Perry pulls a 180 on immigration

Once upon a time Gov. Rick Perry had a sensible position on immigration. He knew, as did most Texans, that Texas has a unique relationship with Mexico and that it was the influx of immigrant labor that kept the cost of living lower in Texas than in other states.

Of course that raises the issue of whether or not immigrant labor was used by employers as a tool to keep down wages and deter union membership.

Immigrants who crossed the border without the permission of the US government took jobs that no one else wanted. They paid taxes (remember, there is no income tax in Texas) whenever they bought something or paid their rent (part of the rental income a landlord receives goes to pay property tax).

Gov. Goodhair even realized that efforts to raise tuition rates for the children of undocumented workers only served to discourage them from attending college because of the cost. He understood that making a college education more attainable benefited everyone in the state.

But then the Fair-Haired One decided he wanted to follow W to the White House. The national Republican Party was virulently opposed to immigration because the less white the country becomes, the less pull Republicans will have. They are fighting to preserve a vision of America that never really existed.

Now, fearful of pissing off the money lords of the GOP, Gov. Perry has flipped his views on immigration. Now he is opposed to any easing of restrictions. His latest move is to activate some 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to patrol the border to prevent more children from Central America making it to Texas.

These children who are flooding detention centers in the Rio Grande Valley aren't criminals. They are coming here in search of a parent or they are being sent by their families to get them away from the violence and poverty of their home countries.

We don't need to militarize the border. We don't need to expedite hearings so we can deport children. What we need to do is sit down and figure out a rational immigration policy - one that takes reality into account. For far too long our policy consisted of allowing in anyone from a country whose government we disagreed with and slamming the door shut for immigrants from countries with friendly governments.

Many of these children are refugees and should be afforded the same protections as any other refugee from any other part of the world. We will be judged on the basis of how we treat the most vulnerable people in this country. Right now I don't think the verdict would be favorable.

DPS makes it harder for immigrants to obtain a driver's license

Starting today anyone who wishes to obtain a Texas driver's license must present proof that they have been residing in the State of Texas for at least 30 days. The 30-day requirement would be waived for anyone surrendering a valid out-of-state driver's license - but they would still have to show proof of residency.

The requirement of a 30-day residency is courtesy of a change to the Texas Administrative Code last April. The change is clearly intended to prevent immigrants from obtaining a Texas driver's license. As many immigrants move in with family members and friends they don't have insurance or utility bills in their names. As many immigrants operate in a cash economy, they don't have bank accounts.

The 30-day requirement only means that there will be more folks out on the roadways who will be breaking the law every time they get behind the wheel to drive to work. It seeks to deprive immigrants of the ability to obtain a valid picture ID.

Instead of creating a group of criminals by fiat, the state should be looking at ways to integrate folks into our society. Regardless of how you feel about illegal immigration, preventing newly arrived immigrants from obtaining a driver's license isn't going to solve any problems. It will just increase the number of people on our roads with a license or insurance.

Did you hear the one about the sheriff...

Arresting over 500 illegal immigrants just for laughs? Damn, that Joe Arpaio is one fucking funny guy.

While being investigated by los federales for his policies that violated the rights of illegal immigrants, Joe Arpaio went on the lecture circuit and told a crowd in Houston that he arrested folks just for the heck of it.

Nice, Sheriff Joe, very nice.

If there was ever any doubt that the federal government needs to deal with Joe Arpaio as they would deal with anyone else suspected of criminal behavior - this is it. Enough of the acting like a scared child when confronting the big bad bully of Maricopa County. He's just a sheriff. If he broke the law, if he violated the civil rights of folks living within his jurisdiction, it's time he had to face the music.

Joe Arpaio has been allowed to flaunt his disregard for civil rights for years because, for some reason, everyone is afraid of the man. Los federales have brought down federal judges, senators, congressmen and governors. Why it's so hard to force a sheriff in Arizona to answer for his actions, I have yet to understand.

