Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (Photo: Flickr/The National Guard)

Former members of a task force on Secure Communities sent a letter this week to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calling on her to suspend the immigration enforcement program.

The letter also expressed their concern that an Arizona law enforcement agency that has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations” still has access to Secure Communities.

Brittney Nystrom of the National Immigration Forum and Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto of the AFL-CIO write in the letter:

As former members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Task Force on Secure Communities, we note with concern the multiple findings of racial profiling of Latinos and other civil rights violations by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on December 15.

The findings of a pattern and practice of racial profiling of Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona, demonstrate that abuse can occur while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively collaborating with enforcement agencies through both the 287(g) program and the Secure Communities program and through informal collaboration between DHS and law enforcement agencies.

“My understanding is that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is continuing to operate Secure Communities in Maricopa County despite the findings of discriminatory policing by that sheriffs department,” Nystrom tells The Florida Independent.

Secure Communities allows local law enforcement agencies to check the fingerprints of people they detain and match them up with federal immigration and criminal databases, with the stated goal of deporting undocumented immigrant criminals. All 67 Florida jurisdictions participate in Secure Communities.

Napolitano said in October that the termination of Secure Communities “would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.”

Opponents of Secure Communities have repeatedly called on the Obama administration to end the fingerprint-sharing program because immigrants who have committed no crime are being detained and deported, leaving behind U.S.-born children and families that, in many cases, will struggle to make ends meet.

Nystrom says that Homeland Security officials said they were “limiting” the Maricopa sheriff’s office’s “access to Secure Communities, but that in [her] thinking and Andrea’s thinking doesn’t go far enough to prevent someone who was picked up in a biased manner from being put into the deportation machine.”

The letter adds that the Secure Communities termination should also include Alabama, “where immigration enforcement laws that have been challenged as unconstitutional by the Department of Justice are in effect.”

The Supreme Court seal (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Hayfordoleary)

Spanish-language news reporters who spoke Sunday on Al Punto, a Univision program, said the coming Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070 will have an impact on both the 2012 elections and on the lives of millions of immigrants.

Alan Rivera of Hispanic News Network said that the Supreme Court decision that would come in June, in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign, and will greatly influence the Obama campaign against the eventual Republican nominee.

Rivera highlighted the fact that, with Justice Elena Kagan not voting, five of the remaining eight justices were selected by Republican administrations. He also said the immigration issue is a constitutional one, and “the court cannot decide against the Constitution,” adding that “the Constitution says that Congress decides” on legislative issues.

Marcello Raimon of Agencia ANSA — a Latin-American news agency — said “we have to wait with our fingers crossed,” hoping “that the Supreme Court does not decide to allow states to do what they want.”

“It is on the conscience of the justices if they will destroy the lives of millions of people,” Raimon said.

“I find it very interesting that instead of talking about immigration reform for 11 million undocumented immigrants, the anti-immigrant environment in the U.S. is so large we’re talking about these issues,” Al Punto host Jorge Ramos said.

The Supreme Court decision to hear the legal challenge to Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law comes at a time when the leading GOP presidential candidates are talking about immigration and trying to strengthen support with Latino voters.

Newt Gingrich has called for a “humane” approach to immigration enforcement, and Republicans share his approach to immigration, but the GOP still has to work hard to get Latino voters in important swing states in the 2012 presidential elections, according to surveys.

ABC News reported that Mitt Romney, during the Fox News debate last week, “laid out more clearly than he has before details of a proposed national ID card system for legal immigrants and the requirement that employers run checks on workers or face ‘very serious sanctions.’”

According to ABC, “Romney said the new protocols would add pressure on illegal immigrants to voluntarily return to their native countries and force them to apply to the U.S. from the ‘back of the line.’”

The Washington Post reported Friday:

Republicans are increasingly worried that their party’s efforts to win a competitive slice of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in important presidential battleground states are being undermined by Mitt Romney’s heated rhetoric on illegal immigration.

Several leading GOP strategists say Romney’s sharp-tongued attacks have gained wide attention in Hispanic media and are eroding the party’s already fragile standing in that community.

