I’ll admit it. It’s summer and I’m cranky. But, come on people. Not another outbreak of hypocrisy on immigration!

We’ve watched while agency officials pulled apart the law to find ways to make illegal the status of people here legally or struggling to attain legal status. Making Muslim men register, and declaring them illegal if they don’t hear about the requirement or make a mis-step in meeting the requirement. Bringing down the full force of law enforcement for not filing a change of address form. Declaring out of status, and thus subject to deportation, people whose statuses expired only because of the government’s backlog in processing their extension or change of status applications (a backlog created in large part by the diversion of resources to administer that Muslim registration program). You get the picture.

None of this went before Congress. It was all done by employees of the prior Administration. They scoured the law, and found ways in it to further break down the legal immigration system.

Along come some officials who decide to look at the law and think about ways to remove artificial administrative barriers to legality. You’d think from the howl that they’ve overthrown the government. Certainly not that they started an internal discussion about how to administer the law in a way that prefers legality over illegality.

Like the proposals in the leaked internal memo on administrative alternatives. Criticize the proposals. Like some and criticize some. But don’t play the politics of outrage against an honest effort to make the system work. Come on now!

The Arizona court ruling enjoining parts of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 is a major victory for all who respect and cherish the rule of  law.  True, Judge Bolton did not halt the entire law.  But what she did do—enjoin S.B. 1070’s most dangerous and damaging provisions—was astonishing.

Federal courts do not easily second guess the wisdom of state legislators and governors after they debate, pass, and enact law. Nor should they.  The courts give great deference to the will of the representative bodies in fashioning public policy.  So, asking a federal court to throw out a law is a tall order and, appropriately, carries with it a major burden.

Judge Bolton’s decision this week was premised on her review of the entire case against S.B. 1070, which included the legal arguments of both sides and the sworn testimony of key law enforcement officials, such as Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris.  Harris explained in a lengthy affidavit that S.B. 1070 would severely hamper his ability to serve and protect the citizens of his community by burdening his officers and eroding trust in law enforcement.  And he was not alone.  Others testified that the ill conceived law directly conflicted with the legal protections offered to victims of crime and human trafficking, threatened U.S foreign policy, and dangerously stymied federal and state agencies.  Judge Bolton came to her difficult decision only after she concluded that S.B. 1070 would cause the United States to “suffer irreparable harm” if its key provisions were not immediately blocked from taking effect. Her extraordinary decision underscores the force of the government’s case.

Perhaps that explains why the anti-immigrant restrictionists have been uncharacteristically sheepish in the wake of Judge Bolton’s decision.  Don’t get me wrong.  I didn’t expect them to offer cogent legal analysis or sound arguments in response.  But I must admit I am surprised that the best they can come up with is the lame talking point that Judge Bolton’s well reasoned decision is merely a “bump in the road” for the “show me your papers” law.

Well, maybe so, but the “bump” appears to have knocked out the engine!

Even Kris Kobach, who is running for Kansas Secretary of State on a platform of anti-immigrant vitriol and boasts that he co-authored S.B. 1070 with Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, has hunkered down on Fox News and his facebook page.  It’s hard to believe that just a few short weeks ago, the day after Arizona enacted S.B. 1070, Kobach spilled his pen on the op-ed page of the New York Times defending the law and belittling its opponents.  http://nyti.ms/9Wq3vL.   He condescendingly wrote,

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws… insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate.

Well, Judge Bolton’s opinion shows she did read the Arizona law—word by ill conceived word—and concluded that S.B. 1070 is not an acceptable enforcement tool as Kobach claimed, but a violation of the Constitution.

Kobach and his restrictionist cohorts would be well advised to read the Constitution too.  But that will have to wait.  At the moment he is busy wiping egg off his face.

guest blog by Charles Kuck

I was driving to court recently down a highway in Atlanta when I drove past a toll booth with a HUGE sign on it. The sign read “AMNESTY.” I thought, “wait a second!” “Amnesty” is a dirty word, literally unmentionable in polite company. How could there be an “Amnesty?”

On my way back to the office, I passed the toll booth again. Again, the sign was there. This time I slowed down (a little), and noticed it was a “Toll Amnesty.” This toll “Amnesty” is apparently a regular event in Georgia. I explored a little more about this “Amnesty,” trying to understand how a toll “Amnesty,” turning illegal drivers into legal ones is permitted, but an “Amnesty” that would turn “illegal” people into legal people is not. I dug around a little on the Internet and found some information about the reason for and the goal of this toll “Amnesty:”

What is the toll violation amnesty program?

Normally, the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) charges a $25 administrative fee, as provided by Georgia law, each time someone fails to pay the toll to travel on the tolled section of Georgia 400. During the limited time of this amnesty program, SRTA is willing to reduce a portion of the $25 administrative fee to $15 per violation. During amnesty, the Customer will be responsible for the $15 administrative fee plus the toll per violation.

