ROME (Reuters) - Italy's first black minister, a target of racist slurs since her appointment in April, has condemned a spectator who threw bananas towards her while she was making a speech at a party rally.

Integration minister Cecile Kyenge, who was born in Democratic Republic of Congo, has angered far-right groups with her campaign to make it easier for immigrants to gain Italian citizenship.

Shortly before the incident on Friday, members of the right-wing Forza Nuova group left mannequins covered in fake blood at the site of the rally in Cervia, central Italy, in protest against Kyenge's proposal to make anyone born on Italian soil a citizen.

"Immigration kills," was written on leaflets accompanying the dummies - a slogan Forza Nuova has previously used when referring to murders committed by immigrants in Italy.

Although the bananas missed the stage where Kyenge was speaking, she responded to the gesture on Twitter, calling it "sad" and a waste of food, considering the economic crisis.

"The courage and optimism to change things has to come above all from the bottom up to reach the institutions," she added.

Kyenge has faced regular insults since becoming minister, often from other politicians. Earlier this month a senior parliamentarian in the anti-immigration Northern League party likened her to an orangutan and only apologized after a storm of criticism.

(Reporting by Catherine Hornby; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Republican Rep. Steve King, who recently suggested that many DREAMers were drug smugglers, has been criticized by the White Houseand members of his own party, including House Speaker John Boehner.

"For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert," King said last week in an interview with Newsmax.

King was also taken to task in the Spanish-language press. In an op-ed titled "The Irrationality of Racism," columnist Humberto Caspa writes that Republicans like King aren't doing their party any favors. "Because lawmakers in the House tend to be more partisan than the Senate, immigration reform is in limbo. Which is to say, it has been kidnapped by representatives such as King, who prioritize the radical partisan interests of their constituents over the whole of their poltical party. If immigration reform, which passed in the Senate, does not get a green light in the House, Republicans' domain over states that are considered undecided will suffer irreparable consequences.

"Moreover, a majority of the American people and especially the media won't just blame Republican representatives for the failure of law; they will also criticize them for handholding racists such as King.

"In this sense,"Caspa concludes, "it isn't hard to decide on the appropriate path for conservative representatives in the House. Immigration reform is good for the country and it is vital for them to have the opportunity to return to the White House."

BERKELEY, Calif. – Undocumented immigrants’ ability to stay healthy might come down to a matter of luck. That’s one of the findings that emerged from a study released this week by The Greenlining Institute, a national research and advocacy organization.

Prohibitive costs, language barriers, fear of outing themselves as undocumented and a perceived lack of cultural competency among health care providers were among the reasons undocumented immigrants gave for not seeking timely medical care when they fell sick. 

Those who managed to stay healthy said it was purely because of luck, a remark that should make Americans cringe, given that the United States has one of the most advanced health care systems in the world, asserted Anthony Galace, a fellow at Greenlining and the report’s author.

“This notion of luck just shows how unjust and unethical the system is,” Galace said. “I believe that as a state we can all be healthy, and the only way we can be healthy is if we are all given easy access to health care.”

For the study, Galace interviewed 13 undocumented immigrants from difference ethnicities – four Mexican, two Salvadoran, two Korean, one Vietnamese, one Chinese, one Nigerian and two Filipino – all between 18 and 52 years, living in California and from low-income backgrounds. 

Some interviewees said that they resorted to such home remedies as lemon and honey and over-the-counter medications when they got sick. One woman said she once endured stomach pains for as long as she could and went to the ER only when the pain became “unbearable.” Doctors were able to save her life even though she had checked in with significant internal bleeding.

Another study participant said that on more than one occasion, doctors turned his sister away because they couldn’t understand her or her parents “and it was hard for me to translate.”

Youngsters Galace spoke to said that having student health insurance “made a significant difference in their lives.” Some, on the threshold of graduation, said they were concerned about going without health insurance once again. As one student put it: “If I (get) sick after my student health insurance expires, I would have no way to pay for it.”

Many of the younger interviewees said the struggle their families went through living without health insurance has led them to consider health care professions. They said it has also inspired them to campaign for such bills as SB 4, the Health For All bill sponsored by Sen. Lara Ricardo, D-Bell Gardens, that would provide access to health insurance for everyone, including undocumented immigrants who are left out of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Nearly 7 million of the nation’s 11 million undocumented people who were barred from the ACA lived in California at the time of its passage. But thanks to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program -- President Obama’s 2012 initiative that temporarily suspended the deportation of young people residing unlawfully in the United States who were brought to the country as children – around 125,000 of them became immediately eligible for the state-funded health insurance program for low-income people, Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid). Even so, some 1.5 million undocumented people in the state continue to be uninsured.

Even if the courts overturn a challenge to Obama’s 2014 executive action to expand DACA, as well as provide parents of lawful permanent residents and citizens employment authorization for three years under a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), the majority of the 5 million or so who will benefit won’t have access to health insurance. But those living in California will have a shot at getting health insurance through Lara’s bill.

The bill would give all Californians access to state-funded Medi-Cal and set up a marketplace similar to Covered California where they could purchase insurance, but without the benefit of federal subsidies. 

Lawmakers are currently finalizing the language of the bill and a funding mechanism for its implementation. It is expected to be ready for public comment in about two weeks. 

OAKLAND – Putri Siti is on track to graduate from UC Berkeley this year. But as an undocumented student, there was a time not long ago when her future was much less certain. 
 

A growing number of officials from U.S. cities are urging a Texas judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration to consider what they say are the “significant harms” the delay imposes on local governments.
 

More than 70 mayors and state representatives across the country have signed the Cities United for Immigration Action, an effort spearheaded by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti highlighting the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the perceived benefits immigration reform has for cities across the country.

“Continuing to delay implementation of the President’s executive action on immigration hurts our economy and puts families at risk,” de Blasio said in an emailed statement Monday. Among the advantages cited in the group’s brief, filed Monday, are job creation, increased local tax revenue and improved public safety. “Our cities are united, and we will fight for the immigration reform this nation needs and deserves -- whether in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Make no mistake about it: our voices will be heard,” said de Blasio. 

In November, Obama bypassed Congress in signing an executive ordershielding nearly 5 million immigrants from deportation and granting benefits to some parents of citizens and legal residents. The topic has become an important talking point among lawmakers leading up to the 2016 presidential elections.

Republicans quickly denounced the unilateral movement and accused the president of overstepping his boundaries. A U.S. District Judge in Texas laterblocked the actions after 26 states, led by Texas, sued to have the President Obama’s actions stopped.

Democrats have defended the president’s action. “I proudly stand with my fellow Mayors throughout the country in support of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration that promote family stability, economic growth, and community cohesiveness,” Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said in the statement. “Mayors see firsthand the importance of having immigrant populations in our cities and likewise, the detrimental effects of a broken immigration system.”

A record 3.8 million black immigrants live in the United States today, more than four times the number in 1980, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.Black immigrants now account for 8.7% of the nation’s black population, nearly triple their share in 1980.

Rapid growth in the black immigrant population is expected to continue. The Census Bureau projects that by 2060, 16.5% of U.S. blacks will be immigrants.1In certain metropolitan areas, foreign-born blacks make up a significant share of the overall black population.For example, among the metropolitan areas with the largest black populations, roughly a third of blacks (34%) living in the Miami metro area are immigrants. In the New York metro area, that share is 28%. And in the Washington, D.C., area, it is 15%.

Black immigrants are from many parts of the world, but half are from the Caribbean alone.2Jamaica is the largest source country with about 682,000 black immigrants born there, accounting for 18% of the national total. Haiti follows with 586,000 black immigrants, making up 15% of the U.S. black immigrant population.

However, much of the recent growth in the size of the black immigrant population has been fueled by African immigration. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of black African immigrants living in the U.S. rose 137%, from 574,000 to 1.4 million.Africans now make up 36% of the total foreign-born black population, up from 24% in 2000 and just 7% in 1980.

Among black immigrants from Africa, virtually all are from sub-Saharan African countries, with only 1% of all black immigrants from North Africa.Nigeria, with 226,000 immigrants, and Ethiopia, with 191,000, are the two largest birth countries for black African immigrants to the U.S.

Black immigrants have roots in other parts of the world as well.Some 5% of all black immigrants are from South America and 4% are from Central America;those from Europe make up 2% of the population and those from South and East Asia make up 1%.3

Many black immigrants are from Spanish-speaking countries. Among these, the Dominican Republic is the largest country of birth, accounting for 166,000 black immigrants. Mexico is also a source of black immigration with roughly 70,000 black immigrants. Some 41,000 are from Cuba, and 32,000 are Panamanian. Moreover, 11% of the foreign-born black population identifies as Hispanic.

The History of Black Migration to the U.S.

The United States has long had a significant black population.4In the nations earliest censuses (at the end of the 18th century), blacks accounted for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. population, with nearly all brought to the U.S. as slaves from Africa. Today, most of the nation's 40 million U.S.-born blacks trace their roots to this population.

However, due to the outlawing of the slave trade in 1808 as well as restrictions on non-European immigration, the flow of blacks arriving in the U.S. dropped to a trickle for more than a century and a half. Among the black immigrants who voluntarily migrated during this time, most were from the Caribbean.

The modern wave of black immigration to the U.S. began when U.S. immigration policy changed in the 1960s, becoming more open to a wider variety of migrants. Just like other immigrants, foreign-born blacks benefited from theImmigration and Nationality Act of 1965that emphasized family reunification and skilled immigrant labor.5 In addition,theRefugee Act of 1980loosened immigration restrictions by allowing more immigrants from conflict areas such as Ethiopia and Somalia to seek asylum in the U.S.6Finally, the U.S.Immigration Act of 1990sought to increase the number of immigrants from underrepresented nations, and although the act was initially intended to increase the flow of European immigrants, Africans have benefited from the program, as well.7

This act, also known as the diversity visa program, has been an important way for African immigrants to gain entry into the U.S. About one-in-five sub-Saharan African immigrants (19%) who gained legal permanent residence between 2000 and 2013 entered through this program.

During the same period, about three-in-ten (28%) sub-Saharan African immigrants arrived in the U.S. as refugees or asylees. That share was only 5% for Caribbean immigrants and 13% for the overall immigrant population. Caribbean immigrants are much more likely to enter the U.S. through family-sponsored

Caribbean and sub-Saharan African immigrants are less likely to have been granted admittance via employment-based visa programs than immigrants overall.

A Statistical Portrait of Black Immigrants

When compared with U.S.-born blacks, foreign-born blacks are older, with a median age of 42 years versus 29 years for U.S.-born blacks.Immigrant blacks ages 25 and older are also more likely than U.S.-born blacks to have a bachelor's degree or more (26% versus 19%),less likely to live in poverty (20% versus 28%) and on average, have higher household incomes. They're also much more likely to be married (48% among those ages 18 and older versus 28%) than U.S.-born blacks, which is likely tied to their higher median age.

Black immigrants share some similarities with the overall U.S. immigrant population in terms of their median ages and poverty rates.However, black immigrants are somewhat more likely to hold U.S. citizenship than all immigrants :54% versus 47%.Given that many black immigrants are from English-speaking Caribbean nations, they're also more likely to be proficient in English compared with all immigrants (74% versus 50%). Black immigrants are also less likely to be in the U.S. illegally than all immigrants (16% versus 26%).

Compared with the U.S. population overall, black immigrants have a slightly higher median age (42 years versus 37 years) and among those that are ages 25 and up, are slightly less likely to have a college degree (26% versus 30%). In addition, black immigrants are less likely than all Americans to own their homes (40% versus 64%), and overall they have lower household incomes.

These findings are based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the 2013 American Community Survey in addition to analyses of the 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. decennial censuses. The report explores the characteristics of the nation's black immigrant population in 2013 and how it has changed since 2000. It also compares the characteristics of black immigrants with those of U.S.-born blacks, all U.S. immigrants and the U.S. population.

NEW YORK -- Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson met Thursday with immigrant rights groups in Brooklyn, where he urged them to work with him in his agency's efforts to fight terrorism.

But Johnson faces a major trust gap with immigrant groups, who remain wary of the agency charged with deporting their undocumented friends and relatives.

In comments to reporters after the meeting, Johnson said DHS has become increasingly concerned with terrorist acts carried out by individuals or small groups acting alone.

“The global terrorist threat has evolved to a new place,” Johnson said. "The global terrorist threat is more decentralized, it’s more defuse, it’s more complex. We see now terrorist organizations making effective use of social media, the Internet, films."

Camille Meckler, the director of legal initiatives at the New York Immigration Coalition, attended the meeting. She said DHS officials stated several times they wanted groups to urge immigrant communities to report suspicious activity, but didn’t push any concrete measures or programs to facilitate the reporting.

Meckler raised concerns, however, about how comfortable immigrant communities would feel working with DHS, much of whose work revolves around identifying and deporting undocumented immigrants.

"We welcome and encourage any opportunity for meaningful dialogue," Meckler told HuffPost. "But at the same time, I think it needs to be said that the onus is on DHS to make sure that these dialogs are meaningful. … The trust has been significantly eroded. Immigrant communities are against terrorism just like any other community. They want to be safe and they want their neighbors to be safe, but it's on the government to restore that trust."

U.S. efforts to battle terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks have simultaneouslyfueled crackdowns on immigration and ballooned the budget for border security.

Immigration authorities have collaborated more closely with local police as well in recent years. A program called Secure Communities, begun in 2008, required local enforcement to share fingerprint data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which helped ICE identify deportable migrants.

The program was reviled among immigrant rights groups, who said it bred distrust of local police by widening the deportation dragnet, often with little regard to the circumstances of individual cases. For example, women have been placed in deportation proceedings after reporting allegations of domestic abuse to local police, who in some jurisdictions arrest both parties during violent domestic disputes. Facing opposition from localities across the country, Obama scrapped the program last year and replaced it with a more limited version.

Abraham Paulos, the director of Families for Freedom, a New York human rights group that helps people fight deportation, said DHS's credibility problem stemmed in part from a history of conflating the issues of terrorism and immigration. Paulos said his organization formed in the aftermath of Sept. 11 because they found that immigration authorities were targeting South Asians.

Noting that the Obama administration has set a record for deportations, expelling more than 2 million people during Obama's time in office, Paulos said if DHS had focused more of its energy on terrorism and less on deportation, immigrant communities might be more willing to work with the agency.

"It's ironic that you’ve got them coming in and trying to get information from our communities even as they're detaining and deporting us at an alarming rate," Paulos told HuffPost. "That trust is just not going to be there. You can't have it both ways."

While Obama's deportation record remains controversial in immigrant communities, he has also used his executive authority to offer work authorization and temporary relief from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants. In 2012, Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which benefits qualified immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children before 2007.

A second program announced in November would shield undocumented parents of U.S. citizens from deportation, but it has yet to go into effect due to a lawsuit brought by a group of 26 states that are challenging the program's constitutionality.

Last month, after over a decade living undocumented in the United States, I became a citizen. As I watched my family waving and cheering during the ceremony, I was overcome with a strange rush of emotions.

I felt joy to finally reach this milestone. But it was also a surreal moment.

For the vast majority of undocumented people, including many of my loved ones, there simply is no "line" to get into for legal status. And even in the small number of cases like mine where a series of lucky chances does open a path, you can't walk it alone.

I never would have reached this point without the support of a strong network of community organizations and leaders.

As I hugged my baby daughter and my family after the ceremony, I kept thinking that my work for a better society needs to continue. I am currently an organizer for the California Immigrant Policy Center, where I focus on building bridges with amazing grassroots coalitions across the state. I hope when my daughter is my age, she will see a more inclusive future.

The fight for immigrant rights has many facets, from ending deportations to ensuring immigrants' full inclusion in our communities. One small step, that could have big benefits, is expanding the circle of community-led education and outreach to help immigrants seize new opportunities.

Through a state budget proposal called "One California," we can do just that. This comes at a crucial time. After years of organizing, a door to temporary relief for some undocumented Californians like my parents will eventually open through newdeferred action programs. Meanwhile, another two-and-a-half million Californians are eligible to apply for citizenship, but face many obstacles.

One California would dedicate $20 million to support community-based outreach, education, and application help for both citizenship and deportation relief. The measure is gaining significant support, with hundreds of immigrants slated to gather in Sacramento next Monday for the 19th annualImmigrant Day. One California is one of four key priorities for the day, which will see some 500 immigrants mobilize for a rally and visits to their legislators.

While other states continue down an anti-immigrant path, my family's story shows why California must double down on its commitment to immigrant inclusion.

We arrived in the U.S. with tourist visas in 1999. While my mom's U.S. citizen sister filed a petition for us nearly 15 years ago, it's trapped in a massive backlog. When our tourist visas expired, we became undocumented.

We started growing roots in our new community, but it has been far from a smooth journey. From having difficulties finding jobs, paying college tuition without financial aid, dealing with the emotional and economic impact of my brother and cousin's deportation, we have endured tremendous hardship and heartbreak.

We overcame many of these hardships thanks to the support of community organizations which provided us with resources like information on health services and food supplies- and the hope that things would eventually improve.

I found refuge in a growing field of undocumented youth activists sprouting on campuses and community spaces across the nation. Working and living with other undocumented people reminded me I was not alone in this struggle.

And I got lucky. Because my U.S. citizen partner and I got married--and because, under convoluted immigration rules, I had come on a visa--the door to Legal Permanent Residency finally opened for me in the summer of 2011. I still remember the moment that my green card came in the mail. Relief ran through my body. But my thoughts turned immediately to my family and peers, still undocumented. Their support helped me reach this status.

Three years later, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles helped me fill out my citizenship application through theircitizenship services program. Now, I am now one of nearlyfive millionnaturalized citizens living in California.

The benefits that come with citizenship are significant, with earnings increasing between 10 to 14 percent, and increased rates of homeownership and civic participation. But although almost 2.5 million Californians are eligible for citizenship--more than the population of Alameda and San Francisco Counties combined--the lack of support and high cost pose challenges.

The temporary deportation relief programs which immigrants fought to win will also bring strong benefits to the state. While we wait for an expansion of these programs to go into effect, we can already see the benefits of the existing DACA program. From watching my sister--a DACA recipient--buy her first brand-new car, to friends who are embarking on their professional careers, the program is truly changing people's lives.

But here again, barriers will stand in the way of folks applying -- and many are left out.

As I celebrate this milestone, I am reminded once again I could not have gotten this far alone. It's taken a village-family, friends, and a strong network of community organizations.

Today, state leaders have a golden opportunity to support these networks and help people like me achieve their goals and dreams.

Carlos Amador is lead organizer of theCalifornia Immigrant Policy Center(CIPC), a statewide organization dedicated to advancing inclusive policies that build a prosperous future for all Californians.

LOS ANGELES -- Immigrant rights advocates in California launched a new campaign this week to help immigrants prepare for President Obama's executive actions, initiatives that would protect 3 to 5 million of the nation's undocumented from deportation.

Organizers held a rally and press conference May 19 to announce the launch of Ready California, a multi-ethnic coalition that aims to help California immigrants take full advantage of the deportation relief program that was originally slated to go into effect that day.

Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) would protect parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents from deportation. The program has been put on hold pending a court ruling, but organizers expect the courts to uphold its legality. And when they do, organizers say, they want California to be prepared.

At a press briefing organized by New America Media, leaders of the Ready California coalition said they would also help the state's undocumented prepare for another Obama executive action delayed by court action-the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The expansion would eliminate an age cap, providing deportation protection to older undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.

DAPA and expanded DACA "will enable people to come out of the shadows," said Sally Kinoshita, deputy director of the San Francisco-based Immigrant Legal Resource Center, one of a number of Ready California members who spoke at the briefing. "Though there is delay," she said, "we are not dismayed."

Kinoshita said Ready California's "diverse coalition of groups" will provide undocumented immigrants with legal assistance and help them assemble documentation required to apply for the two immigration programs. The coalition includes legal services providers, labor unions, faith-based groups and organizations that advocate on behalf of the undocumented in Latino, Asian and black immigrant communities. Coalition members say their campaign is needed to make undocumented immigrants more aware of DAPA and DACA and help them avoid scam artists who might offer application assistance in exchange for a fee.

"We don't want people to be taken in by fraud," said Alvaro Huerta, staff attorney of National Immigration Law Center. "We want them to get ready and get documents in order and we don't want them to have to pay for help."

But even if the programs went into effect today, the reality is that California-home to 1.5 million undocumented immigrants- does not have enough counselors to help implement it, according to Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA). "The federal government hasn’t provided any resources to implement the programs," she said.

Black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean account for about 10 percent of the nation's immigrant population but the undocumented among those communities are deported at greater rates than other populations, said Rev. Kelvin Sauls, co-founder and chairman of Black Alliance for Just Immigration.

"The black immigrant community can benefit greatly from DAPA and DACA," said Rev. Sauls, who is also pastor of the Holman United Methodist Church in Los Angeles. "Preparation is a key to integrating immigrants into society."

There are about 400,000 undocumented Asians in California, yet many of those eligible for existing DACA protection have not applied, said Aman Thind, immigration project director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-L.A.

"We must help find community leaders who can spread the word," she said.

Meanwhile, undocumented parents of U.S.-citizen children said that DAPA would help them live without a constant sense of fear.

"We have been in the shadow of fear-constant fear of deportation," said Salvador Huerta, a father of five who has worked in strawberry fields for 16 years. "I think about what my family will do if I'm not here. Children [of undocumented immigrants] have hopes and dreams and it makes me sad when families are torn apart."

Huerta called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and "think about the families they are separating."

Isabel Medina, a mother of three, noted that much of the opposition to immigration reform and Obama's executive actions has come from the Republican Party.

"When Obama announced the [executive] actions," she said, "we were so happy, because we would be able to come out of the shadows. But now we're just waiting for Republicans...They have to acknowledge that we contribute to this great nation."

Similar sentiments were expressed at a rally following the press briefing.

"There may be a delay but we are not discouraged," said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, one of about a dozen speakers at the rally. "If you believe in family values, you should support DACA and DAPA."

New America Media is working in collabortion with the Ready California campaign. For more information about Ready California, go toready-california.org.

President Barack Obama's blocked executive action granting relief from deportation to about 5 million undocumented immigrants is set for a decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the coming days. It's certainly a big day for immigration reform, but it could prove just the beginning of a long back-and-forth process, Al JazeerareportedSunday.

The decree, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), proposed to shield undocumented immigrants who are the parents of U.S., citizen children from deportation and to grant them work permits. The executive action was blocked by a Texas federal judge in February after a 26-state coalition filed a lawsuit concerning the economic impact DAPA would put on their states' governments. The judge, Andrew S. Hanen, in Brownsville, Texas, decided Obama had misused his power and not followed proper administrative procedures.The Obama administration then appealed in mid-April as the federal government clashed with lawyers over the legality of the executive action. Justice Department lawyers called the injunction "unprecedented" while Texas lawyers called for it to stand, the New York Timesreported.

The decision from the appeals court is expected to be made soon -- although it is unclear exactly when -- but Obama's executive action might be destined to fail, Al Jazeera reported. Experts told the news outlet the administration perhaps should have issued a longer-lasting "substantive rule," as opposed to a policy, and should have better defined who was set to receive deportation relief.

"I think the rule is too narrow and should have been broader and covered the parents ofDreamers, not just the parents of citizens," Michael Winshie, a law professor at Yale University, said about young undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents, according to Al Jazeera. "Number two: I would have done it earlier. The president waited and waited, kept saying, 'Oh, I'm going to try and work things out with Congress.' Things never worked out."

After an immigration overhaul failed to pass last summer,Obama said he would act unilaterally despiteobjections from Republican lawmakers.The Al Jazeera report also suggested that the decision could ultimately go all the way to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in favor of 26 states challenging President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration.

Two judges on the three-judge panel ruled that the executive action, which would grant an estimated 4.7 million undocumented immigrants relief from deportation, should stay on hold while the states work to overturn it.

The case has become the focal point of Obama's efforts to change U.S. immigration policy.

Seeing no progress on legislative reform in Congress, Obama announced in November he would take executive action to help immigrants. He has since received blowback from Republicans who say the program grants amnesty and is burdensome.

The 5th Circuit is still due to rule on whether the Obama administration can appeal the block to the executive order, which it is expected to do in the coming months.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Sandra Maler and Eric Beech)

WASHINGTON (AP)-The government will not ask the Supreme Court to review a judge's decision that put on hold President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The decision came one day after a federal appeals court panel refused to lift a Texas judge's injunction that kept the sweeping immigration plan from taking effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16 that halted Obama's executive action, which could spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. More than two dozen states sought the injunction, arguing that Obama's executive action was unconstitutional.

The U.S. government on Feb. 23 asked Hanen to lift his injunction while it appealed his ruling against the executive action to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Hanen denied the request, and the U.S. government appealed. That appeal was denied on Tuesday.

Spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said the Justice Department would not seek a stay of Tuesday's decision. Instead, he said, the Justice Department will now focus on defending the merits of the executive action itself in an appeal that will be argued the week of July 6 before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The Department of Justice is committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing deporting the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children," Rodenbush said in a statement. " The department believes the best way to achieve this goal is to focus on the ongoing appeal on the merits of the preliminary injunction itself."

The Obama administration plan has been denounced by Republicans as an example of executive overreach. Obama has argued that the action was necessary because of inaction by Congress.

The executive action announced in November remains on hold after the appeals court panel on Tuesday refused to allow it to take effect immediately.

Along with Texas, the states seeking to block Obama's action are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

For the first time in decades, the number of immigrants coming to the United States from China and India outnumbers those coming from Mexico. It's a historic shift that has caught the attention of service providers across the country working to help immigrants become U.S. citizens

"We've seen a huge change in recent immigration," Jeanne Batalova, senior policy researcher at Migration Policy Institute, told reporters on a national press call Wednesday. The call was hosted by the New Americans Campaign, in collaboration with New America Media and the National Immigration Forum.

Of 1.2 million recent immigrants who came to the United States in 2013, China was the leading country of origin, with 147,000 immigrants, followed by India, with 129,000, and Mexico, with 125,000.

Asian Americans also have among the highest naturalization rates in the United States: Less than half of all immigrants in the United States (47 percent) are naturalized U.S. citizens, while the percentage for Asian immigrants is significantly higher, at 59 percent. The proportion of naturalized U.S. citizens is highest for Vietnamese (76 percent) and Taiwanese (74 percent), followed by Filipinos (68 percent), Koreans (59 percent), Chinese (51 percent) and Indians (47 percent).

These numbers are high despite the fact that some countries, like China, still do not offer dual citizenship. Others, like the Philippines (in 2003) and South Korea (in 2010), have made changes to their dual citizenship requirements.

Yet even for those who do not have access to dual citizenship, the benefits of U.S. citizenship can be very attractive-including security and protection from deportation, the ability to travel freely, the right to vote and run for political office, and the ability to sponsor a wider range of family members for immigration to the United States.

Citizenship also brings economic benefits, said Batalova.Studiesshow that naturalized citizens earn more than non-citizen counterparts, are less likely to be unemployed and are better represented in high-skilled jobs.

Still, many immigrants face barriers that can prevent them from becoming citizens, such as limited English proficiency or limited income, said Jannette Diep, executive director of Boat People SOS-Houston. Boat People SOS is part of the New Americans Campaign, a national coalition of over 100 organizations that helps immigrants overcome these barriers to make citizenship more accessible. For example, the campaign offers free workshops to help people apply for citizenship, provides English language and civics classes, and helps people apply for fee waivers if they can't afford the $680 application fee.

Citizenship is "a very important step for the Asian American community because it allows them to become more integrated in America," said Diep. "This integration allows the AAPI community to become more visible in U.S. cities, increasingly getting elected to public office."

According to areportreleased last year by the UCLA Asian American Studies Center, the number of Asian American public officials has reached historic levels, with more than 4,000 Asian Americans holding public office in 39 states and the federal government.

For Zen Santos, who came to Los Angeles from the Philippines in 2008, becoming an American citizen allowed her to have a say in the future of her new country.

"I felt that I lacked something -to be involved, and that is to vote," Santos told reporters on Wednesday.

But when Santos lost her job, she found that she couldn't afford the application fee.That's when Santos sought help from the Filipino American Service Group, Inc., (FASGI) in Los Angeles, which is part of the New Americans Campaign. The group helped Santos get a fee waiver, and she became a citizen in 2013.

"I am American now, and I can vote now," Santos said. "I have to get involved in deciding for this country where I live now."

For more information about the New Americans Campaign, go to:newamericanscampaign.org.

The Obama administration has begun a profound shift in its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws, aiming to hasten the integration of long-term illegal immigrants into society rather than targeting them for deportation, according to documents and federal officials.

In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has taken steps to ensure that the majority of the United States' 11.3 million undocumented immigrants can stay in this country, with agents narrowing enforcement efforts to three groups of illegal migrants: convicted criminals, terrorism threats or those who recently crossed the border.

While public attention has been focused on the court fight over President Obama's highly publicized executive action on immigration, DHS has with little fanfare been training thousands of immigration agents nationwide to carry out new policies on everyday enforcement.

The legal battle centers on the constitutionality of a program that would officially shield as many as 5 million eligible illegal immigrants from deportation, mainly parents of children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. A federal judge put the program, known by the acronym DAPA, on hold in February after 26 states sued.

But the shift in DHS's enforcement priorities, which are separate from the DAPA program and have not been challenged in court, could prove even more far-reaching.

The new policies direct agents to focus on three priority groups and leave virtually everyone else alone.Demographic data showsthat the typical undocumented immigrant has lived in the United States for a decade or more and has established strong community ties.

Although the new measures do not grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, their day-to-day lives could be changed in countless ways. Now, for instance, undocumented migrants say they are so afraid to interact with police, for fear of being deported, that they won't report crimes and often limit their driving to avoid possible traffic stops. The new policies, if carried out on the ground, could dispel such fears, advocates for immigrants say.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear arguments in a case Friday that could lift the injunction that has put President Obama's executive actions expanding protections for millions of undocumented immigrants on hold.

The appeal stems from the order Texas Judge Andrew Hanen issued to freeze the action's Obama took in November to expand eligibility for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which offers protections to immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, which allows parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to apply for amnesty.

Hanen's order came after 26 states filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's actions were unconstitutional.

Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill,), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and advocates for immigration reform are planning to rally outside the court on Friday to call for an end to the delay in implementing the Obama's immigration initiatives.

In a news release, Gutierrez said these programs would allow millions of hardworking and longtime residents to apply for work authorization and to remain in the United States with their families.

"Each day the orders remain blocked from being implemented, hundreds more families are permanently separated and millions more dollars in tax revenue are lost," he said.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP)--An appeals court has ruled that federal immigration authorities need probable cause to issue an immigration detainer, a decision that comes amid a national debate over immigration enforcement that was sparked by a deadly shooting in San Francisco.

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed last year's decision by a federal judge in Rhode Island, who found that a naturalized U.S. citizen's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated when she was held on an immigration detainer.

The appeals court wrote it was "clearly established" and "beyond debate" that agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement need probable cause to arrest and detain someone in order to investigate their immigration status.

The San Francisco shooting was allegedly committed by a man in the country illegally who was released by local authorities despite a request from federal officials to keep him detained.

The Rhode Island case involves Ada Morales, who was born in Guatemala but became a U.S. citizen in 1995. Morales, who is represented by the ACLU, sued after she was detained twice, in 2004 and again in 2009.

After her 2009 arrest by state police in a benefits fraud case, Morales was ordered released from the state prison, but then held for a little more than 24 hours while immigration officials investigated whether she was in the country illegally. Morales says she told authorities she was a U.S. citizen.

The government has said the name on Morales' naturalization certificate was Ada Amavilia Cabrera, and that it was her responsibility to change that when she got married.

Morales is suing officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections.

A spokeswoman for ICE did not address the decision when asked to comment on it, but said the agency is working to put in place a new initiative that prioritizes criminals and individuals who threaten public safety.

Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for tougher immigration enforcement, said her group believes that at the time of Morales' arrest, a detainer constituted probable cause. She said the decision forces the administration to defend detainers.

More than 300 localities across the country have said they would not honor immigration detainers without a warrant, said Kate Desormeau, an ACLU staff attorney involved in the case.

In this case, the appeals court did not weigh in on whether a warrant is required to hold someone on a detainer, although that issue is being considered in other court cases, she said.

In response to a court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, federal immigration officials will beginshowing upat the residences of over 1,000 undocumented immigrants who were erroneously given employment authorization documents (EAD) and deportation relief for three years under President Barack Obama's executive action known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program this week.

Home visits are expected to begin in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and potentially San Francisco, an issue that some advocates fear could have adverse impacts on the immigrant community. Immigrants who do not return their cards by July 17 will have their DACA status terminated, the National Law Reviewreported.

In February, Judge Hanen issued an injunction, or a temporary block, to halt Obama's latest series of executive actions related to immigration. The executive action would have expanded deportation relief and work authorization to about five million undocumented immigrants, as well as extended current employment authorization documents (EAD) to a three-year time period, instead of the initial two years.

As many as 108,000 three-year EADs were issued to DACA recipients between Obama's November 2014 announcement and Hanen's February 2015 injunction--including about 2,000 three-year EADs issued after Hanen's ruling while federal systems were updating its database.

When the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency realized it had mistakenly issued the 2,000 three-year EADs, it began sending out letters to individuals explaining they had to return them because "the authorized period should have been for 2 years, not 3 years." USCIS also said that individuals who didn’t return their cards would be subjected to "adverse action."

USCIS has since indicated that at least 1,000 individuals never returned their three-year EAD cards, despite receiving two-year replacements. As a result, the agency will pay home visits to these DACA recipients.

Justice Department lawyers insist that the three-year EADs would have expired at the end of two years anyway and any documents obtained using those three-year cards would have expired at the same time. According to a district court hearing transcript from June, Justice Department lawyers told Hanen that the Texas Department of Public Safety already began taking "corrective actions" to ensure that the SAVE database, used to verify driver's licenses, has updated its system to reflect a two-year expiration date.

But invalidating the cards wasn't enough for Hanen, who insisted on taking back the three-year cards. He told the lawyers, "if it means going and knocking on their door and saying, 'Here's your two year. Give me your three-year card,' you ought to do that. I mean, how hard can that be?"

Hanen added at the time that if the issue hadn't been resolved by July 31, "then I'm going to figure out what action to take."

Advocacy groups and immigration lawyers are on edge over the home visits, noting that the presence of an immigration official could inject unnecessary fear into the immigrant community. That's because immigrants haven't always had the best relationship with immigration agents who make home visits generally to take immigrants away for potential deportation proceedings.

"I think the idea of home visits is an exceptionally poor idea of building trust in light of the future implementation of DAPA," Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, director of immigration advocacy at Legal Aid Justice Center in Falls Church, VA, told ThinkProgress. DAPA, the acronym for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, was part of the expanded deportation relief program under Obama's latest executive actions that covered parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents.

"You have to understand that nearly every single kid with DACA has undocumented parents. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but I haven't met any," Sandoval-Moshenberg added. "What we're talking about is immigration agents knocking on doors where undocumented parents reside. The biggest fear factor to convince people to sign up for DACA was always, 'I don't want to sign up for something if it's going to benefit me, but on the flip side hurts my parent.'"

Sandoval-Moshenberg said that community agencies like Legal Aid, as well as the Department of Homeland Security agency--which includes USCIS and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency --had to do a lot of trust-building to convince people to apply for the initial DACA program and promise them that "nothing bad is going to happen to your parents."

"And that's still true. If an undocumented parent happens to be the one who opens the door, it's not like the USCIS agent is going to slap the cuffs on him and take him downtown," Sandoval- Moshenberg said. "But it's just really brings back a lot of those old fears. It's in a context of an agency, that not too long ago, obviously it's not USCIS, but ICE which is still part of DHS, was doing no-knock home invasions in these very same communities. That problem has really calmed down a lot in the past couple of years, but.. an immigration agent knocking on your door is still something that creates tremendous fear among the community."

Still, as a preventative measure, advocates are also urging immigrants to return their three-year cards.

"These are people who paid the fees, applied on time, were approved for DACA, and now, because of an error, are at risk of losing their protection from deportation," Christina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, said in a statement. "But our message to those who received their three-year work authorizations is, Return them as soon as possible to avoid losing your DACA and falling out of immigration status."

Hanen's injunction arose from a 26-state lawsuit, led by Texas, arguing that Obama lacked the constitutional authority to put his executive actions in place. The states claimed they would face fiscal injury from the DACA program, in part because deferred action recipients would become eligible for driver's licenses and, in the lead plaintiff Texas' case, their taxpayers would have topartially subsidizethe cost of processing applications for those driver's licenses.However, aCenter for American Progress reportfound that those costs "would be more than offset by the additional tax revenues generated by the very immigrants who might apply for the licenses."

In his column for Filipino-American weekly newspaper Asian Journal, immigration lawyer Michael Gurfinkel writes about a recent court decision that exposed the double standard used at play when an unmarried father or mother is passing on their U.S. citizneshp to a child.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an out-of-wedlock child's Constitutional equal protection rights to derive US citizenship at birth were violated when the law had much tougher requirements for children of U.S.- citizen fathers than the requirements for children of U.S.-citizen mothers.

Gurfinkel explains that under U.S. immigration law, an out-of-wedlock child, born outside the United States, could derive "instant" U.S. citizenship from his or her U.S.-citizen mother or father, provided certain conditions are met.

If the child's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, the mother had to live in the United States (or one of its outlying possessions, such as the Philippines before 1946) for at least one year at some point before the child's birth, Gurfinkel writes.

However, if the child's father was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, the father must have lived in the United States (or one of its outlying possessions) prior to the child's birth, for a total period of 10 years, with at least five of those years occurring after the father's 14th birthday. Therefore, no 18-year-old U.S. citizen father could ever pass U.S. citizenship to his out of wedlock child, according to Gurfinkel.

Read more

It started with in-state tuition. Then came driver's licenses, new rules designed to limit deportations and state-funded healthcare for children. And on Monday, in a gesture heavy with symbolism, came a new law to erase the word "alien" from California's labor code.

Together, these piecemeal measures have taken on a significance greater than their individual parts--a fundamental shift in the relationship between California and its residents who live in the country illegally.The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship.

The changes have occurred with relatively little political rancor, which is all the more remarkable given the heated national debate about illegal immigration that has been inflamed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

"We've passed the Rubicon here," said Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist. "This is not an academic debate on the U.S. Senate floor about legal and illegal and how high you want to build the wall---[The state] doesn't have the luxury of being ideological.. The undocumented are not going anywhere."

Democratic lawmakers and immigration activists, with diminishing opposition from the GOP, continue to seek new laws and protections. These measures include cracking down on employers withholding pay from low-wage workers and expanding state-subsidized healthcare to adult immigrants without papers.

These new initiatives face obstacles, but backers say such hurdles center on the hefty price tags of the programs, not political fallout from the immigration debate.

California officials have been spurred into action in part by the lack of action in Washington to overhaul the nation's immigration system. The stall in Congress has motivated advocates to push for changes in state laws. But they acknowledge that their victories are limited without national reform.

"The reality is, despite the bills that we've done, there are up to 3 million undocumented immigrants that still live in the shadows," said Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville), chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus. "Their legal status as immigrants does not change--only Congress can do that."

Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at UC Riverside, calls what's emerging"the California package":an array of policies that touch on nearly every aspect of immigrant life, from healthcare to higher education to protection from federal immigration enforcement.

Other states have adopted components of the package; Connecticut, for example, offers in-state tuition and driver's licenses, and passed legislation known as the Trust Act to help limit deportations before California did.

But Ramakrishnan said California is unique in how comprehensive its offerings are.

Most of these laws were passed after 2000, and became especially plentiful after 2012, when President Obama took executive action that shielded from deportation people who were brought to the country illegally.

California was one of the first states to authorize driver's licenses for those affected by Obama's order; two years later, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law enabling all immigrants in the U.S. illegally to seek licenses. The same year, the state expanded in-state tuition for more students in the country illegally and allowed people without legal status to obtain law and other professional licenses.

There have been symbolic wins too, such as a law last year to repeal vestiges of Proposition 187. The initiative, which overwhelmingly passed in 1994, denied immigrants in the country illegally access to public services; it had been mostly overturned by the courts. And on Monday, Brown signed a measure striking the word "alien"--seen as derogatory to those not born in the U.S.--from the state's labor laws.

Still, advocates at times have fallen short. They made the expansion of healthcare coverage a signature issue in recent years, but the estimated price tag of such proposals runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So far, they've notched a narrower victory--$40 million in the most recent state budget to provide Medi-Cal coverage to children younger than 19 regardless of legal status.

Brown also vetoed a measure in 2013 that would have allowed legal immigrant residents to serve on juries, saying in his veto message that "jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship."

A handful of Democrats---mostly from swing or politically conservative districts---had also opposed that measure.

Brown has appointed a number of noncitizens in the country legally to state agencies and departments, according to his office.

Other policies have run into criticism. The death last month of Kathryn Steinle, who authorities say was shot by a Mexican national who had previously been deported several times, thrust San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy into the national political debate. The policy limits local law enforcement's cooperation with U.S. immigration officials.

San Francisco adopted sanctuary city status in 1989, and other major cities in California, including Los Angeles and San Diego, have followed suit. Under a statewide law passed in 2013, local law enforcement officials are prohibited from detaining immigrants for longer than necessary on minor offenses so that they can be turned over to federal officials for possible deportation.

Steinle's killing prompted swift criticism of the city's more permissive policy from GOP presidential candidates and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from San Francisco. Steinle's parents testified in an emotional hearing on Capitol Hill and Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed several measures to clamp down on sanctuary cities.

In California, however, the backlash has been notably more muted. One Republican state senator, Jeff Stone of Temecula, has said he intends to introduce a bill that would require cities and counties to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But none of his GOP colleagues in Sacramento has so far chimed in with calls for action.

The shift in tone is also evident in Republicans' voting records. Some of the earlier immigration measures--benefits such as in-state tuition and financial aid for higher education, for example--were generally opposed by Republicans, as were measures intended to limit deportations and enforcement.

A handful of GOP members voted in 2013 in favor of the driver's license law; several more backed the measure allowing professional licenses the next year.

This year, a sizable number of Republicans have voted for a proposal that would grant work permits to farmworkers living in the country illegally. GOP state Sen. Andy Vidak of Hanford authored a resolution calling for federal immigration reform that included a path to citizenship.

"There is a growing recognition now that we're a state of rich diversity. We're a state of immigrants and that's a positive," said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto), the GOP leader of the Assembly.

Olsen, who said the national debate around illegal immigration has taken on a tone that's "too strident, too harsh," said her party is increasingly open to state action in the absence of immigration reform at the national level.

Nevertheless, she said some of California's new laws have gone too far--particularly those that dip into the state's coffers, like expanding college financial aid or healthcare to those who are in the country illegally.

The shift in the GOP's tone is coming in part because of demographic realities--Latinos have surpassed whites as the largest ethnic group in the state, and California's sizable Asian population also has large numbers of immigrants.

Recent polls by the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times and the Public Policy Institute of California have found broad support for a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

Even those who advocate for stricter immigration laws acknowledge their side has won few victories in recent years.

"Citizens are out of the loop on these immigration bills," said Joe Guzzardi, spokesman for the group Californians for Population Stability. "I question whether or not any of them would have passed on the ballot, especially the ones dealing with outlays of taxpayer money."

BOSTON---Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey has said that no one has a right to threaten unauthorized immigrants in the state with possible reporting to immigration authorities or discriminating them in any way, so as to intimidate and exploit them for personal gain.

The AG, who is on her first term after capturing the seat under a Democratic Party ticket in the last general elections was speaking to several dozen journalists from immigrant communities during an ethnic media roundtable meeting last Thursday at her office in Boston.

Flanked by several attorneys and officials, Healey said that the AG's office currently wanted to make sure that all ethnic communities are aware of their rights to earned sick time leave at their work places, anti-retaliation protections under the Massachusetts wage and labor laws, the fair housing and employment law as well as protections available for domestic abuse situations.

The AG was disheartened to hear that many undocumented immigrants working menial jobs under the table were being threatened by some unscrupulous employers, landlords, mechanics, or even car dealers and other business people when they complained of discrimination or poor service.

"It's illegal. It's criminal. We know there are many unauthorized immigrants working in underground jobs such as cleaners where they are exploited and violated. As an undocumented person in this state and you are a victim, I want you to l know that you have rights, and we will protect you. They will be held accountable," she said sternly while responding to questions by the journalists.

"Even illegal immigrants have rights in this state. If anyone threatens you with immigration authorities, you need to contact our office immediately and we will contact them the same day and make sure they understand that this is against the law and that there will be consequences."

Healey added that the office maintains a Public Inquiry and Assistance Center (PIAC) Hotline (617-727-8400)for victims to call regarding various forms of threats and harassments.She urged immigrants not to fear bringing such issues to her office since she is concerned with the peaceful co-existence off anyone currently residing and obeying the laws in the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts AG, Maura Healey takes a photo with members of the ethnic media in the region at her office on Ashburton Place, Boston. PHOTO BY COURTESY

Healey added that the AG's office has decided to start holding regular meetings with different communities in different cities to make them aware of their rights and also to hear from them any issues that might be going on without her knowledge.

"We are here to protect you and deal with any injustices that might be going on. The AG's office is basically the people's law firm. We are your advocates."

She added that unfortunately, many immigrants misunderstand the AG's office and think that most of that they deal with are criminal law.

"Actually it's the other way around. About 85% of work in this office is non-criminal. We deal mostly with issues on consumer protection, combating fraud and corruption, protecting civil rights and promoting meaningful economic recovery," she said.

The AG said that there is a huge underground economy going on in the commonwealth where unauthorized immigrants are employed but some are being badly exploited and having their rights abused by unscrupulous employers and landlords.

She said that such immigrants have the right to file a complaint with the AG's office or assist the state at investigating alleged violations under the wage and labor laws without fear of retaliation by such employers.

The AG stressed that it is illegal for such employers to retaliate by firing the employees, discriminating against them by way of taking away their work hours, giving them undesirable assignments or schedule changes, assaulting an employee, blacklisting or defaming them, including giving false negative references for future employment, making criminal reports to authorities about the employee, reporting them to immigration authorities or even threatening an employee with the mentioned or any other negative consequences.

"Every immigrant needs to be aware of these anti-retaliation protections so that they can bring up these issues to us if they happen."

Healey also said that all employees in Massachusetts, whether full time, part time, temporary and even seasonal workers can earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked and up to 40 hours per year depending on how much work they put in.

She said such sick time begins to accrue from the very first day they start working for an employer who has at least 11 or more employees, and can be used after 90 days.

She added that employees have a right to use the sick time when they, or their children, spouse, parent, parent of spouse is sick, has a medical appointment or to address the effects of domestic abuse.

However, the AG cautioned that the sick time cannot be used as an excuse to be late for work without advance notice of a proper use, and that abuse of the privilege may result in disciplinary action against an employee.

She advised them to read carefully the employers policies on sick time so as to comply and avoid problems. Healey added that her office also provides resources for anyone to access, including online, in order learning about their rights on any subject.

She told journalist that immigrants also have a right to fair housing rentals, state provided housing for low income earners as well as same treatment when it comes to advancing loans for purchase of properties as any other person.

Healey reiterated that Massachusetts law treats all victims of domestic abuse with equal measure for both men and women.

However, she said that if there are any genuine issues where cultural practices in immigrant communities are not well addressed by the courts, then complainants can address them with court liaison officers during any proceedings. 

Officials accompanying the AG took time after the event to clarify on issues raised with journalists present. They said that although they are encouraging anyone suffering for any injustice to file a complaint, such complaints should be real. 

They advised that making false allegations or complaints against anyone could lead in problems, especially when done under oath.

"We have very highly trained layers and staff here who are capable of pretty much finding out the truth from false allegations. We want people to report issues truthfully. False allegations, especially when done in a court of law or under oath anywhere else can lead to perjury charges on the complainant," said Chris Conley during an interview with Ajabu Africa News after press conference.

The AG said she is looking forward to members of the ethnic communities to come out in large numbers at community meetings that will be announced very soon in the cities of Worcester, New Bedford, Springfield, where the AG has offices as well as Lawrence and others.

To contact the AG's Public Inquiry and Assistance Center (PIAC) Hotline, call: 617-727-8400
or visit:www.mass.gov/ago

LONG BEACH, Calif. --Two years ago, everything seemed to fall into place for Chando Kem, from his mental state to his work and love life.

