----- Forwarded Message ----- From: nucleo interdisciplinar de estudos
migratorios NIEM NIEM.migr@xxxxxxxxx [niem_rj] <niem_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
"niem_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <niem_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Friday, April
19, 2019, 8:07:07 AM GMT-5Subject: [NIEM] EUA
EUA: Trump considera enviar imigrantes detidos para cidades governadas pelo
partido Democrata
Trump ainda comentou que "a esquerda radical sempre parece ter política de
fronteiras abertas, de braços abertos. Então isso deve deixar eles muito
felizes"
Redação Opera Mundi
São Paulo (Brasil)
12 de abr de 2019 às
O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, afirmou nesta sexta-feira
(11/04) que seu governo está "considerando seriamente" levar migrantes em
situação irregular presos em centros de detenção para "cidades-santuário" no
país, cuja maioria é controlada por governos democratas que possuem políticas
de proteção à imigração e não contribuem com forças federais imigratórias.
"Devido ao fato dos democratas não estarem dispostos a mudar nossas leis de
imigração muito perigosas, nós estamos de verdade, como foi dito, considerando
seriamente colocar imigrantes ilegais somente em cidades-santuário", escreveu
Trump em sua conta no Twitter..
Trump ainda comentou que "a esquerda radical sempre parece ter política de
fronteiras abertas, de braços abertos. Então isso deve deixar eles muito
felizes".
Segundo o jornal The Washigton Post, o plano contaria com agências de migração
para transportar os imigrantes às cidades que protegem os que chegam ao país.
Em comunicado publicado no periódico norte-americano, um funcionário do
Departamento de Segurança Interna disse que o órgão "não está elaborando planos
para implementar a proposta".
Em nota, a Casa Branca afirmou que "esta foi uma sugestão que foi lançada e
rejeitada, o que acabou com qualquer discussão posterior".
A proposta já havia sido feita pelo presidente dos EUA em outras ocasiões e
rejeitada por pessoas ligadas a imigração, sob a justificativa de que o plano
de mandar imigrantes à cidades-santuário era inviável.
[enviado por Rogério Haesbaert]
=====================================
https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/04/13/trump-threatens-sanctuary-cities-with-more-undocumented-immigrants-politicians-welcome-his-plan/
Trump threatens sanctuary cities with more undocumented immigrants; politicians
welcome his plan
"Let's not concede that having refugees in our cities is something to be
threatened by."
Ashley Curtin / NationofChange / News Report - April 13, 2019
-
-
Image Credit: Southern Poverty Law Center
A threat by Donald Trump to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities
has critics welcoming the plan saying that house these cities were intended to
be used under law. Trump announced the proposal is strongly being weighed by
the White House.
Several politicians and human rights advocates welcomed Trump’s threat.
“The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have
embraced our immigrant communities for decades,” Mayor Jim Kenney from
Philadelphia – a sanctuary city – said. “This White House plan demonstrates the
utter contempt that the Trump administration has for basic human dignity.”
Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland – also a sanctuary city – “condemned the
president for focusing his immigration agenda on keeping immigrants out of the
United States,” Common Dreams reported.
“I am proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city,” Schaaf said on CNN. “We
believe sanctuary cities are safer cities. We embrace the diversity in Oakland
and we do not think it’s appropriate for us to use local resources to do the
government’s failed immigration work.”
Sanctuary cities have laws, policies and ordinances that “obstruct immigration
enforcement and shield criminals from ICE,” the Center for Immigration Studies
defined. This is carried out “either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies
from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer
acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise
impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and
federal immigration officers.”
Image Credit: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Data
Trump blamed his plan to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities on
Democrats and the “radical left” for not working “to change our very dangerous
immigration laws,” he tweeted.
“Let’s not concede that having refugees in our cities is something to be
threatened by,” Julia Carrie Wong, reporter for the Guardian said in a Tweet.
=====================================
https://www..nationofchange.org/2019/04/13/how-the-disappearance-of-immigrant-workers-created-a-movement-in-a-county-that-voted-for-trump/
How the disappearance of immigrant workers created a movement in a county that
voted for Trump
This rural community might have agreed with Trump’s anti-immigration policies
on paper. But it could not abide their neighbors being taken away.
Dori Cahn / Yes! Magazine / News Analysis - April 13, 2019
-
-
Image credit: Stephanie Serrano
Get news the mainstream media doesn’t want you to see..
Pacific County, in rural southwest Washington state, has the uncommon beauty of
expansive coastal beaches and the spreading arms of Willapa Bay. Tidal sloughs,
free-flowing rivers, and abundant wildlife provide a rich environment for
shellfish beds and cranberry bogs, making Willapa Bay the largest producer of
farmed shellfish in the U.S. The bay is nearly separated from the Pacific Ocean
by the Long Beach peninsula, home to a thriving beachfront tourist economy.