Why is SRTA offering its customers an opportunity to compromise their violations?

SRTA’s primary goal is to collect all tolls due. We believe one way we can accelerate the collection of unpaid tolls is to offer a temporary financial incentive to our customers – namely, a partial waiver of the normal $25 per violation administrative fee-if the tolls are voluntarily paid now.

So, the toll “Amnesty” is designed to FORGIVE people for breaking law (a misdemeanor in Georgia), bring people out of the shadows if illegality, and, as an incentive to do so, have people pay LESS of a fine than if the agents of the state went out and rounded up everyone who is a toll violator. Does the State of Georgia know who these “illegals” are? Sure they do! If you fail to pay a toll, a photo of your car and license plate is taken, so the State of Georgia knows exactly who broke the law and where they live! If only those Utah state employees lived here, they could have put their “hit” list out for the Georgia State Patrol to go out and arrest these illegal drivers.

Let’s compare a proposed national “Amnesty” (or for those of you with sensitive ears–legalization) with this Georgia “Amnesty.” An immigration “Amnesty” would FORGIVE people for breaking the law (a misdemeanor if they came in illegally and a civil violation if they overstayed their visas), bring people out of the shadows and into our mainstream economy, and lessen the penalties currently in place (a 10 year bar in the home country) to encourage people to come forward right away and become “legal.”

Wow, that is the same rationale for both programs. One run effectively by the State of Georgia and one denied a chance at being effective by national politicians and local demagogues. Why can we do one and not the other? Why can we give “amnesty” to illegal drivers but not to “illegal” people? Simple–a lack of political leadership and a lack of political courage.

Once we can convince our national political leadership that immigration reform is GOOD for America (and it would be very good for America) and that the example set by the Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority is a good one to follow, can end this divisive debate over immigration, calm racial tensions in America and get back to work fixing our economy. My only question is — which national politician has the courage to stand up and lead on this key issue?

Yesterday, I looked down at my speedometer to see that I was driving at 55 mph in a 40 mph zone. I clearly was in violation of traffic laws.

I came home to notice my neighbor firing up a barbeque grill on his balcony–a definite violation of the city fire code.

I then read about how a list of supposed “illegal immigrants” was assembled and circulated in Utah, a probable violation of a host of laws, particularly if, as accused, it was state government employees behind the list.

Yet no one calls me or the millions like me an illegal driver. No one would think to call my neighbor an illegal griller. And has anyone called the Utah culprits illegal list-makers? Not to mention, would anyone dream of converting the adjective into a noun and calling us all “illegals”? Yet, we are all just as “illegal” as the people who are in the U.S. in violation of the immigration laws. (And, yes, the grilling and, in the jurisdiction it happened, the speeding are civil, not criminal, violations. But so is being unlawfully present in the U.S.)

Every time I speak publicly about immigration, I get the predictable crop of sloganeering and hate emails, with the former usually saying “what part of illegal don’t you understand?”

So, let me answer.  People who have come to the U.S. to pick our crops, clean our tables, maintain our yards and take care of our children or grandparents are referred to as “illegals,” as though they are somehow heinous people, and yet those of us who put ourselves and others at risk of potentially fatal car wrecks or fires, or those who have put others at risk of identity theft, vengeful violence, and sheer privacy invasion, are not heatedly condemned.

That is the part of illegal that I don’t understand.

4:30 a.m. came a little too early.

But the alarm went off and I had to get up to catch my plane to Kansas City.  Tony Weigel, the Kansas/Missouri AILA chapter chair, had assembled a very ambitious agenda for the day, chock-full of print and electronic media interviews, a press conference, and participation in a “Silent Vigil”.  So, I grabbed a cup of strong black coffee and made my way to the airport.

At 10:00 a.m. when I got off the plane in Kansas City the first thing I saw was a sign, with an image of a twister, directing people to a tornado shelter.  Kansas is famous for its violent storms and it did not escape me that although the sky was clear and the hot humid air still, a cyclone of hatred fueled by the intolerant message of Arizona’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio and FAIR’s Kris Kobach might well wreak havoc in the area if left unchecked.  I was about to enter the eye of the storm.

Arpaio had pulled himself away from terrorizing the Latino neighborhoods of Maricopa County long enough to fly into to Kansas to endorse Kris Kobach, who is running for Kansas Secretary of State on a platform of fear.  Kobach, you see, who is an attorney with FAIR, takes credit for co-authoring Arizona’s notorious “Show Me Your Papers” S.B. 1070 which effectively codifies the notion that the darker person’s skin tone, the more likely it is they are illegal.