That was when the Long Beach resident applied for and received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that grants certain undocumented youth temporary relief from deportation, a social security number, and a permit to work.

"Now I'm not afraid to walk anywhere," said the native of Cambodia who has lived most of his life undocumented.

Kem may only be 21, but he has been through a lot.

He's worked under the table and been robbed of overtime pay due to him. Without an I.D., he's missed out on memories with friends at clubs. Without a license, he has had to pick up his dates on the bus, sometimes being late. Deportation was always at the back of his mind.

"My whole life got better," said Kem, laughing, after he qualified for the program in February 2013. "Mentally, I feel more relief and more legitimate. I'm not going to be deported."

Since it was launched by President Obama in 2012, DACA has benefitted the lives of over 680,000 people like Kem so far, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

Besides a healthier state of mind, Kem now has a better-paying job as an outreach ambassador for Long Beach City College.

"Prior to that, I felt like I was stuck in limbo, not being able to grow," said Kem, who worked only under the table jobs before.

Kem used to work as a wedding server at a Long Beach restaurant, juggling school part-time. He often served during breaks and was not paid the overtime hours he performed. "It was rough because I worked from 6 PM to 3 AM. We were always understaffed. Yeah, it was tiring," Kem recalled.

He estimates the employer robbed him of "a few thousand" dollars in overtime.

Now that he has a work permit through DACA, Kem was able to find a job that he loves. "This job is awesome. They work with my schedule. They respect my time," said Kem, who provides college resources to high school students. "I want to reach the undocumented kids that feel shy," he said.

Free from deportation, and with a better job, dates on the bus are also no more: Kem has a driver's license, and it does not have the distinguishing mark that AB 60 licenses have. Some immigrants feared that the mark, which states "Federal Limits Apply," may lead to profiling.

"I can commute wherever I want, whenever I want," said Kem, who doesn't bug his friends for rides anymore.

He was often late to dates, especially when he missed the bus. His dates would ask him why he couldn't drive. "Prior to DACA, I felt a stigma," said Kem. "Especially when you're in the dating stage, I don't really tell people, 'Hey, I'm undocumented.'''

It's the same stigma that keeps many Asian-Pacific Islander (API) youth from applying to DACA, Kem says.

Only 21 percent of eligible Asians have applied for DACA, compared to 77 percent of Latinos, according to a report by the Migration Policy Institute that looks at immigrants from the top four counties in Asia and the top 12 countries in Latin America.

"We're culturally more reserved and more timid to talk about undocumented status," Kem explained. "Culturally, it's [seen as] a shameful thing to come here illegally."

The Migration Policy Institute estimates there are 152,000 Asian immigrants who are eligible for DACA, the largest concentration of them in California.

Kem was a Dream Summer intern this past season, where he worked to educate people in API communities about DACA. He discovered that many did not know what DACA was.

Asian Americans need to join the immigration movement to diversify it, Kem said, perform more outreach, and gain as strong a media presence on the issue of immigration as Latinos have. "That really brings power to the Latino voice," Kem said.

"Stigma is silencing," Kem said. "The more you talk about it, the more you kill stigma."

For all its privileges, DACA does have its limits. It costs $465 to apply and also to renew, and beneficiaries can apply to travel outside the country only for humanitarian, educational, or job-related reasons. The last time Kem was in his Cambodian hometown of Phnom Penh was when he was seven.

Since then, his mother, a business owner in Phnom Penh, has visited him in Long Beach sporadically throughout the years.

Yet many areas of Kem's life have improved thanks to DACA. In particular, Kem's dating life has gotten better. He recently picked up his girlfriend in his 2002 Toyota Solara for a date to Disneyland. He was on time.

"What are you waiting for?" Kem asks those who haven't applied yet. "Opportunity [comes] to you," he says, when you are able to get a social security number, a work permit, or an unmarked driver's license. "It's a tremendous change to your life."

This profile was produced for New America Media in collaboration with Ready California (Ready-California.org), a statewide coalition working to ensure that the maximum number of eligible Californians benefit from DACA and DAPA. For more information about how to apply for DACA, go to: www.ilrc.org/daca.

The legal maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" pretty much sums up the procedural posture of the Obama administration's appeal of the Republican lawsuit attacking the president's executive actions on deportation.

The appeal--which asks the 5th Circuit Court of Apeals to vacate a hold placed on the deportation deferrals by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen--has been in the hands of a three judge panel of the court since it heard final argument on July 10.

But nearly three months later, the panel has failed to rule, leaving 5.5 million DREAMers and undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents unable to apply for a deportation reprieve, undergo background checks and temporarily come out of the shadows until Congress sees fit to do its job and pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Were this a routine civil case, the panel's delay in ruling probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But this litigation is anything but routine. It directly impacts the lives of millions of Americans across the country --real people like Andrew of Stow, Ohio, who wakes up every morning fearing that his mom, Maria, will be taken from him. Or Ashley of Findlay, Ohio, who fears her undocumented husband, Manny, will be deported to Germany.

The Texas immigration lawsuit is unquestionably a brazen political attack on the president's November 20, 2014 executive actions on deportation. Before the ink was even dry on the deferred action guidance, the state of Texas, joined by mostly GOP governors and attorneys general from 25 states, shopped for a friendly judicial forum in which to launch their legal assault on the deportation reprieve. And they found one in the Brownsville, Texas, courtroom of U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who'd made a name for himself in other cases excoriating the Obama administration for what he described as its "failure to enforce current United States law."

Apparently Judge Hanen is unaware that under Obama more than 2 million immigrants have been deported, far outpacing any previous president. Nor does he seem to grasp that undocumented population in the U.S. has stabilized, reflecting the lowest levels of unauthorized immigration in many years. In February, as many expected, Hanen issued an order temporarily blocking DACA and DAPA. The Obama administration appealed and, in March, the 5th Circuit granted its request to fast-track the case. On July 10, a three judge panel of the court heard argument on the merits of the case.

That was three months ago and still no ruling.

Compounding the frustration of delay, there's little doubt about what this panel is going to do--it's all but certain to uphold Hanen's injunction. We know that because in May, two of the three panel judges, Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod -- both Republican appointees -- refused to temporarily lift Hanen's hold on the administration's immigration actions reasoning that "Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction."

Yet despite the uncertainty about when the 5th Circuit will rule, one thing's for sure -- whatever the court decides, the final word on the Obama's executive actions will come from the U.S. Supreme Court. The GOP lawsuit is aimed at millions of mixed-immigration status American families and raises serious constitutional questions about whether the case is even properly before the court. In another challenge to the immigration executive actions brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell dismissed the suit as improper, ruling that that "The role of the Judiciary is to resolve cases and controversies properly brought by parties with a concrete and particularized injury --not to engage in policymaking better left to the political branches."

Moreover, observed another panel of the 5th Circuit earlier this year, the question of standing to sue the president is "especially rigorous," when the lawsuit requires the court to decide whether an action taken by the commander-in-chief is unconstitutional.

But time is short. The Supreme Court begins its term this week. Unless the 5th Circuit rules soon--like in the next two or three weeks --it's highly unlikely the Supreme Court will be able to decide the case before June 2017. That means the panel's protracted delay will effectively leave 5.5 million low enforcement priority undocumented immigrants and their families in immigration limbo until well after Obama leaves office.

The panel's delay feeds directly into the strategy of the GOP plaintiffs who clearly brought the suit to block the implementation of DAPA and DACA. Of course it's impossible --indeed counterproductive --to speculate about why the 5th Circuit judges may be is taking so long to decide a case of such magnitude. But one thing is certain: It's time for Judges Smith, Elrod and Carolyn King to rule. Further delay serves no purpose. To the contrary, it now threatens to deprive millions of American families of the justice they deserve.

David Leopold practices immigration law in Cleveland, Ohio, and is former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - A strong majority of Californians say immigrants benefit their state and that those who came to the United States illegally should be allowed to remain to live and work, a poll published on Wednesday shows.

About three-quarters of those interviewed for the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll, including a majority of Republicans, said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay if they meet certain conditions.

The findings come as some candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination take strong anti-illegal immigration policy stances, including a call by front-runner Donald Trump to deport the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally.

"I asked the question because of all the chatter on immigration this summer," said PPIC President Mark Baldassare. "What I found was Californians, much more than the nation as a whole, say that we need to find a way for undocumented immigrants who live and work here to stay here."

At the national level, a majority also believe undocumented immigrants should be able to stay, Baldassare said, citing a July ABC News/Washington Post poll that shows 60 percent favor a path to legal status.

Those numbers are considerably higher in California, however, where 83 percent of Democrats, 53 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents said undocumented immigrants should be able to stay if they pay a fine and meet other requirements, for a total of 75 percent of all adults interviewed.

Support was also strong across ethnic lines, with 76 percent of Asians, 68 percent of blacks, 92 percent of Latinos and 63 percent of whites in favor of a path to legal status.

Those opposed to such a policy included 15 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of independents.

In California, 43 percent of voters are registered as Democrats, 28 percent as Republicans and 24 percent as having no party preference. Democrats hold all statewide elected offices and large majorities in both houses of the legislature.

In other matters, a slim majority of Californians told pollsters they favored extending temporary tax increases credited with easing a budget crisis in 2013. The poll also showed that state residents continue to see ongoing drought and the possibility of water shortages as a pressing issue, but fewer blame their neighbors for not doing enough to conserve.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

Miriam Martinez Solais worked six to seven days a week, 12 hours at a time, at Vesuvio's Pizza & Grill in Roxboro, North Carolina for six years. Yet she was only paid $400 a week. So after years of hard work, the 28-year-old woman quit and filed a complaint against her former employer with the North Carolina Department of Labor, claiming she was paid far below minimum wage and denied overtime compensation. The NCDOL and the federal Labor Department started investigating Vesuvio's.

But what she thought would be a chance to be compensated for her hard work turned into a nightmare, when Vesuvio's owner, Giovanni D'Abbusco, told her to drop the complaint because he "did not want anything to happen to her or her daughter," according to Solais' motion to dismiss.

Solais is an undocumented immigrant originally from Mexico. With the help of a private detective, D'Abbusco discovered that Solais was using the social security number of a California resident and called the Roxboro Police Department. Solais was arrested in January and thrown in jail for six days. She's now facing a slew of felony charges: two counts of identity theft, as well as 22 counts of "obtaining property by false pretenses"---the "property" being her paycheck.

On Friday, a judge consideredthree motionsfrom Solais' attorneys to have the charges against her dismissed. As Solais' defense argues, only the federal government can prosecute people for violating civil immigration laws. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that undocumented immigrants cannot be criminally prosecuted for offenses like using fake documents to work, except by federal authorities.

But that doesn't mean local and state law enforcementhave stopped wielding the criminal justice systemagainst undocumented immigrants. Felony charges like identity theft are commonly used to target undocumented immigrants outside of the immigration system. Two immigrants living in New Hampshire were arrested and charged with "criminal trespass" solely because they were living in the state without documentation.

Congress also helped by making certain identity and documentation offensesfeloniesin 1998. The legislation aimed to criminalize undocumented workers, allowing people like Solais who use faked documentation to secure work to be charged for criminal behavior.

North Carolina is one of many states that hopes to crack down on immigrants using local police forces. Within the next month, the governor of North Carolina is expected to sign a bill banning sanctuary cities, where local governments have decided to forbid their law enforcement from investigating or criminalizing people for their immigration status. If and when the law is signed, state police will have more leeway to target and prosecute immigrants.

BOSTON--Yesterday, Governor Charlie Baker filed legislation to bring Massachusetts further in line with the requirements of the federal REAL ID Act. The Act, the result of work by the 9/11 Commission, sets minimum standards that states must meet during the issuance and manufacture of driver's licenses and Massachusetts resident identification cards.

"We are committed to working with the legislature and our federal partners to provide both greater security and customer choice for our credential holders,"said Governor Baker. "As new standards take effect in the coming years, this legislation will allow us to meet the standards mandated by the federal government so that our citizens will be able to enter federal buildings and board domestic flights."

Once enacted and all Registry systems have been upgraded, all new driver's license and Massachusetts identification card applicants will need to meet REAL ID standards to be issued a license or ID card in the Commonwealth. The model to be proposed in the legislation offers current license or ID card holders with valid social security numbers the option to renew their existing credential or apply for a REAL ID.

Only a REAL ID carries certain benefits such as serving as a valid form of identification to enter federal facilities and, once enforcement begins, the ability to board domestic flights.

Massachusetts credential holders currently are not subject to enforcement rules set by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because the Commonwealth has a valid compliance extension, as do approximately half of the states in the country. The Registry of Motor Vehicles will file for a second extension with DHS and would need authority to begin implementation by the end of the legislative session next summer.

Under current Massachusetts law, licenses and IDs are issued for a period of 60 months. The legislation will make a critical and required change toward REAL ID compliance by authorizing the Registrar to issue credentials valid only for a customer's authorized length of stay in the United States if that time is less than 5 years.

To leran more on the REAL ID Act, clieck here for FAQ'Shttp://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs >>>>>>>

A Kenyan girl working as a domestic worker in Jordan has sent a distress call to her family, asking to be rescued from untold suffering at the hands of her employers.

Winny Adhiambo, 19, is working for Fatahallah Furniture in Amman. The address from google is P.O Box 10084 11151 Amman. She has been in Jordan for slightly over one year.

Adhiambo says all was well until eight months ago when the beatings began.

"The son of my boss wants to marry me by force and when I decline his overtures, he beats me up mercilessly," Adhiambo wrote in a text message to her uncle, David Obar, who works in Mombasa. "His parents have told him not to beat me, but he has not stopped. A day hardly passes without being beaten by the boy," she said.

However, Binds Bench, the company that recruited Adhiambo for the job in Nairobi, denied knowledge of the suffering and declined to give more information on their recruitment. "Just text me details of the person and what is happening there and we can take it from there," a woman referred to as Hellen told The Standard, after referring us to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"This is a powerful and rich family known all over Jordan. I cannot escape because if they find out, I will be dead," she said, adding: "I don't know whether I will return home if I don't marry him. Communication is also a problem because the boy doesn't speak English. If I speak English, he beats me up."

"He doesn't want anybody, particularly male workmates, to greet me. If they are caught talking to me, they are fired and then I am beaten up. I am tired," she said.

"The boy is called Adnan Fatahallah. The family deals in golden furniture along Kadla Street. Look for the company that recruited me for this job to intervene," she pleaded.

Adhiambo says her cellphone was confiscated, thus she borrows from other Kenyans.

"Meanwhile, kindly pray for me and others here. We are four Kenyans, but I am the one suffering the most," she said. Obar appealed to the State to intervene. "This is an orphan and I hope she will be rescued. Firms recruiting Kenyans for odd jobs in the Gulf should be reined in," he said.

WASHINGTON__The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to an election-year review of President Barack Obama's executive action to allow up to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally to "come out of the shadows" and work legally in the United States.

The justices said they will consider undoing lower court orders that blocked the plan from taking effect in the midst of a presidential campaign already roiled by the issue.

The case will be argued in April and decided by late June, about a month before both parties' gather for their nominating conventions.

The immigrants who would benefit from the administration's plan are mainly the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Texas is leading 26 mainly Republican-dominated states in challenging the Democratic administration's immigration plan.

So far, the federal courts have sided with the states to keep the administration from issuing work permits and allowing the immigrants to begin receiving some federal benefits.

If the justices eventually side with the administration, that would leave roughly seven months in Obama's presidency to implement his plans. "We are confident that the policies will be upheld as lawful," White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said after the court's action Tuesday.

At issue is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which Obama said in late 2014 would allow people who have been in the United States more than five years and who have children who are in the country legally to "come out of the shadows and get right with the law."

Texas quickly led a legal challenge to the program and has won every round in court so far. Most recently, in November, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said in his court filing that allowing those rulings to stand would force millions of people "to continue to work off the books, without the option of lawful employment to provide for their families."

The administration said Texas and the other states don't even have the right to challenge the plan in federal court. The lower courts decided that Texas does have the right, or standing, to sue because at least 500,000 people living in Texas would qualify for work permits and thus become eligible for driver licenses, the cost of which are subsidized by the state. "Texas would incur millions of dollars in costs," the state said in its brief to the Supreme Court.

The justices also said they would consider whether Obama exceeded his authority under federal laws and the Constitution.

Texas asked the court not to hear the case, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was pleased the justices will examine the president's constitutional power to intercede without congressional approval. "In deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the separation of powers," Paxton said.

Democratic officials and immigrants’ advocates praised the court's action. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that "law-abiding men and women continue to live in constant fear of being separated from their children. These families must be allowed to step out of the shadows and fully contribute to the country that they love and call home."

The future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally has been much discussed by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has pledged to go further than Obama to protect large groups of immigrants from deportation.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has proposed deporting all people who are living in the U.S. illegally, an idea embraced by some GOP candidates and dismissed by others.

Obama said he was spurred to act on his own by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. An earlier program that is not being challenged, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, shields immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. More than 720,000 young immigrants have been granted permission under that program to live and work legally in the United States.

The White House also has shifted its enforcement actions to focus on criminals, those who pose a threat to national security or public safety, and recent border-crossers.

The change means that people who are here illegally but who are not otherwise violating the law are less likely to face deportation.

About 235,000 people were deported in the federal fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

That was the smallest number since 2006 and a 42 percent drop since a record high of more than 409,000 in 2012.

Still, the administration drew criticism from Democrats and immigration advocates for raids this month that resulted in the arrest of more than 120 immigrants from Central America who came to the country illegally since 2014. Those recent arrivals are not among immigrants who would benefit from Obama's plan.

Tens of thousands of Filipinos across the United States were among immigrants reinvigorated by the recent move of the U.S. Supreme Court to review President Obama's executive order on immigration.

The highest court agreed last Tuesday, January 19, to hear whether it is within Obama's presidential powers and constitutional authority to change immigration policy without going through the Congress.

"I'm happy that there's still hope," said V. Sarmiento, a Filipino father of two American-born children from Long Island, New York. "Maybe our long wait to get legal status would soon be over."

Obama executive orders
In November 2014, Obama announced a handful of executive orders that could shield as many as 5 million immigrants from deportation and allow them to get a work permit. The orders were put on hold when a federal judge in Texas stopped them from taking effect.

But if the Supreme Court gives a favorable decision for the president, his immigration programs would  take effect, changing the lives of eligible Filipino families and other immigrants.

"My wife and I pray every day for a positive outcome," Sarmiento, 51, said on the telephone. "We're optimistic, of course."

The decision is expected to come down in June --right in the middle of the presidential election campaigns, when immigration will be one of the key issues for both Democratic and Republican candidates.

There are two significant policies under Obama’s executive order: First, it would halt deportations and offer work permits to the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, by creating a new program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA expansion

Second, it would expand the 2012 initiative Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which would provide the same protections and work benefits to some undocumented immigrants brought to the country before the age of 16. The expansion of the program would result in a greater number of eligible individuals.

While both DAPA and DACA would provide undocumented immigrants a temporary protection against removal from the country and allow them to work, neither serves as a path to a permanent resident (green card holder) status or U.S. citizenship.

The policy on permanent residency and citizenship requires congressional approval.

How many Filipinos are eligible

According to a study conducted by the Migration Policy Institute, there are 45,000 Filipinos potentially eligible for the DACA and DAPA programs nationwide.

While reports show that a significant number of these eligible Filipinos have been hesitant to apply for DACA since it started four years ago, advocates for immigrants reiterate the benefits of the program, as well as the future benefits of expanded DACA and DAPA.

"The DACA and DAPA programs will provide safety from deportation and employment authorization, enabling Filipinos to live without fear in the United State," said Joyce Noche, a Filipino American directing attorney at the Public Law Center based in Santa Ana, Calif., part of the statewide coalitionReady California,which is working to ensure that the maximum number of eligible Californians benefit from DACA and DAPA.

Better lives

A past study revealed that 45 percent of DACA recipients who obtained a work permit and government-issued identification have increased their earnings, 57 percent received a driver’s license and 64 percent said they feel a greater sense of belonging in the country.

"These programs would improve the lives of millions of people by allowing them to continue building their lives and contributing to their communities," added Sally Kinoshita, deputy director of the Immigrant Legal Source Center, which leads Ready California. "[The Supreme Court] decision brings us one step closer to providing protections that keep families together."

Executive actions on immigration by a U.S. president are not new. Both Pres. Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush gave a reprieve from deportation to spouses and children of those eligible for legalization.

What happens after Obama's term

But critics say that even if the Supreme Court deems Obama's executive action on immigration legal, he would only have six months to implement it before he leaves the White House.

As millions of immigrants could rush to apply, it may not be enough time to process their applications in a short period of time. And with most Republican candidates opposed to Obama's immigration policy, his program could also be discontinued if one of them wins the presidency.

But Noche refuted those claims, saying that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) "will be given time to develop and implement the application process."

"Much of the process has already been developed," she adds, "but there will be some time for USCIS to prepare for the application process."

There is always the possibility that the next U.S. president could discontinue the program, she said, but "If enough people apply, it may be difficult for a new president to cancel the program."

Asked what eligible Filipinos should do to prepare their applications, Noche says that they should start gathering documentation to prove that they qualify for expanded DACA or DAPA and saving money for the application fees.

"[But] beware of immigrations scams," she noted. "Unfortunately, there are many immigration scams that promise quicker results or other assistance."

This story was produced for Inquirer.net and New America Media in collaboration with Ready California(Ready-California.org),a statewide coalition working to ensure that the maximum number of eligible Californians benefit from DACA and DAPA. For more information about how to apply for DACA, go to:www.ilrc.org/daca.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has said that he doesn't want ot politicize the judicial branch. But now, the court is getting ready to deliver a huge ruling on the hottest issue in the 2016 election, and the ruling, whatever is decided, is likely to determine the tenor of debate until election day.

How's that for not getting political?

Sometime before November, probably in June, the Supreme Court will rule on whether President Obama had the right to issue an executive order to allow about five million out of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who are the parents of citizens or permanent residents to avoid deportation and be given a temporary work permit.

Obama has defended the November 2014 order as essential instructions to government agencies on how to deal with millions of undocumented immigrants given that the Department of Homeland Security says it only has funds to deport about 400,000 people a year. Congress, the president has said, could stop the program by passing legislation, but has chosen not to.

Yet even as the court's decision will narrowly focus on the parameters of presidential powers, Democrats and Republicans are certain to use the ruling to raise the ire or enthusiasm of supporters on a most contentious issue.

"If the president wins the ruling, activists will see this as a down payment on a legalization program that's part of immigration reform passed through Congress," Daniel Costa, director of Immigration Law and Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute, said in a phone interview from Washington. "As for Republicans, it's doubtful they could be more against it than they already are."

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has made border enforcement and deportation a cornerstone of his campaign. The New York real estate developter catapulted to the top of the Republican race with comments about Mexicans that sparked accusations of racism. Trump was further bolstered in December when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. along with building a wall across the 1,989 mile longU.S.-Mexico border.

Conversely, immigration reform has dogged the campaign of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for having co-sponsored the comprehensive 2013 Immigration Modernization Act.That legislation passed the Senate but failed in the House of Representatives amid opposition to citizenship provisions for some unauthorized immigrants.

The leading Republican candidates --Trump, Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz -- argue that Obama's order was an illegal use of presidential power. Weeks after it was issued, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined with 25 other states to sue the federal government, charging Obama withtaking a backdoor route to ensure amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants.

"That rule of law theme has played and will certainly play a large part on the Republican side, and be part of the continuing campaign against President Obama," Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, said in an interview from Washington.

Ultimately, the court will rule on whether Homeland Security followed proper administrative channels in instituting its policy, and whether the president violated his constitutional duty by seeking to enforce current laws. But whatever it decides, the court's ruling will set the tone of the debate over immigration for the remainder of the campaign.

"The Tea party and the Conservative movement has been talking about Obama acting like an imperial president for quite a while, so they'd probably be very upset if this conservative Supreme Court rules in favor of the president," Costa said. "But even this order only covers some immigrants, and everyone will know it could be repealed by the next president."

The ruling may also provoke accusations that the court is playing politics.

"Roberts wants to keep the court away from the election debate," Cato's Shapiro said. "But it's inevitable that the Supreme Court will become even more of an issue than it otherwise would be."

Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, it will likely also be used by candidates on both sides as a reminder that the next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer will all be over 80 by the time the next presidential term ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

MERCED, Calif.-- Adriana Meza jokes about being afraid to "accidentally" cross the border while driving to visit her boyfriend at the Marine Corps Base in San Diego.

