May 15, 2012
Source: The Reformed Church of Highland Park
Dear Church Family and Extended Supportive Community,
Today a very important article was published in the New York Times by Kirk Semple. The article "A Sanctuary Amid Fears of Persecution at Home" is on page A23 and can also be found online. Please share the article as widely as you can.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=mj7f5vdab&v=001xmZOF4pc7pOUFklV6PBCb280jJRO3lce5NJWIbhiHEqvyCWjCuGRMNy77fWv3B5s7yaWQeW4F3cuYWkZQN35yufhFmCEuVdwVtng8LfI0cg%3D>
The day of visitations in Washington was very effective. We visited 30 congressional offices and we believe we made some significant strides toward winning some hearts for this cause. In addition, the religious liberty commission of the National Council of Churches gave us many new contacts who may prove helpful.
Tomorrow, Friday, is the day when the General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America will visit our church. This is the first such visit since we've been pastors here. We will be holding a 1pm event that I hope you'll try hard to attend.
Saturday, from 2pm-7pm is our Family Freedom Festival. Also, it is the day for the debut showing of "Broken Asylum," a video that tells the story of our church's efforts around the family story of Harry and Yana. The movie will show at 3:30 and 7:30pm.
Your energy and love for our Indonesian brothers and sisters sustains me in this effort! Thanks and Peace, Pastor Seth
May 17, 2012
May 7, 2012
Rights Groups Continue to Call for Dismantling of NSEERS and Criticize Department of Homeland Security’s Refusal to Repudiate This Discriminatory Prog
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Keith Rushing, Rights Working Group, 202.591.3305.
Nasreen Hosein, South Asian Americans Leading Together, 301.270.1855
Sandhya Bathija, American Civil Liberties Union, 202.675.2312
Ibrahim Hooper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 202.744.7726
Kate Casa, National Network for Arab American Communities, 313.842.5119
Amardeep Singh, Sikh Coalition, 212.655.3095
May 7, 2012, Washington, D.C. –
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC), Rights Working Group, Sikh Coalition, and South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) express serious disappointment regarding the Obama administration’s announcement last month that it will not fully terminate the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which, in the aftermath of September 11th, required certain nonimmigrant men from predominantly Muslim nations to register with the federal government. In addition, the administration has indicated that it will not provide redress to all people impacted by the discriminatory program.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum about individuals impacted by the notorious NSEERS program. NSEERS was a counterproductive response to September 11th requiring certain non-immigrants to register at ports of entry and local immigration offices. Those required to register were from predominantly Arab, South Asian, or Muslim countries. The specifics of NSEERS revealed it to be a clear example of discriminatory and arbitrary profiling. The Obama administration has itself found that NSEERS “does not provide any increase in security.” DHS’ own Office of Inspector General has called for the full termination of NSEERS. In April 2011, DHS modified the program by “delisting” the countries whose nationals were subject to registration requirements, yet individuals still face harsh immigration consequences resulting from the program, including deportation and denial of immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible.
The administration’s most recent announcement on NSEERS did not fully terminate and dismantle the program. Instead, DHS offers limited relief to some individuals negatively impacted by this discriminatory program. Favorable consideration is limited to narrow circumstances, such as individuals who could not comply with the program because they received inaccurate information from the government or those who were hospitalized. The memorandum does not address relief for the many individuals who complied with the program but were found to lack immigration status nor those who were deported through secret proceedings that took place without due process of law.
“The recent issuance of the NSEERS memo by DHS misses the mark and fails to provide redress to all individuals who have been harmed by NSEERS,” stated Margaret Huang, executive director of Rights Working Group. “Further, the announcement leaves the program intact and states that information obtained through the discriminatory NSEERS program can continue to be used against individuals. The administration, yet again, has failed to address unconstitutional profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity and national origin,” continued Huang.
“While the initial measures outlined in this policy could potentially benefit a subset of individuals affected by NSEERS, it does not go nearly far enough. Despite the advocacy community’s years of engagement with DHS on NSEERS, the new announcement reveals the administration’s failure to grasp the widespread fear this program caused in South Asian, Arab, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities in America and how NSEERS has torn families apart,” stated Deepa Iyer, Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT).
The memorandum does not directly grant relief or benefits to individuals impacted by NSEERS but rather asks DHS agencies to develop guidance to implement the memorandum. The groups call on DHS to engage with advocacy organizations in developing this guidance to ensure that it grants meaningful relief. The groups also urge DHS to dismantle NSEERS completely and discontinue using information obtained through the program.
###
Contact:
Keith Rushing, Rights Working Group, 202.591.3305.