So today Kansas City was ground zero for the restrictionist’s message—billed as a fundraiser for Kobach and dubbed “The Illegal Means Illegal Rally”.  My mission?  To make sure that that Kobach-Arpaio message of fear and xenophobia was met with the truth: that immigration is good for America, economically, socially, and, above all, morally.

The first stop was the office of AILA member and immediate past Kansas/Missouri Chapter Chair Roger McCrummen who had graciously offered his spacious new offices as a venue for television interviews.

First up at 10:30 a.m. was Marissa Cleaver, a reporter for the NBC affiliate.  Marissa immediately zeroed in on Kobach’s central claim—that the Arizona immigration law simply mirrors the federal law and does not promote racial profiling because it merely requires that immigration status be checked if “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful status is developed during a lawful police stop.  I explained to her that, to the contrary, Arizona’s infamous law promotes racial profiling by effectively requiring law enforcement to draw conclusions about a person’s immigration status based on they how look, not what they have done.  I also pointed out that the Arizona statute directly contradicts federal law by criminalizing undocumented status. In particular, I explained, it victimizes women, children, and the elderly, who have suffered domestic violence, human trafficking, and other violent crime.  http://bit.ly/9Z9FX9.

Next on the schedule, at high noon, was reporter Rob Low of the local FOX affiliate.  But despite his station’s network affiliation he was neither a Glen Beck nor a Sean Hannity “wanna be”.  His questions were, unlike theirs, fair and balanced.  Rob was very familiar with immigration matters, in particular issues which involve the pervasive “culture of no” in benefits adjudications.  We had a good productive interview about the destructive message of Arpiao and Kobach and how real immigration reform requires secure borders, coupled with a safe, orderly, fair immigration system that protects due process and meets the needs of American families and business.

Once Rob was done, Tony, Roger, and I enjoyed a quick lunch of sandwiches and salad, arranged by Roger’s hospitable office staff.  Then Tony and I were off to the Kansas City Star for a 2:00 pm meeting with Matt Schofield, an editorial writer.  Matt has just returned from several years overseas as the Star’s Baghdad bureau chief and was  reacquainting himself with the current immigration debate—although it was clear he had a tight grasp of the issues.  Matt was stunned to learn that generally unlawful or unauthorized presence in the U.S. is not a crime.  In fact, he was so surprised he emailed me after I returned to Cleveland to make sure he had understood me correctly.  I was struck by how successful the restrictionists have been at criminalizing and dehumanizing immigrants though their hate filled propaganda.  If Matt Schofield, an editorial writer for a major newspaper, was under the misimpression that undocumented status is criminal, I can only imagine what the average American believes.  Our conversation reminded me how much educating we have to do.

Shortly after 2:45 p.m. we excused ourselves and sped off to the St. Mark’s Methodist Church in Overland Park, Kansas where I was scheduled to give the lead statement at a 3:00 p.m. press conference.  It had been organized by AILA and a coalition of groups who had arranged a “Silent Vigil” later in the afternoon to coincide with the Kobach-Arpaio event.

The media turned out in full force.  The press conference was conducted against the backdrop of silent protesters holding signs decrying the Kobach-Arpaio message of hate. http://bit.ly/cAkIp2.   At the last minute, the Coalition had been joined by the NAACP, which was holding its annual conference in Kansas City.  The voices of tolerance and compassion speaking truth to hate were growing by the minute!  Again the question of the civil vs. criminal nature of immigration law and, in particular, unlawful presence in the U.S. was raised by a reporter who had assumed that violation of the civil immigration statutes was a criminal offense.  As I explained the law to him, I was again struck by how successful the anti-immigrant restrictionists have been at demonizing the victims of our broken immigration system.

Like a boot camp sergeant, Tony kept me on our tight schedule which had, as our next stop, a 4:00 p.m. on-the-air interview with Carolyn Long of KCTV5, the CBS affiliate.  Luckily the station was only minutes away.  So we left the church and raced to the television station.  Arpaio and Kobach had also been invited to appear but failed show up.  So, I took advantage of the opportunity to spread a positive message in support of comprehensive immigration reform.  Carolyn and I had a great on-the-air discussion.  http://bit.ly/9V3uIB

Mercifully Tony had built in an hour of rest between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.  So we went to the offices of AILA member Sarah Schlicher who offered us refuge from the oppressive heat, refreshments, and chocolate in her beautiful (and thankfully air conditioned) new offices in Overland Park, Kansas.

But 5:30 p.m. came quickly and we were off to the last event of the day, the  6:00 p.m. “Silent Vigil” at the sight of the Kobach-Arpaio “Illegal Means Illegal” rally.   The weather was hot and humid—flirting with 100 degrees—and I was convinced only a handful of people would come out in support of immigrants’ rights.  But was I wrong.  Hundreds of people were already silently and peacefully holding vigil outside the complex where Kobach and Arpaio were raising money.  And despite the heat the crowd continued to grow.  Amazingly, the NAACP sent two busloads of people to march in support of comprehensive immigration reform and in opposition to the Kobach-Arpaio message of intolerance.  They came armed with signs that read “Hope Not Hate”.

