Please visit our YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter pages.

1. OK sanctions partially upheld
2. Judge upholds detention suit
3. ABA report critiques system
4. MD co. passes resolution
5. Haitians' future unknown

1.
HB 1804 appeal denied in part
By Robert Boczkiewicz
The Tulsa World (OK), February 3, 2010

Denver - An appeals court ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma cannot enforce two employment provisions in House Bill 1804, the state's immigration control law, but allowed a third employment part of the law to be enforced.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against two portions of the law:

A prohibition against firing workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the country.

A requirement that businesses contracting with private contractors obtain documents that the individuals are authorized to work or, without documentation, withhold taxes at the top rate.

The court's 3-0 decision upheld a lower court's preliminary injunction against those two provisions and means they will not be enforced, pending further legal action.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of a third part of the law. That portion requires employers to use a federal computer system called E-Verify to check eligibility of job seekers. The provision only affects businesses that contract with government entities for physical performance of services, such as building roads or bridges.

That portion will not go into effect before both sides have an opportunity to respond in court to Tuesday's decision. Either side can ask for the appeals court to reconsider the decision.

State Rep. Randy Terrill, who authored HB 1804, said he was disappointed in some parts of the ruling but pleased with others.

"It upholds the E-Verify provisions and it indicates we can take the additional step of requiring all employers, if we chose to do so, to use E-Verify," said Terrill, R-Moore.

Terrill said he has not decided whether he will push for expanding the E-Verify provisions to private employers.

Terrill said the ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court or the state could ask the full 10th Circuit to hear the case.

House Bill 1804, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and City Protection Act of 2007, is one of numerous laws that states have enacted in recent years to regulate illegal immigration and verification of employment eligibility.

The decision of the Denver-based court sided with various business interests — including national, state and local chambers of commerce — in concluding that the first two provisions are pre-empted by federal law.
. . .
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100...

********
********

2.
Judge won't dismiss suit over US citizen detention
By Manuel Valdes
The Associated Press, February 2, 2010

Seattle (AP) -- A federal judge has rejected a government request to dismiss a lawsuit by a U.S. citizen who was locked up for seven months at an immigration center.

Army veteran Rennison Castillo claims officials failed to act on his pleas in 2005 to check his military record and Social Security number.

It wasn't until immigration attorneys stepped in that his citizenship was confirmed and he was freed.

U.S. District Judge Ben Settle allowed the case to proceed in December when he rejected the dismissal effort in the case against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and several of its agent.

Discovery will proceed in the case, even though the government filed a motion on Jan. 11 appealing the ruling by Settle.

Castillo was born in Belize, immigrated to the U.S when he was 7, and became a naturalized citizen in 1998 while serving in the Army.

"We want to make sure to hold the government accountable," said Matt Adams, an attorney at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the legal aid firm that helped Castillo gain his freedom.

Castillo is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an apology.

In countering the suit, government lawyers argued there is no constitutional right to a perfect search of immigration files.

They also said there were no legal precedents for this type of lawsuit and suggested a negligence action would have been a more appropriate way for Castillo to seek damages related to his "unfortunate detention."
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR201002...

********
********

3.
Report Cites Problems in Immigration System, Calls for Overhaul
By Diana Nguyen
The Fox News, February 2, 2010

Washington, DC -- Problems in the immigration justice system are pervasive and widespread, says a new report that calls for an overhaul of the law and agency policies.

The report released Tuesday and prepared pro bono by the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP for the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration, identified six areas of the system needing reform -- Department of Homeland Security, immigration courts, Board of Immigration Appeals, Circuit Court Judicial Review, representation, and system restructuring.

Caseloads in immigration courts have been "reaching crisis proportions," said Karen Grisez, chairwoman of the ABA Commission on Immigration.

Immigration courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of Immigration Review under the U.S. Department of Justice.

"We recognize that the ABA is driven to improve the administration of justice and appreciate the document's recommendations, each of which would have an impact on how EOIR operates," said Kathryn Mattingly of the Department of Justice. "We look forward to continued government-wide conversations surrounding the adjudication of immigration cases."

There are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and only 57 immigration courts with 231 immigration judges for deportation hearings, asylum petitions, bond redeterminations for detained immigrants and other issues, according to the report.

DHS has "contributed to an exploding caseload that has overwhelmed the removal adjudication system," according to the report, which recommends DHS attorneys and officers to thoughtfully choose which cases to try.

The choice to prosecute is needed "so the higher-priority cases get priority," said Lawrence Schneider, a senior partner at Arnold & Porter. Going after those eligible for amnesty is a "waste of time and resources."

However, the DHS said they prioritize their enforcement based on an individual's criminal activity.

