Archives

DHS: Estafadores fingen ser funcionarios de inmigración, y llaman a inmigrantes con el objetivo de robar su identidad

¡CUIDADO! Según el Department of Homeland Security (DHS), los estafadores están tratando de robar información personal, fingiendo ser funcionarios de inmigración. [For English, click here.] Según la alerta de DHS, los estafadores simulan que están llamando desde un número de teléfono oficial de DHS. Eso se llama “spoofing” – ocultar el número de teléfono real de la persona que llama y hacer que parezca que están llamando desde un número diferente. Esta es una manera que los delincuentes utilizan para tratar de robar a la gente, y tratar de obtener información personal para cometer robo de identidad.

Los estafadores que llaman del número de DHS fingen ser empleados de inmigración estadounidenses. Exigen obtener o verificar información de identificación personal. A veces incluso dicen que la persona que están llamando es una víctima de robo de identidad, y que están tratando de ayudarle.

Si alguien le llama y le pide información personal o le pide de pago, CUELGUE EL TELEFONO.

La Línea Directa de DHS sirve solamente para dar información y responder a preguntas, nunca para pedirle información.

U.S. Citizenship and Information Services (USCIS) dice que cualquiera que quiera información sobre su caso o sobre su estado de inmigración puede encontrar esa información de tres maneras:

  • Llame al Centro Nacional de Servicio al Cliente al 800-375-5283 para preguntar si necesita hacer algo acerca de su caso o su estado migratorio,
  • Haga una cita de InfoPass en https://my.uscis.gov/en/appointment
  • Utilice mi USCIS para encontrar información actualizada sobre su aplicación. <Https://egov.uscis.gov/casestatus/landing.do>

El Department of Homeland Security (DHS) también quiere que la gente ayude a rastrear a los criminales que pretenden ser funcionarios de inmigración. Ellos dicen:

“Se insta a cualquier persona que crea que puede haber sido una víctima de esta estafa telefónica de falsificación a llamar a nuestra línea directa o presentar una queja online a través de la página web de DHS OIG www.oig.dhs.gov. También puede contactar a la Federal Trade Commission para presentar una denuncia y / o denuncia de robo de identidad”.

El número del DHS OIG Hotline es 1-800-323-8603.

Immigrant crime victims in Minnesota find wide disparities in special visa program

“Todd Axtell had just taken over as St. Paul police chief last summer when immigrant advocates pressed him on a longtime grievance: The department has refused to back most applications for special visas that allow crime victims who help police to stay in the country.

“The advocates wanted to know: Why can’t St. Paul’s department act more like Minneapolis police?…”

Getting to know new Minnesotans – Part One: How many immigrants?

Minnesota immigrant solidarity match, 2006

A four-year-old Somali girl, rejoining her mother and sisters after being separated from them almost all of her young life. A farm worker, proudly becoming a citizen 28 years after moving from Mexico to Minnesota. A husband and wife, reunited in Minnesota 12 years after fleeing political persecution in Laos. Minnesota’s immigrants come from all over the world, and each one has their own story. Besides those individual stories, Minnesota’s immigrants are part of a larger picture. The “Getting to know new Minnesotans” series will explore some of that larger picture.

Minnesota residents include about 430,000 immigrants. About 45 percent of Minnesota’s immigrants have become U.S. citizens, but they are still counted as part of the immigrant population. Immigrants are people who were born in another country.

Compared to the country as a whole, Minnesota does not have a high immigrant population. Immigrants make up 13.5 percent of the national population but only 8.3 percent of Minnesota’s population in 2015.

Historically, that’s also a low percentage of immigrants. From 1850-1900, more than 30 percent of Minnesotans were immigrants. Then the number of immigrants dropped steadily, falling below below five percent from about 1960-2000. Since 2000, international immigration to Minnesota has increased again.[1]

Minnesota welcomes a larger proportion of refugees than the national average. According to University of Minnesota research data:

“Minnesota has received as few as 1,000 and as many as 7,000 resettled refugees annually between 1979 and 2015. On average, Minnesota has received about 2,800 resettled refugees annually over this time period. In the last five years, Minnesota has received an average of only 2,200 resettled refugees annually.”[2]

Does Minnesota have too many immigrants? Or not enough? The state demographer’s office and other researchers say Minnesota needs continuing immigration to grow — or even to maintain current population.

