
$20.1 billion to the federal government,
$11.8 billion to the State of Texas, and
$0.9 billion to local governments within Texas.
Restrictive immigration policy will cause substantial economic and fiscal losses. Our full report can be downloaded by clicking the button below.
“It is shocking to see that these are the women and children considered by our government to be a priority enforcement target,” [Denise] Gilman said. “Detention means that people are going to be summarily deported back to their countries, even though they have good asylum claims. It means that even if they are then released and allowed to pursue their asylum claims, they are going to be living with this trauma on top of trauma.”
The Supreme Court just announced that it will hear arguments on the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) lawsuit. This is good news because the court will decide whether Texas and other states can block the implementation of DAPA.
Texas Gov. Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama saying that Texas would refuse Syrian refugees after the recent terrorist attack in Paris:
Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas.
Refugees must prove they have no ties to terrorist organizations
Although security of our country and Texas is paramount, the screening process that refugees must go through before entering the U.S. is rigorous. The U.S. handpicks the refugees who resettle here, and they go through multiple layers of security checks involving the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies, making them the most vetted group of people who come to the U.S. These checks typically require from 2-3 year before the refugee is cleared and can be brought to the U.S.
In order to enter the U.S. refugees must prove that they (and their family members) have no ties and have provided no support to terrorist groups or their members. The U.S. has been criticized for making it nearly impossible to enter the U.S. as a refugee from a country where terrorist organizations operate and for people who are often victims of terrorist activity themselves.
Refugees are a Federal matter
The Refugee Act of 1980, gives the president power to admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States. Once a refugee is admitted to the U.S. they are free to live anywhere in the U.S. (even Texas). There is no law that allows governors to overrule the President on who can be admitted to the U.S. as a refugee.
No. Governor Abbott cannot overrule President Obama regarding the admission of refugees. He may be able to restrict state funds that are available to refugees, but most of these are tied to federal monies and could endanger the entire program. Further, the refusal of only Syrian refugees raises equal protection concerns.
Can Governor Abbott make Texas look unwelcoming and xenophobic? He already has.
The Memorial Hermann Medical Group Northeast Women’s Healthcare clinic near Houston is now enforcing immigration law and seeking to have patients deported.
They reported an immigrant woman seeking medical care to the sheriff's office earlier this month because she allegedly presented a fake Texas driver's license as identifcation. Blanca Borrego was seeing her doctor for a cyst that was causing abdominal pain, and paying for the medical care with private insurance provided through her husband's job. The deputies arrested her in front of her 8-year old U.S. citizen daughter. She has been charged with tampering with a government record, a felony.
Denise Gilman, director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, said that although Borrego’s arrest probably did not violate medical privacy laws, “it certainly is a violation of the doctor-patient relationship, of the trust.”
* * *
“Medical settings should be free from immigration enforcement,” said Ana Rodriguez DeFrates, state policy and advocacy director in Texas for the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, who was among those organizing protests.
She said Borrego’s arrest “will no doubt reverberate in Latina communities across Texas,” noting that many Texas Latinas die from cervical and breast cancer due to lack of preventive care “in large part because they can’t access medical providers, and when they do, they fear precisely what happened to this woman.”
Rodriguez DeFrates said law enforcement officials should ask themselves, “With the limited resources for immigration enforcement we have, is this really where the threat exists: where women come in to get their healthcare needs met, with their children?”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott thinks that this incident is one to be proud of:
The October Visa Bulletin introduces a new system that allows individuals with priority dates to submit their permanent residence applications prior to the date on which a visa is available. The Visa Bulletin provides a "filing date" and a "final action date" for each category.
For example, Lupe is 35, unmarried and the her permanent resident father filed a petition for her on December 15, 1995 (category F2B). On October 1, 2015, Lupe can file an application for adjustment of status (I-485) and an application for employment authorization (I-765) with USCIS because her priority date is before January 1, 1996 (the "filing date").
Her application cannot be approved until the "final action date" is after December 15, 1995, but she can work with authorization while she waits.
The Baylor Law School received one of five 2015 Pro Bono Publico Awards from the American Bar Association last week.
The Pro Bono Publico Awards program seeks to identify and honor individual lawyers and small and large law firms, government attorney offices, corporate law departments and other institutions in the legal profession that have enhanced the human dignity of others by improving or delivering volunteer legal services to our nation's poor and disadvantaged. These services are of critical importance to the increasing number of people in this country living in a state of poverty who are in need of legal representation to improve their lives.