California Legislators Introduce Anti-Immigrant Proposals
Members of the California State Assembly introduced a series of measures intended to punish undocumented immigrants.  The bills vary in their focus and do everything from repealing SB 840 (Firebaugh) to punishing sanctuary cities to mandating that local police contact federal immigration authorities if they believe a dunk driver is undocumented.

These bills represent a push to expand institutional racism.  From separating families to encouraging racial profiling and denying students an education, these bills will no doubt have a disproportionately negative affect on communities of color.

Several of the bills are listed below:
AB 1468 (Garrick) - Would require hospitals to report on the citizenship status of their patients

AB 1882 (Garrick) - would require police to contact immigration authorities when a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant is arrested for driving under the influence.

AB 2102 (Walters) - would require state agencies to check all new employees' work eligibility through a federal electronic database called E-Verify

AB 39 (Benoit) - would require the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to tally the cost of jailing undocumented inmates each year and bill the federal government

AB 1928 (Anderson) - would require local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities when they arrest suspected illegal immigrants

AB 2420 (Huff) - would prohibit cities from declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants and not allowing their police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities

AB 648 (Adams) - would add 10 years to the sentence of anyone convicted of a felony who has a previous felony conviction in California for which they were deported

AB 2812 (Silva) - would allow the governor to cite illegal immigration as a cause to declare a local or state emergency

For more information on the bills go to http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html and type in the bill number (e.g. AB 1882)

Contact the authors individually as well as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez at (916) 319-2046, Assembly Majority Leaders Karen Bass at (916) 319-2047 and Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines at (916) 319-2029 and let them know your opposition to the bills.

CIPC BUDGET UPDATE & ACTION ALERT - APRIL 2008
Legislature Consider Cuts to Programs for Low-Income Californians
Legislators are considering more cuts to programs that serve low income Californians after already authorizing more than $1 billion in emergency midyear cuts aimed at closing the state's huge budget shortfall. Unless lawmakers can agree on alternative proposals for addressing the deficit, including revenue enhancement proposals, deep cuts to education, health and social services remain on the table.

In January Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a series of damaging cuts including ones to terminate CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids) benefits for certain children and to cut benefits for recipients of the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) by 10 percent along with an overall cut to the Food Stamp Program of 4 percent.  The Administration also proposed to eliminate dental and other adult services from Medi-Cal and increase reporting requirements for children. Other administration proposals included ones to deny the state cost-of-living adjustment to SSI/SSP recipients and implement a 10 percent cut the Naturalization Services Program (NSP).  To learn more about what you can do, click here.


Bills Introduced in State Legislature
Despite the failure of health care reform and a $14 billion deficit, opportunities exist for positive change in the State Legislature. Bills that seek to promote workers' rights, language access and educational opportunities have been introduced and will begin moving through the legislative process. For more information on these and other bills, click here.

The Secure America Through Verification & Enforcement (SAVE) Act (HR 4088) - February 2008
The “SAVE Act” would:

Require mandatory use and rapid expansion of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify Electronic Employment Verification system for all employers.  The “SAVE Act” would require that within four years, all employers in the U.S. – approximately six million – use Basic Pilot/E-Verify to verify the work authorization of ALL workers – immigrant and U.S. citizen, new hires and the current workforce.  Slightly more than 50,000 employers currently voluntarily use Basic Pilot for new hires – less than one percent of all employers; only 4 percent of all new hires are currently verified through Basic Pilot.

A recent independent evaluation of Basic Pilot/E-Verify concluded that employers currently using the system often misuse it, and that the system requires significant improvements before further expansion.  The Basic Pilot/E-Verify system relies heavily on the Social Security Administration (SSA) database that, according to government sponsored studies, contains unacceptably high error rates. SSA estimates that 17.8 million of its records contain errors related to name, date of birth, or citizenship status, and 12.7 million of those records relate to U.S. citizens.  DHS databases contain similarly high error rates.  If the databases are not dramatically improved, the errors in the SSA database alone could result in 2.5 million workers a year being misidentified as unauthorized for employment or as no-matches. Workers, including U.S. citizens, will get caught in this faulty system and will lose their jobs.