There are no words to describe what I felt as I stood amid the wonderful, diverse, and hopeful mass of patriotic Americans who had come out in full force to demand action in the face of injustice.

At 7:00 p.m., long after I had shed my suit jacket and tie, Tony drove me back to my hotel and we talked about the long day.  We had been successful in getting out an overwhelmingly positive message in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.  Equally important, a diverse coalition of people had come together and successfully blunted the message of fear, hatred, and intolerance offered by Kobach and Arpaio.

Guest blog by Tony Weigle, Chair, AILA Missouri/Kansas Chapter

On July 1st, I walked into the opening session of the Annual Conference and into my first day as Chapter Chair of the Missouri/Kansas Chapter.  As I found my seat, a few of my chapter members informed me that Kansas City’s Kris Kobach and Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio had announced a joint campaign fundraiser – on July 13th.  A few hours later, after adjourning the chapter’s annual meeting, a group of us talked amongst ourselves and asked collectively, “Now what?”

That afternoon, I discovered on Kobach’s Facebook page, the following:

Kris Kobach would like to invite everyone to come see Sheriff Joe Arpaio and me at the “ILLEGAL MEANS ILLEGAL” rally at 7pm on July 13 at the Bell Center auditorium, MidAmerica Nazarene University, 2030 E. College Way, Olathe, Kansas. Sheriff Joe, whom I have served as legal counsel, has generously offered to come to Kansas to help my secretary of state campaign. Come hear us share our thoughts on how to stop illegal immigration.

Admission to the rally is free, but I’d appreciate any donation you can make to my campaign. www.kriskobach.com.

If you would like to get a photo with Sheriff Joe and meet him beforehand, there will be a reception for “Sheriff Joe’s Deputies” for $250. To sign up, call 316-210-2450.

I look forward to seeing you there. Bring signs, the protesters probably will!

Thanks to the tireless efforts of chapter members Angela Ferguson, Suzanne Brown, and other key members, our chapter had already developed relationships with a coalition of immigrant interest groups from St. Louis to Kansas.  The groups in the coalition were hard at work formulating responses.  I quickly became acquainted via e-mail and cell phone with our coalition partners while at the Annual Conference.  On the list were new names that span religious, labor, and immigrant interest groups.

One of the first issues had to do with the pre-existing pleas of the coalition partners for the religious university, MidAmerica Nazarene University, to revoke its offer for use of its space for the joint Kobach/Arpaio political fundraiser.  From a logistical standpoint, the revocation of the space would create challenges in formulating responses.  The coalition planned on conducting a peaceful protest and some form of a press conference.  If the location shifted, we would be at a disadvantage.  As it stood, we would know where and when they would be, so any attempts to hold a press conference and get our message out could be well-planned, as the university offered the coalition space on campus for use.

The university revoked its permission for the campaign to use its space on July 7th.  According to reports, the university President was concerned about the ability to handle the event, citing security concerns.  We knew the event would still go on, given the combined schedules of the two men and Kobach’s upcoming August 3rd, Republican primary for the position of Secretary of State, but we didn’t know where.  Thanks to reporting through the press, we were informed the political fundraiser was moved 6 miles away at an event facility.  As of July 8th, our peaceful protest is resigned to the public sidewalk and our press conference may be held at a nearby park shelter.

Getting to this point has not been at all easy.  I now have a much greater respect for “community organizers.”  There is no way to prepare to work with diverse coalition members.  You have to learn as you go and make a ton of mental notes.

On the other hand, AILA national has provided media training for chapter leaders at the last two Annual Conferences.  During this year’s training session, George Tzamaras helped me volunteer to be one of the 3 attendees to do a mock, on-camera interview.  I just completed my first TV interview this afternoon with about 20 minutes notice.  I haven’t seen the footage, but I didn’t feel like an idiot afterwards.  Of all of the tasks associated with the response effort, this was by far the easiest.  Although, my 5-year old did ask my wife, “Why did you let dad on TV; he looks creepy.”  Sigh.

The preparations for ground zero would not be complete unless one of the most informed, capable voices was available.  At the Annual Conference, I approached David Leopold and told him about the event and asked if he would be available to travel to Kansas City.  Without hesitation, he said yes.  After much effort contacting local media over the last 2 days, we have two TV interviews with national affiliates, one meeting with the largest regional paper, commitments to attend the coalition’s press conference, and possible radio opportunities.

It is strange, but July 13th now seems like it is at least a few months away.  There is much left to do, but the sense that it won’t get done in time is gone.

