National Lawyer's Guild

  •  (1) |
  • 1 (13) |
  • 2 (510) |
  • 4 (1) |
  • 5 (2) |
  • 9 (17) |
  • A (1575) |
  • B (1201) |
  • C (1943) |
  • D (1047) |
  • E (1356) |
  • F (827) |
  • G (754) |
  • H (1056) |
  • I (1062) |
  • J (559) |
  • K (125) |
  • L (643) |
  • M (1219) |
  • N (632) |
  • O (263) |
  • P (2054) |
  • Q (55) |
  • R (1350) |
  • S (1252) |
  • T (797) |
  • U (262) |
  • V (437) |
  • W (668) |
  • x (3) |
  • Y (42) |
  • Z (14) |

Criminalizing Immigrants Makes Them Easier to Deport

Criminalizing Immigrants Makes Them Easier to Deport

New America Media, Commentary, Paromita Shah, Posted: Aug 10, 2007

Editor’s Note: The current spate of immigration raids and harsh ordinances did not come out of the blue but is the fruition of the careful build-up of an immigration law enforcement infrastructure for over a decade. Paromita Shah is associate director of the National Immigration Project (NIP) of the National Lawyers Guild. NIP is a member of Detention Watch Network, a national coalition working to reform the U.S. immigration detention system. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.

Immigration reform is dead – at least for the time being – but more raids, detentions and deportations continue.

But we also face a new emerging “deportation” strategy – one from local and state governments that seek to pass laws that essentially “deport” immigrants from the towns and the states in which they live.

The concept is simple: pass laws that make the lives of immigrants so miserable that they will be forced to leave, turning them into internal deportees in the United States.

According to the Washington Post, state and local governments have filed over 1,000 such bills. While most empower local police to act as immigration agents, a significant number obstruct immigrants' ability to obtain jobs, use necessary medical services, send children to public schools, find housing, get driver's licenses and receive many other government services. For example, the notorious Hazelton town ordinance required tenants obtain an occupancy permit from the city before renting a unit. One had to prove lawful residence or citizenship to get the permit. The town imposed hefty fines, $1,000, for violation of the ordinance.


*****
Shreya Mandal's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | |


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 846 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Upcoming events

  • no upcoming events available

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify