Why immigrants are more vulnerable to criminal convictions
The following NY Times editorial describes the consequences of demonization and dehumanization of unauthorized workers and undocumented immigrants which leads to inappropriate criminal penalties for aggravated identity theft.
New York Times, February 25, 2009, Editorial
And Unequal Justice for Some
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in the case of an illegal immigrant who provided an employer with phony identification numbers. The court must decide whether he can be convicted of the crime of aggravated identity theft — which carries a heavy mandatory prison sentence — even though he did not know the numbers belonged to specific people.
This is a case about the misapplication of federal law. It also is a case about unequal justice. The government is misusing the identity theft law to pressure illegal immigrants to agree to quick deportation.
Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented Mexican immigrant, purchased a forged Social Security card and a permanent resident card bearing his name and false identification numbers in Chicago. When he submitted those documents at his job in East Moline, Ill., his employer reported him to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which determined that the numbers belonged to other people. There is no evidence those people were harmed.
Mr. Flores-Figueroa pleaded guilty to misuse of immigration documents and illegal entry into the United States. He pleaded not guilty to aggravated identity theft, saying that he didn’t know that the ID numbers belonged to anyone. He was convicted and sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment for the crimes for which he pleaded guilty, and an additional mandatory two-year sentence for aggravated identity theft. Mr. Flores-Figueroa is asking the Supreme Court to reverse his identity-theft conviction, arguing that the law does not apply to his actions.
The federal aggravated identity theft statute is aimed at the most serious forms of identity theft — and it says the theft must be done knowingly. Congress wanted to punish those who take the identities of other people to do them harm, typically by trying to drain their bank accounts. Mr. Figueroa did not have the intent necessary to violate this law. He was guilty of identity fraud — a separate, and lesser, crime.
One of the criminal law’s most important tasks is sorting out degrees of culpability. People like Mr. Flores-Figueroa enter the country illegally to work at jobs that pay little and are often dangerous. Their actions are illegal, but they fall far short of stealing a specific person’s identity to rob someone’s life savings.
The Supreme Court should reverse Mr. Flores-Figueroa’s conviction to stop overly aggressive prosecutors from going beyond what the law allows — and to ensure that in identity theft cases, the punishment fits the crime.
Tags: identity theft, ssn, worksite enforcement
Raids don't fix anything.
Last night marked President Obama’s first Presidential Address which echoed his (inspiring) campaign promises of change, a brighter future, accountablilty and responsibility, and the capacity for every ordinary person to become extraordinary through actions and choice.
Ironically, the first worksite raid under the Obama administration also took place last night which painted an entirely different picture reminding me of the enormity of the challenge to reform immigration. In Bellingham, Washington, 126 workers including US Citizens were questioned and temporarily detained, while 28 primarily Mexican workers were chained and transported to a detention facility (three were released for humanitarian reasons) marking another enforecement-only action by ICE as the solution to unauthorized employment.
These enforcement only measures reflect a continuation of the same policies carried out under the Bush administration, and undermine Obama’s campaign promise as well as his demands for change presented during his presidential address. Addressing the issue of unauthorized workers through raids does not resolve the root of the issue. Immigration reform is ripe for review, and the enforcement-only solution is not an acceptable answer.
Tags: ICE Raids, worksite enforcement
I’m going to update with an explanation of the changes affecting H-1B petitioners.
Calling your Senator can make a difference for H-1B workers and the economy
From AILA Advocacy Alerts (February 4, 2009):
The large Economic Stimulus Bill being debated in the Senate is now being threatened by 3 bad immigration amendments that will hurt immigrant workers and the economy. Immediate action must be taken against these amendments. Call your Senators NOW and tell them to oppose Senator Sanders’s H-1B amendment to bar banks from hiring H-1B workers and Senator Sessions’ 2 amendments that would require all businesses benefiting from the stimulus to use E-Verify. Call Your Senators NOW!
Your Senior US Senator: 202-224-3121 ; Your Junior US Senator: 202-224-3121
Tell your Senators to: Please OPPOSE the following amendments that will slow down the economy:
· Senator Sanders’ H-1b amendment, number 306, would prevent U.S. employers who are using TARP funds from accessing highly skilled, professional foreign talent that would allow them to stay competitive in the global marketplace. U.S. businesses who are trying desperately to recover financially MUST have access to specialty skills inside our country so that they can keep their businesses in the U.S. Otherwise, the entire nation’s economic recovery will be severely hobbled.
· Senator Sessions filed two amendments numbers 165 and 239 that require all businesses and other public or private “entities” that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. Making the E-Verify program mandatory will delay use of stimulus funds, hurt millions of workers and hamstring businesses who are not prepared to implement this new program, especially during this economic crisis.
These amendments will send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective measures rather than serious and effective economic stimulus measures.
I’ve been following the FAR regulation since President Bush’s exec order on June 6, 2008, waiting, wondering, fearing, and expecting that federal contractors and subcontractors would very shortly have to comply. I’ve outlined a brief timeline of the legistlation which can be pretty helpful to understand where we are now and how we got here. By the way, the FAR Reg implementation is delayed until May 21, 2009.
I. EVOLUTION/UPDATES IN FAR REGULATION FOR E-VERIFY
1. On June 6, 2008 President George W. Bush signed an amendment 13465 to Executive Order 12989 requiring (200k) federal contractors to use E-Verify.
2. September 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed a resolution (H.R. 2638) to extend the E-Verify program which was set to expire on November 29, 2008, through March 6, 2009, and inject $100 million in new funding for the program. The new congress will take it from here, but President Obama has expressed support for the program so it is not expected to disappear with the new administration.
3. November 14, 2008: After issuing a proposed rule, soliciting comments, on 11/14 the final rule mandating use of the E-Verify program by all federal contractors was published in the Federal Register, originally to take effect on January 19, 2009.
4. January 08, 2008: USCIS issued a press release stating that 100,000 employers are currently enrolled in the program, and from October 2008 to January 2009, over two million queries were run through E-Verify.
5. January 14, 2009: A coalition of business organizations (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Council on International Personnel, the Society for Human Resources, the H.R. Policy Association, and the Associated Builders and Contractors) challenge the E-Verify amendment to the FAR in federal court arguing that it exceeds the authority of the executive branch and violates IIRIRA.
6. As a result of pending litigation, the parties came to an agreement to delay the final rule which was set to take effect on February 20, 2009.
7. January 20, 2009: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ordered Regulatory Review by the Obama administration of proposed and final regulations that have not been published in the federal register, and delay by 60 days the effective dates of published regulations that have not yet taken effect.
8. January 27, 2009: the US Chamber of Commerce announced that the litigants agreed to extend the applicability to May 21, 2009 and agreed to ask the court to stay the proceedings to allow President Obama’s administration the opportunity to review the rule. We will have to wait to see how this review affects the rule. Federal acquisition officers will not include the E-Verify clause in any federal contract awarded prior to May 21, 2009.