In an interview Thursday, Arpaio defended his comments before Texans For Immigration Reform as a collection of humorous off-the-cuff remarks intended merely to show that he wasn't going to back down to critics. 

"These are not official, under-oath speeches," Arpaio said. "It's strictly a speech that when I'm talking to certain groups, they like to hear what I have to say, because they know I'm under the gun."

But as long as everyone stands by too scared to do anything, the little bully in the southwest is allowed to continue his campaign of intimidation. Joe Arpaio isn't bigger than the Constitution. When he was sworn into office he took an oath to uphold the laws of Arizona and the laws of the United States. But he's given a free pass to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

Arresting people just because he can do it? Why not? Who's going to challenge him?

Petty tyrants are allowed to humiliate folks because no one is willing to stand up to them. If this latest episode isn't enough to get the feds involved, I don't know what is. He's on tape telling an audience that he arrested hundreds of people just because he could - not because he had any legal reason to do so.

Now's the time for President Obama and Eric Holder to actually stand up and do something about the flagrant abuses in Maricopa County. Why do I get the feeling that nothing's going to happen?

DPS policy now law

A controversial DPS policy is now law thanks to an amendment to the education funding bill added by Rep. Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie). Back in 2008 the DPS began requiring applicants for driver's licenses to prove they were a citizen or were here legally. The passage of the bill puts to bed legal challenges to DPS' authority to check immigration status.

Beginning on September 1, 2011, everyone applying for, or renewing, a driver's license will be required to show proof of citizenship or legal status. What's so bad about that, you ask.

The implementation of this law will lead to an increase in the number of people driving on Texas roads without valid driver's licenses and insurance. Is that really the best way to safeguard the welfare of the driving public?

The Texas Department of Public Safety is responsible for patrolling the state's highways and for protecting the governor and the capitol - not for being surrogate immigration agents. Whether someone is here legally or not is not the business of law enforcement officials. It is not against the law to be in Texas without the permission of the federal government. If we're going to crack down on folks who have risked their lives to come here and work, leave it up to los federales.

The Constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to our rights under the Bill of Rights. The Equal Protection Clause makes no distinction between those who are here with the blessing of the government and those who aren't. Preventing people from obtaining driver's licenses and insurance because of their immigration status serves no purpose other than to provide Rep. Pitts with an issue he can wave in front of the wingnuts come campaign season.

See also:

"Another knee-jerk reaction," The Defense Rests (Oct. 9, 2008)
"DPS calls for drivers' license checkpoints," The Defense Rests (Nov. 12, 2008)
"Judge shoots down DPS drivers' license plan," The Defense Rests (April 10, 2009)

Riddle me this...

Apparently it's not enough for Tomball state representative Debbie Riddle to file a bill turning police officers into immigration officials -- she had to be the first in line. Ms. Riddle spent two nights camping in the hallway just outside the house chamber so she could be the first to file bills for the upcoming legislative session.

Ms. Riddle's immigration bill would create a new Class B misdemeanor -- criminal trespass by illegal alien. The new bill would allow officers to check the immigration status of any individual the officer believes is committing any criminal offense. If illegal immigration is this great threat to our way of life, why is the proposed crime just one step above a traffic ticket?

Now that sounds all well and good. If you're going to live in another country, you best obey the law, that kind of thing. But here's where it gets messy. Let's just suppose that the police officer was wrong about his suspicion that the person was committing a crime. That case goes out the window - but should HB17 pass, that same person would also be charged with criminal trespass -- even though he did nothing that should have gotten him arrested in the first place.

Here's an example. J.Z. is arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. During the course of the investigation, the officer finds out J.Z. is not in the country legally so he arrests him for both DWI and criminal trespass. As it turns out there were problems with the traffic stop and the DWI case is dismissed. J.Z. should be able to go about his business -- but no. He still has a criminal trespass charge hanging over his head; a charge that never should have been filed because J.Z. shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

There's another issue as well, proving up, in a criminal court, that a person is here illegally. Who is the state going to put on the stand to prove up the accused's status? Who's going to be called to testify as to the reliability and accuracy of the government's records?

Then there's HB18 which would make prohibit cities, counties or other political subdivisions from not enforcing federal immigration laws. In other words, a city or county would not be eligible for state money if it adopted any policy that prohibited, or discouraged, officers from checking a suspect's immigration status. The proposed legislation takes dead aim at Houston which has adopted policies leading some critics to label the city as a "Sanctuary City" for illegal immigrants.

Legislation in Arizona that turned the police into immigration officers currently is tied up in federal court.

We're taught in law school that bad facts make bad law. Here's the corollary, publicity-seeking politicians make bad law, too.

Judge's injunction doesn't address the motive behind Arizona's immigration law

Judge Bolton's decision to enjoin the State of Arizona from enforcing provisions of SB1070 is a step in the right direction but it is not nearly the victory that some immigration advocates are proclaiming. The injunction halts the requirement that law enforcement officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The injunction also means that immigrants are no longer required to carry their immigration papers with them and that undocumented workers are permitted to seek employment in public places.

The ruling, however, does not strike down the law.

To obtain an injunction, a party must show a court that he would be irreparably harmed if the injunction weren't granted and that he was likely to prevail on the merits of the case. But likely to prevail isn't the same thing as will prevail. In this instance the federal government demonstrated to Judge Bolton that it would be harmed due to enforcement costs.

It's good that the police have been enjoined from enforcing the more onerous sections of the law, but the law itself is still on the books. Not only that, but the attitudes among those in power in Arizona are still intact and they will continue to fight for SB1070 to the death. They will seek to destroy one of the bases of our justice system -- the presumption of innocence.

For you see, SB1070 creates the presumption that anyone who isn't white is breaking the law and as long as SB1070 remains on the books - even if neutered - the presumption of innocence is violated.

See also:

"Liberty wins in SB 1070 injunction," Tucson Citizen, July 28, 2010

"Arizona immigration law: Key parts halted by judge," azcentral.com, July 28, 2010

"Why Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of Arizona's SB1070," Christian Science Monitor, July 28, 2010

Add DWH to the Arizona penal code

There is a new crime on the books in Arizona and it's called Driving While Hispanic. With the passage of SB 1070, law enforcement officials will have the authority to check on the immigration status of any motorist who is detained as the result of "any lawful contact."

According to the new law "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Backers of the new law see no problem with that provision. They will point out that the police can't just stop anyone for the express purpose of checking their papers because there has to be a legal reason for the traffic stop. Would that be like a DWI stop in Texas in which the basis for the detention is an equipment violation and not evidence that the motorist is endangering anyone on the road?

Furthermore, what exactly constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that a person is not here with the blessing of los federales? Brown skin? Speaks Spanish? Has a last name ending in Z? Do you think the police will be asking too many white, black or Asian drivers for proof of their immigration status? Hell, I don't possess a single piece of paper (except for my passport that sits in a safe deposit box) that says it's okay for me to be here -- and I've been here all my life.

And then there's this gem:

"If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection." -- Arizona's SB 1070

That means a conviction for a moving violation, such as speeding, or a conviction for an equipment violation, such as an expired inspection sticker, can get you deported. How's that for a final solution? It must warm your heart to see these so-called pro-family right wing Republicans force American citizens (don't kid yourselves, the children of "illegal" immigrants born on American soil are just as American as your and I) to choose between living here and going "home" to a country they've never seen.

Despite what the apologists for Arizona's new racist law claim, if you have brown skin and you're driving in Arizona, you are a target.

See also:

"Pima County Sheriff refuses to enforce "unconstitutional" controversial AZ anti-immigrant law," Democracy Now! (May 6, 2010)
"Dozens show up at Minute Maid Park to protest Arizona law," The Houston Chronicle (May 6, 2010) -- of course no one goes to see the Astros these days.
"Holder: US may fight Arizona immigration law," CBS News (April 27, 2010)

Sobriety checkpoints: the new cash cow

A study by the University of California's Investigative Reporting Program has found that sobriety checkpoints in California generate about $40 million annually not through the arrest of suspected drunk drivers but from fees associated with impounding the cars of non-licensed drivers. Cities split towing and impound fees with the towing and impound companies.