Nasreen Hosein, South Asian Americans Leading Together, 301.270.1855
Sandhya Bathija, American Civil Liberties Union, 202.675.2312
Ibrahim Hooper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 202.744.7726
Kate Casa, National Network for Arab American Communities, 313.842.5119
Amardeep Singh, Sikh Coalition, 212.655.3095
May 7, 2012, Washington, D.C. –
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC), Rights Working Group, Sikh Coalition, and South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) express serious disappointment regarding the Obama administration’s announcement last month that it will not fully terminate the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which, in the aftermath of September 11th, required certain nonimmigrant men from predominantly Muslim nations to register with the federal government. In addition, the administration has indicated that it will not provide redress to all people impacted by the discriminatory program.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum about individuals impacted by the notorious NSEERS program. NSEERS was a counterproductive response to September 11th requiring certain non-immigrants to register at ports of entry and local immigration offices. Those required to register were from predominantly Arab, South Asian, or Muslim countries. The specifics of NSEERS revealed it to be a clear example of discriminatory and arbitrary profiling. The Obama administration has itself found that NSEERS “does not provide any increase in security.” DHS’ own Office of Inspector General has called for the full termination of NSEERS. In April 2011, DHS modified the program by “delisting” the countries whose nationals were subject to registration requirements, yet individuals still face harsh immigration consequences resulting from the program, including deportation and denial of immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible.
The administration’s most recent announcement on NSEERS did not fully terminate and dismantle the program. Instead, DHS offers limited relief to some individuals negatively impacted by this discriminatory program. Favorable consideration is limited to narrow circumstances, such as individuals who could not comply with the program because they received inaccurate information from the government or those who were hospitalized. The memorandum does not address relief for the many individuals who complied with the program but were found to lack immigration status nor those who were deported through secret proceedings that took place without due process of law.
“The recent issuance of the NSEERS memo by DHS misses the mark and fails to provide redress to all individuals who have been harmed by NSEERS,” stated Margaret Huang, executive director of Rights Working Group. “Further, the announcement leaves the program intact and states that information obtained through the discriminatory NSEERS program can continue to be used against individuals. The administration, yet again, has failed to address unconstitutional profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity and national origin,” continued Huang.
“While the initial measures outlined in this policy could potentially benefit a subset of individuals affected by NSEERS, it does not go nearly far enough. Despite the advocacy community’s years of engagement with DHS on NSEERS, the new announcement reveals the administration’s failure to grasp the widespread fear this program caused in South Asian, Arab, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities in America and how NSEERS has torn families apart,” stated Deepa Iyer, Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT).
The memorandum does not directly grant relief or benefits to individuals impacted by NSEERS but rather asks DHS agencies to develop guidance to implement the memorandum. The groups call on DHS to engage with advocacy organizations in developing this guidance to ensure that it grants meaningful relief. The groups also urge DHS to dismantle NSEERS completely and discontinue using information obtained through the program.
###
May 4, 2012
DHS Releases Long-Awaited Memo on Controversial 9/11 Program
05/03/2012, 5:15 pm
Written by: Guest Blogger
Cross Posted from American Immigration Lawyers Association:http://ailaleadershipblog.org/author/guest/
By Denyse Sabagh, AILA Past President, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, AILA Amicus Committee
NSEERS (National Security Entry and Exit Registration System) was a controversial tracking program launched in the wake of 9/11 and aimed at visitors from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries. Those subject to NSEERS or special registration were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated at ports of entry, inside a local immigration office and upon departure from the United States. The NSEERS program contained all of the features of bad policy, as it appeared to target individuals based on their religion and national origin; caused thousands of men to be placed in removal proceedings after complying with the program; and proved to be ineffective as a counter-terrorism tool.
Last month, the DHS released a memorandum to address the scores of people who did not register under NSEERS when they were supposed to. It clarifies that innocent individuals who failed to previously register should not suffer immigration consequences, such as a denial of a green card or a deportation charge. The memo could help a countless number of young men who have laid down roots, built families and/or been steadily employed in the United States but whose immigration status is vulnerable because of an NSEERS issue.
The April Memo provides that individuals who “willfully” failed to register under NSEERS in the past may be subject to immigration violations. It goes to elucidate the definition of willful as “deliberate, voluntary, or intentional, as distinguished from that which was involuntary, unintentional, or otherwise reasonably excusable”; instructs that the burden of proving that his registration was not willful is on the non-citizen (which may not be satisfied if failure to comply was based on fear or inconvenience); and notes that even where an individual is found to have “willfully” failed to register, the agency may exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with its litany of memoranda on the topic.
Previous adjudications of “willful failure” did not give credence to the applicant’s statements such as “I was 16 years old when I entered, I could barely speak English and my family was not involved in the community, I did not know about special registration.” In some cases, applicants were not even asked the question “Why didn’t you register”? ICE took the passports and stamped them “willful failure” and told individuals that everything would be fine. Things were not fine and many people ended up in deportation. People’s lives have been damaged due to this program and it is critical that DHS conveys its intent clearly to rectify this to the field with training and specificity. Without it, even with the April Memo, the hoped for result will fail.