The “SAVE Act” contains no assurances that government databases will be accurate and updated, no privacy protections for the vast amounts of personal information to be handled by employers, and no recourse for workers who are wrongfully denied employment.  Most importantly, the “SAVE Act” will not prevent unscrupulous employers from avoiding the system by hiring undocumented workers under the table, thereby growing the informal economy.

Greatly expand the SSA “no-match letter” program.  – a program that was halted by a federal judge in 2007.  A no-match occurs when the information in the SSA database does not match the information submitted by an employer on the W-2 form.   There are many reasons that workers receive a no-match letter that have nothing to do with immigration, including name changes and employer error in entering data. The “SAVE Act” taps the SSA to play an unprecedented role of reporting and cooperating with the DHS by requiring the SSA to notify employers of ALL no-matches and to notify DHS of all unresolved no-matches.  Workers who wrongfully receive a no-match letter will have ten days to resolve the problem, or be fired.  A judge recently found that the DHS no-match rule, which gave employers and workers 90 days to fix errors, placed a large burden on employers, and may result in tremendous harm – including loss of employment – for U.S. workers.

Link the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws.  The “SAVE Act” requires SSA to notify all employees in cases where their social security number (SSN) has been reported by two or more employers and requires those workers to prove they are using a valid SSN and are employed by multiple employers simultaneously.  This would be tremendously burdensome for the many workers who hold multiple jobs, and would place additional burdens on the already overstretched and underfunded SSA, resulting in delays providing Social Security benefits to the retired and disabled.

The “SAVE Act” also requires SSA to report all unresolved no-matches and multiple use SSNs to the Department of Homeland Security, increasing the amount of personal taxpayer information about workers (including U.S. citizens) that is shared between government agencies, overriding current laws protecting the privacy of taxpayer information.

Put Police on Track to Become Immigration Agents.  The bill increases funding and personnel for programs which involve local police in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  This policy is likely to lead to costly mistakes and civil rights violations, puts a further burden on already overstretched local police departments, and is harmful to public safety because it erodes the trust between police and the immigrant communities they serve.

Narrow the Religious Worker Exception to the Harboring Statute. Current law on harboring undocumented immigrants contains exceptions for aid that is provided by certain religious workers.  The “SAVE Act” expands the scope of activity considered to be “alien smuggling” and simultaneously narrows the religious worker exceptions in law.

Add Detention Beds That Have Not Been Requested by DHS.  In August 2007, the White House sought an increase in detention beds of 4,000 — from 27,500 to 31,500.  The “SAVE Act” adds double that — 8,000 beds — an expense that the Administration has not requested and that taxpayers should not be asked to absorb.     

Expand the amount of expensive deportation-only resources along the border and in the interior.  The “SAVE Act” would increase the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, detention beds, and Federal District Court judges.  It would also increase the number of Border Patrol agents, provide incentives to recruit additional Border Patrol agents, and authorize more technology and more infrastructure along the U.S. – Mexico border.  These are the same measures that have been tried over and over again for the past 20 years, with little success.  In that time, border deaths have increased and smuggling and trafficking rings have proliferated, while the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has increased significantly.

The “SAVE Act” of 2007, like H.R. 4437 (the “Sensenbrenner bill”) passed by the House in December 2005, is a “deportation only” measure--ineffective at resolving the pressing problems associated with our nation’s broken immigration system.  There are 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. comprising five percent of the workforce.   It is impractical to deport these workers and their families.  The answer to our nation’s immigration challenges rests with those policy-makers who embrace a tough enforcement scheme in combination with practical and realistic solutions for undocumented workers and their families. 

Updated by the Immigration Policy Center, February 2008

SAVE Act Talking Points

• It would require approximately six million employers to verify the work status of more than 130 million workers within four years.  If passed, the SAVE Act would place a tremendous financial and regulatory burden on businesses and employees at a time when our economy is already fragile. This is a foolish proposal at a time when our economy is already fragile.

• The federal database that would be used to enforce the SAVE Act is known to have an unacceptably high error rate – nearly 10 percent!  An independent study of the E-Verify/Basic Pilot program found that the ½ of 1 percent of employers that use the program often misuse it, and that the data base would need to be significantly improved before it can be expanded.

