In the News: Firm Files Writ of Habeas Corpus Action in Montana District Court

September 5, 2009Shahid Haque
image

One of the Firm’s cases was recently profiled in both the Helena Independent Record and the Missoulian.  This case implicates important constitutional issues regarding the misuse of authority by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) — an agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

Pro Bono Victory for Cuban Refugee Who Was Homeless for Over Ten Years

September 5, 2009Shahid Haque
image

The Firm is proud to announce that it has won permanent resident status for José Auraz, a Cuban citizen and resident of Missoula, Montana. José has a compelling story that he would like to share.In 1993, José fled from Cuba and swam to Guantanamo Bay.  The swim was a lengthy and dangerous one — during the 82 minute swim, José managed to ward off sharks by pouring gasoline on himself.  After arriving at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. military eventually brought José to Miami, Florida.  Under the “wet feet, dry feet” policy instituted by the Cuban Adjustment Act, any Cuban who arrives on U.S. soil can apply for permanent residency after one year.  However, José’s path to permanent residency was not an easy one.It was difficult for José to earn a living in Miami, and he eventually fell into a cycle of poverty from which it was hard to escape.  Although José was lawfully present in the U.S., he didn’t have papers, and couldn’t get a good job without these papers.  José needed an attorney to help him through the complex application process, but he simply couldn’t afford an attorney.For thirteen years, José bounced between homelessness and poverty, but all of this changed when he found himself at the Poverello Center in Missoula, Montana.  A newspaper article from the Missoulian explains what happened next:

For one year, Whitt said Poverello Center director Ellie Hill went on the hunt for an immigration attorney who would take his case. It wasn’t an easy pitch. Missing documents complicated the case, as did the request for pro bono work. Thirteen lawyers later, Shahid Haque, a lawyer at the Border Crossing Law Firm in Helena, agreed to take on the task.

And he succeeded.

“My life changed when I received my employment authorization,” Auraz said.

Now that he is able to earn a living, José can take custody of his son and resume his life.  We wish José the best of luck in all his endeavors!To read José’s full article from the Missoulian, please click here.

Debunking Myths About Immigrants and Public Benefits

August 16, 2009Shahid Haque
image

A friend recently forwarded me a ridiculously inaccurate e-mail that is being forwarded across the country. The e-mail fuels anti-immigrant hysteria by claiming that immigrants and refugees are enjoying better access to public benefits than U.S. citizens.  Here is the text of the e-mail:

If an immigrant is over 65 they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than my mom (in her 80’s) gets for Social Security, and she worked from 1944 till 2004, only getting $791 per month because she was born before 1924 and there is a ‘catch 22’.It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also obtain an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00/month.  This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.Maybe our pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians(Nancy Pelosi Included) have been doing over the past 11 years – to the over-taxed American.

This message is replete with lies.  To begin with, it creates a false comparison between very different federal programs — SSI and Medicaid are different from social security retirement payments.  SSI and Medicaid are “means-tested public benefits” for people with low income and qualifying disabilities.  The e-mail might as well complain about anyone who receives these benefits.  But to claim that immigrants and refugees somehow enjoy these benefits more than citizens is absurd.An immigrant who is over 65 cannot automatically apply for SSI and Medicaid.  The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 imposed broad restrictions that prevent immigrants from getting most public benefits.  These laws are very detailed, but here are the basic facts:

  • Most lawful immigrants (except refugees and some other humanitarian immigrants) who entered the country after 1996 are barred from receiving SSI at all.  It is simply not available to them until they become citizens or work for 10 years in the U.S.  After that, they are eligible to the same extent as any other resident.
  • Undocumented immigrants cannot get SSI and Medicaid at all.  They can only get emergency Medicaid, which is for immediate medical treatment that is severe and could cause serious jeopardy to the patient’s health.  Basically, this means that they can get emergency room services only, with no follow-up care.
  • Most lawful immigrants (except refugees and some other humanitarian immigrants) who entered the country after 1996 are ineligible to receive any “federal means-tested public benefit” for five years after their lawful admission to the United States.  The only major public benefit available during those five years is emergency Medicaid.  Otherwise, they have to wait five years before getting any benefits.
  • Refugees are entitled to apply for SSI if they are disabled, but they can only receive it for seven years.  After that, they are cut off unless they become citizens.
  • The “facts” about the support payments that refugees get are totally false.  Refugees do get some support payments for 8 months, and certain other benefits like food stamps.  However, payments that refugees are given are not permanent.  They are for a very limited duration of time.  The purpose of these payments are to help displaced refugees find their footing in a new country.  These are not comparable to retirement payments!

Snopes.com also does a good job of debunking this myth, which has been circulating the Internet for many years now.E-mails like these use lies to fuel xenophobic sentiment.  If you come across this message, or hear it repeated in public, please do your part to correct these falsehoods.

Immigrants Must Be Included in Health Care Reform

July 9, 2009Shahid Haque
image

While we are holding our breath for our representatives to enact health care reform that includes a strong public option, Senator Max Baucus has already announced that any plan that comes out of his office will “not cover undocumented workers because that’s too politically explosive.”  The debate over coverage of undocumented workers has blazed in the media in recent weeks; and NPR examined the issue yesterday.I recently wrote an editorial to the Helena Independent Record on this subject.  The article was written in response to a rambling, bigoted piece by Yeh Ling-Ling of a California-based “sustainability” group.  My editorial is below, and you can also find it here:

“Arguments to Exclude Immigrants From Health Care Reform Are Based on Income-Level Rather Than Citizenship”The vast majority of Montanans believe that access to affordable health care is a fundamental human right, and have voiced their overwhelming support for health care reform that will ensure that no one is forced to forgo necessary medical treatment for themselves or their loved ones.Truly universal coverage must include access for everyone, without regard to income level, pre-existing conditions, or citizenship.  Therefore, no matter what health care program emerges from the discussions that are taking place in Congress, participation must not be based on immigration status.Yeh Ling-Ling, a California resident, argued in an editorial on June 22, 2009 that health care reform requires us to turn our backs on our non-citizen neighbors.  However, the arguments that she makes are based more on social status and income level than citizenship, and could be equally applied to low-income U.S. citizens.  Ling-Ling argues that immigrants may be a drain on the system “because of their low incomes.”  Disregarding the offensive nature of this generalization, the statement implies that the wealthy are entitled to better health care than lower-income families.  The rejection of this notion is at the heart of the debate on health care reform.  The health care system that reform produces needs to treat health care as a public good, and ensure that it is available to everyone, without exceptions.Ling-Ling’s arguments appear to be geared not towards immigrants in general, but poor immigrants.  However, most Montanans believe in a public health care plan that is taxed on a sliding scale so that everyone can participate.  Non-citizens will pay into these programs just like citizens, and should be given the opportunity to obtain health insurance without restrictions and waiting periods based on immigration status.Excluding immigrants from health care coverage does not reduce costs, because it only increases the use of expensive emergency room services.  People who are uninsured receive less preventive care, are more likely to delay seeking treatment for potentially serious conditions, and are diagnosed at more advanced stages of disease.  Therefore, when uninsured immigrants come into the hospital, they usually require critical emergency care that is more expensive and less effective than comprehensive health care coverage.  Because emergency care must be provided to everyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, we are paying to treat illness in the least efficient way possible.Restricting immigrants’ access to health care would also hurt Montana families because legal permanent residents are usually spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens.  The law requires these “green card” holders to wait several years to obtain citizenship, and delays in processing citizenship applications create even further impediments to citizenship.  Many Montana families are “mixed status” families, and if any member of the family is uninsured, medical costs can cripple the entire household.Immigration enforcement measures have no place in health care, which is based on the dignity and preservation of human life.  The pursuit of cost-savings cannot come at the price of human pain and suffering.  Enacting health care reform does not require us to close the door on our immigrant neighbors.Shahid Haque is the Managing Attorney of the Border Crossing Law Firm in Helena, Montana and provides free legal representation to immigrants who cannot afford to pay.