The Post adds that  leaders of  conservative groups like the Hispanic Leadership Fund and the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles do not agree with Romney on immigration.

The original Deepwater Horizon fire (Photo: Flickr/Deepwater Horizon Response)

A new report issued by The National Academy of Engineering, a government-created nonprofit, concludes that the lack of regulation and ineffective safety-management practices that led to BP’s catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have not been fully remedied — leaving communities in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana potentially vulnerable to another oil spill.

The blowout and explosion of BP’s Macondo well killed 11 workers and led to the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

According to National Academy’s Deepwater Horizon Committee, “companies involved in offshore drilling should take a ‘system safety’ approach to anticipating and managing possible dangers at every level of operation — from ensuring the integrity of wells to designing blowout preventers that function ‘under all foreseeable conditions.’”  In addition, according to the report, “an enhanced regulatory approach should combine strong industry safety goals with mandatory oversight at critical points during drilling operations.”

Some of the report recommendations:

• Expanding the formal education and training of personnel engaged in offshore drilling to ensure that they can properly implement system safety.
• Establishing guidelines so that well designs incorporate protection against the various credible risks associated with the drilling and abandonment process.
• Testing cemented and mechanical barriers designed to contain the flow of hydrocarbons in wells, to ensure that they are effective (and subjecting those tests to independent reviews).

The study, which was sponsored the U.S. Department of Interior, also recommends the formation of a single government agency that would be responsible for integrating system safety for all offshore drilling activities. Current offshore drilling operations are governed by a number of agencies, often with overlapping authorities.

In a press release sent out yesterday, Earthjustice attorney David Guest said that “lax oversight by government” hasn’t changed, putting jobs in tourism, recreation and fishing at risk.

“It’s back to business as usual as if the BP disaster never happened,” Guest said. “The National Academy of Engineering tells us that deep water drilling still has a high risk of disaster, that the culture of corner-cutting in the industry and lax oversight by government haven’t changed. That means that the fishing communities and all the jobs in tourism and recreation in the Gulf region are at risk.”

Earthjustice filed suit against the federal government in June for conducting what it says is “a flawed environmental risk assessment” of Shell’s plan to drill in the gulf. According to Earthjustice, federal regulators have conducted “an irrationally optimistic risk assessment for  Shell Oil Company’s plan to drill for oil in deep Gulf waters near the site of BP’s devastating spill.”

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog wrote Monday: “Adding further to the historic rank of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their lives in the U.S.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) “welcomes the decision by the United States Supreme Court to review Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.” The group not only welcomed S.B. 1070 but also helped draft the law through its affiliate — the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

FAIR, according to Open Secrets, spent more than $3.4 million from 1998 through 2011 to lobby Congress on immigration-related legislation, like a proposed House GOP sponsored resolution that “would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Justice from using any funds to sue Arizona in an effort to strike down its new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.”

“We believe that SB 1070 is a legitimate effort by a state to partner with the federal government in assisting in the enforcement of our immigration laws,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.

The National Immigration Forum wrote Monday: “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that only the federal government has the authority to create and enforce immigration law. We believe Arizona’s SB1070 is misguided and unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to use this opportunity to slam the brakes on other state-based immigration laws that are in conflict with our Constitution and core American values.”

According to Open Secrets, the Forum has spent more than $1.5 million since 1998 to lobby Congress on issues related to comprehensive immigration reform.

The American Spectator, a publication that “serves as a resource and an outlet for a host of both young and established conservative writers and thinkers” writes today: “Health care reform isn’t the only major policy battle the Obama administration will fight before the Supreme Court. The justices will also hear a case in which the Obama Justice Department asks them to overturn Arizona’s SB 1070, a controversial law empowering state and local police to detain suspected illegal immigrants in the course of their normal work.”

The Spectator, adds:

“We won 5 to 3 on the E-Verify case,” [former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce, one of the architects of S.B. 1070,] says. “The same issues and constitutional principles are at stake here. I expect we’ll win 5 to 3 again.” (Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, recused herself in the last case and will do so again in the forthcoming one.) Indeed, the Supreme Court found that Arizona immigration law fell “well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States.”