These industries are vital to the county’s economic health.
And they have all also grown to depend on immigrant workers.
The first wave, originally from Mexico, came in the late 1980s, many gaining
legal status under Reagan’s 1986 amnesty program. Their numbers grew over the
next two decades, stabilizing about 10 years ago. “There was a real thriving,
really dynamic and unique immigrant community here,” says Erin Glenn, former
director of Migrant/Bilingual programs for the Ocean Beach school district.
The small towns along the coast and Willapa Bay easily absorbed the families
into their local communities. And workers became skilled at setting out lines
of oyster seedlings, navigating tides to dredge shellfish beds and mastering
the delicate work of flooding cranberry bogs for harvest. Local employers
relied on their experience.
Then, about two years ago, they began to disappear.
Immigrants were being picked up at work, or U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officers were showing up at their homes, as the Trump
administration stepped up immigration enforcement.. Fear spread among local
immigrants who had been made to feel safe and welcomed.
Pacific County had just voted for a Republican presidential candidate—one who
was elected on a platform of anti-immigrant rhetoric—for the first time since
it went for Dwight D. Eisenhower more than 60 years ago.
And if localswere hoping that Trump would create jobs to offset the region’s
declining timber industry, they instead got immigration policies that eroded
the industries that are still thriving.
Oyster shell recycling process at Taylor Farms, in Bay Center. Pacific County
is one of the largest producers of farmed shellfish in the U.S. Photo by
Stephanie Serrano.
Ann Reeves, a local activist who organized a workshop to help employers learn
how to protect their workforce in the face of ICE raids, recalls one shellfish
company owner who began losing thousands of dollars a day when ICE arrested
three of his best employees. Another was considering closing down because he,
too, had lost too many workers, she says.
Reeves got involved in the issue when she was organizing an ACLU People Power
group early in 2017, and learned that Glenn was looking for others to help
families disrupted by arrests.
A fourth-generation resident of the Long Beach peninsula, whose family owns a
historic cranberry farm there, Glenn had watched the community grow and change
over the years. She personally knew 30 people at that point who had been
arrested by ICE and was doing her best to help them.
Together the womencreated a rough framework to help support those facing
deportation, providing transportation and accompaniment to court hearings and
letters of support for their cases. Their work attracted people from
surrounding communities who were looking for ways to fight back against the
administration’s hateful policies.
And it got a boost when a series of stories in the local newspaper showed that
people being arrested and deported had strong ties to the community. They were
neighbors, not the ugly labels the president had used.
Together the women created a rough framework to help support those facing
deportation, providing transportation and accompaniment to court hearings.
The organization evolved into a formal nonprofit now called Pacific County
Immigrant Support. They know of nearly 100 arrests but acknowledge that there
could be many more they have not heard about.
Some volunteers work actively with affected families, or put on workshops to
help community members and employers understand their rights in such
circumstances. Others help raise funds, lobby legislators, organize public
protests, or buy Christmas presents for children whose parents have been
detained or deported. Immigrant support members have also met with local law
enforcement to discourage their cooperation with ICE, an ongoing problem that
has broken the community’s trust..
Sandy Nielson, who volunteers with the immigrant support group as a family
advocate, began to learn more about the community after befriending her
neighbors, Miguel and Maria and their three children. The retired teacher
became part of their wide circle of friends and family who gathered each
weekend for volleyball games at Miguel and Maria’s home.
Left to right, Ann Reeves, Sandy Nielson, and Stephanie Serrano of Pacific
County Immigrant Support. Photo by Dori Cahn.
In fact, they had been there, in the kitchen, joking about how Miguel could
“get his papers” a few weeks before ICE came knocking at the couple’s door in
spring 2017.
“It was a Thursday morning, there were a couple of men standing there. They
asked for a name that neither Maria nor Miguel recognized,” Nielson says. They
took Miguel instead.
Miguel had been a crew chief at a seafood company, and his detention and
eventual deportation left his family struggling. The group raises money to help
families like Miguel’s when a breadwinner is taken. “In the early stages we’d
just pass a hat at meetings,” Reeves says. “People really care about their
neighbors and want to help. That’s what gives me hope.”
As the support group’s main organizer, Stephanie Serrano does everything from
coordinating with local allies and organizing fundraisers, to meeting with
families soon after someone has been arrested to help them plan their next
steps.
Recently, she helped Claudia’s husband find a lawyer after he and two
co-workers were arrested as they left work at a shellfish cannery in September
2018. Then she went with a local council member into the cannery’s office to
ask why the company hadn’t sent anyone to the group’s workshop on employers’
rights. They got no response..