“Within the next three decades, the number of births in Minnesota will be eclipsed by the number of deaths—for the first time in our state’s history. When that occurs, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will necessarily be from migration. Over these same coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue to exit the labor force, and overall labor force growth will slow nearly to a halt. Thus, our state will experience a heightened need for migration to grow at all, but especially to shore up its labor force needs.”[3]

– – – – –

[1] Allen, Ryan and Karl Schuettler. Immigrants and Minnesota’s Workforce. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2017, p. 13 <http://www.research.umn.edu/business/documents/OVPR%20Immigrant%20Workforce%20Development%20Report.pdf>

[2] Allen, Ryan and Karl Schuettler. Immigrants and Minnesota’s Workforce. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2017, p. 13 <http://www.research.umn.edu/business/documents/OVPR%20Immigrant%20Workforce%20Development%20Report.pdf>

[3] Minnesota on the Move: Migration Patterns and Implications, Minnesota State Demographic Center, January 2015, p. 3 <https://mn.gov/admin/assets/mn-on-the-move-migration-report-msdc-jan2015_tcm36-219517.pdf>

One more move against sanctuary cities – and cities resist

[UPDATE: Judge rules in favor of sanctuary cities] On April 21, the Department of Justice made another move toward penalizing “sanctuary cities.” The DOJ sent letters to nine jurisdictions “having laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. §1373,” telling them to provide proof that they are in compliance by June 30.

A press release accompanying the letters charged that “many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime.” Specifically, the press release charged that, “New York City continues to see gang murder after gang murder, the predictable consequence of the city’s ‘soft on crime’ stance.” New York’s mayor and police chief responded with angry denials:

“[NYC Mayor Bill] De Blasio said such remarks were “absolutely outrageous”. James O’Neill, head of New York’s police department, similarly rejected the justice department’s claims, saying they showed “a willful disregard for the facts”.

“O’Neill noted that 2016 saw the fewest shootings in New York City history since it began keeping records, and that since 1993, “murder has decreased 82%, shootings have decreased 81%, and overall crime has decreased 76%. These are the facts.”

Apart from the “immigrants are criminals” rhetoric, the letters focus on defining sanctuary cities as in violation of U.S. law. Sessions chose to begin with these nine cities  — Sacramento, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Miami, Milwaukee, New York, and Chicago —because each has a FY 2016 Byrne JAG grants from the Office of Justice Programs.

Hundreds of cities across the country have declared some kind of sanctuary. Since each city has its own ordinance, and its own federal grants, the attack has to proceed city by city.

Section 1373 says that local authorities may not order public officials to withhold information from immigration authorities about people’s immigration status. Separation ordinances, while varying from city to city, generally order local officials not to inquire about immigration status. If public officials never get the information, they cannot either supply or withhold it. (Most separation ordinances specify exceptions: officials may ask about immigration status if required by law (e.g. eligibility for food stamps) or if someone is convicted of a crime.)

Some cities are actively resisting Trump administration anti-sanctuary moves. San Francisco has sued the Trump administration, saying that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional because it tries to make local officials enforce federal laws.  In a court hearing, the attorney for the Trump administration argued that Trump’s order was more like speaking from a “bully pulpit” and wouldn’t actually force the cities to do anything. Seattle has also sued, saying that its sanctuary city policies make the city safer for all residents.

It’s not clear how much federal money could be at stake.

Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have sanctuary ordinances.

UPDATE: U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction in city’s lawsuit against Trump executive order, stopping enforcement against sanctuary cities.

For more information:

 

 

One new citizen’s journey: Norma Garza Montemayor

Photo by Denise Krebs, published under Creative Commons license

Life is a series of journeys, especially for immigrants. Norma Garza Montemayor began a long journey in 1989, when her parents took their children from the northern Mexican state of Nuevo Leon and traveled to Minnesota.  In June 2016, Norma started a nine-month journey toward citizenship with help from the Moorhead office of the Immigrant Law Center.

Like many immigrants across time and geography, she and her family lived in a place that lacked enough opportunities to sustain them. Her parents needed to find work to support the family. Relatives and friends who already lived in Minnesota’s Red River Valley, told them about jobs as seasonal farm workers. Migrant farm workers already had been working in the Red River Valley for more than half a century. That immigrant community helped them find jobs as seasonal farm workers and settle in.

Although Norma’s parents eventually returned to Mexico, she and her siblings stayed in Minnesota.  She received legal residency under Reagan-era legislation. She met her husband in Minnesota, and they now have two teen-aged children. Both Norma and her husband work for a potato processing company. Both wanted to become citizens, and Norma started the process. She reached out to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota’s Moorhead office, which represented her in filing her application to naturalize.

Norma worried about failing the citizenship exam but, with the help of Martha Castañon in ILCM’s Moorhead office, she mastered the required material. Because of her limited knowledge of written and spoken English, Norma qualified for the language waiver and took her test in Spanish. “With ILCM’s help, I passed,” she said.

In March 2017, she went to Concordia College, Moorhead, raised her hand and took her oath of allegiance to the United States, proud to be a citizen. “For me,” Norma said, “it is a dream come true.”

Immigrant and Refugee Helpline offers facts on rumors and rule changes

Photo by Sean MacEntee, published under Creative Commons license

After the first Trump executive order on immigration, calls flooded the front desk at the Immigration Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM): Is it safe for me to travel? Does it make sense to start a visa application for a family member? I’ve been charged with a crime – can ICE detain me at my court date? Is the government removing people to Somalia? The “very high level of panic and uncertainty” led ILCM to set up its new Immigrant and Refugee Helpline. The Helpline takes calls about:

  • Know Your Rights legal guidance
  • Questions about President Trump’s immigration Executive Orders
  • Travel ban questions
  • Immigration court and detention information
  • Advice for emergency family planning

The goal was a “free, safe, confidential setting where you can access information,” said attorney Anne Applebaum, who added the Helpline to her work coordinating volunteer attorneys. “We hope people will contact the Helpline preemptively, before there’s an issue, to get the information they need.”