The April Memo is an encouraging step but what is ultimately needed is a termination of NSEERS and a clear policy that protects all people affected by NSEERS from immigration consequences unless DHS can prove that such protection is adverse to the public interest. The NSEERS program has brought more than a decade of fear and damage—the Department’s own Inspector General, civil rights and immigration advocates, and the private bar have all recommended that the NSEERS program be terminated.
Written by: Guest Blogger
Cross Posted from American Immigration Lawyers Association:http://ailaleadershipblog.org/author/guest/
By Denyse Sabagh, AILA Past President, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, AILA Amicus Committee
NSEERS (National Security Entry and Exit Registration System) was a controversial tracking program launched in the wake of 9/11 and aimed at visitors from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries. Those subject to NSEERS or special registration were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated at ports of entry, inside a local immigration office and upon departure from the United States. The NSEERS program contained all of the features of bad policy, as it appeared to target individuals based on their religion and national origin; caused thousands of men to be placed in removal proceedings after complying with the program; and proved to be ineffective as a counter-terrorism tool.
Last month, the DHS released a memorandum to address the scores of people who did not register under NSEERS when they were supposed to. It clarifies that innocent individuals who failed to previously register should not suffer immigration consequences, such as a denial of a green card or a deportation charge. The memo could help a countless number of young men who have laid down roots, built families and/or been steadily employed in the United States but whose immigration status is vulnerable because of an NSEERS issue.
The April Memo provides that individuals who “willfully” failed to register under NSEERS in the past may be subject to immigration violations. It goes to elucidate the definition of willful as “deliberate, voluntary, or intentional, as distinguished from that which was involuntary, unintentional, or otherwise reasonably excusable”; instructs that the burden of proving that his registration was not willful is on the non-citizen (which may not be satisfied if failure to comply was based on fear or inconvenience); and notes that even where an individual is found to have “willfully” failed to register, the agency may exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with its litany of memoranda on the topic.
Previous adjudications of “willful failure” did not give credence to the applicant’s statements such as “I was 16 years old when I entered, I could barely speak English and my family was not involved in the community, I did not know about special registration.” In some cases, applicants were not even asked the question “Why didn’t you register”? ICE took the passports and stamped them “willful failure” and told individuals that everything would be fine. Things were not fine and many people ended up in deportation. People’s lives have been damaged due to this program and it is critical that DHS conveys its intent clearly to rectify this to the field with training and specificity. Without it, even with the April Memo, the hoped for result will fail.
The April Memo is an encouraging step but what is ultimately needed is a termination of NSEERS and a clear policy that protects all people affected by NSEERS from immigration consequences unless DHS can prove that such protection is adverse to the public interest. The NSEERS program has brought more than a decade of fear and damage—the Department’s own Inspector General, civil rights and immigration advocates, and the private bar have all recommended that the NSEERS program be terminated.
Apr 26, 2012
Senator Durbin on NSEERS, DHS Oversight Hearing and Memo from the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
Time: 149:10
Senator Durbin on NSEERS, DHS Oversight Hearing, April 25, 2012http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/commMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary042512&st=1320
NSEERS MEMO
Senator Durbin on NSEERS, DHS Oversight Hearing, April 25, 2012http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/commMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary042512&st=1320
NSEERS MEMO
Profiling, as in NYPD Muslim probe, does not improve security
Published: Friday, April 20, 2012, 8:26 AM Updated: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 1:45 AM
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
Getty ImagesDespite the uproar by politicians, most New Jersey voters believe the NYPD was doing "what is necessary to combat terrorism" when officers documented the activity of Muslim residents in the Garden State, a new poll has found.
By Engy Abdelkader
In 2002, our federal government implemented the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which required males 17 and older to register with U.S. immigration authorities. The requirement applied only to natives of predominantly Muslim countries.
After reporting to registration, many of the men and boys never returned home. Rather, they were detained and deported, often without any notice to remaining family members in the United States, who were left wondering about their whereabouts.
In response, I organized a human rights monitoring campaign outside of the Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in Manhattan. About 90 Americans volunteered to work three-hour shifts beginning as early as 5 a.m. and ending as late as midnight.
Donning bright yellow shirts with the words "Human Rights Monitor," the volunteers tracked the compliant men who entered and exited the building. In the event someone did not leave, we contacted their family and provided legal and other resources.
One of the things that struck me about the volunteers is that they were, for the most part, not Muslim. In other words, they were not members of the very religious, racial and ethnic groups singled out by NSEERS, which has since been terminated.
As an American and Muslim, that resonated positively with me. And I have carried that experience forward. So I was disappointed to read recently that 70 percent of surveyed New Jerseyans approved of the New York City Police Department’s profiling of the American-Muslim, Arab-American and South Asian communities.
Over six months, the Associated Press has cataloged widespread warrantless surveillance of average, law-abiding American Muslims without any indication of criminal wrongdoing and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
The NYPD has monitored Muslims’ daily life in bookstores, cafes, bars and nightclubs; gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors hailing from particular countries and regions; photographed restaurants and grocery stores frequented by Muslims; built databases showing where Muslims shopped, got their hair cut and prayed; and used university records to identify and spy on students.
Studies dating to the 1990s have shown that police officers who engage in profiling were less likely to find contraband in searches of their targets than they were in their searches of whites.
In other words, profiling does not work.
In June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a policy guidance regarding racial and ethnic profiling by federal law enforcement agencies stating: "Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. The DOJ orders federal agencies not to use race or ethnicity, alone or in conjunction with other factors, as an indicator of suspicion in routine law enforcement activities.
While law enforcement use of religious profiling became more visible after 9/11, the DOJ guidance remains woefully silent on the subject. Indeed, it should be amended to reflect that the effects of religious profiling are equally as pernicious and ineffective as its racial and ethnic twins.
Existing research highlights this best: Terrorists who claim to be inspired by religion are not likely to be found at mosques, nor do they exhibit signs of devout religiosity. Further, a highly respected social scientist’s review of 500 cases found evidence that "a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization."
Since the DOJ guidance regulates only federal agencies, Congress should finally pass the End Racial Profiling Act, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in religious, ethnic and racial profiling.
We need to protect our homeland from those who would harm us, but we can only do that by using lawful policies and tactics that work and preserve who we strive to be. I hope New Jerseyans can see that, just as those 90 human rights volunteers did.
Engy Abdelkader is a legal fellow with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank based in Washington.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/04/profiling_as_in_nypd_muslim_pr.html
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
Getty ImagesDespite the uproar by politicians, most New Jersey voters believe the NYPD was doing "what is necessary to combat terrorism" when officers documented the activity of Muslim residents in the Garden State, a new poll has found.
By Engy Abdelkader
In 2002, our federal government implemented the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which required males 17 and older to register with U.S. immigration authorities. The requirement applied only to natives of predominantly Muslim countries.
After reporting to registration, many of the men and boys never returned home. Rather, they were detained and deported, often without any notice to remaining family members in the United States, who were left wondering about their whereabouts.
In response, I organized a human rights monitoring campaign outside of the Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in Manhattan. About 90 Americans volunteered to work three-hour shifts beginning as early as 5 a.m. and ending as late as midnight.
Donning bright yellow shirts with the words "Human Rights Monitor," the volunteers tracked the compliant men who entered and exited the building. In the event someone did not leave, we contacted their family and provided legal and other resources.
One of the things that struck me about the volunteers is that they were, for the most part, not Muslim. In other words, they were not members of the very religious, racial and ethnic groups singled out by NSEERS, which has since been terminated.
As an American and Muslim, that resonated positively with me. And I have carried that experience forward. So I was disappointed to read recently that 70 percent of surveyed New Jerseyans approved of the New York City Police Department’s profiling of the American-Muslim, Arab-American and South Asian communities.
Over six months, the Associated Press has cataloged widespread warrantless surveillance of average, law-abiding American Muslims without any indication of criminal wrongdoing and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
The NYPD has monitored Muslims’ daily life in bookstores, cafes, bars and nightclubs; gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors hailing from particular countries and regions; photographed restaurants and grocery stores frequented by Muslims; built databases showing where Muslims shopped, got their hair cut and prayed; and used university records to identify and spy on students.
Studies dating to the 1990s have shown that police officers who engage in profiling were less likely to find contraband in searches of their targets than they were in their searches of whites.
In other words, profiling does not work.
In June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a policy guidance regarding racial and ethnic profiling by federal law enforcement agencies stating: "Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. The DOJ orders federal agencies not to use race or ethnicity, alone or in conjunction with other factors, as an indicator of suspicion in routine law enforcement activities.
While law enforcement use of religious profiling became more visible after 9/11, the DOJ guidance remains woefully silent on the subject. Indeed, it should be amended to reflect that the effects of religious profiling are equally as pernicious and ineffective as its racial and ethnic twins.
Existing research highlights this best: Terrorists who claim to be inspired by religion are not likely to be found at mosques, nor do they exhibit signs of devout religiosity. Further, a highly respected social scientist’s review of 500 cases found evidence that "a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization."
Since the DOJ guidance regulates only federal agencies, Congress should finally pass the End Racial Profiling Act, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in religious, ethnic and racial profiling.
We need to protect our homeland from those who would harm us, but we can only do that by using lawful policies and tactics that work and preserve who we strive to be. I hope New Jerseyans can see that, just as those 90 human rights volunteers did.