Because her family’s situation is precarious, Claudia did not want her real
name used in this article. She hadcrossed the border twice. The first time she
nearly died during three days walking in the desert; the second time, traveling
with her husband, they were robbed at gunpoint by accomplices of the coyote
guiding them.Several of the immigrants helped by Pacific County Immigrant
Support are now volunteering as interpreters and serving in other support roles.
They’d come from Michoacán, an area rife with drug cartels and violence. A few
years ago, her husband’s sister was taken from the family’s house there. The
family was warned not to look for her, and they never saw her again. “In
Mexico, nobody sees anything,” Claudia said. “They come to your house and take
your kids or take you; next day, nobody knows anything,” she says. “She left
two kids; my mother-in-law is taking care of them.”
Claudia’s husband hopes to get his deportation order waived on the basis of
their three U.S.-born children. She doesn’t know what she would do if he is
deported. “We are a really close family,” she said. “It will be a really hard
decision. We have to be together.”
Her husband had admitted to ICE when he was arrested that he wasn’t authorized
to work in the U.S. He didn’t know he had the right not to answer their
questions. “Your silence is your best protection,” Serrano tells her.
Several of the immigrants helped by the support group are now volunteering as
interpreters and serving in other support roles—building bridges between the
organization and the Latino community.
Cranberry bog at Cranguyma Farms, on the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific
County. The farm was established in 1940 by Erin Glenn’s great-grandfather.
Photo by Dori Cahn.
One of them is Mario Rodriguez, an educator who worked with Glenn for 12 years
in the school district’s Migrant/Bilingual program. He has been active in the
community since he came to the peninsula, volunteering to interpret in
hospitals and helping at community events. Everybody knew him.
That’s why his arrest in July 2017 was so shocking. Rodriguez had stopped at
the post office to check for a package and was getting out of his truck when
ICE officers approached him. His arrest stunned even supporters of Trump’s
harsh anti-immigrant policies. “The outrage in this community when they took
Mario was unbelievable,” Serrano says.. “Everybody was like, ‘Mario? Of all the
people! No way!’”
Rodriguez filed for asylum and his case is moving through the immigration
system. “At first I said, I will fight until the last minute,” Rodriguez says.
“But now that it’s a long time, it’s a nightmare.”
He’s channeling his energy into volunteering with the immigrant support group
to help families going through similar experiences with ICE, and interpreting
for the group’s advocates and lawyers. Grateful for all the support he has
received from them, he recently joined the group’s board.
“I have ups and downs,” he says. “[But] I don’t want to regret in the future
that I didn’t fight.”
============================================
https://www.curbed.com/2019/4/5/18296772/homeless-lawsuit-boise-appeals-court
Cities can’t criminalize homelessness, federal court affirms
3 comments
Martin v. City of Boise says cities can’t punish the homeless for sleeping
outdoors or on public property
By Patrick Sisson Apr 5, 2019, 12:17pm EDT Share The
Tenderloin Housing Clinic in San Francisco Shutterstock
An Idaho lawsuit concerning how cities across the West enforce laws about
sleeping in public—potentially changing how they treat their homeless
populations—is now established as precedent. Barring a decision by the Supreme
Court to address the case of Martin v. City of Boise, cities will not be able
to arrest or punish people for sleeping on public property unless they provide
adequate and relatively accessible indoor accommodations.
The ruling means unless there is enough shelter space for the homeless
population of a city such as Seattle or San Francisco, city officials can’t
enforce anti-vagrancy laws or prohibitions against camping in public parks or
sidewalks. The court can’t force cities to build adequate shelter space or
homeless housing, but it can make it unconstitutional for them to criminalize
homelessness until that burden has been met.
Eve Garrow, a homelessness policy analyst and advocate for the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), expects that advocacy groups such as her own will soon
engage in proactive public education campaigns to ensure municipalities are
aware of the Martin decision and the group’s interpretation of the court
ruling.
“I do believe if cities and counties continue to enforce in a way that’s now
clearly unconstitutional, advocacy organizations will engage in litigation to
protect the civil rights of these people,” she says.
Homeless camp out September 23, 2015, in the Skid Row section of Los
Angeles. Getty Images
Kicking the homeless out of public spaces is “cruel and unusual punishment”
The April 1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine
states in the western U.S. including California and Washington, rejects a
petition to challenge a September ruling on the case. The 2-1 decision by a
panel of three judges means that the earlier decision by the court stands, an
affirmation of the theory that criminalizing people for camping of sleeping in
public without any place to go is illegal.
According to the court, “the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless
people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had
a choice in the matter.”