• This is a recipe for a full scale assault on worker protections and anti-discrimination laws. Nothing in this legislation addresses real world concerns that this new mandate would lead to employers firing workers involved in union organizing drives or would have the resources to ensure that they are not discriminating against Latinos or other immigrants applying for employment.

• It will represent an unprecedented intrusion into the lives of millions of United States workers, regardless of their status.  If this law were in place now, the errors in the SSA database alone could result in 2.5 million people a year being misidentified as unauthorized for employment. Workers, including U.S. citizens, will get caught in this faulty system and lose their jobs. The "SAVE Act" contains no assurances that government databases will be accurate and updated, no privacy protections for the vast amounts of personal information to be handled by employers, and no recourse for workers who are wrongfully denied employment.

• It would make it easier for the government to put religious and humanitarian workers behind bars for so-called "alien smuggling." Humanitarian workers – like nuns, priests, volunteers – would be constantly forced to navigate this confusing legislation, or run the risk of arrest, fines and imprisonment.

• It would waste millions of tax-payer dollars on enforcement, detention and deportation programs that have been tried for the last twenty years and failed to end undocumented immigration.  Any scenario that begins with enactment of this legislation is likely to lead to haphazard and uneven implementation and widespread fear of raids and deportation in immigrant communities at a time when undocumented workers, who are contributing to this economy, have no where else to go.

• Poll after poll demonstrate that proponents of the SAVE Act represent a vocal but tiny minority of Americans.  Most Americans want sensible solutions to our broken immigration system and are fully able to recognize what amounts to real leadership on this critical issue and what is simply pandering to irrational and angry anti-immigrant activists.

Prepared by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM)

SSA No Match Supplemental Rule [for word version]
April 1, 2008
[talking points for comment letters]
[list of Bay Area Congressional Representatives]
[BAIRC comment letter]

CONCERNS RAISED WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED RULE

• DHS failed to provide a reasoned basis for its change in position.  Since at least 1997, DHS's predecessor agency, INS, had taken the position that no-match letters did not put an employer on notice about an employee’s immigration status.  DHS's failure to provide evidence that no-match letters had become a reliable indicator of unauthorized status, or any other reasoned basis for the new rule, raised serious questions about the validity of the rule. 
• DHS promised to protect employers against anti-discrimination laws under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) and by doing so, exceeded its authority; this responsibility falls on the Department of Justice.
• DHS neglected to conduct a final flexibility analysis, which would, among other things, describe how the new rule will impact small businesses.

Additionally, the court recognized that the no-match letters are based on Social Security Administration (SSA) records that include numerous errors and if DHS were allowed to proceed innocent workers and employers would be irreparably harmed.

CHANGES MADE BY THE DHS 
DHS responded to the first concern by providing an analysis that there is a “clear connection between social security no-match letters and the lack of work authorization by some employees whose social security numbers are listed in those letters”.   This analysis includes the following arguments:

• No-match letters are only sent to employers whose wage reports reveal at least 11 workers with no-matches or more than 0.5% of the employer’s total W-2 forms. DHS believes this criteria to indicate potential significant problems with employees’ work authorizations
• Growing evidence and consensus inside and outside of the government that no-match letters are a legitimate indicator of possible unauthorized status

DHS responded to the second concern by rescinding all language having to do with employers being protected against unlawful discrimination and will have DOJ issue its own proposal. Finally, DHS responded to the last concern by providing an interim economic analysis promising a full analysis by the final rule.  

NEXT STEPS
It is very important to use the 30 day comment period. For sample language on comment letters, check out the Low Immigrant Worker Coalition’s http://www.lwiw.org/SSA_NM/lwiw_comments.htm. It is very important to reiterate that no-match letters are based on inaccurate SSA information that could result in the loss of employment for countless workers and economic hardship for employers.

For BAIRC's comment letter - to use as a sample, click here.
For a list of Congressional Representatives (to send copies of comment letter) click here.

Frequently Asked Questions About
The U.S. and Vietnam Repatriation Agreement
[pdf version] [in Vietnamese] [by the Asian Law Caucus]
                          
Q:  What is the repatriation agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam?
A:  On January 22, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency announced that the governments of the United States and Vietnam signed a repatriation agreement. This agreement now makes it possible for Vietnamese nationals who arrived in the United States on or after July 12, 1995, and who have received final orders of removal, to be deported to Vietnam. Prior to this, the Vietnamese government did not have a formal agreement with the United States to accept deportees from this country.
 