Engy Abdelkader is a legal fellow with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank based in Washington.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/04/profiling_as_in_nypd_muslim_pr.html
Apr 18, 2012
Long Time Coming: Trayvon's Law
For the first time in a decade, Congress holds a hearing on anti-profiling legislation
By Jefferson Morley
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked early and often at a Capitol Hill hearing on federal anti-profiling laws Tuesday as supporters hope the furor over the shooting of Florida teenage will prompt Congress take up a legislation that has languished since 2001.
“The senseless death of this innocent young man should be a wake up call,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a co-sponsor of legislation which would expand current federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies.
“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”
More than 225 organizations submitted testimony for the hearing which included testimony by five Congressmen, civil liberties advocates, and two police officials. Five senators attended, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Most of the speakers favored the legislation, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, which would also forbid law enforcement officers from using race, ethnicity or religion as a factor in routine policing decisions.
The profiling issue exploded into national consciousness earlier this year with intense media coverage of the story of the boy who came home from a convenience store with a snack for his brother only be shot dead by a volunteer neighborhood security guard. Last week, Florida investigators concluded that George Zimmerman had “profiled” Martin as he passed through a residential neighborhood in Sanford, Florida on February 26, resulting in an altercation in which Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder.
The standing room-only crowd in the Dirksen Senate Office Building demonstrated how the social media campaign to demanding “Justice for Trayvon” had revived the profiling issue in Washington. The last time Congress held hearings on anti-profiling legislation was the summer of 2001, when revelations about the profiling practices of the New Jersey and Maryland state troopers had prompted a broad-based sentiment that using race and ethnicity to make traffic stops was fundamentally wrong and unfair. Profiling is “wrong and we will end it in America,” said President George W. Bush in Feb. 2001.
Then came September 11. Profiling gained legitimacy as a national security tool. The Bush administration explicitly used racial profiling to contact non-citizens from Muslim countries under a program the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) set up by Kris Kobach, then an attorney in the Bush Justice Department, now an immigration adviser to Mitt Romney. More than 82,000 people from 25 countries, (24 of them predominantly Muslim) were contacted, fingerprinted and interrogated. More than 12,000 were deported. The Bush Justice Department did issue a ban on racial profiling in 2003 but the DOJ guidelines allowed the use of religion and national origin as a law enforcement criteria.
After the failure of Bush and Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, profling Mexicans and Central Americans became more common. With the federal government unable to control the flow of people into the country, Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia passed laws requiring police to check status of anyone for whom there is a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. “There is no way to enforce the laws ‘show me your papers’ provisions without engaging in stereotypes based on race and ethnicity,” Anthony Romero of the ACLU, told the hearing
Yet as profiling has become entrenched in drug enforcement, counterterrorism, and immigration control, said criminologist David Harris, research shows it is an ineffective law enforcement tool. “In many contexts, in many types of police agencies, the results all fall in the same direction: when racial or ethnic profiling is used, police are less likely, not more likely, to catch bad guys,” Harris said.
Ron Davis, police chief in East Palo Alto, California, said his experience as as a cop on the streets confirmed that finding. Admitting that he himself had engaged in profiling, he called profiling “an ineffective tactic that wastes scares law enforcement resources and it harms our relations with communities whose cooperation we need. ”
Davis said passage of S. 1670 would help police nationwide.
“Without the legislation and updated Department of Justice guidance we will continue business as usual and only respond to this issue when it surfaces through high-profile tragedies such as Oscar Grant case in Oakland California and the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford Florida, ” he said.
But the remarks of Frank Gale, a 23 year veteran of the Denver police force and the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, illustrated one of the biggest obstacles facing supporters of a profiling ban: police unions.
Calling the bill “highly offensive,” Gale voiced the FOP’s “strong opposition” to S. 1670. The measure, he said, “provides a ‘solution’ to a problem that doe not exist, unless one believes that the problem to be solved is that our nation’s law enforcement officers are racist.”
“We can and must restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement and minorities,” Gale said but argued a profiling ban would only generate more mistrust “because it is written with the presumption that racist tactics are common tool of our nation’s police departments.”
The clashing views of Davis and Gale, two veteran African-American cops, “reflects the complexity of the issue,” Davis told me. For Davis, the profiling ban is simply the implementation of best practices while for Gale it is the institutionalization of second-guessing officers on the street who have to make difficult and dangerous decisions. “We don’t have to be afraid of being held accountable,” Davis said.
Yet the Obama administration seems reluctant to act. Two years ago Attorney General Eric Holder told profiling critics he would review the 2003 DOJ guidelines, and reconsider the use of religion and national origin in national security and immigration enforcement. Holder has yet to act.
Republican support for legislation supported by Muslim-Americans and opposed by police unions seems unlikely, especially in an election year. Lindsey Graham, the only Republican in attendance, voiced general support for the bill while expressing the belief that profiling Muslims might still be necessary in national security investigations. He said he hoped for “something more bipartisan.” (Cardin’s bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats. A companion House bill has 52 co-sponsors, all Democrats.)