The personalities of Kobach, Arpaio and others, the policies they promote, and the paralysis they have infused on our country’s debate over comprehensive immigration reform are reason enough to make July 13th in Kansas City ground zero for the country’s immigration debate.  When you consider the upcoming implementation of SB 1070 in Arizona, the federal government’s lawsuit, and the impact of primary and mid-term elections, the members of my chapter are facing the perfect storm.  With support from chapter members, AILA national and our coalition partners, I am confident we will weather the storm.

guest blog by Charles Kuck

There is no surprise in the Obama Administration’s lawsuit to stop enforcement of Arizona’s immigration law–SB 1070. President Obama must defend federal authority to act exclusively on immigration law. The Supreme Court has long held that states cannot impinge on federal authority, unless those state laws are “consistent” with Federal law. Arizona’s SB 1070 is not consistent with federal law, despite protestations to the contrary. SB 1070 goes far beyond that 1940 law on which it claims to be based and which was designed to round up Japanese, German and other “enemies“ in a time of war.

Everyone understands the frustrations associated with undocumented immigration. But the Obama Administration (nor any Administration) cannot tolerate 50 different states passing 50 different state laws on a federal issue like immigration. It is already a nightmare in the context of E-Verify. If President Obama does not act, he gives tacit approval to the notion that states can pass conflicting and impossible to fairly enforce immigration related laws. By going to Federal court he signals that SB 1070 encroaches on federal immigration law. Faced with this choice, there is no choice at all.

As delivered to the membership at the plenary session of the AILA Annual Conference on July 1, 2010 in Washington, D.C.

Thank you, Chuck, for your kind introduction.

I would also like to thank my father, who you have now all had the pleasure of meeting via video.  The rest of the story is that after he escaped the Nazis with my grandparents he came to the US, eventually settled in Detroit, and joined the US Army where he served with the most decorated unit of World War II.  He came home, completed Harvard Law School, met my mother—that is how I entered the picture—and joined AILA in 1968.

As a child I learned from watching my Dad in action. Through his integrity, hard work, and passion for justice, he taught me that a lawyer’s mission is simple.  It is to help someone. He is my inspiration and my hero.  Thank you.

Last, but not least, you, the hard working lawyers of AILA.

Look around the room today and see the wonderfully diverse group of lawyers that represents America.  AILA is all about diversity; it’s what we do.  We help build this country by strengthening its social fabric, infusing its institutions with talent and inspiration from around the world, and in the process, expanding its rich, unrivaled culture of freedom and democracy.

We are the luckiest lawyers in America.  We help bring in the best and the brightest from far off continents—scientific innovators, artists, sports stars, engineers, doctors, and an incredible array of workers, to name just a few.  We guard and protect America’s promise of opportunity and justice for all.  Every fight for a client in immigration or federal court, every cancellation of removal, asylum or 212c claim we present, every motion and brief we file expresses in a loud and clear voice our collective support of immigrants’ rights.

So, the biggest thank you goes to you, the outstanding lawyers of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  Thank you for your hard work, thank you for your commitment to justice, thank you for your passion and, above all, thank you for devoting your careers to making this world a better place.

On a daily basis, you carry the flag for people like Mr. Boubacar Bah.  His story has played out for generations.  An immigrant from Guinea, he came to America in 1998, motivated by a burning desire to help feed, cloth and educate his family in Africa.  Like so many before him, and so many to follow, he was ordinary and unremarkable and at the same time, extraordinary and courageous.  He sacrificed and bet on the American Dream; the idea that by his hard work and determination, he could create a better future for his family, and for future generations.  And he did.

For ten years, Mr. Bah lived and worked in New York City, embraced by a circle of friends and relatives, and appreciated by astonished merchants who sold his hand-made clothing in the West Village for top dollar.  He shared a modest apartment in Brooklyn with a fellow countryman and tailor, and eventually saved enough to return after 8 years away to visit his longed-for family.  Mr. Bah was realizing the American Dream.  But his dream ended in a nightmare.

When he returned to JFK airport in May 2006, immigration officials told him his request for legal status had been denied while he was away, automatically revoking his permission to re-enter the US.  He was detained, and for the next 9 months exposed to the horrific maze and brutality of our dysfunctional immigration detention system:  a system that holds up to 33,000 detainees every night in local jails, so called “service processing centers,” and former medium security prisons converted to “family” facilities, like the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas.

Violations including physical and sexual abuse, substandard medical care, over-medication, inappropriate transfers, and other appalling indignities contrary to basic notions of due process are rampant and have been documented by organizations including the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the Appleseed Foundation and the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General.

In late May, the ACLU of Texas issued a press release condemning the reported sexual abuse of female detainees in Hutto.  In a related statement, the Immigrant Justice Center of the Heartland Alliance asked, “How many more lives are ICE and President Obama willing to put at risk before taking meaningful steps to end human rights abuses in the immigration detention system?” It added, “Women – we do not even know how many – have now suffered the trauma of sexual assault because of the failure of ICE leadership to respect the human dignity of those in its custody and implement meaningful reform.”