Are Puerto Ricans considered immigrants?

May 28, 2009Shahid Haque
image

After President Obama’s appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, many in the media referred to Judge Sotomayor as the daughter of immigrant parents. However, this characterization appears to be incorrect.Judge Sotomayor’s parents are Puerto Rican. Puerto Rico is a self-governing “unincorporated territory” of the United States, and has been since the Spanish-American War. Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico have automatically acquired U.S. citizenship.  Oddly, they cannot vote in federal elections so long as they reside in Puerto Rico, but they can vote when they reside in the incorporated United States.Because Judge Sotomayor’s parents appear to have been born in Puerto Rico, they were U.S. citizens at birth. As such, they weren’t truly immigrants to the United States. The United States and Puerto Rico have very different cultures, and I’m sure the experiences they had in the United States were similar in many ways to Spanish-speaking immigrants. However, I would argue that a U.S. citizen at birth cannot be characterized as an immigrant to his or her home country.

U.S. Policies Send Dangerous Assault Weapons Across Border to Mexico

February 27, 2009Shahid Haque
image

We spend a great deal of time in this country complaining about immigrants coming across the border to the United States.  We spend very little time contemplating our own policies, and how these policies can impact our neighbors.  A recent New York Times article highlights an illicit export from the United States that is having a profound affect on Mexico:  assault weapons.

The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the fire power that greeted them.

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy gun store here called X-Caliber Guns.

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa. The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.

The article goes on to explain why guns are being brought in from the United States:

Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, often secreting them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here say. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.

You can read the full article at the New York Times website.

Justice William J. Brennan on Due Process for Immigrants

February 27, 2009Shahid Haque
image

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in the ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v. Doe (1982).

Elie Wiesel: “No Human Being is Illegal”

February 27, 2009Shahid Haque
image

There is little doubt that in the last few years, we have seen an upswing in anti-immigrant sentiment.  For those of us who spend every day fighting for immigrant rights, it can be a disheartening battle.  In difficult times, I find comfort in quotes about immigration that help to put our problems in perspective.  They remind us that our battles are not new ones, and that we have endured even worse periods in our country’s history.  As I am reminded of these quotes, I will be posting them on this blog.  Hopefully you, too, will find comfort in the wisdom of these quotes.One of today’s most popular and powerful quotes is credited to Elie Wiesel, the writer, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor:

You who are so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is ‘illegal’. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?

Coming from a Holocaust survivor who witnessed the worst in humanity, these words are extremely potent.  This quote is the rallying cry for those of us who believe that the term “illegal alien,” or referring to human beings as “illegal,” is dangerously dehumanizing.

No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.

February 5, 2009Shahid Haque
image

 

By Shahid Haque, Immigration Attorney

One can rarely enter into a discussion about immigration without hearing the term “illegal alien,” or references to undocumented immigrants as simply “illegals.” Our basic discourse has come to accept these terms, despite the fact that they are highly inaccurate and pejorative. Whether intentional or accidental, the use of these terms has shaped public opinion on immigration policy. Of course, not everyone who uses these terms intends to color undocumented immigrants with the stigma that these terms carry with them. Therefore, the purpose of this editorial is to explain why these terms should be eliminated from our discourse.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term defined anywhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The term “alien” is defined and means anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States — a non-citizen. It makes little sense to refer to someone as an illegal non-citizen. Similarly, it would make little sense to refer to a person convicted of a crime as an “illegal citizen.”