Joking was a luxury she never had before.

The 24-year-old says it was nerve-wracking the first time she headed to Southern California, believing she would somehow end up in Mexico and never be able to return home.

Having an unmarked driver’s license and being able to enter a military base are some of the perks of being "DACAmented," according to Meza. Under California law AB 60, undocumented immigrants can get a driver's license, but it carries a mark indicating their status.

The Mexican national is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program announced in 2012 that allows certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to get a reprieve from deportation, and a social security number and a work permit.

Without the relief, she would not be able to visit her boyfriend at the military base and watch him graduate. And, most importantly, she wouldn’t be able to pursue her own career.

That’s because DACA allowed Meza to do something she wasn't able to do before: achieve her dream of becoming a teacher.

'It hit me hard'

Right after high school, Meza enrolled at Merced College, the local community college.

As she neared the completion of her general requirements and the time came to declare her major, she realized that her undocumented immigration status was interfering with her dream of teaching.

"That's when it hit me hard," said Meza. "I was undocumented and could not declare a liberal studies major. My future was in jeopardy."

In order to enroll in the liberal studies program at her college, Meza needed a social security number, something she did not have because she was undocumented.To work with children, she had to pass a background check and get her fingerprints scanned. Knowing she could do neither, she feared she would not be able to graduate.

Devastated, Meza decided it was time to face her fear. She was about to admit she was "undocumented."

She began seeking guidance from school counselors and says she asked "a lot" of questions. Raul Alcala, a counselor and instructor, told her about the benefits of DACA.

Alcala took Meza under his wing, and with his help, she was able to get more information and apply successfully for the program.

"Meeting Raul was a blessing," said Meza. "A teacher helped me follow my dream of becoming a teacher."

'DACAmented and proud'

Once Meza got DACA, her college career took off. She was able to declare her major, and began working with children. She became the first person in her family to graduate from college.

In the fall of 2014, she transferred to California State University, Fresno, where she currently studies.

Now that she has a social security number, Meza has also been able to find a job.

"Having DACAments has had such a positive impact on my life," said Meza, who says being able to pay her own bills and provide for herself has improved her family's financial situation.

She also insists that "opportunities are endless once you become DACAmented," but is determined not to settle for DACA. Her next goal is to help push for comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.

Meza's personal experience allowed her to become an activist for undocumented students. As they hear of her success, other students ask her for help and she encourages them to apply for DACA.

The Supreme Court this year will be reviewing two other programs that are currently on hold: an expansion of DACA, and a new program for parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA. If the Supreme Court allows those programs to move forward, they could go into effect after the court makes its decision in June.

In the meantime, Meza hopes more undocumented immigrants will apply for DACA.

"I was once undocumented and afraid," she said. "Now I am DACAmented and proud, and I want everyone to share this same feeling."

This profile was produced for New America Media in collaboration with Ready California (Ready-California.org), a statewide coalition working to ensure that the maximum number of eligible Californians benefit from DACA and DAPA. For more information about how to apply for DACA, go to:www.ilrc.org/daca.

Editor's Note: The original Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, enacted in 2012, remains in effect and is not affected by the current Supreme Court case. Two other programs, one that expands DACA, and one that creates a new program for parents called DAPA, are being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Editors of La Opinión write that the decision, expected in June, could impact the lives of millions of immigrants across the United States.

Yesterday's debate in the U.S. Supreme Court will determine if President Obama abused his authority by imposing allegedly onerous rules on states. Behind the legalese lies the future of millions of people who, despite having lived in the United States long enough to integrate fully into our society, still live in the shadows and under permanent threat of deportation.

The case United States v. Texas-- which addresses the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children-- and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program-- which protects and grants work permits to the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents-- has reached the Supreme Court at an unusual moment, both because it is an election year and because the Court is currently incomplete due to the passing of Judge Antonin Scalia.

While the political climate surrounding immigration has been tense for a long time, the fact that the Republican primary has become a witch hunt against undocumented people has made the situation worse.

On the other hand, Scalia's death took a conservative judge out of the equation. In the case of a 4-4 tie, the preliminary injunction issued to block the executive orders would remain in place.

All eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy. Often more pragmatic than his fellow judges, in the past his vote has swayed sides and has frequently turned out to be the decisive one. The hopes of millions of families are set on Kennedy, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Presenting the arguments took only 90 minutes, in which dozens of documents in favor and against the programs could influence the judges' decision. We hope that the justices will take into account the numerous legal precedents involving executive orders, as well as the specific context of DACA and DAPA. Using executive decisions to determine the priorities of federal agencies is an accepted presidential power. In this case, making a priority of deporting the most dangerous undocumented criminals while temporarily protecting a category of immigrants who are integrated into U.S. society may be controversial, but not illegal.

DACA and DAPA only signify temporary relief and they could be annulled by the next president but, right now, they are the only alternative to provide millions of men, women and youths who are part of our society the peace of mind of knowing that their families will not be separated.

The US Green Card Office has announced winners for the Green Card Lottery applicants who submitted their Lottery applications in October 2015 for the DV-2017 Program.

Hopeful applicants can now can now check if they have been selected online by visitinghttps://www.dvlottery.state.gov/esc/

Diversity Visa is indeed one of the easiest and cheapest ways to obtain permanent residency known as Green Card in the United States. The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered annually by the Department of State.Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as "diversity immigrants" from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

According to the U.S. Department of State, DV-2017 Entrants may enter their confirmation information through E-DV website to see if they are selected.

Entrant Status Check is the sole means by which entrants will be notified if they are selected, provided further instructions on their visa application, and notified of their immigrant visa interview appointment date and time.

The Department of State will not send any notification letter.The U.S. government has never sent emails to notify individuals that they have been selected, and there are no plans to use email for this purpose for the DV-2017 program.If you are a selectee, you will only receive email communications regarding your visa appointment after you have responded to the notification instructions on Entrant Status Check.

For Fiscal Year 2017, 50,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program.

Applicants who are selected in the program ("selectees") must meet simple, but strict, eligibility requirements in order to qualify for a diversity visa. Selectees are chosen through a randomized computer drawing. Diversity visas are distributed among six geographic regions and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.

U.S. immigration law and regulations require that every DV entrant must have at least a high school education or its equivalent or have two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience.

A "highschool education or equivalent" is defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of elementary and secondary education in the United States OR the successful completion in another country of a formal course of elementary and secondary education comparable to a high school education in the United States.

Only formal courses of study meet this requirement; correspondence programs or equivalency certificates (such as the General Equivalency Diploma G.E.D.) are not acceptable. Documentary proof of education or work experience must be presented to the consular officer at the time of the visa interview.

The Immigration Act of 1990 established the Diversity Visa (DV) program, where 55,000 immigrant visas would be available in an annual lottery, starting in fiscal year 1995. The lottery aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants mostly from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States in the previous five years.

Starting in fiscal year 1999, 5,000 of the visas from the DV program are reserved for use by the NACARA program, so the number of immigrant visas available in the lottery is reduced to 50,000.

The visas are distributed on a regional basis, with each region sending fewer immigrants to the US in the previous 5 years receiving more diversity visas. Currently, Africa and Europe receive about 80% of the visas in the lottery.

For more information and to apply online, visit http://www.usgreencardoffice.com

HOUSTON--For more than a decade, Jannette Diep has been helping immigrants apply for U.S. citizenship. But as the presidential election looms, Diep, the executive director of Boat People SOS, says she has seen a rising interest among immigrants in becoming U.S. citizens.

More immigrants are going to community centers like hers to find out how to become a U.S. citizen, she said.

The number of people applying for U.S. citizenship shows an uptick during presidential election years, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

"They come to our office or call us," said Diep. "They're very eager to get their citizenship."

The good news, she said, is that applying for citizenship is easier than people think.

Boat People SOS and other organizations across Houston are providing free and low-cost services to help Houstonians take the step to become U.S. citizens. The effort is part of the New Americans Campaign, a national, nonpartisan campaign now in its fifth year that helps legal permanent residents take the step to become citizens.

The organizations host free workshops where legal permanent residents can get help with their applications. They help eligible immigrants access fee and language waivers. They also offer English language and civics classes.

Mariana Sanchez, chief operating officer of Bonding Against Adversity, said that between January and April, her organization alone has helped more than 1,000 immigrants file their citizenship applications. "We're hoping that more and more will apply," she said.

There are about 8.8 million immigrants in the United States eligible for naturalization, and about 350,000 live in the Houston area, according to Benito Juarez, manager for immigrant and refugee issues at the Houston Mayor's Office of International Communities and Refugee Affairs.

"If they'd be able to vote, then they'd become part of the life of the city," Juarez said at an ethnic media briefing in Houston. "They'd become more active [in civic engagement]."

The naturalization process, from the time an applicant sends in the application to an interview with an immigration officer and taking part in the actual swearing-in ceremony, can take five to six months. That means that many immigrants are applying to become U.S. citizens now, in the hope that they will be able to register to vote in time for November.

Some newly naturalized citizens say being able to exercise their right to vote is the main factor that prompted them to apply for citizenship.

"Now that I can vote, this gives me a sense of ownership to be part of this country," said Ming Shen, an immigrant from Taiwan who became a U.S. citizen earlier this year. "I'm very glad that my voice can be heard in this country."

But the benefits of becoming a U.S. citizen extend far beyond November. U.S. citizens can petition family members, travel freely outside the United States, have immunity from deportation, and get a job with the federal government.

Tien Nguyen, a recently naturalized U.S. citizen from Vietnam, said that becoming a U.S. citizen allows him to travel without worrying whether he will be let back into the country.

"I can now travel freely as an American," said Nguyen.

Research has shown that becoming a U.S. citizen is also associated with an increase in income.

Since he became a U.S. citizen this year, Mateo Amador Perez says he got a better-paying job and the quality of life of his family has improved.

"I decided to naturalize because I knew it will bring more opportunities for me and my family,” said Amador Perez, who is originally from Mexico. “I wanted them to have the best future that I could give." 

Texas State Representative Gene Wu, who spoke at the press briefing, echoed the sentiments of the newly naturalized citizens. Forty percent of the people in his district are foreign-born, he said.

"My family, myself--we are all immigrants ourselves," Wu said. "Being an American citizen is something that I have been very proud of."

For more information about the New Americans Campaign and upcoming citizenship workshops, go towww.newamericanscampaign.org.

In a major policy shift, the Baker administration will allow State Police to routinely check with federal immigration authorities about the status of suspects who are already in custody on state criminal charges, upending practices put in place by former governor Deval Patrick.

Governor Charlie Baker said he has decided to change course so troopers can help federal law enforcement combat terrorism, gangs, and other criminal activity.

"This policy revision gives the professionals of our statewide policing agency the tools necessary to detain criminals, gang members, or suspected terrorists wanted by federal authorities," Baker said in a statement.

The Republican governor's decision to reverse his Democratic predecessor's policy touched off a fresh wave of debate over law enforcement's role in immigration, including in Boston, where Mayor Martin J. Walsh announced that city police would not be following suit.

He said in a statement that Boston will "continue our policy to not detain anyone for immigration purposes that is otherwise eligible for release."

"We want all residents of our city to feel comfortable engaging with our police officers in their neighborhoods to report crimes and cooperate in criminal investigations," the mayor said.

The State Police policy will not allow troopers to arrest someone or take them into custody solely on immigration issues, but they will be allowed to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement directly to learn whether ICE considers the person a priority target, the administration said.

"As before, the State Police will not be enforcing federal immigration law nor will they inquire about immigration status; they will now be able to assist in detaining for our federal partners individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety or national security," Baker said.

Baker said his policy aligns with a new Obama administration initiative called Priority Enforcement Program, the successor to the controversial Secure Communities program.

The program allows ICE to ask state and local law enforcement to detain "removable aliens" if they are suspected of terrorism or espionage, or have been convicted of gang-related crimes, felonies, or a "significant misdemeanor" such as domestic violence or drug distribution.

Federal immigration officials can also request the local detention of an individual convicted of three or more misdemeanors stemming from three separate incidents and not including minor traffic infractions.

Signed by State Police Superintendent Richard McKeon and dated Thursday, the new general order limits detention at ICE's request to 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays.

Those detained for ICE must have been arrested for a criminal violation or on warrant and detentions must be approved by the troop duty officer, according to the policy.

Opponents of the shift said they are concerned about the constitutionality of such immigration detainers, and argued that such a measure could harm public safety.

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition executive director Eva Millona said federal authorities are capable of carrying out immigration enforcement on their own. ICE reported more than 235,000 immigration removals in the 2015 fiscal year.

"We do not question the governor's intent to keep us safe, but this is a very complex issue and we are concerned that this will increase fears among the community and this will backfire," Millona said.

Democratic Boston City Councilman Tito Jackson said he feared that an increased State Police role in immigration enforcement would lead to "a situation where people don't feel like they can pick up the phone and tell police that something has occurred to them, occurred to their families."

State Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat who held a conference call with Jackson, said he does not believe recent federal policy shifts are enough to protect against police officers who might target immigrant communities with the goal of examining their status.

He suggested that Baker might be making the move on immigration "to reconnect with his right-wing base" following his recent declaration that he would sign a transgender public accommodations bill.

"I really expected better from a governor who has put himself out as a so-called moderate Republican," said Eldridge. He described Baker's decision as "something that hurts public safety for the entire community -- I would say the entire state."

In a statement released before Eldridge and Jackson had finished speaking, state Republican leaders quickly came to Baker's defense--describing criticism of the change as a "reckless attack."

State Republican chairman Kirsten Hughes noted that the governor was aligning the state with the approach of the Democratic president.

She said the alternative is to allow "suspected terrorists and convicted domestic abusers to walk out of State Police custody when the Obama administration has requested they be taken off the streets because they are a public safety threat."

Material from State House News Service was used in this report. John R. Ellement can be reached atellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter@JREbosglobe.Andy Rosen can be reached atandrew.rosen@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter at@andyrosen.

A federal judge in Brownsville delayed on Tuesday his previous order that the federal government divulge personal information on 50,000 immigrants who received work permits in an executive action aimed at young people.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said he would give the federal government until at least Aug. 22 to submit the information on certain individuals who benefitted from an executive action known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

The latest order is part of atangled immigration fightthat leads to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been joined by 25 other states.

The Supreme Court case focuses on Obama's 2014 expansionof hisoriginal 2012 executive action--sweeping measures that collectively could impact about 5 million immigrants in the U.S. without lawful status.

A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected no later than June 30, attorneys for the immigrants say. Court--watchers are keeping a close eye each Monday when court decisions are announced.

This week, June 9th was added as another decision day, attorneys for the Mexican--American Legal Defense and Education Fund said. The ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center are also involved in the litigation.

In Austin, Paxton's office had no immediate comment on the judge's order in Brownsville.

Greisa Martínez, advocacy director for United We Dream, which supports the immigration measures, praised the latest development. "Immigrant youth and our allies did what we do best: stand up to bullies and stand up for our community," said Martinez, who grew up in Dallas.

But Martinez carefully noted that "for now" the privacy was protected for the immigrant youth targeted in the judge's order.

WASHINGTON ---The Supreme Court dealth a crushing blow to President Barack Obama's immigration program Thursday,splitting, 4-4, over whether it was constitutional for the president to shield millions of people living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

In a case led by Texas, the one-sentence decision affirms an appeals court ruling that found the president lacked authority to defer deportation action against certain immigrants and issue them temporary work permits.The high court's action also upholds an earlier injunction in the case, which halted the program,s implementation nationwide while the legal case proceeded.

The decision hands a significant victory to Texas and 25 other states that challenged his use of executive actions on immigration.While it sets no national precedent on the use of executive power, the decision effectively blocks the president's 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program from moving forward for the remainder of Obama's term.

"The action taken by the president was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who filed the legal challenge while serving as attorney general, said in an issued statement Thursday. "As the president himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans--including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."

The decision did not outline how the justices split on the case.

At the White House, Obama said the ruling takes the United States "further from the country we aspire to be" and called the decision "heartbreaking" for millions of immigrants and "unfortunate" for the nation.

While the ruling thwarts the administration in some ways, the president offered assurance that it won't trigger round-ups.

"We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gang-bangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in," Obama said. "What we don't do is to prioritize people who have been here a long time who are otherwise law abiding, who have roots and connections in their communities. Those enforcement priorities will continue."

Under DAPA, people living in the U.S. illegally for more than five years, and whose children are U.S. citizens, would be granted temporary deportation relief and may apply for three-year work permits. The president's executive actions also furthered a 2012 policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Obama blamed the high court's deadlock on Senate Republicans' refusal to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. And he predicted the ruling would inform the presidential election and the fights for control of Congress in the fall, denouncing Republican "fear mongering" on immigration and taking a shot at presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.

"Pretending that we can deport 11 million or that we can build a wall without spending billions of dollars...it's factually incorrect. It's not going to work," he said, referring to Trump's proposed border wall.

In what's undoubtedly one of the most high profile cases before the court, Texas argued that Obama usurped the authority of Congress by using executive actions to shape his immigration policies --a fact Texas lawmakers and Congressional Republicans reiterated in their responses to the ruling.

"Today's decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office argued the case before the court in April, said in a written statement. "This is a major setback to President Obama's attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law."

The high court's decision showed that "the president can't circumvent the legislative process simply because he doesn't get what he wants," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the Senate's No. 2 Republican and an opponent of the Obama plan.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled Obama's orders unconstitutional in February 2015 and issued an injunction in the initial case, a move appealed by the Obama administration.After the5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Hanen's rulingin November, the administration asked for the nation's highest court to consider the matter.

The White House has said the president has the authority because of prosecutorial discretion, which grants the federal government latitude in deciding which cases to prioritize.

The political ramifications of the ruling were clear on the Supreme Court steps Thursday.Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus vowed to seek revenge at the ballot box in November over what they say is an environment laced with anti-Latino sentiment.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., flanked by bleary-eyed supporters and immigration advocates, directed his ire at both Republicans and the state attorneys general who filed the lawsuit.

"You are always so worried, so focused on the denying the rights of anybody that we advocate for. You are so laser focused on the five million that could have benefited from President Obama's executive order," he said. "Let me tell you what, stop thinking about them. This decision is done. And remember, there are 45 million more coming behind them that are citizens of the United States whose wrath you are going to have to deal with come November."

Congressional Democrats and other immigrant advocates pledged to continue to fight for the program.

"Today's ruling is a setback, but it's not the end of the road for these much-needed programs or for the millions of people eligible for them," said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, in a written statement. "I am confident that this case will come before the Supreme Court again."

Jose P. Garza, executive director of the Workers Defense Project, said in a statement Thursday that the court's decision "has failed to provide a solution for people living in the shadows. The court's decision means that as many as 5 million immigrants in the U.S. remain in constant fear of being separated from their families at any time, and possibly deported."

The decision's unfinished business ensures that it will be a major topic of the presidential campaign. The next president will ultimately determine the fate of Obama's immigration policies if he or she attempts to resurrect the program or pursue other legislation on the matter.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was quick to pan the ruling and use it to blast her likely Republican opponent, Trump, who has made curtailing illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign.

"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the president's legal authority," she said. "This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities, and our country."

Trump's campaign pointed to his recent speech warning that Clinton would "go even further than President Obama on open borders....She wants to leave Americans vulnerable to sanctuary cities, while bringing in millions of new low-wage workers to compete against working Americans, including millions of Hispanics and African Americans, for jobs."

Scalia's death in Februaryleft the court with an even ideological balance and thus cast doubt on how the court would rule on this and other high-profile cases.In April, Abbott said a split decision is "the best we can hope for" with a divided court.

The 4-4 split also reignited debate over Obama's stalled nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland. Obama and other Democrats blasted Senate Republicans for refusing to consider Garland, noting that the incomplete bench had created legal uncertainty in the immigration case.

SAN FRANCISCO--Immigrant rights advocates say the Supreme Court ruling on two programs that would have granted temporary deportation relief for millions of undocumented immigrants is a setback. But, they insist, it is not the end of the road.
Shiu--Ming Cheer with the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) called the 4--4 split in the United States v. Texas ruling a "non--decision decision." With only eight justices on the bench, she explained, the ruling sets no legal precedent and therefore leaves the door open to a number of possible scenarios.

One of those is a re--hearing, said Ming, who spoke Friday during a national press call for ethnic media on the ramifications of the decision and what undocumented immigrants and their families can do going forward. The briefing was organized by New America Media and Ready California, a collaboration of legal and community--organizations working with the state's immigrant communities.

"The Department of Justice could ask for a re--hearing when a ninth justice is appointed," said Ming, adding such things are "uncommon but not unprecedented." She cited instances in 1954, and more recently in 2010 and 2012 when the court agreed to re-hear cases.

The court's open seat remains unfilled following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
Still, Ming noted the process would be lengthy, given the likelihood that a new justice would not be appointed until after the November elections, probably some time in mid--2017. That would mean a ruling would not be forthcoming until the following year.

Another possibility is that individual states file "affirmative lawsuits" outside the 5th Circuit, where the original challenge to the programs originated. In that case, Ming said, states could claim financial harm as a result of the ruling and seek to put the programs in place on a state-by--state basis.

The two programs, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and an expanded version of the 2012 program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) were announced by President Obama in 2014. Some 5 million undocumented immigrants would have been protected under DAPA and expanded DACA, temporarily lifting the threat of deportation while also granting them social security numbers and work permits.

A study by the Migration Policy Institute found that 36 percent of DAPA eligible families live below the poverty line, and that work authorization for these families would lift incomes by 10 percent.
The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of a challenge to the programs led by Texas and 25 other states that claimed the programs were unconstitutional and represented an executive overreach by the president. The SCOTUS ruling means the Fifth Circuit decision remains in place.

President Obama called the decision"heartbreaking." 
Aidin Castillo is with the Immigration Legal Resource Center (ILRC), part of Ready California. "Ready California is in full gear" to get the information out about options available to immigrant families, she said. Their top message, she continued; "original DACA remains available. It is not affected."

To date some 700,000 people have benefited from the original DACA program, which is open to those who meet the following criteria: they came to the country before they turned 16, were born after June 15, 1981, and have resided in the country continuously since June 15, 2007, and who meet educational requirements or have served in the military.

The expanded version would have lifted the age requirement and pushed the date of arrival forward to 2010.

Ready California and other groups are working to encourage those eligible to apply for DACA. 

Castillo said that while Thursday's decision may have a "chilling effect" on that effort, given the fear many have of disclosing their status--especially in this tense election season, the outcome of which could lead to a tightening of immigration law--fear is "not the number one reason" keeping people from applying.

She said many potentially eligible DACA recipients either don't have the money to apply--the application fee is$465--or they are unclear about the requirements, specifically around education.

"It's not just valedictorians" who can apply, explained Castillo, saying many undocumented immigrants wrongly assume DACA is only available to people in four--year programs. She said those enrolled in accredited adult learning or vocational programs can also apply, noting DACA "makes it possible to go to or stay in school."

Additional reasons to apply include the possibility of qualifying for other immigration relief programs that offer more in the way of paths to legal status and citizenship, said Castillo. Up to 14 percent of those who go in to apply for DACA, said Castillo, actually qualify for one of these other programs, which often provide more permanent protections.

Castillo said up to 14 percent of DACA recipients are eligible for these other programs.
Both she and Ming urged people to seek legal advice from "trusted legal service providers," but warned of "fraudulent agents who prey on communities" in times of confusion.
For Ju Hong, part of the National AAPI DACA Collaborative, getting DACA was "life changing," allowing him to gain a driver license and to find work. He called the court's decision, "incredibly disappointing."

Born in South Korea, Hong came to the United States with his mother at the age of 11 after his family experienced bankruptcy during the height of an economic recession. The UC Berkeley graduate gained attention in 2013 for heckling President Obama during a speech about the record number of deportations carried out under his administration.
Hong said of the 1.5 million undocumented Asian Pacific Islanders in the country some 500,000 would have benefited from the expanded DACA and DAPA programs.

Hong echoed the other speakers in urging communities to "mobilize for the November elections," either by registering to vote or, if they are unable, then encouraging family members and friends to do so.

Gema Perez, 50, of Bakersfield, California is one of the millions of undocumented immigrants who would have benefited from DAPA. The mother of two daughters, one a U.S. citizen and the other a DACA recipient, arrived in the country in 1995.

"I was very disappointed and sad," she said in Spanish, adding she is now more afraid of being deported or seeing her husband, the family's sole breadwinner, deported. "This is devastating for all of us."

But Perez vowed to "continue fighting," a determination that Castillo says will help drive local activism. "In the absence of DAPA and expanded DACA," she said, "local and state officials will have to understand the weight of what this decision means."

Pointing to the raft of laws in California that allow undocumented immigrants access to things like driver's licenses, health care and financial aid for college, she said the state is "an example of the changes that can happen locally" and that other states can look to California as a model.

"People are expressing sadness, frustration and anger" after the ruling, said Castillo. "First there is the grieving period, then resilience."

SAN FRANCISCO--Leticia Urrutia's DACA renewal is coming up in October, a month before the presidential elections.

"I was like, 'What am I going to do?" the 23--year--old native of Mexico said at a recent media roundtable in San Francisco.

Urrutia is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a renewable, two--year protection from deportation for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children 

Enacted in 2012, the original DACA program remains in effect and is not affected by last month's Supreme Court 4--4 split decision.

But the question of whether to renew DACA before the elections is related to a bigger concern--not knowing who the next U.S. president will be, and whether the new president would choose to terminate the program. (If the new president takes no action, the program will remain in effect.)

Some immigrants may be concerned that coming forward could expose them to greater risk.

"There is no evidence of this," said Sally Kinoshita, deputy director of Immigrant Legal Resource Center, adding that this would be politically and financially unfeasible, given the number of people who have already applied. "There have been numerous programs like this, and there is no evidence of the government going after you."

Still, the question plagues many immigrants in the midst of an election season that has seen escalating anti--immigrant rhetoric.

"When public officials say it, others feel they can join in in this hate speech," said Amanda Alvarado Ford, immigration law attorney at La Raza Centro Legal.

"Anyone who cares about immigration reform is looking closely at our upcoming election in November," said Kinoshita.

The next president will nominate the ninth justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has deadlocked on immigration and several other cases since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year.

Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates are encouraging their communities to protect themselves by applying for DACA and seeking out qualified legal service providers to see what other programs they might qualify for.

For Urrutia, getting DACA has been life-changing.

Thanks to DACA, she has temporary protection from deportation and access to a work permit and a social security number. She was able to get a job and is now working toward her major in political science. 

Urrutia is one of over 800,000 people who have applied for DACA since it was enacted by President Obama in 2012.

Many more are eligible for DACA but have not yet applied. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that a total of 1.7 million people could potentially benefit from DACA nationally, including about 400,000 people who would be eligible if they enrolled in school so they could meet its educational requirements.

But a closer look at the numbers shows a dramatic variance by nationality. According to the Migration Policy Institute, over 90 percent of eligible Mexicans and over 66 percent of eligible Central Americans have applied for DACA.

The application rates are significantly lower for Asian--American communities. Twenty--four percent of eligible Filipinos, 21 percent of eligible Indians, and 17 percent of eligible South Koreans have applied for DACA. The percentage of Chinese Americans who have applied for DACA is so low that it didn't make the list of the top 20 countries of DACA applicants. 

In a meeting with reporters, immigrant rights advocates encouraged those who are eligible to apply for DACA, especially in Asian American communities.

"We definitely see an increase in phone calls whenever we see stories in the media," said Annette Wong, director of programs for Chinese for Affirmative Action.

To encourage more people to access the benefits of DACA, San Francisco’s Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs is launching a new fee assistance program through its non-profit partners. The program covers part or all of the $465 fee and is available to immigrants applying for DACA or other immigration-related services.

Immigrant rights leaders are also working to dispel some common myths about the program.

"No, you don't have to have good grades," to apply for DACA, said Amanda Alvarado Ford of La Raza Centro Legal. While some may think DACA is only for college kids or straight-A students, the truth is that getting a GED can make you eligible.

Looking back on how DACA has changed her life, Urrutia says she plans to renew it in October.

She says she wants to renew DACA because she is "thinking ahead." She plans to go to graduate school in psychology and wants to have the ability to work in her field--something that is difficult to do without a work permit.

"I'm still going to reapply," she said, "because all the opportunities that DACA has brought me have been the best time of my life."

FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:Despite a funding cut-off threat from the Justice Department, over 300 so-called "sanctuary cities" are protecting thousands of illegal criminal immigrants from federal arrest and deportation, according to a new analysis.

The Center for Immigration Studies on Wednesday published a new interactive map identifying the cities, towns and counties that have so far protected at least 17,000 criminal illegals instead of handing them over to federal authorities. Of those, 11,800 have prior criminal records.

• CLICK TO SEE THE MAP OF SANCTUARY CITIES

"Across the U.S., there are over 300 cities, counties, and states that are considered 'sanctuary cities.' These jurisdiction protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents," said the analysis from experts.

Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center, said that the newest sanctuaries are in Kentucky, three near Lexington and one near Cincinnati.

Acting on a 2014 mandate issued by President Barack Obama, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced Aug. 26 a new proposal that would allow foreign entrepreneurs to be considered for a two-year stay in the U.S. to start or scale up a business.

The proposal, known as the Immigrant Entrepreneur rule and informally dubbed a "startup visa," though it is actually not a visa, is aimed at entrepreneurs from abroad who own at least 15 percent of a startup --founded within the past three years before the entrepreneur applies for the provisions of the rule --that has demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation. Applicants to the program must have a central role in founding the company or its operations, and must have received at least $345,000 from U.S. investors or at least $100,000 from qualified government agencies.

The waiver can be renewed after two years, for an additional three years, with a maximum cap of five years.

"This is an amazing move, which will foster U.S. competitiveness globally," Venk Shukla, president of The Indus Entrepreneurs' Silicon Valley chapter, told India-West. "There is no place in the world that is as friendly to innovation and the foreign born as the U.S. But I am personally aware of a lot of people who have gone back to India to start up companies," he added, noting that Indian American entrepreneurs have created billions in wealth and more than half a million jobs.

"This is a win-win for everyone," said Shukla, noting that the proposal, which does not need Congressional approval, nevertheless has bi-partisan support.

TiE has been lobbying for such a measure for several years, he told India-West, noting that Indian entrepreneurs are likely to be the largest beneficiaries of the new proposal.

Various reports indicate that 25 percent of the nation's startups and more than half of Silicon Valley startups were founded by immigrants. Indian immigrants are one of the most successful groups of entrepreneurs, and have founded almost a quarter of Silicon Valley's start-ups.

"America's economy has long benefitted from the contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs, from Main Street to Silicon Valley," said USCIS director León Rodríguez in an Aug. 26 press statement.

"This proposed rule, when finalized, will help our economy grow by expanding immigration options for foreign entrepreneurs who meet certain criteria for creating jobs, attracting investment and generating revenue in the U.S.," he said.

Kalpana Peddibhotla, founding partner of MPLG, a Newark, Calif., law firm that specializes in immigration, told India-West: "Current visa options have a tendency to stifle entrepreneurship."

Entrepreneurs holding an H-1B skilled temporary work visa must prove they are employees of a company. Therefore, founders of a company must show that their work is controlled by an external board that is in control of the company and can terminate the founder if necessary.

Moreover, founders must pay themselves a prevailing wage to keep their H-1B status, which is inconsistent with patterns of businesses in startup mode that often operate on shoestring budgets, explained Peddibhotla, who co-chairs the South Asian Bar Association's immigration panel.

"I have spoken to Stanford graduates who have been through startup incubator programs, having to give up control of their company so that they can remain in the U.S.," she said. "This has a chilling effect on entrepreneurship."

San Francisco, Calif., angel investor MR Rangaswami also lauded the proposal as an avenue to increase entrepreneurship. Asked if the limited immigration status of a founder or key employee might deter investors, Rangaswami told India-West: "As an angel investor, I take a huge risk anyway."

"This would be an additional risk factor that would be worth taking on a talented founder," he said.

The proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register. The public now has 45 days -- which began Aug. 25 -- to comment on the proposal before it is implemented.

Federal officials tried twice to deport Alfred Olango, a 38--year--old man who was shot by police in Southern California on Tuesday. But, his native country of Uganda refused to take him back, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Olango's history with federal immigration authorities came to light in the wake of his being killed Tuesday by an El Cajon police officer after emergency dispatchers received a 911 call from his sister saying that he was "not acting like himself."

The shooting spurred protests Tuesday and Wednesday nights in El Cajon, about 16 miles northwest of San Diego.

Olango arrived in the U.S. in 1991 as a refugee from Uganda, but was ordered to be deported after he was convicted for transporting and selling narcotics, the U.S Immigration agency's western regional communications director, Virginia Kice, told ABC News in a statement. He was later released from immigration custody in 2003 after multiple requests were made to the Ugandan government to obtain travel documents for Olango.

Olango was then placed under an order of supervision, directing him to report to the agency on a regular basis, the immigration agency said. He was placed in immigration custody again in 2009 after serving prison time for a firearms charge conviction in Colorado. ICE tried again to obtain travel documents from Uganda for Olango, but their attempts were again "unsuccessful," Kice said.

He was released from custody a second time and reported to the agency as required until February 2015.He has not been in contact with the agency since then, Kice said.

In a press conference Thursday, Olango's tearful mother said it was "so hard" and "so painful" to lose a loved one. She also asked for demonstrations over her son's death to remain peaceful.

A representative for the family called for police to release any videos in the incident.

"We need you to release the tape, because the tape shows the whole picture and not just part of the picture," he said.

On Tuesday night, the caller to 911 in El Cajon said Olango was walking in traffic, endangering himself and motorists, according to police.

When police arrived, Olango refused multiple instructions to remove his hand from his pocket, causing one officer to draw his firearm, police said. At one point, Olango "rapidly drew an object from his front pants pockets, placed both hands together and extended them rapidly toward the officer, taking up what appeared to be a shooting stance," police said Tuesday.

The El Cajon Police Department disclosed Wednesday evening that the object Olango pulled from his pants pocket was a vape smoking device. A cellphone video provided to investigators is currently being reviewed and the district attorney's office will decide whether to release it to the public.

ABC News' Morgan Winsor contributed to this report.

SAN FRANCISCO--The Canadian immigration site crashed repeatedly Tuesday as states closed their polls and results began to come in.

It may not come as a surprise that Google recorded a spike in the search topic immigration to Canada Tuesday night. Countless jokes about people fleeing the country over the election results have circulated on social media, and a local booster in Nova Scotiatried to lure criticsof Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. There's even a dating site dedicated to hooking up Americans with their northern neighbors(HT NBC News).

It's calledMaple Matchand it's the brainchild of a 25-year-old Texan named Joe Goldman whose site promises to "make dating great again."

"Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency," the site declares.

Goldman told NBC News earlier this year he was inspired by repeated threats from friends in Austin to move north of the border if the likely Republican nominee defies odds and wins the presidential election.

"I have always been fascinated by Canada," Goldman said. "So I thought to myself, 'Given the current political situation, this could bring Canadians and Americans closer together.'"

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is one of several world leaders who have criticized Trumpin the past. One of the biggest differences between Trump and Trudeau are their views on the refugee crisis in Syria. Trudeau said last year that, "(Muslims)are the greatest victims of terrorist acts around the world. Painting ISIS and others with a broad brush that extends to all Muslims is not just ignorant, it's irresponsible."

Trudeau plans to allow 25,000 refugees to resettle in the nation by February, with up to another 25,000 by the end of 2016, giving priority to women, children, families and persecuted groups such as lesbians and gays.

Canada's policy stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where Trump has called for a ban on letting Muslims into the country and 30 governors have vowed to bar Syrian refugees from resettling in their states over fears that Islamic extremists may be hiding among them. Millions of Syrians have fled their country's nearly 5-year-old civil war that helped spawn the Islamic State, also known ISIL or ISIS.

"The U.S. is concerned about extremists...Therefore (it) processes in a much more careful manner," said Kyle Matthews, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute who has worked with the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees. "In Canada's case, this is a political promise in an election.

Canada's system for choosing who is eligible to move to Canada is also much more streamlined than the United States. Would-be Canadian immigrants much have a solid reason for wanting to come to their northern neighbor. That together with the skills they bring gives them points on which they are judged. These can include:

As Americans came to the in waves Tuesday night to see what their chances for immigrating were, the Twitterverse quickly noted that it had crashed.

The German Interior Ministry wants to stop migrants from ever reaching Europe’s Mediterranean coast. The ministry wants to be picking them up at sea and returning them to Africa, the Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported Sunday.

In what would be a huge shift for a country with one of the most generous asylum policies, the ministry says the European Union should adopt an Australian-style system under which migrants intercepted at sea are sent for processing at camps in third countries.

"The elimination of the prospect of reaching the European coast could convince migrants to avoid embarking on the life-threatening and costly journey in the first place," the paper quoted a ministry spokeswoman as saying.

"The goal must be to remove the basis for people-smuggling organisations and to save migrants from the life-threatening journey."

The ministry's proposal calls for migrants picked up in the Mediterranean - most of whom set off from Libya - to be sent to Tunisia, Egypt or other north African states to apply for asylum from there. If their asylum applications are accepted, the migrants could then be transported safely to Europe.

The ministry is headed by Thomas de Maiziere, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. Merkel has been under fire for her open-door refugee policy, with her party losing votes to the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party in recent regional elections.

The ministry said there were no concrete plans at EU-level about the proposal, but opposition politicians condemned the plan. Bernd Riexinger, head of the opposition Left party, said it would be “a humanitarian scandal and a further step toward elimination of the right to asylum,” the paper reported.

More than 30,000 Kenyan citizens illegally in the US could be on their way home if President-elect Donald Trump makes good his campaign threat to deport illegal immigrants.

Also, beneficiaries of Government support programmes to fight diseases such as HIV and Aids and starvation could be exposed in Mr Trump's lacklustre foreign policy for Africa.

And back home, it could mean the end of the road for thousands of young people from poor backgrounds hoping to study in the US under Government scholarships, which the incoming President has sworn to eliminate immediately he takes office.

Trump, who registered a landslide victory against his main rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has ruled out offering a path to citizenship for unauthorised immigrants.

His tough immigration policy means that the large number of Kenyans, making up a 10th of the unauthorised settlers from sub-Saharan Africa in the US, will be sent back home.

"For those here illegally and are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route; to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system," Trump said on his campaign trail.

He has been quoted by American media as having repeated this stance after clinching victory yesterday.

Discussions on social media platforms among people thought to be unauthorised Kenyans living in the US point to panic and anxiety.

The elimination of unauthorised immigrants, most of whom entered the US through student or visiting visas that have since expired, is top on Trump's agenda to "Make America Great Again".

A special deportation force would be put together in the initial days following his swearing-in and inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2017.

At least 11 million undocumented immigrants, more than half from neighbouring Mexico, are expected to be flown to their countries of birth. 

Kenya is among the countries that have significant immigrant populations in the US at over 90,000 by 2014, a third of whom are illegal immigrants. This is according to findings presented by Pew Research Centre.

About 80 large commercial passenger jets will be required to return prospective deportees to Kenya; their number exceeds the capacity of Nyayo National Stadium.

A more recent study released by the same firm in September showed that Kenyans contributed the third largest portion of illegal immigrants in the small state of Delaware, after Mexico and India.

It reported that eight per cent of the illegal immigrants were Kenyan, half from Mexico and a quarter from India.

Automatic citizenship

The deportation, which Trump has vowed to execute at the cost of the subjects, could have far-reaching implications for families considering that any children born on US soil qualify for automatic citizenship.

Kenyan citizens living in the US are a major source of remittances sent to support families back home, estimated at Sh60 billion from the US and Canada in 2015 alone.

New concerns may also arise from the trade policy position taken by Trump who has said he would, on taking office, scrap several pacts, which he feels are detrimental to the US economy.

Of interest to Kenya would be the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (Agoa), which grants poor countries from the continent quota-free and duty-free access to the US market.

Trade Permanent Secretary Chris Kiptoo yesterday said the Trump presidency was unlikely to alter Agoa in its current form given that it was initiated by President George Bush who is a fellow Republican.

"I see the delay of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) as a major plus for Kenya," Dr Kiptoo said, citing that the decision locked out potential competition from countries like Vietnam, which also produces textiles and apparel. 

The great human rights activist, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, gifted the world a powerful legacy about the importance of standing up to power and hate.

"We must always take sides," he said. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." He continued, "Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy--national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.

According to Wiesel, "Whenever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must--at that moment--become the center of the universe."

Immigrants and others wonder whether the nation has reached that moment. Across the country, including here in the inland region, more than a million young immigrants trusted the American government, came out of the shadows and applied for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Implemented in 2012, DACA enabled certain undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children, limited immigration status.


 
Now the government knows who they are; who their families are and where they live; and they are worried their families are now at risk of deportation.

Latinos are more than half the population of the Inland Empire--they represent more than two million of the area's residents; according to the Public Policy Institute of California, however, nearly 242,000 of the area's residents lack legal documentation.

Throughout the campaign, President--elect Donald J. Trump called for mass deportation of millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally. His election has left undocumented immigrants, their supporters and many other groups including women, Muslims, African Americans, the press, the disabled, etc., feeling threatened--on edge, as a result of the Trump campaign rhetoric.

Tuesday while in Greece, President Barack Obama put the nation and the world on notice. "We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an us and a them," he warned.

During an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday, Trump appeared to temper his position on immigration. When program moderator Lesley Stahl asked whether Trump still intended to deport millions of immigrants--he responded, "What we are going to do is get the people that are criminals and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate (them)."

Trump's opening deportation salvo was not much different from the criminal deportation policy followed by Obama who to date, has deported nearly 2.9 million illegal immigrants mostly due to criminal activity. Obama's deportation policy has received harsh criticism; however, many immigrants without legal documentation are concerned that--different from President Obama's deportation strategy--Trump's efforts may not end with the deportation of criminals.

Another key difference in policies between the two men on this issue is that Obama has deported nearly 2.9 million during his entire eight years as president where Trump has threatened that his first wave of deportation will occur all at once.

Trump talked frequently on the campaign trail about criminal elements in the immigrant community. Interestingly, the Washington Post recently reported that a Trump spokesperson had stated the number used by Trump to identify the number of criminal immigrants in the country was taken from a 2013 fiscal report published by the Department of Homeland Security.

There was however, a misnomer regarding how Trump has continued to use this data. The report referred to a broader population of non- U.S. citizens with criminal convictions. It did include people who are in the country illegally; however, the number also included those who are lawful permanent residents as well as those who have temporary visas.

The Migration Policy Institute of New York University School of Law, a non--political think tank, showed that only about 43 percent or about 820,000 of the 1.9 million highlighted in the Department of Homeland Security Report were unauthorized immigrants with criminal convictions.

During the 60 Minutes interview, Trump also stated, "...we're getting them out of our country, they're here illegally." He further claimed that once the border was secured he would make further decisions about the future of the immigrants remaining in the United States without documentation.

"After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we're going to make a determination on the people that they're talking about who are terrific people, they're terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that," he said. "But before we make that determination...it's very important, we are going to secure our border."

In addition to securing the border, Trump also promised to deport the entire population of immigrants who are in the country without proper documentation (approximately twelve million people) and subsequently require them to "get in line" to apply for legal re--entry to the United States.

After having referred to immigrants as rapists and criminals while also vowing to immediately terminate what he identified as President Obama's illegal executive order on immigration--many now wait anxiously for Trump to decide when and how the other portions of his immigration deportation strategy/policy will unfold.

It has also been widely reported that during the campaign Trump relied heavily on information provided by the Center for Immigration Studies to lay a foundation for his immigration policy--an organization with alleged ties to the country's nativist movement. The Center for Immigration Studies seeks to limit both illegal and legal immigration.

How the nation ultimately moves forward on the issue of immigration will largely be determined by whether Trump's actions as president match his campaign rhetoric.

Immigrants, whether legal or otherwise do have some constitutional protections. The Constitution gives everyone in this country the right to "due process" even when someone is in the country illegally. These individuals must be processed through the immigration courts--courts that are heavily backlogged with more than five hundred thousand cases already scheduled across the nation into Fiscal Year 2017. Collectively, the five immigration courts in California already have nearly 100,000 immigration cases scheduled into 2017, not including those calendared for this fiscal year.


In a statement to the press on Tuesday, California Senate President pro-tempore, Kevin de Leon (D--Los Angeles) responded to Trump's statement on 60 Minutes that he will deport as many as 3 million undocumented immigrants immediately upon taking office. De Leon promised to defend, if needed, the rights of immigrants here illegally. "It is erroneous and profoundly irresponsible to suggest that up to three million undocumented immigrants living in America are dangerous criminals." (This was a reference to the Migration Policy Institute number referenced above.)

He continued, "It also appears to be a thinly--veiled pretense for a catastrophic policy of mass deportation that will tear apart families and weaken our economy."

De Leon's statement went even further. De Leon called upon the President--elect to reconsider and retract what he identified as Trump's "preposterous" statement (on deportations).

Perhaps the portion of de Leon's statement of greatest significance to California immigrants who lack legal documentation and their supporters in the inland region was the following, "I also want to assure the millions of people who are here pursuing and contributing to the California Dream, but lack documentation, that the State of California stands squarely behind you," he said. "State leaders will defend your due process rights and aggressively avail ourselves of any and all tools to prevent an unconscionable over--reach by a Trump administration in California." De Leon concluded, "We will protect our people and prosperity."

In the meantime, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan denied to CNN that the nation would build a mass--deportation force and stressed Trump's goal was to secure the border. "We are not planning on erecting a deportation force. Donald Trump is not planning on that," he cajoled. "We should put people's minds at ease, that is not what our focus is."

But, peoples' minds are not at ease. Every day since the election, thousands have taken to the streets around the nation in opposition to Trump's mass--deportation ideology and other Trump promises equally as concerning on a host of issues that range from concerns over the future viability of Planned Parenthood and the overturning of Roe v. Wade to the re--implementation of Stop and Frisk and Tough on Crime initiatives to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act to the denial of Climate Change and a host of other issues--people have expressed fear over what the future may hold.

"Don't be afraid," Trump encouraged protestors during his interview with 60 Minutes. "We are going to bring our country back."

On election day, Republicans gained control of all three branches of government--however, despite their proclamations, the election was no mandate. Trump won the presidency with fewer votes than Romney received when he went down to election defeat in 2012. In addition, it appears Trump may lose the popular vote by what many estimates have proffered will be near two million votes.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States in 1980, Civil Rights icon Jesse Jackson credited Reagan's victory to a perverse coalition of the rich and the unregistered. This was because in many of the red states carried by Reagan, he won them by fewer votes than there were--unregistered Black voters in those states. Nearly forty years later, in 2016, Trump won the presidency with a perverse coalition of the angry and the apathetic. The Republican margin of victory in key swing states could have easily been off-set by Democrats who decided to stay home.

Americans have heard what Trump has said, now the country waits to see exactly what he will do. An even greater question however, may be--what will the American people do in response.

On Monday, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said his department will refuse to comply with a Trump deportation order. The mayors of several sanctuary cities across the nation, including several here in California have stated they too will defy any such deportation order.

The future of a 2015 Department of Homeland Security initiative that allows certain H-4 visa holders to work remains uncertain, according to Indian American immigration rights activists.

President Barack Obama had made several important moves for immigration--including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and an initiative to aid the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens--through executive orders. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to repeal Obama's executive orders during his first 100 days in office.

Work authorization for H-4 visa holders is a DHS initiative, and not an Obama executive order.

H-4 visas are allotted to the spouses of H-1B highly-skilled temporary workers. Indian spouses make up the overwhelming majority of H-4 visa holders. An estimated 180,000 people were eligible to apply for work authorization in the first year the initiative was implemented, and 55,000 are eligible each subsequent year.

"Immigration reform is one of the biggest levers the U.S. has to raise the economy," said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in a conference call with reporters last year, after DHS announced the new initiative. H-4 visa holders will add additional talented workers to the labor force and encourage highly-skilled H-1B workers to remain in the U.S. and apply for legal permanent residency, he said.

Many H-4 visa holders are as highly-skilled as their spouses, but until May of last year, they were not allowed to work. Work authorization will be given to H-4 visa holders whose H-1B spouses have applied for legal permanent residency.

Labor activists challenged the new DHS regulation in a lawsuit last year--led by Save Jobs USA--saying they were unfairly being forced to compete with 180,000 more applicants in a crowded employment market.

"Congress has adopted the longstanding policy of not allowing H-4 aliens to work in the United States. Through the H-4 Rule, DHS has reversed this longstanding congressional policy," stated the plaintiffs.

But Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled Sept. 27 that giving work authorization to certain H-4 visa holders did not unfairly impact the American work force.

Chicago, Ill., attorney Tejas Shah, who leads Franczek Radelet's immigration practice and co-chairs the South Asian Bar Association's immigration panel, told India-West it is unlikely that President-elect Donald Trump could immediately revoke work authorization for H-4 visa holders. DHS implemented the initiative last year after a lengthy "notice and comment" period.

If a new DHS administration--potentially helmed by retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, Trump's nominee for the role -- wanted to undo the H-4 work authorization initiative, it would have to undergo the same "notice and comment" procedure, explained the Indian American attorney. "This is unlikely to be done in the first 100 days, and I'm hoping that this will not be one of the new administration's first priorities," Shah said.

Kelly is largely viewed as a "middle ground" to Trump's hard-line positions on immigration, which include deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants, creating a registry for all Muslim immigrants, and building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The nominee has said little about his immigration policy. Shah predicted he would largely focus on stabilizing Central America.

Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee to head the Justice Department, has spoken out against both legal and illegal immigration, and has talked about cancelling the Optional Practical Training program, in which foreign students can stay on for an additional 18 months in the U.S., after finishing graduate studies.

Shah said he has seen an uptick in employers’ concerns as to whether they should hire H-1B and H-4 visa holders, given the uncertainty surrounding both those programs as the new administration steps into the White House. "I would caution employers from jumping to conclusions," he said.

For H-4 visa holders who are currently employed, Shah said: "Don't worry about it and carry on with your job. We all just need to hold our breath and see what happens."

Suman Raghunathan, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Together -- which led the effort to permit work authorization for H-4 visa holders -- told India-West that the future of the initiative is unclear. "We don't actually know yet what the status will be. We're just waiting to hear," she said.

Raghunathan said she hopes the new DHS administration will continue the initiative, and expand it to allow a greater proportion of H-4 visa holders to work.

A Massachusetts county sheriff has proposed sending prison inmates from around the United States to build the proposed wall along the Mexican border that is one of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's most prominent campaign promises.

"I can think of no other project that would have such a positive impact on our inmates and our country than building this wall," Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said at his swearing-in ceremony for a fourth term in office late Wednesday.

"Aside from learning and perfecting construction skills, the symbolism of these inmates building a wall to prevent crime in communities around the country, and to preserve jobs and work opportunities for them and other Americans upon release, can be very powerful," he said.

Hodgson, who like Trump is a Republican, said inmates from around the country could build the proposed wall, described by Trump as a powerful deterrent to illegal immigration.

Trump, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, insisted during his campaign that he would convince the Mexican government to pay for the wall, though Mexican officials have repeatedly said they would not do so.
Officials in the Trump transition office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The United States has a long history of prison labor, with advocates of the idea saying that putting inmates to work can help them learn skills that prepare them for their return to society after completing their sentences. Opponents contend that inmates are not fairly compensated.

The federal prisons system operates some 53 factories around the United States that produced about $500 million worth of clothing, electronics, furniture and other goods in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, according to its financial statements.

Still, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts said Hodgson's proposal could violate prisoners' rights.

"The proposal is perverse, it's inhumane and very likely unconstitutional," ACLU staff counsel Laura Rotolo said in a phone interview. "It certainly has nothing to do with helping prisoners in Massachusetts or their families. It's about politics."

In response to a request by the Trump transition office, the Department of Homeland Security last month identified more than 400 miles (644 km) along the U.S.-Mexico border where new fencing could be erected, according to a document seen by Reuters.

The document contained an estimate that building that section of fence would cost more than $11 billion.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered construction of a U.S.-Mexican border wall and punishment for cities shielding illegal immigrants while mulling restoring a CIA secret detention program as he launched broad but divisive plans to reshape U.S. immigration and national security policy.

A draft executive order seen by Reuters that Trump is expected to sign in the coming days would block the entry of refugees from war-torn Syria and suspend the entry of any immigrants from Muslim-majority Middle Eastern and African countries Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen while permanent rules are studied.

Less than a week into his presidency, Trump has moved aggressively to put his stamp on a range of policies, including steps to gut the healthcare system devised by his predecessor, and make clear that as president he is not turning toward more moderate positions than he took as a candidate.

His directives on Wednesday signaled a tough action toward the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States, most from Latin America, whom he already has threatened to deport.

In a move critics called a slight to the integrity of American democracy, Trump also said on Wednesday he would seek a "major investigation" into what he believes was voter fraud in the November election, despite overwhelming consensus among state officials, election experts and politicians that it is rare in the United States.

"We are going to restore the rule of law in the United States," Trump told an audience that included relatives of people killed by illegal immigrants at the Department of Homeland Security after signing two executive orders.

The directives ordered the construction of a multibillion-dollar wall along the roughly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border, moved to strip federal funding from "sanctuary" states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants, and expanded the force of American immigration agents.

His plans prompted an outcry from immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers who said Trump was jeopardizing the rights and freedoms of millions of people while treating Mexico as an enemy, not an ally, and soiling America's historic reputation as a welcoming place for immigrants of all stripes.

"The border wall is about political theater at the expense of civil liberties," said Christian Ramirez, director of the Southern Border Communities Coalition immigrant advocacy group.

"It is not national security policy. Border communities are among the safest in the nation, and patrolling them with tens of thousands of heavily armed, poorly trained, unaccountable agents puts lives at risks. This will turn these communities into de facto military zones," Ramirez said.

The White House said the wall would stem the flow of drugs, crime and illegal immigration into the United States.

"We are in the middle of a crisis on our southern border: The unprecedented surge of illegal migrants from Central America is harming both Mexico and the United States," Trump said, adding: "A nation without borders is not a nation."

The immigration crackdown has sparked fear among so-called "dreamers," whose parents brought them to the United States illegally and who received temporary deportation relief and work permits from President Barack Obama.

Trump said the dreamers should not fear deportation.

"They shouldn't be very worried," Trump told ABC News in an interview broadcast on Wednesday..

"Where you have great people that are here that have done a good job, they should be far less worried," he said, adding: "We'll be coming out with policy on that over the next period of four weeks."

House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan also said the "dreamers" should not be worried. "We're focused on physical security of the border, we're focused on those who are coming to do us harm from terrorist states and things like that," he told MSNBC.

TENSION WITH MEXICO

Trump is also expected to order a review that could lead to bringing back a CIA program for holding terrorism suspects in secret overseas "black site" prisons where interrogation techniques often condemned as torture were used during former Republican President George W. Bush's administration, two U.S. officials said.

Trump's actions could further test relations with Mexico.

The wall plan has infuriated Mexicans. Trump's policies, including his demand that the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada be renegotiated or scrapped, have put Mexico's government on the defensive. Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto are due to meet next week.

Pena Nieto said on Wednesday night that he "regrets and disapproves" of the push by Trump to build a new wall along the border.

Officials in cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Denver, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle offer some forms of protection to illegal immigrants. Billions of dollars in federal aid to those cities, often governed by Democrats, could be at risk under Trump's move.

In the ABC News interview, Trump said construction on the wall would start within months, with planning starting immediately, and that Mexico would pay back to the United States "100 percent" of the costs. Mexican officials have said they will not pay for the wall.

The White House said Trump's goal was to get the wall started as quickly as possible using existing government funds and then work with the Republican-led Congress on further appropriations.

Trump made cracking down on illegal immigration a key element of his presidential campaign, with supporters at his rallies often chanting: "Build the wall."

The cost, nature and extent of the wall remain unclear. Trump last year put the cost at "probably $8 billion," although other estimates are higher, and he said the wall would span 1,000 miles (1,600 km) because of the terrain of the border.

END OF 'CATCH AND RELEASE'

Trump's directives would end the practice known by critics as "catch and release" in which authorities apprehend illegal immigrants on U.S. territory but do not immediately detain or deport them.

The directives also include hiring 5,000 more U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents used to apprehend people seeking to slip across the border and tripling the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents used to arrest and deport immigrants living in the United States illegally.

They also create more detention space for illegal immigrants along the southern border to make it easier to detain and deport them.

The intent of the proposals regarding refugees and immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority nations is to head off Islamist violence in the United States.

The draft directive on immigration also suspends the U.S. refugee program for four months while determining whether permanent changes to the system are needed.

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Roberta Rampton, Jonathan Landay, Mark Hosenball, Doina Chiacu, Andy Sullivan, Mohammad Zargham, Eric Beech and Susan Heavey)

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed that the action "won't change how we enforce the law in New York City."

De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce the crime rate in the nation's largest city, in part, because relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant communities. He added that if trump follows through with the pan it would mean hes effectively cutting funding from the New York Police Department. An early analysis by NYC officials suggested that about $156 million in federal funding for the NYPD could be impacted.

"Here in New York City and in cities across the nation, this executive order could in fact undermine public safety and make our neighborhoods less safe," de Blasio said.

In Boston,Mayor Marty Walshcalled the executive order an attack on "Boston's people, Boston's strength and Boston's values."

"If people want to live here, they'll live here," Walsh told reporters at a news conference. "They can use my office. They can use any office in this building."

In Seattle, Mayor Ed Murray said that he had directed city departments to review their budgets to prepare for a potential loss of federal funding, the Associated Press reports.

"This city will not be bullied by this administration," Murray said. "We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side."

In Chicago, where Trump has pilloried the mayor over the surge in violence in the city, Mayor Rahm Emanuelvowedthat the nation's third largest city would remain a sanctuary city. Emanuel sidestepped questions at an afternoon news conference about how the city would weather a potential cut in federal funding.

"I want to be clear. We're gonna stay a sanctuary city," Emanuel said. "There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you're from Poland or Pakistan, whether you're from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you're from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream."

In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Leetold reportersafter Trump signed the executive order that nothing has changed for his city.

"I am here today to say we are still a sanctuary city," Lee said. "We stand by our sanctuary city because we want everybody to feel safe and utilize the services they deserve, including education and health care."

Both Lee and de Blasio said that early readings of the executive order by their cities' attorneys suggest that the document is vaguely written and predicted that the Trump administration would face a tough legal battle if it tries to use it as a basis to slash funding.

"There is less here than meets the eye," De Blasio said of the order.

In Detroit, a top aide to Mayor Mike Duggan,questionedwhether the city even qualified as a sanctuary city.

The Detroit City Councill in 2007 passed legislation prohibiting city employees, including police, form asking about person's immigration status unless it was directly related to an alleged crime. City officials say that Detroit police, however, regularly cooperated with requests from federal immigration officials.

"We do not believe this applies to the city of Detroit," said Alexis Wiley, Mayor Mike Duggan's chief of staff. "We do cooperate fully with all federal agencies during the course of criminal investigations, regardless of a person's immigration status."

The U.S Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed concern that the executive order is overly vague.

"That order does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction," the organizations said in a joint statement. "Instead, it gives undefined discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate sanctuary jurisdictions and the Attorney General to take action against them. We call upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to document and promulgate a lawful definition before further actions are taken, so the cities across the Nation may determine how to proceed."

Contributing: Todd Spangler of the Detroit Free Press

Immigration and Customs Enforcement will use a much wider net to arrest undocumented immigrants, doing away with the Obama administration's priorities that had shielded millions of people living in the U.S. illegally, lawmakers said Friday.

According to Democrats who met with ICE officials Thursday night, the agency said that it will continue to target immigrants with criminal convictions, but that agents will now be free to arrest anyone else they encounter who is in the United States illegally, doing away with Obama administration priorities that shielded millions without criminal records from deportation.

"They said that we can and should expect many more arrests and removals this year," said House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Whittier, who attended the Thursday night meeting between ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan and congressional leadership.

Under the new policy, Sanchez said, "essentially anybody who has an immigration status violation is a priority for deportation."

"The message is that everybody is at risk," said Sanchez. ICE's "only limitation," she added, "is its own resources."

Supporters of immigration restrictions have applauded the changes.

"This removes a lot of the restrictions that were put on ICE agents," said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. President Donald Trump has essentially taken the handcuffs off immigration enforcement agents, she said.

"ICE is not going to have to wait for someone to commit a terrible crime or ignore someone that they encounter on the street," Vaughan said. "They can go back to enforcing the law."

But questions remain about ICE's new enforcement policies. In the absence of clear priorities, legal experts say it will likely fall to individual agents to determine which immigrants are detained and deported.

"It's a recipe for chaos," said Stephen Legomsky, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who served as chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under President Barack Obama. "Without centralized priorities, enforcement can't reasonably be uniform."

The confusion over ICE's policies, combined with high-profile raids in Southern California cities, has sent many Southern California immigrants into a panic.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles said it received more than 2,000 calls from immigrants worried about ICE enforcement. False reports of raids and immigration "checkpoints" spread across social media.

"The panic comes from the vagueness," said Benjamin Wood, an organizer for day laborers at the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. "The less details there are, the greater potential there is for people to use their imagination to fill those gaps."

Anxiety and confusion gripped Southern California's immigrant communities this week as details emerged about the Trump administration's plans to expand deportations of those living in the United States illegally.

A series of immigration raids that netted 680 arrests, including 161 in the Los Angeles area this month, set off waves of rumors and fear, sending activists scrambling for answers on who the administration was targeting for enforcement.

New reports Friday that a draft plan was written at the Department of Homeland Security that suggested deploying as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up undocumented immigrants added to the panic.

The White House strongly denied the reports, calling them "100 percent not true."

The idea "conjures images of Japanese internment camps and mass deportations of Mexican immigrants under President Eisenhower," Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat, said in a statement.

"I challenge Republicans and Democrats, whether they are members of Congress or governors, to condemn this plan and ensure it never sees the light of day."

Still, the fact that such a memo was reported to have been circulated suggests an aggressive approach being taken by the federal government to execute Trump's immigration plans, including executive actions that make nearly all undocumented immigrants priorities for deportation.

Contact the writer:gwyler@scng.com

Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and David Perdue, R-Georgia, proposed the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act Feb. 7, which aims to cut legal immigration by 50 percent by eliminating several categories of family-based visas.

Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the preference for adult parents of U.S. citizens; the aging parents of Legal Permanent Residents and U.S. citizens would no longer be considered a priority if the measure were to pass. But for U.S. citizens wishing to bring in their elderly parents who need caregiving, the measure does provide a temporary, two-year visa on the condition that the parent does not work and will not need public benefits.

"This is a throw-back to the immigration system pre-1965, which was reformed because it was a racist, white supremacist piece of legislation which excluded Asians and South Asians altogether," Anoop Prasad, senior staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, told India-West.

"This is a troubling, misguided piece of legislation. It's pretty clear that they're putting the racist, xenophobic, white nationalist rhetoric into action," said the Indian American attorney.

The RAISE Act has not yet been introduced in the Senate. A legislative aide for Perdue told India-West that the senators were planning to introduce the legislation in the Senate in a couple of weeks, after the confirmation for several Cabinet posts has been completed. "There would be no time to debate the bill if it was introduced now," he explained.

A copy of the bill has not yet been released. But the senators did release an outline of their proposal at a press conference Feb. 7.

The RAISE Act would keep in place immigration preferences for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. But it would eliminate preferences for the extended and adult family members of U.S. residents, including adult parents and siblings of U.S. citizens; married and unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens; and the unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents.

More than one million legal immigrants arrived in the U.S. in 2015, noted the senators. The RAISE Act would cut immigration by 41 percent in the first year -- down to about 638,000 -- and by 50 percent by its 10th year -- slightly more than 500,000.

"Over the past 25 years, we have allowed immigrants in without consideration of what our American workforce needs," said Cotton at the press conference, noting that wages for unskilled workers have dropped by two percent. "We're pulling the rug out from underneath the feet of blue collar workers and creating a permanent underclass," he said.

Cotton and Perdue advocated for merit-based immigration, which would prioritize highly-skilled workers. Only one out of every 16 immigrants is highly-skilled, noted Cotton, adding that the other 15 are competing with high school graduates and those without college degrees for jobs.

"Both parties should be focused on what's best for American citizens, especially those who work with their hands and their feet," he said in an interview with Fox News. "The elites are out of touch with working people."

Prasad of ALC told India-West there was no data to correlate Cotton's statement about immigrants impacting lower wages. "Many studies have shown that immigration just grows the economy. Immigrants contribute to the economy and create jobs for high and low-skilled workers," he said.

Lakshmi Sridaran, director of national policy and advocacy at South Asian Americans Leading Together, told India-West that the RAISE Act was one of several pieces of legislation intended to threaten immigrants.

"It vilifies and denigrates our community, by saying: 'You are the reason Americans don’t have jobs. You are the reason behind low wages,'" said the Indian American civil rights activist. "We are seeing again the prioritization of American workers, while the U.S. economy is creating a demand for foreign workers," she said.

"Our communities are on high alert," said Sridaran.

SAALT is planning a series of regional town hall meetings this spring to address the bill and several executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that threaten the immigrant community. The organization will also focus on several immigrant friendly bills, such as legislation introduced Feb. 9 by California Sen. Kamala Harris, which would give the right to legal representation to everyone who turns up at the nation's borders; and New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker's bill, which bans a Muslim registry.

A Kenyan girl was denied entry into the United States a day after courts barred President Donald Trump from deporting immigrants.

Ednah Chepkoton, 25, was held at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport for many hours after getting off a United Airlines flight on February 4.

She had been given a five-year multiple entry visa by the US embassy in Nairobi on January 20.

Ednah, a Kabianga university nursing graduate, narrated her harrowing experience to the Star from the airport, after an immigration officer singled her out of thousands of passengers who were on transit.

"We landed at around 9.30 am but when I was clearing with customs an immigration officer called me aside and started questioning me," she said.

Chicago is one of the areas where anti-travel ban protests have simmered for days.
 

While checking Ednah's passport and visa, the officer asked what her real mission to the US was.

"I was so confused and terrified. It was my first trip out of Kenya," she said.

The officer then started checking her luggage and documents. He asked her why she was carrying her academic papers and if she did not plan to return to Kenya.

"I told him I always travel with my papers and that I had a return ticket," she said.

But she was told to go and wait outside while her issue was discussed.

The officer called Ednah back after four hours and asked her to give him her cell phone.

"He asked for the password which I gave to him," she said, adding she was then asked to leave the office.

Ednah was so terrified by that time and passengers in her connecting flight to Baytown were already boarding.

"I went back to ask why my case was taking long because my flight was leaving. It was at that juncture that the officer, who was with a woman in uniform, told me he had two questions for me," she said.

She was asked to choose between being banned from the US for five years and having her visa withdrawn.

Even more terrified by this turn of events, Ednah requested the officers to let her call her cousin. They refused.

Caught between a hard rock and a hard place, she chose the cancellation of her multiple entry visa.

Her visa now bears a United States Homeland Security stamp withdrawing it.

Ednah was bundled into a return flight to Nairobi at around 6pm, more than eight hours after setting foot in the US.

"I was really looking forward to my one-month stay in the US. We had spent a lot of money on air tickets...it is so sad that after all the vetting at the embassy in Nairobi I was humiliated this much."

Ednah had paid $1,390 to Lufthansa airline for her return ticket. She connected to her flight in Frankfurt on February 3.

Upon returning to Kenya, Ednah called the US embassy and was told to send her denial of entry letter. The Star had not obtained a comment from the embassy by press time.

Trump halted the entire US refugee programme in an executive order signed last Friday and instituted a 90-day travel ban for nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But a US judge issued a stay temporarily halting the deportation of visa holders or refugees under the executive order.

The judge's stay prevents those "caught up" in the aftermath from being deported.

The court decision came as thousands protested at airports in several US states over Trump's clampdown on immigration.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit, estimated that between 100 and 200 people were being detained at airports or in transit.

On Sunday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency deported 130 people to Senegal, following "months" of coordination with Senegalese authorities to ensure "orderly repatriation."

An ICE official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Senegalese nationals "were found to be ineligible to remain in the United States and ordered removed by an immigration official, in accordance with their final orders of removal."

A representative for the Senegalese embassy was unavailable to comment before publication.

The number of Senegalese deportations is a troubling sixfold increase from the 2016 fiscal year when 21 Senegalese people were deported, according to an officialICE report. Just the previous year, 17 of the 22 Senegalese people removed from the United States were deported fornon-criminal offenses, according to aDepartment of Homeland Security report.

The recent increase may be a harbinger of more African and Caribbean immigrant deportations to come, given President Donald Trump's promise to detain and deport some immigrants. He has also made it more difficult for people to gain humanitarian relief like asylum or refugee status when they arrive at U.S. ports of entries, which is one of theprimary ways thatAfricanand Caribbean immigrants are able to successfully stay in the country.

Since Trump took office, a harsh spotlight has been cast on enforcement operations in Latino immigrant communities, with names like DanielRamirez Medina,Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, andDaniela Vargasbecoming household activist slogans. But African and Caribbean immigrants have not received nearly as much support, in part because they do not have arobust support systemin the United States to help them win their immigration cases.

A 2016 Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI) and New York University Law School's Immigrants Rights Clinic report pointed out that there are 3.4 million black immigrants, but that they made up 10.6 percent of all immigrants in removal proceedings between 2003 and 2015. In the2015 fiscal year, the ICE agency deported1,293 African immigrants.

In late February, a coalition of lawyers gathered at California State University Bakersfield to inform community residents about their rights, regardless of their immigration status. Here are some key takeaways and seven Do's and Don'ts from immigration lawyers in Kern County.

DO make a plan
In the event that you or a family member is detained or deported, you need to have a plan in place to avoid panic. Children and family members should know whom they should go to for help, have the phone number of your immigration attorney on hand, and take steps to fight a possible deportation order.

• If you have family members who are U.S. citizens, ask them to get a passport immediately. Only U.S. citizens can get a U.S. passport. This will make it possible for U.S.-citizen children and family members to pass back and forth between countries, and visit relatives in the event that someone is deported.
• Make sure you have an adult or guardian who is able to care for your children in the event that you and your spouse get deported. This should be someone you can trust with sensitive information. This person should know your full name, your date of birth and, if you have a green card, they should know your alien registration number, which can be found on your green card.
• Plan ahead with finances, bank accounts, and have contacts who may assist family members in the case of an emergency. A good idea is to have a list with your immigration attorney's number and the legal guardian(s) who may care for your children.
• You can also have a letter drafted, nominating a guardian to care for children. It is as simple as writing this letter and having it notarized. This letter is VERY important. If you don't take this precautionary step, then the state of California will get custody of the U.S. children. This letter should also state that you authorize this person to obtain medical records and enroll children in school. Access to health and medical records is vital. Lastly, make sure that the guardian knows where to access birth certificates and important documents for your children.

DO beware of notarios / notaries public

There are radio announcements and ads of notarios (notaries public) all over town. This has led to some confusion among residents in Kern. Keep in mind that notarios in the United States are not the same as notarios in Mexico. In Mexico, they are trained professionals who can give you legal advice. Notaries here don't go through the same extensive education and should not give you legal advice. In the United States, they can only certify documents (such as your guardianship letter).

If you need legal advice, speak to a professional attorney instead. If you have been a victim of fraud by a notary, you should immediately seek a reputable lawyer. (This won't have any effect on your immigration case.)

DON'T hang things on your rearview mirror

It is very common for people to hang objects like lanyards or rosaries from their rearview mirrors. This gives police officers the right to pull you over for violating a vehicle code. In addition to this you are advised to ensure that all of your car's equipment is working, including lights, signals and mirrors, as any of these malfunctions can lead to an officer pulling you over.

DO remain silent

You absolutely have the right to remain silent when being questioned by any officer, whether they are police or ICE. Lawyers advise people not to answer any questions about their legal status, their country of origin, how long they've been in the United States, or anything related to immigration until they speak to an attorney.

DON'T open the door, or consent to a search

Officers need either a search warrant or your consent to search your vehicle or your home. Do not give your consent under any circumstances. If the officers say they have a search warrant, ask to see it first. Don't open the door; ask them to slide it through the mail slot or under the door. A search warrant must be signed by a judge, it has to specifically name your address and name you (first and last name) in order to be valid. In the event that they do have a valid search warrant, you should exercise your right to remain silent until you can speak to a lawyer.