A true end to profiling will require cultural, as well as political, change. The resonance of the Trayvon Martin story is a sign of cultural change that enhances the legislation’s prospects. But these things can take a long time in Washington. The murders of Matthew Shepard, a gay teenager in Wyoming, and James Byrd, a black man in Texas, in 1998 galvanized a movement to establish a federal hate crime law. But the Sheppard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act wasn’t enacted until President Obama signed it in 2009.
The time may come for Trayvon’s Law but it probably won’t be this year.
Jefferson Morley is a staff writer for Salon in Washington and author of the forthcoming book, Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 (Nan Talese/Doubleday).More Jefferson Morley
Webcast: “Ending Racial Profiling in America” Senate Judiciary CommitteeSubcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=cbe9d491fb674660dfb1774bdef05358
By Jefferson Morley
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked early and often at a Capitol Hill hearing on federal anti-profiling laws Tuesday as supporters hope the furor over the shooting of Florida teenage will prompt Congress take up a legislation that has languished since 2001.
“The senseless death of this innocent young man should be a wake up call,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a co-sponsor of legislation which would expand current federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies.
“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”
More than 225 organizations submitted testimony for the hearing which included testimony by five Congressmen, civil liberties advocates, and two police officials. Five senators attended, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Most of the speakers favored the legislation, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, which would also forbid law enforcement officers from using race, ethnicity or religion as a factor in routine policing decisions.
The profiling issue exploded into national consciousness earlier this year with intense media coverage of the story of the boy who came home from a convenience store with a snack for his brother only be shot dead by a volunteer neighborhood security guard. Last week, Florida investigators concluded that George Zimmerman had “profiled” Martin as he passed through a residential neighborhood in Sanford, Florida on February 26, resulting in an altercation in which Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder.
The standing room-only crowd in the Dirksen Senate Office Building demonstrated how the social media campaign to demanding “Justice for Trayvon” had revived the profiling issue in Washington. The last time Congress held hearings on anti-profiling legislation was the summer of 2001, when revelations about the profiling practices of the New Jersey and Maryland state troopers had prompted a broad-based sentiment that using race and ethnicity to make traffic stops was fundamentally wrong and unfair. Profiling is “wrong and we will end it in America,” said President George W. Bush in Feb. 2001.
Then came September 11. Profiling gained legitimacy as a national security tool. The Bush administration explicitly used racial profiling to contact non-citizens from Muslim countries under a program the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) set up by Kris Kobach, then an attorney in the Bush Justice Department, now an immigration adviser to Mitt Romney. More than 82,000 people from 25 countries, (24 of them predominantly Muslim) were contacted, fingerprinted and interrogated. More than 12,000 were deported. The Bush Justice Department did issue a ban on racial profiling in 2003 but the DOJ guidelines allowed the use of religion and national origin as a law enforcement criteria.
After the failure of Bush and Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, profling Mexicans and Central Americans became more common. With the federal government unable to control the flow of people into the country, Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia passed laws requiring police to check status of anyone for whom there is a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. “There is no way to enforce the laws ‘show me your papers’ provisions without engaging in stereotypes based on race and ethnicity,” Anthony Romero of the ACLU, told the hearing
Yet as profiling has become entrenched in drug enforcement, counterterrorism, and immigration control, said criminologist David Harris, research shows it is an ineffective law enforcement tool. “In many contexts, in many types of police agencies, the results all fall in the same direction: when racial or ethnic profiling is used, police are less likely, not more likely, to catch bad guys,” Harris said.
Ron Davis, police chief in East Palo Alto, California, said his experience as as a cop on the streets confirmed that finding. Admitting that he himself had engaged in profiling, he called profiling “an ineffective tactic that wastes scares law enforcement resources and it harms our relations with communities whose cooperation we need. ”
Davis said passage of S. 1670 would help police nationwide.
“Without the legislation and updated Department of Justice guidance we will continue business as usual and only respond to this issue when it surfaces through high-profile tragedies such as Oscar Grant case in Oakland California and the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford Florida, ” he said.
But the remarks of Frank Gale, a 23 year veteran of the Denver police force and the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, illustrated one of the biggest obstacles facing supporters of a profiling ban: police unions.
Calling the bill “highly offensive,” Gale voiced the FOP’s “strong opposition” to S. 1670. The measure, he said, “provides a ‘solution’ to a problem that doe not exist, unless one believes that the problem to be solved is that our nation’s law enforcement officers are racist.”
“We can and must restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement and minorities,” Gale said but argued a profiling ban would only generate more mistrust “because it is written with the presumption that racist tactics are common tool of our nation’s police departments.”
The clashing views of Davis and Gale, two veteran African-American cops, “reflects the complexity of the issue,” Davis told me. For Davis, the profiling ban is simply the implementation of best practices while for Gale it is the institutionalization of second-guessing officers on the street who have to make difficult and dangerous decisions. “We don’t have to be afraid of being held accountable,” Davis said.