Did ICE respect the human dignity of Mr. Boubacar Bah?

Records released to the New York Times show that after allegedly falling and hitting his head in a bathroom at the Elizabeth Detention Center on February 1, 2007, Mr. Bah was taken to a medical unit where he became incoherent and agitated, and was ultimately handcuffed and placed in leg restraints.  As he lay on the floor writhing in pain and vomiting, guards wrote him up for disobeying orders.  He was lifted in shackles and taken to an isolation cell where he remained for more than 13 hours, moaning, foaming at the mouth and ultimately rendered unconscious by what medical experts reviewing his file later described as “textbook signs of intracranial bleeding.”  Someone at the jail finally called 911.  He was rushed to a hospital where he underwent emergency surgery.  After lapsing into a coma for four months, he died.

As if this were not enough, it was subsequently revealed, again in the New York Times that as Mr. Bah lay dying, ICE officials plotted to conceal their negligence, perhaps even criminal misconduct, from a reporter trying on behalf of Mr. Bah’s frantic relatives to find him.  From an article that appeared January 10, 2010,

“[T]he immigration agency’s spokesman for the Northeast, Michael Gilhooly, rebuffed a Times reporter’s questions about the detainee, who had suffered a skull fracture at the privately run Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey. Mr. Gilhooly said that without a full name and alien registration number for the man, he could not check on the case.

But, records show, he had already filed a report warning top managers at the federal agency about the reporter’s interest and sharing information about the injured man, a Guinean tailor named Boubacar Bah. Mr. Bah, 52, had been left in an isolation cell without treatment for more than 13 hours before an ambulance was called.”

And ICE’s reaction?  Did its leaders insist on an immediate investigation and urgent action to prevent further misconduct?  No.  They compounded it.  Again, from the January 10, 2010 article:

“While he lay in the hospital in a coma after emergency brain surgery 10 agency managers in Washington and Newark conferred by telephone and e-mail about how to avoid the cost of his care and the likelihood of ‘increased scrutiny and/or media exposure,’ according to a memo summarizing the discussion.

One option they explored was sending the dying man to Guinea, despite an e-mail message from the supervising deportation officer, who wrote, ’I don’t condone removal in his present state as he has a catheter’ and was unconscious. Another idea was renewing Mr. Bah’s canceled work permit in the hope of tapping into Medicaid or disability benefits.”

Eventually, faced with paying $10,000 per month for nursing home care, ICE officials settled on a third course: “humanitarian release” to Mr. Bah’s cousins in New York who protested that they had no means or ability to care for him.  Days before ICE’s planned release, Mr. Bah died.

His death appears as number 76 on a list of 112 deaths that have occurred in ICE custody since 2003.  And there will likely be more.

Mr. Carlyle Leslie Owen Dale, a severely ill Jamaican immigrant, has been languishing in ICE custody for nearly 5 years.  Last week, his advocates at the National Immigrant Justice Center filed an urgent petition with the United Nations in the hope of securing Mr. Dale’s release before he dies from medical neglect.  They have desperately and repeatedly sounded an alarm to save his life; how many other lives now hang in the balance?

It is stunning to consider that these documented reports of death, physical and sexual abuse, humiliation and unconscionable infliction of harm could just as easily describe detention conditions in a far off, totalitarian regime. Can you imagine if an American had died in Iranian, North Korean, or Cuban custody under similar circumstances? We would be incensed. The Administration would call for heads to roll, Members of Congress would deliver impassioned speeches, and the blogs and media pundits would rage.

But the gratuitous cruelty and criminal cover-up I have described to you is homegrown, and government sponsored.  ICE as an agency has failed miserably to protect the human rights and physical safety of thousands of vulnerable men and women.  And despite attempts by those in power to avoid responsibility, AILA must insist on accountability and defend relentlessly those silenced by the government’s collective failure.

Last year Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and John Morton, her Assistant Secretary, promised the country a “truly civil” detention system.  At this point, given what we know, and frankly what should be clear to anyone who follows the news, it would be a major accomplishment if ICE’s detention system could be civilized, let alone made civil.

While we take the agency at its word that it is making good faith efforts to implement solutions, at what point do we say- ENOUGH?

When are we obliged, because of our history and all that we know about the danger of silence in the face of injustice, to call for emergency measures to protect human rights?

When does our experience, and our outrage, leave us no choice but to insist that leaders give serious consideration to-

• Suspending ICE’s detention authority by placing it in receivership under the White House or the Department of Justice pending a full investigation of the abuse and deaths in detention;
• Ordering a top to bottom review of ICE, in particular its detention and removal operations, with the goal of overhauling the agency to ensure it understands and applies the law fairly, and in manner that protects basic human rights; and
• Requiring the Department of Justice to commence appropriate civil and criminal investigations of all deaths in ICE custody, and hold individuals accountable?

