Skip to main content

Because of the court's decision, immigrant women's lives can no longer be so capriciously upended by local police.

Written by Sheila Bapat for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that local police do not have the power to enforce deportation orders without explicit instruction from federal authorities. In the decision, Judge James A. Wynn wrote that "absent express direction or authorization by federal officials, state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest an individual solely based on known or suspected civil violations of federal immigration law." The ruling helps clarify the Supreme Court's vague decision in Arizona v. United States last year about local discretion in enforcing immigration orders.

The civil rights ramifications of the Fourth Circuit's ruling are clear. Less obvious are the economic consequences for immigrant families who fall within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction, and whose livelihoods can now less capriciously be upended by local police.

As the Center for American Progress pointed out in a 2012 report:

The economic fallout of a deportation is perhaps the most significant of the long term consequences of immigration enforcement. ... Prior to a detention or deportation, [many immigrant] families constitute a class of low-wage workers. With a detention or deportation, families slip easily into poverty. For families experiencing a detention or deportation, household income drops drastically from one day to the next, which is a shock for families already getting by on low wages.

The plaintiff in the Fourth Circuit case is Roxana Santos, a Salvadoran dishwasher at a Maryland food co-op. In the fall of 2008, Santos was approached by local police while she was on her lunch break at work. For 15 minutes the officers questioned her, looked at her Salvadoran identification, and then ran a background check, which revealed her outstanding deportation warrant per the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  

Santos was then jailed for the next 36 days, during which time she was separated from her 1-year-old son.  

Her experience is not rare. "People in the community were sharing with us that they were being stopped and harassed," said Enid Gonzalez, senior manager of Legal Services at Casa de Maryland, an immigrant rights and legal services organization based in Baltimore that aided Santos. The systemic seizures are believed to be at the behest of Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland, who, according to immigrant rights advocates, has been zealously enforcing deportation orders without federal direction.  

While the Fourth Circuit's decision does not explicitly mention Santos' family or economic status, the implications are clear: She was an immigrant woman dishwasher sitting on a curb eating a sandwich when two armed officers approached, questioned, arrested, and jailed her.

"Deportation has a devastating domino effect. Our members are low-income immigrants, generally from third-world countries, who have endured very difficult circumstances already," said Gonzalez. "We are talking about resilient people who endured hardship but still eke it out for their families. When removed, everything they've achieved is lost. Often it's the breadwinner who is arrested and deported."  

In addition, Gonzalez points out that the U.S. economy can "create draw for low-skilled workers, yet law only allows a very limited number of visas for low-skilled workers per year." This observation is applicable across many sectors in which immigrant workers toil, and reflects how immigration policy can either punish workers like Santos and their families with an arrest and jail time, or render them completely invisible. In her 2011 essay for the Michigan Journal of Race and Law, legal scholar Terri Nilliasca points out the ways in which U.S. law has enabled the importation of immigrant women as domestic laborers while not affording these women sufficient, or sometimes any, legal protections. She says immigration policies "reflect the state's continuing desire to allow employers access to the labor of immigrant women while simultaneously affording no legal protections to domestic workers."  

Increasing the number of visas for caregivers, for example, has not been a priority in the recent immigration reform debate.  

It is unclear how other circuit courts of appeals will interpret Arizona v. United States, but the Fourth Circuit's ruling feels promising, at least for some workers who are doing their best for their families.  

"I understand we can't let everyone in, but there's actually huge demand for low-skilled workers to come here, and when they get here they're vulnerable to being arrested and jailed," Gonzalez said. "You have someone who has managed to earn money and feed their family for years, but once they are arrested and deported, everything they've worked toward is often destroyed."


Originally posted to RH Reality Check on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by LatinoKos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Law enforcers are making work for themselves. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    Going after immigrants follow the same impulse as doing stop and frisk in New York. Then too, there's the attitude that the law = the opportunity to order people around. Like natural predators, they pick on the vulnerable and weak.
    Also, people on foot are fair game. While perambulation is a natural human right, derived from the fact that we are endowed with mobility, police forced encased in their electronic gear and their cage on wheels, perceive pedestrians of all kinds as a threat because they can go where they cannot follow them. People on bicycles are even "worse" because they have the additional advantage of speed and can leave the flatfoot huffing and puffing behind.
    To a certain extent, the public is somewhat to blame. Whenever the "crime rate" falls, there are calls for a reduction in force. So, our agents of law enforcement get penalized for doing a good job and taking the repeat offenders off the street.
    But, the ultimate responsibility for the problem actually lies with the Congress which keeps manipulating the money available for necessary public services to make sure that every dollar gets washed through the coffers of their buds in the industrial and financial and commercial sectors. Instead of making sure that the currency circulates at a good rate and gets recycled regularly, they encourage hoarding, tax cuts and capital projects that have to be funded by their bondsmen. While there is "revenue sharing" with the states and counties via agencies such as Homeland Security and the Pentagon, what's distributed is machinery and equipment which local communities are stretched to maintain. It's how Congress keeps local communities stirred up.
    Alternatively, Congress passes new regulations and standards. Then whether or not communities get the grants to comply with the demands (water body clean up, dam removal, bridge restoration) largely depends on whether or not the electorate votes right. The incumbent advantage relies a lot on the wrong people getting naught. This year's sequester is just a little more blatant.

  •  A lot of things happening now make me feel sick, (0+ / 0-)

    but it is an alloyed delight to see courts again and again do the right thing albeit slowly.  This is one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site