"We are focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that focuses first on dangerous criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities," said Matthew Chandler, DHS deputy press secretary.

In fiscal 2009, ICE deported 136,000 criminal aliens, Chandler said.

The report criticizes DHS for deporting legal permanent residents for minor or misdemeanor infractions, initiating deportation measures against immigrants eligible for permanent resident status, and detaining illegal immigrants far from their homes and, sometimes, their legal counsel.

"DHS policies have failed to assure due process for non-citizens," said ABA President Carolyn Lamm.

"There is a serious lack of adequate representation," she said, which "is a hallmark of the judicial system."

DHS recently announced a new reform to "enhance the integrity" of the deportation system.

"The rule clarifies who is authorized to represent applicants and petitioners in cases before DHS," Chandler said.

DHS also updated disciplinary standards and procedures for immigration attorneys.
. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/report-cites-problems-immigra...

********
********

4.
Council approves illegal immigration measure
Resolution calls for policy on county contracts
By Bryan P. Sears
The Towson Times (MD), February 3, 2010

A civil rights group and an immigration advocacy organization say they fear some legal immigrants may be discriminated against if the county abides by a resolution passed Monday night by the County Council.

The council passed the non-binding measure by a vote of 6-0 asking the county to develop policies that would penalize companies that have contracts with the county -- if they cannot prove their employees are legally permitted to work in the United States.

Republican Councilman Bryan McIntire was absent due to illness and did not vote.

Council Chairman John Olszewski Sr. and Councilman Ken Oliver, both Democrats, had sponsored the resolution.

"This is a direct result of the tough economic times we are facing," Olszewski told the council during a work session last week.

Olszewski said he would like to see the county use a program such as E-verify, a system implemented by the federal government to help employers determine who is legally eligible for employment inside the United States.

Ajmel Quereshi, an attorney specializing in immigration issues with the American Civil Liberties Union, said E-verify still has kinks that are yet to be worked out, and they could result in many legal immigrants being told they can't be hired because they can't prove their status.

"The E-verify system is not yet ready to be mandated or encouraged to be used by common contractors," Quereshi said, adding that a 2007 federal report showed that the program was "not up to date."

A representative of the immigration advocacy group, Casa de Maryland, Liz Alex, also attended Monday's council meeting and testified against the measure, saying E-verify isn't reliable enough to be the basis of county policy.
. . .
http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/news/104334/council-approves-illeg...

********
********

5.
Haitians Hold Uncertain Place In Immigration Line
By Bianca Vazquez Toness
The WBUR News (Boston), February 3, 2010

Boston -- Elsie Metayer lives in a two-story Victorian in Milton. Her colorful home is decorated with art from Haiti, and pictures of family. Her parents sit bundled on the couch, while she talks about her guilt that she’s here in Milton, while her three siblings are in Port-Au-Prince, sleeping outside their ruined homes.

“Knowing them, they won’t be able to live, they won’t be able to survive,” Metayer said. “They have nowhere to go. They cannot work. They cannot do anything.”

Like many Haitian families around Boston, Metayer and her parents want to bring their relatives to the United States. The desperation in Haiti after last month’s earthquake has opened up a debate: Should the U.S. allow more Haitians to immigrate? The federal government has said that immigration would not be part of the relief effort in Haiti, but many Boston Haitians are looking for an exception.

“Every day we hear, ‘My families are sleeping in the streets. My family doesn’t have any medicine,’ It’s every day. Eight hours a day,” said Marjean Perhot, director of Refugee and Immigrant Services at the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston. “It is so difficult to have to tell people: I’m sorry, right now, there’s not a legal way to expeditiously get your family out of the streets and into safety.”

The Obama administration has allowed Haitian immigrants already in the U.S. to stay for 18 months, under so-called “temporary-protected status.” The government also sped up paperwork for Haitian orphans who were on the cusp of adoption. But for everyone else in Haiti, there’s been no change in policy.
. . .
Jobs would also be a problem, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that favors stricter immigration controls. He said a recession is a bad time to add desperate workers to an economy.

But like Perhot, his main concern about expediting visas for some Haitians is about fairness.

“There are probably four million people who are in this similar situation,” Krikorian said. “In other words, they’re on a waiting list to immigrate, but their number hasn’t come up yet. There are always going to be reasons they’re going to want to cut in line, basically.”

Back in Milton, Elsie Metayer and her family said they’ve already spent years in line and need help in this emergency. Metayer said her siblings were placed on the waiting list five years ago. Now, she said, she doesn’t think they can wait much longer.
. . .
http://www.wbur.org/2010/02/03/haitian-immigration