Steve Berg, vice president of programs and policy for the National Alliance to
End Homelessness, says the decision has gotten a lot of attention, and will
hopefully accelerate the movement towards more supportive housing and services.
“There are still too many people in local governments who think the right
answer to homelessness is arresting people,” he says.
The legal reasoning grew out of an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and
its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, according to ACLU’s Garrow.
“You’re criminalizing someone for behavior that’s unavoidable,” she says.
“Everyone has to sleep.”
In effect, she says, municipal laws that ban sleeping in public are making it
illegal to be poor.
"“You’re criminalizing someone for behavior that’s unavoidable. Everyone has to
sleep.” "
“This is such an important ruling,” Garrow says. “These enforcement actions
punished people for unavoidable behavior. You can’t punish people for
eventually falling asleep. It sends a message that people have choices, and
that we don’t need to build any more supportive housing, and we don’t have any
options. From a public policy perspective, they don’t make sense, they send the
wrong message, they treat those who are poor as criminals, and create fear and
mistrust of those experiencing homelessness.”
The Martin case will change enforcement around homelessness, Garrow says. If a
municipality builds enough shelter spots that are truly, reasonable, accessible
alternatives for everyone experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction, it
wouldn’t be prohibited from enforcing laws against sleeping in public.
But for cities in, say, California, she says that’s a pretty tall order.
“There’s such a dire crisis in our municipalities, especially in the city and
county of Los Angeles,” she says. “They have a really long way to go to meet
those requirements.”
How will this impact city policy?
Going forward, Garrow says, it’s pretty clear that enforcement of anti-camping
and anti-sleeping ordinances should be prohibited. They need to be either
repealed or prohibited.
The Martin case reinforces arguments made by the Housing Not Handcuffs
campaign, which has pushed against the criminalization of homelessness and for
more supportive housing and medical care.
“We want communities to see this as an opportunity, not a limitation.
Criminalization of homeless, anyway you look at it, is never a positive step,”
Eric Tars, senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty, told Governing magazine. “From a fiscal standpoint, it costs
communities more to cycle these people through law enforcement than actually
providing shelter or giving them resources.”
"“We want communities to see this as an opportunity, not a limitation.
Criminalization of homeless, anyway you look at it, is never a positive step.”"
But, for cities seeking to conform to the expectations being laid out by the
Martin v. Boise decision, it’s not strictly a numbers game. The Martin case,
which originated in 2009 when six residents sued the city, arguing that laws
against sleeping in public and qualifying that action as “disorderly conduct”
were unconstitutional, specifically discussed reasonable and accessible spots
for everyone. That means having beds accessible for the disabled and for
pregnant women and families. An important argument in the Martin case concerned
faith-based services that required those staying there to pray in a certain
manner. Judges declared spots that coerced religious observation were not
accessible to all.
Cities have already been adjusting their policy based on the September ruling
in the case. San Francisco, Portland, and Sacramento have stopped enforcing
such rules based on this new precedent. Modesto, California, dedicated a park
to housing the homeless, while Olympia, Washington, called off sweeps of
homeless encampments.
Los Angeles has a 50-year-old law banning sidewalk sleeping but has not
enforced it in recent years due to a 2007 settlement with the ACLU. Last year
Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city would start to enforce the ban again but only
near one of 15 new emergency shelters.
Josh Leopold, a senior research assistance at the Urban Institute, wonders how
this decision will impact the importance of homeless counts in cities, and
whether there will be more controversy over official numbers if its more
closely connected to enforcement actions.
But some cities seem poised to dig in and maintain current policy. A dissent
argued that the standard being established by Martin v. Boise was “wrecking
havoc” on cities. Boise in particular doesn’t seem like it plans to budge.
According to a statement from the city released after the April 1 decision:
Today’s ruling does not mean the city ordinances are (unconstitutional), it
simply has the effect of forcing the matter to be litigated further. Therefore,
the city’s camping and disorderly conduct ordinances remain in effect until
further clarification can be obtained from the courts; the ruling will not
cause us to change our procedures.
[mensagem organizada por Helion Póvoa neto]
__._,_.___ Enviado por: nucleo interdisciplinar de estudos migratorios
NIEM <NIEM.migr@xxxxxxxxx>
| Responder através da web | • | | • | através de email | • |
Adicionar um novo tópico | • | Mensagens neste tópico (146) |
[As opiniões veiculadas não expressam (necessariamente) a opinião dos
organizadores da lista do NIEM]
Para cancelar sua assinatura desse grupo, favor enviar um e-mail para:
niem_rj-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To cancel your subscription to this group, please send an e-mail to:
niem_rj-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
para enviar mensagens / to send messages: niem_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Visite
seu Grupo
• Privacidade • Sair do grupo • Termos de uso
.
__,_._,___