When one refers to an immigrant as an “illegal alien,” they are using the term as a noun.  They are effectively saying that the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, is illegal.  The term “illegal alien” implies that a person’s existence is criminal.  I’m not aware of any other circumstance in our common vernacular where a crime is considered to render the individual – as opposed to the individual’s actions – as being illegal.  We don’t even refer to our most dangerous and vile criminals as being “illegal.”

For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law.  While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.

In addition, estimates are that almost half of the undocumented aliens in the United States actually entered with lawful status but merely overstayed their visas.  These aliens have not committed a criminal offense at all.  Their presence in United States while being out of status is a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.

To make it a criminal violation of the law to be present without a visa would be a “status offense.”  A status offense is an offense that is based on the fact that the offender has a certain personal condition or is of a specified character, rather than any action or inaction that the offender takes in violation of the law.  A common example is vagrancy; if a law rendered homelessness illegal, then the status of being homeless would be criminal.  Our courts wisely look upon status violations with heightened scrutiny, as the creation of status offenses infringe upon personal liberties and carry significant due process concerns.

Over the years, anti-immigration activists have proposed criminalizing the presence of the millions of immigrants here without documentation.  Such attempts have failed, as our legislators have recognized that social, economic, and political forces often forcibly displace immigrants and compel them to come to the United States.  To make federal criminal offenders of the individuals who are present in the United States under these circumstances would ignore their basic human rights.

By using the term “illegal alien” to refer to those without a visa or I-94 to show lawful entry into the United States, the speaker purports to assign guilt before a Judge ever considers the evidence and makes a determination on the individual’s status.  A basic principle of our legal system is innocence until guilt is proven.  This same principle applies to removal hearings in immigration court, and the government bears the burden of proving removability.

When white collar criminals are arrested, we are careful to label them as “accused” and state that the government’s accusations are merely “alleged.”  But when newspapers refer to immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the headlines often repeat ICE’s figures on the number of “illegal aliens” who were arrested.  These individuals are effectively convicted in the media before trial ever begins.  Officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often take full advantage of this to the detriment of the immigrants who are unfairly stigmatized as a result.

The reckless use of the term “illegal alien” is belied by the complexity of our immigration laws.  Immigration attorneys often discover that their clients — many of whom may have believed they were present without status — are actually citizens or are entitled to adjust status to become lawful residents.  Those without any specialized training in immigration law should be reluctant to make snap judgments on issues that they are not familiar with.

Further, the term is imprecise, and is used to encompass individuals who are in the United States under vastly different circumstances.  Some individuals are brought here against their will, such as victims of human trafficking.  Others come here on valid visas but subsequently fall out of status.  For instance, many victims of domestic violence have legal status that depends on the continued sponsorship of their abuser.  Some individuals are here under “temporary protected status” because of strife in their home country, but fall out of status when our government removes their protected status.  To blanket all immigrants who are out of status as being “illegals” is overly simplistic.

For many, the term “illegal alien” serves an entirely different purpose.  As David Bacon points out in his book “Illegal People:  How Globalization Creates Immigration and Criminalizes Immigrants,” the term is used as a divisive tool to define the social strata in which some believe that undocumented immigrants should be confined.  It serves to distinguish those with papers from those without, and to cement the idea that “illegal” people should be entitled to fewer rights and privileges.  Simply put, the term is an effective tool in the age old struggle of inequality between the “haves” and the “have nots.”

The term “illegal alien” has been used to dehumanize immigrants and divorce ourselves from thinking of them as human beings.  For some, this may serve as a defense mechanism to avoid feeling sympathy for undocumented immigrants, many of whom are separated from their children or loved ones when they are deported.  However, Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, wisely stated that “No human being is illegal.”  We should all take care to recognize this ideal and avoid using the term “illegal alien.”

Advocating for immigrants.

The Border Crossing Law Firm is a full-service immigration law firm, offering help with visas, green cards, citizenship, and deportation proceedings. We have been committed to the immigrant community for two decades, representing thousands of immigrants and their families across the country.

image