We owe it to the families of the deceased to stop the ongoing abuse, neglect, and death in ICE custody.   Perhaps if we do, they may find some comfort in believing their loved ones did not die in vain.

Whether to bear witness to the fate of Mr. Boubacar Bah, or to the thousands of other unnamed, unrepresented individuals shipped by ICE to remote and inaccessible detention facilities effectively eliminating their ability to secure or retain counsel, or to receive the support of relatives and friends, we must expose and challenge these manifestations of America’s broken immigration system.  So, too, must we confront the institutionalized “culture of no” that permits repeated misapplication of the law, denial of approvable applications and petitions, and collusion by sister agencies to feed ICE’s seemingly single-minded and currently unrestrained appetite for detention and removal.

The system is broken.  US immigration policy is in need of a full and complete overhaul, and AILA must work aggressively with our partners to promote Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  We need an earned legalization program, a sensible path to citizenship, more visa numbers, and a well-designed temporary worker program.  And of course we need effective enforcement, but not at the cost of violating due process and human rights.

I for one am tired of waiting.

The time to act is NOW.  Not in a month, not after the election, not during a lame duck session, and not after a new Congress takes office.  NOW!

President Obama, Members of Congress, and DHS, DOS and DOJ leaders, we stand ready and willing to work with you to fashion and implement an historic overhaul of our dysfunctional immigration system.

Together, we must halt the steady stream of families ripped apart as a result of unconstitutional ICE raids and the agency’s lack of cohesive, rational direction.  We must prevent researchers, entrepreneurs, innovators and academics from being stymied by bureaucrats in windowless offices whose personal, anti-immigrant bias is permitted to infect adjudications, and rob America of essential talent.  And we must not tolerate people being forced to live in fear based upon the color of their skin and the misguided belief that the darker their tone, the more likely they are illegal.

How many more promising high school graduates will be denied a chance to dream and relegated to immigration limbo – not accepted in the country they have struggled against all odds to enrich – and forced like Leslie Cocche or Eric Balderas to fear being handcuffed and jailed by CBP for boarding a train or a plane without proper papers?

The time to act is NOW.

We are embroiled in a struggle for human rights, and reclaiming America’s soul.  Our battlefield is the broken immigration system, and it is strewn with casualties.  They take the form of families divided by oceans and mean-spirited acts, companies unable complete in a global market, and detainees treated as less than human.  The system is broken and must be fixed.  Indeed, even the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have weighed in through its recent decisions in Padilla v. Kentucky and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, which derive from our confusing, contradictory, and counterintuitive immigration law, and signal a major shift in the Court’s jurisprudence toward greater protection of immigrants’ rights.

There is no issue that impassions people more than immigration.  Why?  Fundamentally, I believe it is because immigration is visceral:  it is about our essence as individuals, as a people, as a culture, and as a nation.  It is about where we have been and where we are going.  What kind of a country do we want to be?  Do we want to be a welcoming nation that opens its arms to people from all over the world, and from all walks of life, or do we want to turn our backs on those in need, and restrict out of ignorance and xenophobia critical opportunities for engineers, entrepreneurs, researchers and scientists like Einstein, who was, by the way, a refugee?

I know which nation I want.

We all want a secure border.  But a secure border depends on an immigration policy that works — a policy that is safe, orderly, and fair — and that promotes rather than destroys families and businesses, and enables America to compete in a global economy.

In 1989, in his final address to the nation President Ronald Reagan described his vision of America as a shining city.  He said:

“[I]n my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And (if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here).”

Reagan understood that America’s strength is its openness: its celebration of creativity and new ideas.  We can only hope that those who claim his legacy heed his lesson. We are a welcoming nation, and it’s our job to put a human face on all of the immigrants who grace our shores, no matter how they got here.

We need to seize the immigration policy debate and frame the issue for what it is: Immigration is good for America.  It is good for America to live up to its commitment to due process and the rule of law; it is good for America to reunite families and bring in the best and the brightest to our universities, research institutions and industries; it is good for America to create a system for skilled and unskilled workers that promotes our economy and enables employers to grow their businesses;  it is good for America to legalize 12 million undocumented workers whose full participation in the US workforce will increase the wages and working conditions of all Americans by adding $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over the next ten years, by adding $5 billion in consumer spending and by creating nearly a million jobs.

And while our message is overwhelmingly positive, make no mistake about our opponents and their underlying agenda. We must recognize and call out the anti-immigration restrictionists for what they are—hate groups, pure and simple.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the most prominent anti-immigrant group in the US has cleverly packaged and sold itself to the media and on Capitol Hill as a moderate, “go-to” voice on immigration policy.