According to the California Office for Traffic Safety, over $30 million was spent on overtime pay for officers manning the checkpoints. The bulk of this money came from taxpayers across the country as part of a grant program.

Statewide officers manning these checkpoints average seven vehicle impoundments for every DWI arrest. That ratio was 11:1 in Oakland, 15:1 in San Rafael and as high as 60:1 in Montebello. The investigation also revealed that police are seizing vehicles in predominately Hispanic cities at a rate three times higher than in cities with a small minority population.

In 2007 the state seized 15,700 vehicles at sobriety checkpoints. That number increased to 17,900 in 2008 and about 24,000 last year.

In California, towing companies must hold vehicles seized because the driver had no license for 30 days -- running up the fees for the owners of those cars who, often, have no choice but to allow the cars to be sold at auction because they cannot afford the fees. Ironically enough, a person arrested on suspicion of DWI can retrieve his car the next day.

City of Houston to screen suspects for immigration histories

Starting today, jailers in Houston will check fingerprints of everyone booked into one of the city's jails to see if they have an immigration history. The system, called Secure Communities, is designed to identify people who have had past run-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mayor Bill White (who is expected to challenge for the governor's mansion in 2010), originally signed off on the city participating in ICE's 287(g) program in which city jailers would become de facto immigration officers and would screen for those suspected of being in the country illegally. Critics of 287(g) say that the program is nothing more than legalized racial profiling.

Now I believe that if you're going to another country you need to keep your nose clean and follow the law -- and if these programs were directed at individuals who were found guilty of criminal offenses, I would have no problem with their being deported from the country. My problem stems from the fact that when an individual is arrested and taken to jail, that individual is still innocent unless proven guilty.

The Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "citizen" when spelling out the measures to protect us from the overreaching arm of the state. You can check it out.

He's making a list and checking it twice

Some local charities in the Houston area have begun checking the immigration status of families before handing out any toys. Included in the organizations asking for proof of citizenship are the Salvation Army and Outreach, Inc., which distributes toys collected by the Houston Fire Department.

It's one thing to go after adults who entered the country without permission -- but it's an entirely different thing to go after their kids.

Houston mayor singing different tune on immigration as Senate campaign heats up

Has Mayor Bill White flip-flopped on screening county inmates' immigration status? Shortly after HPD Officer Rick Salter was critically wounded after being shot by a non-citizen, Mayor White announced that the City of Houston would take part in an ICE program to identify inmates who were not in the United States legally.

Now, US Senate candidate Bill White says he doesn't think the city should participate in ICE's 287(g) program in which jailers are trained to determine inmates' immigration status. White now says he favors the city participating in ICE's Secure Communities program in which officers would be notified when someone being fingerprinted has an immigration record.

White claims he never wanted to participate in the 287(g) program that would cost the city between $1.5 million and $2 million a year.

The question is, did White change his tune because he doesn't want local law enforcement officers to become de facto immigration agents or because he needs the support of Latin voters in Texas to become the first Democratic senator from Texas since Lloyd Bentsen?

The bogeyman of illegal immigration

The Houston Police Department, playing on the death of one of its own, is asking the mayor to allow them to ask residents about their immigration status.

“We need to reinstate the (cadet) classes, reinstate the overtime that’s making up for the 1,200-officer shortage, and back off this immigration policy so our officers can be safe. Quit handcuffing our officers so they can identify these criminal aliens, and get them off the street before they can kill police officers.” - Gary Blankinship, Houston Police Officer's Union

It is not against the law for someone from another country to be in the United States without permission. It is against the law for an employer to hire them. It is against the law to use forged paperwork to obtain a job. It is against the law to be here on an expired visa. It is NOT against the law to be here.