Immigrant and Refugee Helpline
Tuesday 1-3 p.m. and Thursday 6-8 p.m.
651-287-3715

People can call to check on rumors and to get general information. “If your question starts with ‘I’m worried about, I’m scared of, I want to know what happens if’ – that’s a question for the Helpline,” Applebaum says. For specific advice on individual cases, people should make an appointment to see an attorney. An individual appointment will be needed for questions such as “How can I file for a green card?” or “Am I eligible for naturalization?

The Helpline is open on Tuesday afternoons from 1-3 p.m. and on Thursday evenings from 6-8. People can call with questions about know your rights guidelines; President Trump’s immigration executive orders; travel ban, immigration court and detention; and advice on emergency planning for families.

A volunteer first talks with the caller to determine whether their questions are Helpline questions, and whether the caller is eligible – Minnesota resident, household income below 250% of the poverty line. If the person with the question is eligible, then a volunteer lawyer calls them back to answer the questions.

The Helpline is designed as a consistent resource available to people no matter what new issue arises. The infrastructure now in place allows volunteers to work off-site, and monitors the number of calls made or missed during each session. That means the Helpline will continue to be easily accessible, instead of setting up new line every time there’s a new executive order, leaked memo, or rumor. A language line connection means any person speaking any language can call in, and any volunteer attorney, regardless of which languages they speak, can respond to their questions.

Attorneys document the questions asked and advice given, and staff will send out additional written resources when needed. That might mean information on what voluntary departure is or how a bond hearing works. Or it might be the Family Preparedness packet, which includes forms for Delegation of Parental Authority, in English and Spanish.

A separate detention helpline answers questions for people who are already detained and their family members. The detention helpline answers questions ranging from how to locate detained family members to how to start a bond fund and what documents might be needed at a bond hearing. If someone is in jail or calling on behalf of someone in jail or in immigration custody, they can call 651-641-1011 on Tuesday or Thursday from 2-4 p.m.

 

At the intersection of criminal and immigration law

“Can I be deported if …?”

Effective assistance of counsel hangs on the answer to that question. That’s what the Supreme Court held in Kentucky vs. Padilla, decided back in 2010. The Padilla Project of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) helps public defenders across Minnesota get the answer right.

The Padilla Project helps to protect both immigrants involved in the criminal justice system and the lawyers who represent them. In Minnesota, only the Hennepin County public defender has an in-house immigration law consultant.  For all other public defenders across the state, Susan Jorgensen Flores and ILCM’s Padilla Project offer advice when a defendant is also an immigrant.

The most important part of the job, Jorgensen Flores says, is to “make sure clients are informed and know what to expect as immigration consequences from any guilty plea.” Immigration consequences of a conviction (whether after a guilty plea or a trial) or even of deferred prosecution vary, depending on the immigration status of the person involved. Immigration law is extremely complex. Immigration policies and enforcement can change rapidly. That makes it difficult for defense attorneys – who are not immigration law specialists – to advise immigrant clients.

Most criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas, with people looking for a good result in a plea deal. That was what happened to José Padilla, the defendant in Kentucky vs. Padilla. He pleaded guilty to transportation of a large amount of marijuana. A guilty plea means a conviction, and his conviction was grounds for deportation – even though he was a 40-year legal resident of the United States and a Vietnam vet with honorable service. Padilla said his attorney told him, incorrectly, that someone with his length of legal residence didn’t need to worry. That was true at one time, but not any longer.

As the Supreme Court wrote back in 2010:

“Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences.”

If anything, the consequences of involvement with the criminal justice system have grown harsher since 2010, and especially since January 20, 2017.

Typical cases in which Minnesota public defenders seek advice involve charges of DUI, drugs, or domestic violence. While a DUI, for example, is “not generally” a deportable offense, there are exceptions.

The consequences vary not only according to the offense charged, but also according to the person’s immigration status. An immigrant may be a legal permanent resident, an undocumented immigrant, someone temporarily in the United States with any of more than a dozen types of temporary visas, or someone whose visa application is in process.

With 16 years of immigration law practice, Jorgensen Flores has headed ILCM’s Padilla Project for the past two years. Back in March 2015, she recalls, the project got 43 calls for attorney consultations. That number increased to around 100 a month as the state public defender’s office emphasized the importance of consultation. Then came the new administration and decidedly aggressive and hostile immigration enforcement. The number of attorney consultations rose to 168 in February and 183 in March.

“What’s hitting the fan now,” Jorgensen Flores says, is that “any crime will make you an enforcement priority, if you are otherwise deportable.” That makes the work of ILCM’s Padilla Project more important than ever.