DO seek an attorney if you are harassed or a victim of wage theft at work

Regardless of your immigration status, you are entitled to certain protections in the workplace. If you are a victim of harassment or wage theft at work, you are encouraged to call the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. They do not ask whether you are a citizen. Here in California, we have the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Our taxes go to this labor board and lawyers are provided to help you with your case, at no cost to you. In addition, you are entitled to the same benefits of workers compensation if you are injured at work.

DO file a complaint against any harassment or bullying at school

Many cases of bullying and anti-immigrant rhetoric have emerged in classrooms and schools across the nation. This type of harassment should not be tolerated and educators are required to intervene should they witness this. If your child is a victim of bullying, write a formal written letter of complaint to the school. Administrators must respond promptly and take measures to prevent bullying.

A draft executive order currently under consideration by the White House would --for the first time -- mandate census workers to ask respondents about their immigration status.

The mandate is embedded in a section of the Jan. 23 proposed order: "Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs."India-Westpreviously reported on the draft order, which aims to reform H-1B, L-1, and OPT programs.

The proposed order mandates that the Census Bureau, in collaboration with the State Department, Commerce Department, Labor Department and Homeland Security, publish a report each year illustrating immigration patterns, and the size of the foreign-born population in the U.S. The report must also include the fiscal impact of foreign temporary workers on wages and employment of U.S-born workers.

The order explicitly states that the census questionnaire must include questions on immigration status and whether the respondent is a U.S. citizen.

The Brennan Center for Justice notes that the proposed order has "fueled concerns among advocates about an undercount if the nation's immigrant communities -- fearful that the information may be used against them or family members -- decide not to participate in the census."

The impact of an undercount could be especially ominous for fast-growing states like Texas and California, which house large numbers of undocumented immigrants, noted the Brennan Center, adding that an undercount could result in inadequate federal resources to those states, and disproportionate representation in Congress.

"By crossing a long understood line about the professional independence and integrity of the Bureau, President Trump would interfere with collection of an accurate Census count in 2020 and impair public trust, local economies, and fair redistricting," noted the Brennan Center.

 In a recent column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof dared to ask the "awkward question" of why Asian-Americans have been so economically successful in the US. The most important reasons, he says, are hard work and a reverence for education:

"The Asian American Achievement Paradox," by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou, notes that Asian-American immigrants in recent decades have started with one advantage: They are highly educate...Lee and Zhou note that kids of working-class Asian- Americans often also thrive, showing remarkable upward mobility...

I'm pretty sure that one factor is East Asia's long Confucian emphasis on education...mmigrant East Asians often [make]  sacrifices for children's education, such as giving prime space in the home to kids to study.

Kristof notes research showing that even when IQ scores are equally matched, East Asian kids tend to get ahead by working harder. He also cites experiments indicating that the stereotype of high intelligence and strong academic potential may be self- fulfilling--a positive version of "stereotype threat."

Kristof's article is good, and you should read the whole thing. But the focus on East Asians, and "Confucian" culture, seems misplaced to me because the kind of education-intensive culture he describes is common to all high-skilled immigrant groups.

Africans win

Perhaps most surprising is that, by many measures, the most-educated immigrant group in the U.S. isn't East Asians. It's Africans.

According to Census data, more than 43% of African immigrants hold a bachelor's degree or higher--slightly more than immigrants from East Asia. Nigerian immigrants are especially educated, with almost two-thirds holding college degrees--a significantly higher percentage even than Chinese or South Korean immigrants. African immigrants are also very likely to hold advanced degrees, many of which are earned at US universities.

By many measures, African immigrants are as far ahead of American whites in the educational achievement as whites are ahead of African-Americans.

That education translates into higher household income.

Nigerian-Americans, for instance, have a median household income well above the American average, and above the average of many white and Asian groups, such as those of Dutch or Korean descent.

This isn't the power of Confucius. It's the magic of high-skilled immigration. When a country selects immigrants for their educational background and technical skills, it doesn't just get smart people--it gets families committed to education, hard work and future-oriented life planning.

Every society has its own version of what Kristof calls Confucian values. They are universal. And skilled immigration brings the families with those values to the US from every corner of the globe.

That's one reason why the US should shift its immigration system to be more like Canada's. Canada famously awards prospective immigrants with "points," based on education and other skill-based qualifications.

The US obviously attracts lots of high-skilled immigrants too, especially because of its world-beating university system -  though the country doesn't allow enough of them to stay.

Still, switching to a Canada-style points system would allow the US to take even bigger gulps from the rivers of talent flowing around the globe.

"Open borders"

This isn't to ignore the contribution of low-skilled immigrants, who work hard, pay taxes and commit relatively few crimes, despite what some conservative politicians now claim. There is nothing at all wrong with low-skilled immigrants, and they have enriched the U.S. enormously. But unless the US adopts "open borders" and lets in all immigrants--which is vanishingly unlikely--it should tip the scales toward the high-skilled.

One additional reason the US should do this is to foster economic equality.

Low-skilled immigrants compete with native- born Americans who do jobs like fixing houses, landscaping yards, cleaning buildings and staffing cash registers. That holds down the wages of less-educated Americans. If the US switched to a Canada-style system, it would ease up the pressure on working-class Americans.

Nor should the US worry about inflicting harm on the source countries. Some immigration opponents claim that accepting skilled workers causes "brain drain" across the rest of the world. But studies show that when skilled people move to the US, they end up helping their ancestral nations. They send money to overseas family members, invest in businesses back in their old homes and free up educational spots for other people in those countries to move up. Brain drain isn't a problem.

So instead of singing the praises of Confucian culture, the US should be harnessing the power of its immigration system to recruit scholastic stars from all over the globe. An economy with more smart, dedicated, ambitious people--no matter where they come from--is good for everyone, but especially for the working class.

(Article orgininally published on the Guardian & Mail on 13th OCT, 2015)

-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Federal immigration officers arrested five people in Lawrence on Wednesday when they showed up for scheduled appointments at a U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office.

WBUR has confirmed that at least three of those arrested were beginning the process to become legal permanent residents.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says the agency had orders to detain each of the five individuals for deportation.

'They're In A Sort Of Catch-22'

Brian Doyle, the attorney for one of the three people who were seeking green cards before they were arrested, says he knew there was a chance his client would be taken into custody at the appointment.

His client, a Brazilian national who had been ordered deported before she married a U.S. citizen, understood the risks as well, but ultimately decided that she wanted to keep the appointment and begin the green card process.

This, Doyle says, is an example of the difficult situation for many immigrants living in the country illegally, who are forced to weigh the costs and benefits of keeping an appointment with an immigration official in light of newdeportation prioritiesset by President Trump.

"Now, they're in a sort of catch-22 where, 'All right, I'm being called in for this interview. I want to have this first step approved.' If they don't show up, it's what's called abandoned... USCIS just sort of assumes that they don't want to go forward with it," Doyle said. "But now, if they do show up, trying to take that first step and they're detained, it can lead to them being removed."

Because Doyle's client is married to a U.S. citizen, she is eligible for a specificapplication processsponsored by her husband. Both Doyle's client and her husband were present at the USCIS office for what's called a marriage petition interview, a process used to screen for fraudulent marriages. Doyle said his client, a small business owner with no criminal record, had just completed her 40-minute question and answer session when an ICE agent entered the office and informed her that she was ordered removed and was being taken into custody.

Doyle says ICE acted within its authority when taking his client into custody.

"Yes, they have the authority to, but you're typically not going to see that person detained in that environment, because they are taking that first step in obtaining status through whatever avenue that they have," he said.

Doyle's client is in ICE custody at the Suffolk County House of Corrections. He says his client could be detained, away from her three children and husband, for weeks while the legal process unfolds. Ultimately, she could be deported to Brazil -- a country she has not visited in more than 15 years.

'Back Into The Shadow Of Immigration Land'

Susan Church, who heads the New England chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, says she finds the arrests at the USCIS office not only troubling but also surprising.

"The detention of an individual under these circumstances and most likely the arrest would be something that is definitely new," Church said. "Because the priority system under the Obama administration instructed ICE officers not to arrest or detain individuals under these circumstances."

But that appears to be changing.

Church and other lawyers say that the fact ICE was notified is not necessarily unusual, but that people were taken into custody leads them to believe that this represents a shift in tactics.

"What this means is that people who are eligible to obtain their green card in the United States, who are following the law, who are following the rules, who are doing what the government is instructing them to do, are going to be too terrified to show up and follow through with the process," Church said. "And now a whole new category of people is going to go back into the shadow of immigration land and be living in fear."

In a statement, ICE confirmed that officers were "responding to an investigative tip" when arresting the five foreign nationals at the USCIS office in Lawrence.

"All five individuals have final orders of removal issued by a federal immigration judge. All five will be held in custody pending removal from the United States," the statement read.

When asked if the five people arrested had criminal records, an ICE spokesman said two of the people had no criminal record while the other three had "multiple traffic violations."

This segment aired on March 31, 2017.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday ordered federal agencies to look at tightening a temporary visa program used to bring high-skilled foreign workers to the United States, as he tries to carry out his campaign pledges to put "America First."

Trump signed an executive order on enforcing and reviewing the H-1B visa, popular in the technology industry, on a visit to the headquarters of Snap-On Inc, a tool manufacturer in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

In the document, known to the White House as the "Buy American and Hire American" order, Trump also seeks changes in government procurement that would boost purchases of American products in federal contracts, with one aim being to help US steelmakers.

The moves show Trump once again using his power to issue executive orders to try to fulfill promises he made last year in his election campaign, in this case to reform US immigration policies and encourage purchases of American products.

Senior officials gave few details on implementation of the order but Trump aides have expressed concern that most H-1B visas are awarded for lower-paid jobs at outsourcing firms, many based in India, which they say takes work away from Americans.

They seek a more merit-based way to give the visas to highly skilled workers.

"Right now, widespread abuse in our immigration system is allowing American workers of all backgrounds to be replaced by workers brought in from other countries," Trump said.

As he nears the 100-day benchmark of his presidency, Trump still has no major legislative achievements. With his attempts to overhaul healthcare and tax law not bearing fruit so far in a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans, Trump has leaned heavily on executive orders to seek changes to the US economy.

The venue for Trump's visit on Tuesday is a nod to his voter base in the manufacturing centers of the American heartland. Wisconsin unexpectedly voted for the Republican last year, partly due to his promises to bring back industrial jobs.

H-1B visas are intended for foreign nationals in occupations that generally require higher education, including science, engineering or computer programming. The government uses a lottery to award 65,000 visas every year and randomly distributes another 20,000 to graduate student workers.

Critics say the lottery benefits outsourcing firms that flood the system with mass applications for visas for lower-paid information technology workers.

"Right now H-1B visas are awarded in a totally random lottery and that's wrong. Instead, they should be given to the most skilled and highest paid applicants and they should never, ever be used to replace Americans," Trump said.

SAN FRANCISCO__Immigrant rights advocates say that despite the cloud of fear hanging over communities in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, there is also a growing and increasingly organized resistance. 

"We are seeing an increase in the number of people apprehended for removal," Melissa Chua, immigration director of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), told reporters on a national press call organized by New America Media and Ready California. "It's not just growing infrastructure [for future deportations]...we're seeing it in reality."

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement made 21,362 arrests from January 20 to March 13 of this year, a third more than during the same period in 2016, according to numbers requested by The Washington Post.The figures include 5,441 non-citizens with no criminal record, double the number during the same time last year.

The statistics reflect a shift in priorities from the Obama administration, which sought to prioritize certain criminals and recent arrivals for deportation. Under Trump, the deportation priorities have expanded so much that they can be used to target almost any undocumented immigrant.

Immigrant and refugee rights advocates say the effect on immigrant communities is palpable.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), described it as "one of the most horrendous periods in American history for immigrant families."

"What we're seeing," explained Salas, "is just a harsher way by which DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] is dealing with all matters of immigration, especially when it comes to stays of removal or requests for relief."

Over 38 percent of the individuals detained in the Feb. 9 ICE raids in Southern California, for example, had only minor infractions, many of them from years ago, according to Salas.

"The other thing that we're seeing," she said, "is that they’re being harsher when it comes to individuals who had ... stays of removal.

"ICE enforcement is going back and making decisions about those cases," Salas explained. "Instead of continuing their stays of removal, they're challenging their stays of removal, their administrative closure."

Since taking office, Trump has signed executive orders that call for "sweeping changes on immigration," said Chua of IRC, adding, however, that "many of these proposed changes face some real, significant hurdles."

Some, like the construction of a border wall, can't be implemented without funding. Others have been blocked by the courts, including the administration's attempt to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities; and both versions of Trump's "travel ban," which aimed to curtail travel from certain predominantly Muslim countries and lower the number of refugees allowed admission into the United States. 

"While many of the changes proposed by the administration may threaten refugees, immigrants and their families," said Chua, "there still exist some real barriers to implementation, offering some real avenues of hope for immigrant communities."

Advocates say many of these signs of hope lie outside of Washington.

"The immigrant rights movement is getting more organized, more powerful," said Salas, pointing to local and state efforts that seek to protect the rights of immigrants across the country.

"What is incredible is the many cities and schools defending immigrants," she said.

On May 1, she noted, about 30,000 people marched in the streets of Los Angeles to defend the rights of immigrants.

"California is moving forward a different vision, a different agenda," said Salas. The state legislature has proposed various bills that seek to defend immigrants' rights, from Senate Bill 54 (the California Values Act), introduced by Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), which would prevent state and local resources from being used to cooperate with deportations, to Senate Bill 6, by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, which would provide funding for legal services for immigrants facing deportation.

By contrast, Texas' state legislature is moving further to the right on immigration. Texas Republicans just passed Senate Bill 4, a new law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, which threatens law enforcement with jail time if they don't cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

"In the mid-90s, California looked a lot like Texas does today," said Salas, when California voters passed Prop 187. That ballot measure helped get its supporter, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, elected. But it led to an even bigger backlash against the GOP in the state, and is largely credited with the mobilization of Latino voters who have changed the face of California politics. 

"Our community [in California] became engaged," Salas said. 

Texas, which has the nation’s second-largest Latino population after California, could see a similar backlash. "What we're seeing in Texas is the same kind of mobilization," she said.

Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates are helping their communities stay informed. 

"There are many families that are afraid," said Adriana Guzman, immigrant outreach coordinator with Faith in Action Bay Area. "Our message to them is that there are steps they can take right now."

Guzman said she is encouraging individuals to talk to a trusted legal services provider to see if they qualify for immigration relief, to make a family preparedness plan, including who will take care of children if something happens to their parents, and to carry the number of a trusted immigration attorney they can call in case of an emergency.

Most importantly, Guzman said, individuals should know that they have certain rights under the U.S. Constitution, regardless of their immigration status. These include the right to remain silent, the right to not open the door to agents without a warrant signed by a judge, the right to speak to a lawyer and make a phone call, and to not sign anything they don’t understand or that isn’t true.

"Thousands of community outreach workers are spanning their communities, delivering Know Your Rights presentations," said Salas of CHIRLA. From helping eligible immigrants become citizens and register to vote, to protesting in the streets and supporting legal challenges in the courts, she said, immigrant rights advocates have been able to "make a statement in these very difficult days."

ATLANTA--One morning in March 2014, Rachel Bol earned something she had never had before. After spending most of her life in refugee camps, she finally had a country where she could live safely-- and one she could call her own.

"God helped me become a U.S. citizen," said the 47-year-old South Sudan native during an ethnic media roundtable at the Latin American Association here. "For the very first time, I have a passport -- [an American] passport that will protect me."

Bol, her husband and their young daughter fled the violence of Sudan's brutal civil war in 1987, to Ethiopia. A few years later, Bol gave birth to two boys in a refugee camp. Her husband was then killed in the war.

In 2006, 16 years after raising her children in three different refugee camps, Bol decided to move to Atlanta, by herself.

It was difficult for her to leave her children behind, she recalled, but she knew it would open a new life for all of them.

Soon after Bol became a U.S. citizen, she was able to petition for her two sons, now in their 20s, to come live with her in the United States.

"Being an American citizen is very good," she said. "I finally have my boys with me."

She hopes that her green card petition for her daughter, who is married and still lives with her own family in Ethiopia, will be processed soon.

A new campaign in Atlanta

Atlanta has the second fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, after Baltimore. Thirteen percent of Atlanta immigrants are eligible to apply for citizenship, according to Luisa Cardona, deputy director of immigrant affairs for the Atlanta Mayor's Office.

Yet many eligible immigrants here have not taken that step.

In response, a group of local community organizations has joined the nonpartisan national networkNew Americans Campaignwith a common goal: to support as many immigrants and refugees as they can to become U.S. citizens. 

These organizations include the Latin American Association, New American Pathways, Catholic Charities-Atlanta, Center for Pan Asian Community Services (CPACS), Asian American Advancing Justice (AAAJ)-Atlanta, GALEO, and International Rescue Committee -- the organization that helped Bol throughout her naturalization process.

Clarkston Mayor Edward Terry described the naturalization of immigrants and refugees, like Bol, as "a manifestation of the American dream."

"As [naturalized] citizens, they are given an equal voice, just like those who were born in this country," he said.

"They can vote, and that allows them to give direction for their community."

The city of Clarkston, about 20 miles east of Atlanta, is home to about 10,000 residents. According to Mayor Terry, immigrants and refugees account for half of its population.

"It's the Ellis Island of the South," he said. "People say, 'Oh, it's a sanctuary city.' That term is a political ballgame. I'd like to call it 'a city of refuge.'"

Since the Atlanta-area citizenship campaign began nine months ago, these organizations have already conducted 21 free citizenship workshops and assisted 1,176 people apply for naturalization.

"Because of this partnership, immigrant and refugee communities have already saved about $1.1 million in legal and citizenship application fees," said Javeria Jamil, staff attorney of AAAJ-Atlanta. "And we have served applicants from more than 40 countries."

The next citizenship workshop in Atlanta will be on June 17 at the Mexican Consulate, where eligible immigrants will get free help applying for citizenship and accessing fee waivers.

Millions of dollars in city revenue

Yotin Srivanjarean, a newly naturalized immigrant from Thailand, said becoming a U.S. citizen allowed him to travel freely.

"When I was a green card holder, every time I would come back to the United States from visiting my family in Thailand, I always felt uneasy, with the immigration officer asking me a lot of questions," he said. "Now I have a sense of belonging. I am no longer Thai; I am Thai American."

But the city itself also benefits when more immigrants become U.S. citizens.

Helping more immigrants naturalize increases their economic contributions to the city, according to Cardona of the Atlanta Mayor's Office and Welcoming Atlanta.

"As newly naturalized citizens, they have contributed $19 million from their income to the city of Atlanta, and $7 million from their taxes," said Cardona.

Many have become business owners. Immigrants and refugees own 52 businesses in the city, she said.

For Rachel Bol, who lost almost everything to war, becoming a U.S. citizen meant being able to reunite her family and get everything back.

"I never went to school, [so my English was not very good]. All I knew was to work," she said. "But I didn't feel alone during my application. This is the happiest period of my life."

The Atlanta New Americans Campaign is supported in part by the Sapelo Foundation.Atlanta's free naturalization workshop takes place Saturday, June 17, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Consulate General of Mexico, 1700 Chantilly Drive NE, Atlanta, GA 30324. Appointments are required. Register here:bit.ly/citizenshipjune17.For information, call 888-54GALEO.

For more information about the national New Americans Campaign and upcoming citizenship workshops in your city, go towww.newamericanscampaign.org.

Researchers analyzing data from millions of traffic stops in the United States have found that black and Hispanic drivers are more likely to be cited, searched, and arrested at stops than white drivers.

The researchers note that such disparities alone are not necessarily indicative of racial bias. However, by looking at the rate at which officers discover contraband on searched drivers, they find evidence that minorities are held to a double standard and searched on the basis of less evidence.

These findings are based on a nationwide database--which the researchers created--of state patrol stops. The database contains key details from millions of records collected from 2011 to 2015 and is part of an effort to statistically analyze police practices.

"We've created a platform to help researchers and policymakers understand and improve policing..."

Along with these findings, the researchers are releasing their entire dataset, complete with online tutorials, so that policy makers, journalists, and citizens can do their own analyses through this newStanford Open Policing Project.

"We have seen many anecdotal reports of bias but we need more than that to accurately show the experience of motorists who are minorities," says Cheryl Phillips, a professor of journalism and part of the Stanford University Computational Journalism Lab. "We need an open and transparent platform where we can identify systematic bias and that will enable policy change."

In an academic paper detailing their findings, the researchers explain how they assembled more than 60 million police reports from 20 states that collect enough information about traffic stops--including the race or ethnicity of drivers---to permit statistical inferences when looking at the data in aggregate.

"We've created a platform to help researchers and policymakers understand and improve policing," says Sharad Goel, an assistant professor of management science and engineering and leader of the university's Law, Order, and Algorithms Project, which uses computational tools to study criminal justice issues.

More searches, less suspicion

The intellectual heart of the project involved the development of a more nuanced and statistically valid way to infer racial or ethnic discrimination after a person is pulled over for a traffic stop. The researchers call their approach the threshold test. It quantifies the following question: once a driver is pulled over, what level of suspicion must an officer have to conduct a search, and how does this threshold of suspicion relate to the race or ethnicity of the driver?

Last year, the computer scientists released their first scientific paper on the threshold test, applying their statistical measure to 4.5 million traffic stops from 100 cities in North Carolina. That study found evidence of a double standard: officers required less suspicion to search black or Hispanic drivers than white drivers.

Applying this test to their newly collected records, the researchers found that the same basic pattern holds across the country.

"This is not a regional phenomenon; it's national," Phillips says. "For journalists, being able to examine both the local stops and the bigger picture represents stories that need to be told."

Collecting the data
The project began more than two years ago when Phillips and a group of journalism graduate students began requesting traffic stop data from state police agencies. Some jurisdictions didn’t offer data electronically and among the states that made electronic records available, data often weren’t collected in a uniform format, creating barriers to systematic analysis.

In 2015, Goel and his students brought their computational skills to the effort. The team won a grant from the nonprofit John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to collect, analyze, and share this sizable data set.

The data negotiation process has become part of the educational experience in Phillips' classes. And collecting the data, standardizing it, and bringing it into one repository means examining racial patterns in stops on a much broader scale is now possible for academic researchers, policymakers, and journalists.

"It took thousands of hours to corral the different state datasets into a consistent format for analysis," Goel says, adding that, among other things, the researchers recommend uniform standards for collecting traffic stop data to facilitate public oversight.

Working with journalists and policymakers

The researchers plan to continue collecting data from other states. So far, the project has obtained at least some data from 31 states, though the analysis has been focused on the 20 states with data that were more detailed.

The project has now begun requesting similar data from cities. They also are creating tutorials to help explain the subtle differences between concepts like "discrimination" and "disparate impact" to help provide a shared vocabulary upon which to understand and improve police policies.

The team hopes to attract other researchers, policymakers, and citizens to join their open effort. For her part, Phillips is focusing first on giving journalists both the data and a more sophisticated set of tools to support their role as public watchdogs. The project has already heard from dozens of journalists interested in using the data and tapping the expertise of the computer scientists.

"In a time of shrinking newsrooms and declining resources, we think this is a new model for helping journalists do their jobs," she says.

SAN FRANCISCO – If immigration agents show up at a worksite, employers don’t have to let them in.

That is one of the key messages immigrant rights advocates are sending out as a new bill that would increase protections for workers makes its way through committees in the California legislature.

Employers across the country already have certain rights, said Grisel Ruiz, staff attorney of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC). "If an employer has ICE agents coming to their workplace, so long as the workplace is private property, they should also keep ICE agents out...unless they have an ICE warrant," she said.

Ruiz spoke on a national press call this week hosted by New America Media and Ready California.

Proposed legislation in California would go a step further in protecting workers and helping employers navigate what happens when ICE agents show up at their business. 

Under the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, AB 450 (David Chiu, D-San Francisco), employers would be required to ask for a warrant before they allow immigration enforcement agents onto the worksite. They would not be able to hand over any private information about workers, such as social security numbers, without a subpoena. 

"We might not, in the state of California, be able to tell ICE what to do," said Michael Young, legislative advocate with the California Labor Federation which, together with SEIU California, sponsored AB 450. "We can't regulate federal immigration law. But we can regulate employer behavior. We can say that employers have an obligation to protect their workers and they have to take certain actions to make sure those rights are protected."