The National Council of La Raza ”hopes that by intervening in this case, the Supreme Court will affirm that the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement and that states do not have the right to usurp that authority by establishing their own immigration laws.”

La Raza is a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization that according to Open Secrets spent more than $5.6 million to lobby Congress from 1998 through 2011 on immigration, as well as other issues: the federal budget, economic development, education, health issues, housing and law enforcement and crime.

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog added: “The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.”

The New York Times reports today that “the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Arizona may impose tough anti-immigration measures. Among them, in a law enacted last year, is a requirement that the police there question people they stop about their immigration status.”

ABC News reports ”the case will be argued sometime this spring,” adding that, “although deeply opposed to the law, the Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court to refrain from taking up the case at this juncture.”

Kris Kobach, current Kansas secretary of state and the coauthor of S.B. 1070 and other immigration enforcement-only efforts, wrote in May 2010: “[S.B. 1070] makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration violations while in Arizona.”

S.B. 1070 was passed by the Arizona Legislature in the first months of 2010, and was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in April; the measure was immediately challenged by the Obama administration.

The Times adds that the Obama administration “challenged four provisions” of S.B. 1070: “The most prominent was a requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if officials have reason to believe that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.”

According to ABC News, “similar legislation is pending in Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia and Alabama.”

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog writes today: “The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.”

“Arizona’s infamous anti-immigrant law, SB 1070,” and other similar state laws, according to the Immigration Policy Center, ”impose unfunded mandates on the police, jails, and courts; drive away workers, taxpayers, and consumers upon whom the state economy depends; and invite costly lawsuits and tourist boycotts. These are economic consequences which few states can afford at a time of gaping budget deficits.”

Former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce — one of the most recognized architects of that state’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070, and who recently lost a recall election — writes today that his defeat had nothing to do with S.B. 1070.

Pearce writes at Politico:

My Republican opponent was Jerry Lewis, who stated he was opposed to SB1070, supports the DREAM Act and believes illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t.

In a normal election, Lewis would have had no chance in the primary. And with a large GOP registration edge in my district, I would likely have won easily against the Democrat.

Pearce argues that Democrats supported Lewis and, “looming over the campaign was a prolonged smear campaign against me for accepting (with dozens of other legislators) free college football tickets.”

He also reiterates his immigration track record:

We have inspired other states to take action. More than 34 states are now proposing legislation modeled on SB1070. Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia have already passed bills.”

The immigration enforcement state laws passed in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have been challenged in court.

According to the Tucson Citizen, Republican Jerry Lewis, who defeated Pearce, “participated in a national teleconference to mark the Nov. 11, 2010, adoption of a document called the Utah Compact, which advocates a more humane approach to immigration issues.”

The Citizen adds: “During an Oct. 6 campaign debate with Pearce, Lewis said Arizona’s focus on strict border enforcement has made the state a paraiah in some national and international quarters. Drawing boos from Pearce supporters, Lewis said Arizona now suffers from an image akin to that of ’1964 Alabama.’”

Photo credit: Protesters demonstrate against Arizona S.B. 1070 (Pic by ProgressOhio, via Flickr)

Former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce — one of the most recognized architects of that state’s immigration enforcement law S.B. 1070, and who recently lost a recall election — writes today that his defeat had nothing to do with S.B. 1070.

Protesters demonstrate against Arizona S.B. 1070 (Pic by ProgressOhio, via Flickr)

Pearce writes at Politico:

My Republican opponent was Jerry Lewis, who stated he was opposed to SB1070, supports the DREAM Act and believes illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t.

In a normal election, Lewis would have had no chance in the primary. And with a large GOP registration edge in my district, I would likely have won easily against the Democrat.

Pearce argues that Democrats supported Lewis and, “looming over the campaign was a prolonged smear campaign against me for accepting (with dozens of other legislators) free college football tickets.”