With the exception of the Native Americans, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrants - some legal and some not. My ancestors came here from Ireland before the Civil War and made their way down south. I have no idea whether they were here legally when they stepped off that boat. Furthermore, I don't care.

Emma Lazarus' beautiful poem The New Colossus greets those who go to Ellis Island to see the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty speaks and proclaims for all to hear:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Nowhere does it say only if they have a green card or a visa or some other document giving them "permission" to be here. The United States is unique. We've never erected walls or barriers to prevent people from leaving. People want to come here. People want to be here.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal." The word "citizen" is nowehere to be found in the Bill of Rights.

Go celebrate the Fourth of July. Celebrate freedom. Celebrate liberty. Celebrate Emma Lazarus' words. Celebrate this long-standing experiment in democracy. Celebrate those who gave their lives for this country. Celebrate that your ancestors were welcomed to this land.

Judge shoots down DPS driver's license plan

Over the last few months, the Texas Department of Public Safety has been working on implementing a plan by which only people who could prove they were citizens or here legally could acquire a Texas driver's license. In addition, the department sought to issue a different license to non-citizens. The DPS also proposed setting up driver's license checkpoints around the state.

On Thursday, Travis County District Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo shot down the DPS plan when she ruled the department had exceeded its authority in forcing applicants to prove they were in the country legally.

"DPS has created havoc by attempting to inject its political agenda into the lawmaking process and improperly giving second-class to individuals who in every way have complied with the laws of the land regarding their presence in the United States and Texas." -- David Hinojosa, MALDEF

Gov. Rick Perry and the department had boasted that the new policy would help protect the United States and Texas from foreign threats. Far from "protecting" Texas, the proposed policy would only guarantee more drivers on Texas roads without state-required liability insurance.

The plan to issue non-citizens a different license could have subjected holders to racial-profiling, suggested Mr. Hinojosa. It could certainly have led to disparate treatment on traffic violations for citizens and non-citizens.

In issuing a temporary injunction, Judge Naranjo said: "This case is not about illegal immigrants obtaining driver licenses, it is about legal residents who have been denied or have been threatened a denial of a driver license."

Faulty logic in the DA's office

Seems that Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos' reasoning behind her decision not to offer probation for people in this country illegally is based on two premises: (1) the person is violating US law by being in the country without permission and (2) the person is violating the law by working in this country.

She is right on her first premise but woefully off target with her second. There is nothing illegal about an undocumented person working in the United States -- it is a crime, however, for the employer to hire an undocumented worker.

The only effect of Ms. Lykos' policy will be to worsen the present overcrowding at the Harris County Jail.

Dissent in the ranks

There seems to be more than a little dissent in the ranks over on the 6th Floor at 1201 Franklin according to this piece in the Houston Chronicle.

Now whether the four senior district attorneys are opposed to Ms. Lykos' plan to prevent defendants in the country illegally from receiving probation or deferred adjudication because it would clog the courts with more trial cases or due to equal protection issues (I'm sure that's it), remains to be seen.

Whatever the reason, there is a schism developing in the Harris County District Attorney's Office with senior prosecutors coming out against Ms. Lykos' proposal in this instance and with grumblings in the ranks after the Batson incident last month.

See also:

• "Yet another bad idea" (March 30, 2009)
  
• "ICE: Policy's effect on immigration would be minimal" (Defending People; April 1, 2009)
  
• "Another brilliant idea from Lykos and company" (Defending People; March 30, 2009)
  

Yet another bad idea

There's a rumor circulating around that the Harris County District Attorney's Office will require a sworn statement from defendants on plea papers as to whether they are in this country legally or not.

As I sit here thumbing through my copy of the Texas Penal Code I see criminal activity listed under the headings Offenses against the person, Offenses against the family, Offenses against property, Offenses against public administration, Offenses against public order and decency and Offenses against public health, safety and morals. Nowhere under any of these headings do I see where it's a crime in the state of Texas for a non-citizen to be here without the blessings of Congress or the Department of Homeland Security.

If someone crosses the border without permission they are breaking federal law - but they are not violating the laws of the state of Texas.