Nearly 2.6 million undocumented immigrants live in California, and one in 10 workers in the state is undocumented, according to Young. In some industries, this number is even higher. Forty-five percent of agricultural workers and 21 percent of construction workers in California are undocumented.

This is a large number of people who "could be at risk from worksite raids, and these raids are already happening in the state," said Young. 

Increase in enforcement actions 

The Trump administration's "laser focus” on immigration enforcement has not been accompanied by a change in tactics, noted Ruiz of ILRC.

Cooperation between immigration enforcement and local law officials "continues to be the number one way that individuals are identified and placed in removal proceedings," she said. ICE is also continuing individualized enforcement, for example going to the home of a specific person they are looking for, and then picking up other people in that home.

But it's important to remember that everyone, regardless of immigration status, is protected by Constitutional rights, Ruiz continued, including the right to remain silent, to not allow agents into their home or work without a warrant signed by a judge, and to not sign anything before talking to an immigration attorney.

"Trump does not have the resources to go after and deport all 11 some-odd million undocumented people, plus, in the U.S.," she said. "The likelihood of him picking up the random person, especially who’s never had contact with ICE, is actually quite low.” And even if they do get picked up by ICE, she said, "Many people will have a chance to fight their case."

Anti-immigrant rhetoric has led to a palpable fear among immigrants, who may now be making decisions based on that fear.

"The irony of all of this is that for many people, that fear may be the greatest impact, in a way," Ruiz said. "The fear is affecting people at all levels."

Economic impact of fear

Cal Soto, national workers rights coordinator at the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON) described the mood among day laborers as timid and cautious.

"What I've seen is a ton of people who regularly might have made health and safety or wage claims, or filed police reports, saying, 'It's not worth it for me,'" said Soto.

He added, "This has an impact on the wages they’re able to negotiate, and the wages of everybody in the community." 

It also may have a chilling effect on consumer spending.

"People are not buying homes. They’re not building their business," said Mohan Kanungo, director of programs and engagement at Mission Asset Fund. "And that certainly has a large impact that I think remains to be seen for us to quantify."

Soto described anti-immigrant rhetoric and intimidation as a "campaign to frighten immigrant workers into the shadows and out of the public eye." 

Instead of hiding, he said, immigrant workers must gain knowledge and defense strategies. 

Three steps to take now

The Mission Asset Fund recently released aFinancial Emergency Action Plan for Immigrants,which gives families and business owners practical tips about how to protect their assets in uncertain times.

First, families can take action to protect their money. This includes opening or maintaining a checking account to have access to funds when needed; setting up online bill pay to make sure bills get paid on time, even if you are detained; different ways to share your checking account with those you trust; setting up online transfers so you can easily wire someone money if you need to; and making sure you are protected from overdraft fees.

Second, families can take steps to protect their belongings, including their car, property and business. 

"People are coming to us, asking, 'How can I give someone control of my business if I am detained?'" said Kanungo. "That's where we talk a lot about powers of attorney...What can you do now to protect your property or give someone else the ability to make decisions over your property?"

Third, families can take steps to plan for an emergency by protecting their credit, and creating savings goals. So that it doesn't feel overwhelming, Kanungo suggests starting by saving up a small amount, such as enough money for a month’s worth of groceries, and working up to putting aside enough money to pay for legal fees that one could incur in case of detention. 

"It's not just about the burden of the immigration-related costs," said Kanungo, "but the dual burden that comes up with maintaining a household with a loss of income from a family member."

Michael Young of the California Labor Federation hopes that California lawmakers will enact greater protections for immigrant workers in the state.

"We want to make sure we can get these laws and protections on the books as soon as possible," he said, "to protect as many workers as we can."

AB 450 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday with a vote of 5-2. It will next go to Senate Appropriations Committee in late August. 

For more information about Mission Asset Fund’s Financial Emergency Action Plan for Immigrants, go to:bit.ly/prepmyfam.For information about Ready California, go to:ready-california.org.

BOSTON (AP) --Republican Gov. Charlie Baker is working on a bill in response to a court ruling that forbids police officers in Massachusetts from holding a person based solely on a federal immigration detainer request.

Lizzy Guyton, the governor's communication director, said Wednesday the state police will continue to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by notifying ICE of the arrest and impending release of criminals sought by federal authorities.

Guyton said the administration is "currently exploring legislative options that will give formal legal authority to the state police to further cooperate with ICE by detaining individuals convicted of violent crimes such as murder or rape when ICE is unable to respond immediately to take them into custody."

Guyton said Baker doesn't support Massachusetts becoming a sanctuary state.

Baker's action comes as some of his fellow Republicans urged the Democratic-controlled Legislature earlier Wednesday to respond quickly to the court ruling.

Immigration activists repeatedly interrupted the House GOP lawmakers with chants of "keep hate out of our state" during a news conference at the Statehouse to discuss the bill they filed after Monday's ruling by the state's highest court.

The legislation would give police officers broad power to arrest and hold an individual, without a warrant, if the officers or the law enforcement agency they serve have a lawfully-issued immigration detainer from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Supreme Judicial Court said Massachusetts law does not currently give officers that authority, absent a criminal violation or other reason to keep a person in custody.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the decision, calling it a first of its kind in the country.

Republicans argued it would put the safety of the state's residents at risk.

"This ruling ties the hands of all law enforcement officers and prohibits them from doing their jobs, which is to keep our communities safe," said Rep. Shaunna O'Connell, of Taunton. "It makes Massachusetts a safe haven for illegal immigrants. It opens the floodgates and says 'if you come here, you get a get out of jail free card.'"

There was no indication that Democrats would consider the Republican bill anytime soon. Some legislators, in fact, had already been supporting, prior to the SJC ruling, a bill that would sharply limit cooperation between federal immigration officials and state and local law enforcement agencies, making Massachusetts a de facto "sanctuary state."

Patricia Montes, executive director of Centro Presente, an organization that supports Latino immigrants, said the Republican bill was driven by "hate and ignorance." She led a small group of protesters who frequently interrupted lawmakers as they tried to address reporters.

"Be respectful and do not interrupt," implored Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican. Lyons later accepted an invitation to meet privately with the group in the future.

Bristol Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, a Republican known for hard-line stances on immigration, said the protesters were violating his First Amendment rights by trying to speak over him. Montes responded that Hodgson was violating the rights of immigrants.

"The message they are sending is that all undocumented people in Massachusetts are criminals, are rapists, are drug dealers, and that's not the case," Montes said.

This story was originally published in Feet in 2 Worlds. 

As the crowd swelled in front of the glass doors at the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) building in San Francisco's Financial District, Sandy stood with her megaphone in defiance. As the statewide coordinator for the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance (CIYJA) she helped organize the rally.

"The new administration's deportation system is out to get all of us," yelled Sandy. "So we need to stand in solidarity just like we are here today."

Roughly 100 people gathered at the USCIS building on June 5, many holding signs that read, "No human being is illegal" and "Free Hugo and Rodrigo." The protesters were demanding an end to the targeted attacks on immigrant communities, and calling for the release of Hugo Mejia and Rodrigo Nunez, two Bay Area men who were recently detained by immigration agents while at work.

"We all know there is no just immigration system, that the system is made not to benefit us," Sandy said. "Hugo and Rodrigo unfortunately are victims of this system."

Sandy is undocumented, but her immigration status hasn't deterred her from fighting on the frontlines for immigrant rights -- and she is aware of the risks. In 2015, she was arrested by San Francisco police for occupying Sen. Dianne Feinstein's San Francisco office in protest of a bill that would violate the city's sanctuary city ordinance.

Sandy and other young activists say they are fighting, not just for themselves but also for their parents and older generations who have not been as willing or able to be so public with their activism. Putting themselves in situations that could lead to their arrest and deportation has won them many admirers, but also concern.

"Of course it scares me that something may happen to my daughter," said Sandy's father, who declined to state his name.

"My parents don't want to be in front of the cameras," Sandy said. "We know that we are carrying our families on our backs when we do this work. We're doing something that they didn't have the opportunity to do. Maybe it's not that they didn't want to, but they didn't have the opportunity. Especially, because now we're more united, we're more organized to respond."

At the rally Sandy is interpreting for Yadira Munguia, whose husband of 18 years, Hugo Mejia, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 3 at his job, around 50 miles northeast of San Francisco.

Mejia and his friend Rodrigo Nunez were employees of S&R Drywall construction company, working at a hospital located at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, Calif., which is not a sanctuary city. When military officials asked them for I.D. and Social Security numbers, the men handed over their Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN), something many undocumented immigrants use as their Social Security number. When officials learned the men were undocumented, they were arrested and detained by ICE agents.

This kind of public activism is something Munguia had never considered before her husband was detained. Although she's been in the United States for 16 years, the married mother of three kept a low profile, a lifestyle that many undocumented parents -- even those who are residents of sanctuary cities like San Francisco --feel compelled to live.

"We always tried to do things right; not getting into trouble, paying our taxes, not asking anything from the government, always just trying to do things ourselves. Not trying to make ourselves visible," Munguia told Feet in 2 Worlds in Spanish. "My fear is gone, because if I want Hugo and Rodrigo to be released, then I have to fight alongside those who are helping me."

Young, undocumented and unafraid

It was through meeting youth activists like Sandy that Munguia first saw the stark contrast between her generation and today's undocumented youth. Unlike their parents who brought them here as children, many of these young people are opting for a life of activism and public advocacy.

"[Undocumented parents] have a lot to lose," Sandy said, whose father is also undocumented. Even at school, a parent worries about letting their kid's teacher know about their immigration status, Sandy added. "You never know who you're sharing that information with. You never know what's going to happen, if they're going to call ICE. And especially now, people are very fearful."

Munguia admires the work that these young activists are doing, not only for her husband, but for immigrants in general.

"I began to speak ...with a CIYJA organizer] and she told me she didn't have papers, just like me, and I told her, 'I admire you even more,'" Munguia said in Spanish. "I asked her, 'Are you scared?' And she said 'No.' I told my friends, 'I can't believe these young people, who are undocumented like us, are speaking up and helping numerous people.' For me, it's admirable what they're doing."

Sandy began organizing in 2011 as part of the DREAM Alliance of Sonoma County, fighting the record number of deportations being carried out during Obama's presidency. Now, under the Trump administration, she is not only fighting against deportations and for immigrant rights, but for the preservation of sanctuary city policies.

But the boldness of these young people who are undocumented has many parents worried.

In 1997 Sandy's father immigrated to Vallejo, a Bay Area city roughly 30 miles north of San Francisco. After his first year living in the United States, he recognized the opportunity for a better life and moved his family, including Sandy, with him.

"My daughter has always been brave and determined. And from the first moment she became involved [in activism], I saw that ... she cared about the problems that all of us immigrants face. For young people, like my daughter, to care and to fight for our rights, it fills me with pride."

But this sort of activism comes at a cost.

In May, Claudia Rueda, a 22-year-old immigrant rights activist from Los Angeles, was detained by border patrol as she was moving her family's car outside their Boyle Heights home. Sandy believes Rueda was detained in retaliation for fighting her mother's deportation case.

"Her detention has definitely shaken me a little, in terms of how unashamed this new administration is," Sandy said. "That scared me.... because we're constantly putting our faces in front of the line. It's very easy to be singled out and attacked... But we know that if it's not us, then it's going to be somebody else who is going to be attacked."

A history of sanctuary

San Francisco can trace its history as a sanctuary city to 1985, when the Board of Supervisors passed the "City of Refuge" Resolution, which declared the city a sanctuary for the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees in the Bay Area fleeing political violence and persecution. That resolution was expanded to a Sanctuary Ordinance in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2007 by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, which prohibits city employees from aiding ICE agents in arresting or investigating undocumented immigrants.

Though Sandy's father doesn't live in San Francisco, he, like Hugo Mejia and Rodrigo Nunez, works in construction, and being in a sanctuary city makes him feel safer.

"At any given moment, we can go there without fear," Sandy's father said. "There should be more [sanctuary cities]."

One of the Trump administration's first actions was to threaten sanctuary cities like San Francisco with cuts to federal funding, alleging that these cities are harbors for criminals. This threat is part of a broader agenda by President Trump to restrict immigration and deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants in the immediate future.

The anxiety being felt by immigrants in the current political climate is taking its toll, even on those who were inspired by the DREAMer movement during the Obama administration to be more outspoken about immigrant rights and being undocumented.

Augustine, a 24-year-old man originally from Mexico who requested that his real name not be used, is one such immigrant. Augustine's family immigrated to San Francisco when he was three in search of a better living opportunity, but they soon discovered new hardships and fears awaited them in the United States.

"People in Latin America flee to escape dictatorships in their own countries," he said. "But then they arrive, they get scared when they come here and see that things are not as expected."

At one point Augustine felt emboldened enough to serve on the City's Youth Commission and tell his story to large crowds at public events.

Since Mr. Trump took office, Augustine has become more guarded because he feels that speaking out could be dangerous. He relies on the Obama-initiated program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and with the recent push by Republican officials for Trump to end DACA, Augustine feels reluctant to be as public as he once was.

But he remains committed to working within the immigrant rights movement and supporting undocumented people. He currently attends City College of San Francisco and hopes to one day become an immigration attorney.

"I'm trying to make an impact in a meaningful way," he said. "I want to be a voice for others."

Augustine and Sandy feel that they, and countless others brought here as children, are just as deserving of basic human rights as any other American, and they're prepared to fight for them.

"I think it comes from not having anything to lose," Sandy said. "Resisting is our way of living with all these systems that continue criminalizing us and trying to push us out."

And for that, Sandy's father is grateful.

"This country is really great, and all of us immigrants cooperate to make it great...There should be more sons and daughters that fight for all of us immigrants."

"I had a lot of hope that me and my family would be able to legally stay in this country," said Sandy's father, who, like many parents felt the sting when another Obama-era program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, also known as DAPA, was recently revoked by the Trump administration. The program, which never went into effect, intended to offer a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation for undocumented parents whose children are either permanent residents or citizens of the U.S.

"My parents are very fearful of the work that I do. But also, they know that it's needed. Someone has to do the work to make sure that things like this don't happen," Sandy said.

This article was written by Alexis Terrazas and Destiny Arroyo as part of a collaboration betweenEl Tecolote,San Francisco's Latino bilingual newspaper serving the Bay Area since 1970, andFeet in 2 Worlds,an award-winning news site and journalism training organization based at The New School in New York. Special thanks toNew America Media.

SAN FRANCISCO--Luis Quiroz was on the bus heading to school when he first heard the news.

The 27-year-old DACA recipient knew the Trump administration was planning to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but he wasn't prepared for the emotional distress.

"I was surprised when tears started gushing out of my eyes on the bus, and people looked at me like a weirdo," said Quiroz, who spoke to reporters on a national press call hosted by New America Media and Ready California.

DACA, launched by President Obama in 2012, has protected nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation, while also granting them access to work permits.

For Quiroz, this meant being able to afford college. He now works at an optometrist's office and goes to school at San Francisco State University.

With the end of DACA on Sept. 6, no new applicants will accepted to the program, while those who already have DACA fall into two categories.

DACA recipients whose status expires in the next six months, by March 5, 2018, are able to apply for a renewal, but they must do so by the deadline of October 5. After that, no renewals will be accepted. DACA recipients whose status expires after March 5 are not able to renew at all.

Quiroz's DACA status expires in about a year, so he falls into the group that cannot renew. Until his work permit expires, he will be protected from deportation and able to work legally.

After that, he will return to the uncertainty that defined his life before DACA.

Separating families

Quiroz was born in the Mexican state of Guerrero. His parents brought him to San Diego when he was only six months old.

Like many DACA recipients, he grew up in the United States and it is the only country he knows.

But he also grew up with a familiar fear, that his family would be separated.

"Living in San Diego, I constantly feared for my parents," he said.

When he was 15, he learned that his older brother had been detained and deported. Two years later, his mother called to tell him his father had been deported. In 2015, his mother was deported.

Still, his parents recommended that he stay in the United States, where he had opportunities that weren't available in Mexico, and where it wasn't as dangerous.

In March of this year, Quiroz's brother was murdered in Mexico, where he was running a tourist business.

"He was assaulted and shot point-blank in front of his four-year-old daughter," Quiroz said.

Quiroz won't be able to visit his brother's grave or meet his niece. The end of DACA means that he is no longer able to leave the country under advance parole, which had allowed DACA recipients to leave the country temporarily in certain cases.

Looming uncertainty

As he looks ahead, Quiroz said he sees a "looming cloud" of uncertainty.

One of the biggest questions is with Congress. Immigrant rights advocates are pushing for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would provide young immigrants who have graduated high school, are pursuing higher education, or serving in the military, a path to citizenship.

Another bill, the BRIDGE Act, would provide employment authorization and protection from deportation for individuals who currently hold and are eligible for DACA.

But whether Congress will pass legislation in the next six months that it has not been able to pass for years remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, several legal challenges were announced this week. A DACA recipient from New York, Martin Batalla Vidal, filed suit in federal court Sept. 5, represented by Make the Road New York, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School.

Another lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 16 state attorneys general on Sept. 6. Former Secretary of Homeland Security and current University of California President Janet Napolitano announced on Sept. 8 that she is also suing the Trump administration to save DACA.

Quiroz doesn't know what will happen in Congress or in the courts.

For now, he is finding support through networks of other DACA recipients.

He is participating in afellowship programled by San Francisco's Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs (OCEIA) that provides work opportunities and a support network for young undocumented immigrants.

His university's Dream Resource Center holds healing circles for undocumented students to share their experiences. He is also connecting with people through rallies and social networks.

"Knowing that there are people like me who are going through the same struggles," he said, has been crucial.

He is now starting his own business so he'll have something in the works after he loses his work permit.

Quiroz graduates in nine months, and will have his work permit a few months after that. Then, he says, he isn't sure what his future holds.

"At this point, I'm unsure what my future will look like," he said. "All we want is to be accepted by the country we call home."

Four Tips for DACA Recipients:

1. If you currently have DACA, you will continue to be protected from deportation and be able to work legally under your work permit until it expires.

2. If your DACA expires in the next six months, by March 5, 2018, you must apply to renew it by Oct. 5, 2017.

Find qualified and low-cost services in California throughwww.ready-california.organd nationally throughwww.immigrationlawhelp.org.If you can't afford the $495 fee, loans are available through theMission Asset Fund,Self-Help Federal Credit Union,the Mexican Consulate and local service providers.

3. Consult with an experienced immigration attorney--or accredited representative to see if you qualify for another form of immigration relief.

Many DACA recipients don't realize that they actually qualify for a more permanent form of relief, like a U-visa (for crime victims), "parole in place" (available to military personnel, those who are honorably discharged and their "families), or even permanent residency (through a family member who is a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen).

4. Be careful of fraudulent service providers.

Be sure to ask to see the credentials of your legal services provider. Never sign a blank form, and always ask for a translation if you need it. Make sure to get copies of any papers filed for your case. Don't fall for anyone who promises you a quick fix. Remember thatnotariosin the United States can't give legal advice.

For more information about what you need to know about the end of DACA, go to:www.ilrc.org/advisory-daca. For information about Ready California, go to:ready-california.org.

Los Angeles (AFP) - California became the first "sanctuary state" for undocumented immigrants Friday, a decision criticized by the Trump administration which believes the move will compromise security.

California's governor, Democrat Jerry Brown, signed the landmark legislation--Senate Bill 54 (SB54)--which grants better protections to people who are in the US without permission, including those who have committed crimes.

It also limits cooperation between local police forces and federal authorities in operations to track down undocumented immigrants.

The legislation, which will come into effect on January 1, 2018, is part of a series of laws which protect the almost 3 million undocumented immigrants living in California--most of whom are from Mexico and Central America.

Brown insisted in his signing statement the measure will not "prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way"-- but it will stop local authorities from assisting.

"They are free to use their own considerable resources to enforce federal immigration law in California," he wrote, adding that the new legislation will not deny ICE access to prisons.

But in a statement, ICE acting director Tom Homan responded: "The governor is simply wrong."

The law will "undermine public safety and hinder ICE from performing its federally mandated mission," Homan said.

"Ultimately, SB54 (...) creates another magnet for more illegal immigration," he insisted, adding ICE will have "no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests."

ICE said it will also likely send immigrants arrested in California to detention centers outside of the state, "far from any family they may have in California."

A number of cities in California, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, have already banned police officers from collaborating with ICE on operations to capture undocumented immigrants.

Last week, ICE detained 450 undocumented immigrants in the United States--101 of whom were in Los Angeles.

The bill signed into law by Brown also includes assistance for students and measures to combat abuse of tenants.

DALLAS__ A Nigerian man was deported Thursday after his U.S. citizenship was revoked in April following his conviction for indecency with a 7-year-old girl, a felony offense which he committed before he was naturalized.

Deportation officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) removed Emmanuel Olugbenga Omopariola, 61, to Nigeria May 24. He had been in ICE custody in the Dallas area since his arrest on April 18, 2018, when he surrendered himself at the ERO Dallas Field Office. He departed Dallas May 23 under ICE escort to Nigeria via JFK International Airport in New York City. He arrived in Ikeja, Nigeria, about 2:20 p.m. local time (9:20 a.m. CDT).

"This deportation ends this U.S. chapter for Omopariola who sabotaged his own future and opportunities through his heinous crimes against a child, and his lies on his naturalization application and in interviews," said Simona L. Flores, field office director of ERO Dallas. "By effecting such removals, ICE helps improve public safety and enforces U.S. immigration law."

Omopariola originally legally entered the United States on March 25, 1983 at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on a nonimmigrant student visa.

According to the April 11, 2018, Consent Judgment by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Omopariola was naturalized as a U.S. citizen July 1, 2004. During his naturalization proceedings, Omopariola withheld that he unlawfully engaged in sexual contact with a 7-year-old girl in 2002. This crime, even though he had not yet been arrested or convicted, ...endered him unable to demonstrate the requisite good moral character for naturalization and, thus, ineligible for naturalization when he took the oath of allegiance...He therefore illegally procured his naturalization."

After he was naturalized, Omopariola pleaded guilty in Texas state court in 2015 to indecency with a child ---sexual contact, a second-degree felony. He was ordered to five years of community supervision and placed on the sex offender registry. He had been residing in Grand Prairie, Texas.

Omopariola was one of five child sex abusers that the Justice Department sought to denaturalize who were highlighted in a Nov. 21, 2017,news release.

At least 478 Kenyan green card and work visa holders have been employed in the US in five years.

Data contained in the 'visa and green card report' between 2014 and 2018 show at least 88 Kenyans secured employment legally since the beginning of the year. In the five-year stint, 2017 recorded the highest number of Kenyans absorbed into the American job market with 118 people, 111 were employed in 2016, 81 in 2015 and 80 in 2015.

The data ranks Kenya fifth among African countries whose citizens are legally working in the US. The country comes after Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana. The data shows most of them work in technology, travel, law, engineering, nursing and medicine-related sectors. The 2018 report further says Kenyans working in the US get an average annual salary of about Sh10.2 million.

 A survey by the Central Bank of Kenya indicated that Kenyans living and working abroad remitted a record Sh64.5 billion between January and March 2018.

A 2018 Bloomberg report puts Kenyan immigrants working in the US as the third-most industrious foreigners after Ghana and Bulgaria. Kenyan workers scored 73.4 per cent.

US Department of Labour count reveals about 16.7 per cent of America's employed workforce is made up of immigrants--about 25 million people.

The report shows Kenya is among the African countries with the highest number of immigrants studying and working in the US. Internationally, India and China carry the bulk of immigrants working in the US.

Washington

The US Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's efforts to choke off immigration a fresh blow Thursday when it rejected his cancellation of the DACA program protecting 700,000 "Dreamers," undocumented migrants brought to the United States as children.

The high court said Trump's 2017 move to cancel his predecessor Barack Obama's landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was "arbitrary and capricious" under government administrative procedures.

The judgement on a five-to-four vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's four liberal members, stressed that it was not an assessment of the correctness of the 2012 DACA program itself.

Instead, they said the Trump administration had violated official government procedures in the way they sought to quickly rescind DACA in September 2017 based on weak legal justifications.

The decision came three and a half years after Trump entered office promising to halt almost all immigration and to expel the more than 10 million people estimated living in the country, many for decades, without legal immigration documents.

The Obama administration had sought to address this issue in 2012 with the DACA policy offering protection at renewable two-year periods, including authorization to work, to people brought into the United States illegally as children and then growing up here.