He also reiterates his immigration track record:

We have inspired other states to take action. More than 34 states are now proposing legislation modeled on SB1070. Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia have already passed bills.”

The immigration enforcement state laws passed in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have been challenged in court.

According to the Tucson Citizen, Republican Jerry Lewis, who defeated Pearce, “participated in a national teleconference to mark the Nov. 11, 2010, adoption of a document called the Utah Compact, which advocates a more humane approach to immigration issues.”

The Citizen adds: “During an Oct. 6 campaign debate with Pearce, Lewis said Arizona’s focus on strict border enforcement has made the state a paraiah in some national and international quarters. Drawing boos from Pearce supporters, Lewis said Arizona now suffers from an image akin to that of ’1964 Alabama.’”

A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Health tells The Florida Independent that budget authority was denied for a competitive grant “awarded to Florida beginning October 2010 for $175,000 yearly.”

The DP10-1017 “Demonstrating the Capacity of Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs to Implement Policy and Environmental Cancer Control Interventions” grant was a “five-year grant built on strengths of existing statewide Cancer Control and Research Advisory Council (C-CRAB) working with four regional cancer collaboratives to reduce the burden of cancer,” according to the Department of Health. The grant did not require any contributions from the state.

The grant was just one of many that has been rejected by the state. This week, health advocates in Broward County expressed their frustration with the millions of dollars Florida has turned away since the passage of the federal health care reform law.

According to a recent report by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Florida is among many states that have “missed opportunities to enact laws and policies that could not only save money and generate revenue, but also save lives.” In the report, Florida was listed as one of the seven states that fell short in all “five priority areas.” Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee are the other states that are also falling short in every category.

Two of the priority areas the report focused on had to do with the funding of prevention and detection programs in the state.

According to a Department of Health spokesperson, the state’s joint advisory councils had recently “completed the revised 2010 Florida Cancer Plan and developed an accompanying Implementation Guide.” The plans would have built “on the cancer councils’ combined agenda of identified priorities” and the rejected grant would have “accelerated prevention and risk reduction policies and efforts.”

The department says the plans for the grant included:

• Assisting Moffitt Cancer Center to convene the four goal committees to implement strategies for cancer control.
• Assessing and implement initiatives to reduce tobacco use statewide.
• Promoting national food guidelines and other measures to reduce obesity in school aged populations.
• Developing and support community health workers to improve access to care for underserved populations.
• Creating a forum to enhance the continuum of care for cancer patients through improved medical record keeping including electronic medical systems.

The Department of Health spokesperson tells the Independent that “the work of these initiatives is being continued by other programs in the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, but in a smaller scope.”

Although pieces of the law have been blocked by federal courts, some sections have gone into effect, including a provision that bans courts from enforcing contracts made with unauthorized immigrants. While some states have banned public agencies from making contracts with unauthorized immigrants, no state or developed country has prohibited courts from enforcing any contract with the undocumented, say experts in immigration and human rights.

“We don’t know of a similar parallel, either internationally or elsewhere in the United States, where contracts with unauthorized immigrants are deemed unenforceable,” says Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute.

“The bottom line is that Alabama’s law is a complete outlier,” says Alison Parker, director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. program. “The only country where we are aware of something that comes close to what Alabama has done” is Italy, she said, pointing to a law that makes it illegal to rent to to unauthorized immigrants. “What they are doing in the state of Alabama runs in the face of human rights law.”

European countries have traditionally been viewed as less welcoming of immigrants than the United States, which for much of its history allowed migrant workers to cross the borders with Mexico and Canada without clearance from a government agency. Parker’s colleague Benjamin Ward, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s European program, called Alabama’s law “unbelievable and horrific.”

Throughout the twentieth century, border security efforts have steadily increased, and repeated attempts have been made to bring formerly unlimited quantities of new immigrants down to what’s considered by policymakers to be a manageable level.

But Parker says there’s an important distinction between controlling immigration at the border and stripping rights from immigrants already in the country.

“Everyone has the right to a family life, to a roof over one’s head, to compensation for work,” says Parker. “Once people are here, there are certain fundamental rights protected by human rights law.” European governments have tended to adhere to that standard.