But those who study hate for a living know better.  FAIR has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center whose mission is to fight hate and bigotry and seek justice for the most vulnerable members of society, and the Anti-Defamation League whose mission is fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideals and protect civil rights for all.

Why have these long-established and well-respected organizations designated FAIR a hate group?  Because they recognize that beyond FAIR’s veneer of moderation is a group whose founders—including John Tanton—as well as its past funders, key employees, and associates are linked to white supremacist and ethnic separatists groups and ideology.

We live in a free country.  FAIR and its ilk can believe and espouse what they want.  But the mainstream media ought to think twice about giving them a bully pulpit to spread hatred under the guise of immigration expertise.  It is our job to counter FAIR’s efforts to sow hatred and misinformation, and to fight along with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League to protect the civil rights of immigrants in America.

How should we go forward?

First, with resolve NOT to succumb to the politics of divisiveness, or to rely on the tactics used by those committed to defeating us.  To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, the means we choose will determine the end we achieve.

So let us begin by embracing others.  We must educate our Members of Congress as to the urgent need for immigration reform, and work to prevent “copy-cat” hate laws, like Arizona’s notorious SB 1070.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may well win her election in November, but she will have done so by pandering to anti-immigrant restrictionists, and signing hateful legislation, rather than demonstrating real political courage by vetoing it.  In terms of courage, I applaud President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder for their willingness to take this fight to the courts.

It is ironic – and notable – that T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council went on record to refute Governor Brewer’s outlandish claim that the majority of undocumented immigrants crossing the border into Arizona are “drug mules.”  Brewer’s comments, Bonner said “don’t comport with reality.”

I think we can all agree – reality is important.  Formulating legislation based on real vs. imagined facts is crucial; so, too, is ensuring that the law is just.  As Martin Luther King wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

As leaders and experts on immigration, each of you can, and must, provide a voice of reason.  Shed light on what is real by contacting your local newspaper, television and radio stations.  Call a reporter.  Invite him or her to lunch to talk about immigration issues.  Make yourself a reliable resource in your own hometown.

And don’t be shy about taking full advantage of your AILA membership and all it has to offer.  After all, you pay the dues!  Let people know that as a member of the premier association of immigration lawyers and professors, you receive daily, if not hourly, updates on cutting edge developments in law and policy.  Work hard to share accurate information.

Be aggressive.  Write op-eds and letters to the editor.  Nobody knows this issue and can speak or write with more passion and legitimacy than you.  You make your living in the trenches of a dysfunctional immigration system.  You are unequivocally situated to talk about it.

Immigration reform depends upon building support individual by individual, family by family, community by community.  As the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill aptly noted, “All politics is local.”

We have our work cut out for us.

Yet there are undeniable signs of hope.  I commend the commitment of USCIS Director Ali Mayorkas who has extended his hand to AILA and to so many other stakeholders in an effort to achieve progress.  Over the past year, Director Mayorkas has worked internally and externally to promote openness and a meaningful dialogue.  He is willing to listen, and to weigh with integrity a wide variety of views.  Others in government should follow his example.  Some are doing just that — like Associate Deputy Attorney General Juan Osuna — who has taken significant steps to improve the overall quality of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.   He deserves praise for promoting inter-agency and inter-departmental collaboration to establish sensible priorities and, like Director Mayorkas, involving AILA and other key stakeholders in change processes.

Much more remains to be done, particularly to ensure that all who appear in immigration court, especially those who are most vulnerable due to mental and/or physical disabilities, receive a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned examples of welcome progress in CIS and the DOJ, where government agencies remain intractable and officials refuse to act reasonably, AILA must be ready to sue.  For too long we have let agencies get away with making up, ignoring, or changing the law as they see fit.  Through strategic and forceful litigation it is our job to hold the government accountable for the consequences of its decision-making.  So, whatever your practice area, you must be willing to litigate. And I want you to know that as you take on these difficult and often protracted battles, AILA is on your side.  Whether through practice advisories, mentoring, or tactical support and advocacy, we will help you take your fight to court.  Our Litigation Institute is nearly 10 years old and very sophisticated; still, it is time for us to refine our skills even further.  This year we will develop targeted programs to help prepare members for challenges in federal court.

As an organization, we need to think creatively and be aggressive.  In the end, the courtroom is our most valuable tool and we garner respect and promote real change by using it.  And we should not hesitate to protect our clients’ rights beyond the realm of civil immigration proceedings.  We find ourselves in an enforcement intensive environment.  As immigration attorneys we are uniquely qualified to represent clients charged with illegal reentry, visa fraud, and other immigration-related crimes.  I promise you that as we harness our talents and maximize our potential, AILA will be squarely in your corner.

I am excited about serving this year and look forward to working with all of you as we strive to improve our practice and fight for a fair and just immigration law and policy.

Our mission is clear.  Let’s get to it.