Q:  Who will be deported?
A:  ICE states that this new agreement will impact nearly 1,500 Vietnamese individuals currently living in the U.S. This agreement will only affect those who:

1. arrived in the U.S. on or after July 12, 1995; and
2. have received orders for removal for a violation of U.S. laws (including criminal offenses and immigration violations); and
3. who is not a citizen of the U.S. or any other country besides Vietnam; and
4. who currently does not have residence in another country.
 
Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the U.S. before July 12, 1995 are not affected by this repatriation agreement. Vietnamese Americans who have not broken any U.S laws and/or individuals who are already U.S. citizens will also not be subject to deportation.
 
In the event that an individual who immigrated to the U.S. from a third country where that person has permanent residence is ordered removed from the U.S., the agreement states that “the U.S. government will seek to return that person to the third country or consider allowing that person to stay in the U.S., before requesting removal to Vietnam.”
 
Q:  How long will this agreement last?
A:  The agreement will be valid for five years and will be automatically extended every three years afterwards unless one government provides written agreement not to extend it.
 
Q:  Can the agreement be changed in the future?
A:  Yes. The agreement may be amended or supplemented in the future through written agreement between the U.S. and the Vietnamese governments.
 
 
Q:  If I have an order of removal but came to the U.S. as a refugee before July 12, 1995, should I apply for my citizenship now to avoid deportation in the future?
A:  The repatriation agreement does not affect those who arrived in the U.S. before July 12, 1995, even if you have an order of removal. However, if you already have an order of removal, you are not eligible for naturalization. If you do not have an order of removal and would like to obtain your citizenship but you have a criminal background, you should consult an immigration lawyer before applying. Please keep in mind that not all lawyers are knowledgeable about immigration law. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should seek an immigration lawyer who is knowledgeable of deportation issues.
 
Q:  Why should I care about deportation issues?
A:   Current deportation laws deny individuals who are not yet citizens (including immigrants and refugees who have their green cards) due process. In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which significantly impacted deportation laws in the following ways:
 
·         The number of deportable offenses increased through the expanded definition of what constitutes an “aggravated felony.” Individuals can now be ordered deported for a number of criminal offenses, even minor ones such as shoplifting, minor drug possessions, writing a bad check—an individual was even deported to Cambodia for urinating in public.
·         The laws were made retroactive, meaning that individuals who committed their crimes many years ago, even if they have served all of their court ordered sentence, can still be ordered deported.
·         Immigration judges no longer have the ability to consider individual circumstances of those being ordered deported. For example, even if an individual committed a minor crime eight years ago, has served all of their time and have since lived a law abiding life, started a family and is the primary provider for his family, immigration judges are unable to take factors such as these into consideration, and the individual can automatically be subject to deportation.
 
Q:  What can I do?
A:  SEARAC encourages Southeast Asian Americans to learn and educate others about immigration and deportation policies and how they impact Southeast Asian refugee communities. You can also educate your members of congress about the impact unfair deportation policies have on our families and our communities.
 
Q:  Where can I find additional resources on deportation?
 
·         Additional information on the impact of deportation on Southeast Asian American communities can be found at: http://www.searac.org/advocacy.html, click on Issue Area: Deportation on the right column.
·         A Toolkit for Change, which is complete with a timeline of one young Southeast Asian American deportee’s experience, fact sheets and a sample letter to members of congress, can be found at: http://www.searac.org/sentencedhome-toolkit.pdf.
·         Sentenced Home, a documentary showing the impact deportation laws have on three young Cambodian American men and their families can be found at: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/sentencedhome/film.html
·         General information on detention and deportation issues can be found at: www.detentionwatchnetwork.org, www.rightsworkinggroup.org, and http://www.ilrc.org/immigrantjusticenetwork/.
 
 
If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Helly Lee at helly@searac.org or Naomi Steinberg at naomi@searac.org or you may contact the SEARAC office at 202-667-4690. The Asian American Justice Center (www.advancingequality.org) contributed to this FAQ.