Yet the Obama administration seems reluctant to act. Two years ago Attorney General Eric Holder told profiling critics he would review the 2003 DOJ guidelines, and reconsider the use of religion and national origin in national security and immigration enforcement. Holder has yet to act.
Republican support for legislation supported by Muslim-Americans and opposed by police unions seems unlikely, especially in an election year. Lindsey Graham, the only Republican in attendance, voiced general support for the bill while expressing the belief that profiling Muslims might still be necessary in national security investigations. He said he hoped for “something more bipartisan.” (Cardin’s bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats. A companion House bill has 52 co-sponsors, all Democrats.)
A true end to profiling will require cultural, as well as political, change. The resonance of the Trayvon Martin story is a sign of cultural change that enhances the legislation’s prospects. But these things can take a long time in Washington. The murders of Matthew Shepard, a gay teenager in Wyoming, and James Byrd, a black man in Texas, in 1998 galvanized a movement to establish a federal hate crime law. But the Sheppard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act wasn’t enacted until President Obama signed it in 2009.
The time may come for Trayvon’s Law but it probably won’t be this year.
Jefferson Morley is a staff writer for Salon in Washington and author of the forthcoming book, Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 (Nan Talese/Doubleday).More Jefferson Morley
Webcast: “Ending Racial Profiling in America” Senate Judiciary CommitteeSubcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=cbe9d491fb674660dfb1774bdef05358
Mar 22, 2012
CNN: New Jersey church 'safe haven' for Indonesian immigrant
By Mary Snow
March 20, 2012
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/new-jersey-church-safe-haven-for-indonesian-immigrant/A bed, space heater and a place to put his clothes are all Saul Timisela have in a room he calls home. But his new refuge inside New Jersey’s Reformed Church of Highland Park is the only thing that stands between him and deportation.
"I feel safe," says Timisela, who moved into a Sunday school classroom on March 1, when he defied an order to return to his native Indonesia. His wife has since joined him. "All the members are so welcoming,” adds Timisela, who says he’s prepared to stay in the church until his case is solved.
When and if that happens is a question mark. In the eyes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timisela is an "immigration fugitive" who was "ordered removed" from the U.S. in 2006 but failed to leave. He says he was unaware of that 2006 order. He’s now inside a church, and it’s unlikely that immigration officials would raid it."As a matter of policy," ICE spokesman Harold Ort says, ICE "does not conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including places of worship, without prior approval from ICE headquarters or unless the action involves a national security matter, imminent risk of violence or physical harm, pursuit of a dangerous felon or the imminent destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal case."
As Timisela waits it out, he relies on Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale, who opened the church as a sanctuary. Kaper-Dale has personally taken up Timisela’s cause along with roughly 80 other Indonesians in his community facing deportation. He sees his church on the front lines of the battle over immigration reform."We have seen, in recent years, states taking immigration matters into their own hands due to the federal failures to make sense of immigration policy," Kaper-Dale says. "I think our church actions are like those state actions."Kaper-Dale questions the Obama administration’s immigration policy in light of a memo issued last June directing the use of "prosecutorial discretion." It seeks to prioritize immigration enforcement, "to target criminal aliens and those who put public safely at risk, as well as those who threaten border security or the integrity of the immigration system," according to a statement from ICE’s office in Newark, New Jersey.Kaper-Dale says his community doesn’t fit that bill.Many Indonesians in his community, including Timisela, came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in the late 1990s. They left the predominantly Muslim country because, at that time, Christians were being persecuted. After arriving in the U.S., they had a year to apply for asylum, but many say they weren’t aware of that. Their visas expired, and they lived here illegally.And they came forward after the September 11 terrorist attacks because of a program called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which was discontinued last year.Under it, foreign visitors, mostly from predominantly Muslim countries, were told to register with the government. Because Indonesia was on the list, the men came forward. Some, like Timisela, believed they were on a path to legalization.That didn't happen. Instead, they put themselves on the radar of immigration enforcement.
Kaper-Dale says he got involved after raids were carried out and deportation orders followed. Eventually, he and ICE worked out an agreement to allow undocumented Indonesians with no criminal record to live and work in the U.S. if they checked in regularly."To say now that they are a deportation priority, " Kaper-Dale says, "is for ICE to betray the Indonesian community and their American citizen advocates.”But that's not the way ICE sees it. Immigration officials say it was made clear that the agreement wasn't an "amnesty-type program" and that it was done to give people a final chance to reopen their immigration cases. They say ICE has extended stays and continues to do that in some cases, with factors like strong family and community ties taken into consideration.