Mittelstadt points out that immigrants in Europe tend to be registered with the government, which means that the contract rights of immigrants aren’t likely to be subject to Alabama-style laws: “In Europe, where national ID cards and registration programs for foreigners prevail, employers and others would not be likely to enter into contracts with unauthorized immigrants.”

At this point it’s unclear how the Alabama immigration law will be interpreted by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to step in now that the appellate courts have issued different decisions on state-level “enforcement only” laws (the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision to block Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect earlier this year).

The ban on contracts is especially murky, and there are few precedents that experts can point towards to predict its viability in the courts. The most relevant precedent could be a 2002 Supreme Court case, Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB, in which the court ruled that unauthorized immigrants aren’t entitled to back pay under the National Labor Relations Act. But the Court did establish that unauthorized immigrants were “employees” under the Act and had the right to organize.

However, it may be Alabama’s own state constitution that determines the fate of the contract ban.

As ThinkProgress reported, an Alabama state judge indicated in a decision earlier this week that the contract ban appears to violate Section 95 of Alabama’s own constitution, which states:

There can be no law of this state impairing the obligation of contracts by destroying or impairing the remedy for their enforcement; and the legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time, or by any statute of this state. After suit has been commenced on any cause of action, the legislature shall have no power to take away such cause of action, or destroy any existing defense to such suit.

In an opinion on a breach of contract lawsuit filed by an undocumented immigrant, Alabama Circuit Judge Scott Vowell wrote, “It may well be that that [the Alabama immigration law] also violates this section of the constitution” by “impairing the obligation of contracts.”

But since the case in question was filed before the immigration law went into effect, the judge didn’t outright rule the section unconstitutional, merely that the law could not take away an immigrant’s “cause of action” or “existing defense” after his or her case has already been filed.

Arizona and Hawaii are currently waiting for federal approval of their plans to cut hospital coverage in their plans, much like Florida already has.

“Advocates for the poor and hospital executives say the moves will restrict patients’ access to care, force hospitals to absorb more costs and lead to higher charges for privately insured patients,” Kaiser/USA Today reports. “States defend the actions as a way to balance budgets hammered by the economic downturn and the end of billions of dollars in federal stimulus funding this summer – funds that had helped prop up Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the poor.”

Florida is already among the list of states that have limited hospital coverage for Medicaid recipients in an effort to cut costs. The state’s Mediciad program currently only covers 45 days in a hospital for its beneficiaries.

Last week, acting Medicaid director Justin Senior told a Florida House health care committee that the state “could reduce home health visits for Medicaid beneficiaries and slash the amount of inpatient hospital care the program covers,” The News Service of Florida reported.

Senior said the state could limit emergency room visits to a maximum of 12 a year for each Medicaid recipient, which he said could save the state $12.2 million.

State Rep. Janet Cruz, D-Tampa, raised concerns for terminally ill patients who typically need more hospital visits. However, other members of the panel were “receptive” to the idea, the News Service reported:

Chairman Matt Hudson, R-Naples, said such a move could drive people to get treatment from primary-care doctors instead of emergency rooms, which could improve their health care.

Rep. John Wood, R-Winter Haven, appeared miffed that some Medicaid beneficiaries might go to the emergency room more than once a month, calling it “unacceptable.”

“If we’re allowing that type of behavior, shame on us,” Wood said.

Health advocates for low-income people are among those opposed to plans by states to limit hospital coverage for Medicaid patients.

Kaiser and USA Today report:

In Alabama, which has had a 16-day limit for more than decade, hospitals have billed patients for days not covered by Medicaid, said Larry Gardella, director of advocacy at Legal Services Alabama. Because poor patients often are unable to pay, the hospitals typically must pick up the cost, he said.

Another problem: Patients may also delay seeking elective services if they’ve already reached the coverage limit, Gardella said.

The state Legislature made significant cuts to the Florida program in the past year. Hospital coverage has been just one of the services that has been limited for Medicaid beneficiaries as the state aims to cut costs.