Having such language included on plea papers could expose a defendant to criminal liabilty for perjury (if he swears he is here legally when he's not) or for violating federal law (if he admits he is not here legally). The other option is for the criminal justice system to break down at the point judges will not accept altered plea papers or defendants will not sign them.

Illegal immigration has always been part of the fabric of this American life. People come to this country - some risking their lives - for two things: the chance to better themselves and their families and for the opportunities afforded by the freedom and liberty espoused in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights.

Please note, Ms. Lykos, that the word citizen is not be found in the Bill of Rights.

Update on DPS' call for driver's license checkpoints

On Friday, under pressure from state legislators, the DPS withdrew its request for an Attorney General's opinion on the legality of setting up checkpoints to check for valid driver's licenses, registration and insurance. According to the DPS, the checkpoints were never intended to serve as a check for illegal immigrants.

DPS calls for driver's license checkpoints

Last month I wrote about the DPS' new policy of not renewing or issuing new Texas drivers' licenses to anyone who can't prove they are in the United States legally.

Now, according to the Houston Chronicle, comes word that the DPS has asked Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, for permission to set up drivers' license checkpoints across the state. According to the request, the checkpoints would be set up to check for valid drivers' licenses, registration and insurance.

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio and 14 other legislators have sent Mr. Abbott a letter asking him to ignore the DPS' request for a legal opinion.

The last time I checked, being in the United States without permission was a federal issue, not a state issue.  There is no provision in the Texas penal code making it a crime to be in this county illegally.  There is also no need for state or local police agencies to enforce federal law.

The DPS has enough to worry about with rogue technical supervisors faking maintenance records on the intoxilyzers used to carry out the state's breath alcohol testing program without worrying about whether a driver is here legally or not not.

Another knee-jerk reaction

According to the Houston Chronicle, the Texas Department of Public Safety has decided that, as of October 1, 2008, an applicant for a Texas driver's license must show they are in the United States legally before they can obtain or renew their license.  Gov. Rick Perry applauded the new directive:

"Texas is a great place to live and work, and while we welcome legally documented individuals to the Lone Star State, we must ensure that this privilege is not abused by those seeking to enter our country illegally."

However, Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, pointed out the obvious flaw:

"People have to drive to get to work.  You want people to get (auto) insurance.  They can't get insurance if they don't have a driver's license."

Requiring proof of citizenship is not going to discourage people entering the United States illegally, it will just increase the number of drivers on Texas highways without driver's licenses and insurance.

The new capital punishment

On August 1, 2008, Arturo Chavez, a 17-year old illegal immigrant and student at Clear Creek High School, was stopped by League City (TX) Police and arrested for driving without a valid Texas driver's license. He was taken to the League City police station where, according to the cops, he ran out a door and tried to climb a fence. Arturo, who stood 5'3" and weighed about 125 pounds, was beaten by four League City cops and tasered multiple times.

EMTs took Arturo to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and then returned him to League City officers for processing into the Galveston County Jail. No officers reported any injuries. At the GCJ, Arturo was placed in solitary confinement. Despite being warned that Arturo was suicidal, GCJ officials left him alone in his cell.

Three days later Arturo was dead. He had hung himself with a blanket.

It wasn't the first time that an inmate in the GCJ ended up dead. On February 6, 2008, a 24-year old Galveston man who had been picked up on municipal warrants died in custody after suffering multiple seizures.

Capital punishment is authorized in Texas for capital murder and aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14, not for driving without a license or not paying municipal traffic tickets.

Galveston County isn't the first county to kill off its inmates due to incompetence, negligence and neglect, and it won't be the last. The Harris County Jail has been investigated for over 100 inmate deaths since January 1, 2001.

While going to jail isn't a pleasant experience -- it shouldn't be a deadly experience. As no one in Austin or Washington, D.C. wants to be labled as being a defender of those in custody, the only means we have at our disposal to bring these stories to an end is to obtain judgments against those ultimately responsible for these senseless deaths.