Kaper-Dale says he's thankful that nearly half of the roughly 80 people facing deportation have been given stays of "somewhere between five and 12 months." But he says he’s not satisfied, adding that "there is nobody in our group who should be a deport priority for the U.S. government."But immigration officials say they consider immigration fugitives an enforcement priority. And they put Saul Timisela in that category.On a recent night at the church where he now lives, Timisela met with Kaper-Dale and about a dozen other Indonesians. More than half of them had electronic ankle monitors strapped to their left leg.Kaper-Dale reviewed their status and went over checklists, one of which had a reminder to write to lawmakers. Kaper-Dale has been fighting to get a law passed in Congress that would give the Indonesians a second chance to apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met. But there's little appetite on Capitol Hill to take it on. Since that meeting, Kaper-Dale says, one of the men has been deported.With deadlines approaching for other members of his community to leave the country, Kaper-Dale says "we will keep sanctuary as a real possibility" if warranted.In the meantime, Timisela holds on to his faith. "I just keep praying," he says. "I just keep praying."
By Mary Snow
March 20, 2012
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/new-jersey-church-safe-haven-for-indonesian-immigrant/A bed, space heater and a place to put his clothes are all Saul Timisela have in a room he calls home. But his new refuge inside New Jersey’s Reformed Church of Highland Park is the only thing that stands between him and deportation.
"I feel safe," says Timisela, who moved into a Sunday school classroom on March 1, when he defied an order to return to his native Indonesia. His wife has since joined him. "All the members are so welcoming,” adds Timisela, who says he’s prepared to stay in the church until his case is solved.
When and if that happens is a question mark. In the eyes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timisela is an "immigration fugitive" who was "ordered removed" from the U.S. in 2006 but failed to leave. He says he was unaware of that 2006 order. He’s now inside a church, and it’s unlikely that immigration officials would raid it."As a matter of policy," ICE spokesman Harold Ort says, ICE "does not conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including places of worship, without prior approval from ICE headquarters or unless the action involves a national security matter, imminent risk of violence or physical harm, pursuit of a dangerous felon or the imminent destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal case."
As Timisela waits it out, he relies on Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale, who opened the church as a sanctuary. Kaper-Dale has personally taken up Timisela’s cause along with roughly 80 other Indonesians in his community facing deportation. He sees his church on the front lines of the battle over immigration reform."We have seen, in recent years, states taking immigration matters into their own hands due to the federal failures to make sense of immigration policy," Kaper-Dale says. "I think our church actions are like those state actions."Kaper-Dale questions the Obama administration’s immigration policy in light of a memo issued last June directing the use of "prosecutorial discretion." It seeks to prioritize immigration enforcement, "to target criminal aliens and those who put public safely at risk, as well as those who threaten border security or the integrity of the immigration system," according to a statement from ICE’s office in Newark, New Jersey.Kaper-Dale says his community doesn’t fit that bill.Many Indonesians in his community, including Timisela, came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in the late 1990s. They left the predominantly Muslim country because, at that time, Christians were being persecuted. After arriving in the U.S., they had a year to apply for asylum, but many say they weren’t aware of that. Their visas expired, and they lived here illegally.And they came forward after the September 11 terrorist attacks because of a program called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which was discontinued last year.Under it, foreign visitors, mostly from predominantly Muslim countries, were told to register with the government. Because Indonesia was on the list, the men came forward. Some, like Timisela, believed they were on a path to legalization.That didn't happen. Instead, they put themselves on the radar of immigration enforcement.
Kaper-Dale says he got involved after raids were carried out and deportation orders followed. Eventually, he and ICE worked out an agreement to allow undocumented Indonesians with no criminal record to live and work in the U.S. if they checked in regularly."To say now that they are a deportation priority, " Kaper-Dale says, "is for ICE to betray the Indonesian community and their American citizen advocates.”But that's not the way ICE sees it. Immigration officials say it was made clear that the agreement wasn't an "amnesty-type program" and that it was done to give people a final chance to reopen their immigration cases. They say ICE has extended stays and continues to do that in some cases, with factors like strong family and community ties taken into consideration.
Kaper-Dale says he's thankful that nearly half of the roughly 80 people facing deportation have been given stays of "somewhere between five and 12 months." But he says he’s not satisfied, adding that "there is nobody in our group who should be a deport priority for the U.S. government."But immigration officials say they consider immigration fugitives an enforcement priority. And they put Saul Timisela in that category.On a recent night at the church where he now lives, Timisela met with Kaper-Dale and about a dozen other Indonesians. More than half of them had electronic ankle monitors strapped to their left leg.Kaper-Dale reviewed their status and went over checklists, one of which had a reminder to write to lawmakers. Kaper-Dale has been fighting to get a law passed in Congress that would give the Indonesians a second chance to apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met. But there's little appetite on Capitol Hill to take it on. Since that meeting, Kaper-Dale says, one of the men has been deported.With deadlines approaching for other members of his community to leave the country, Kaper-Dale says "we will keep sanctuary as a real possibility" if warranted.In the meantime, Timisela holds on to his faith. "I just keep praying," he says. "I just keep praying."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)