SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday announced its verdict on whether to reinstate the travel ban on some refugees from conflict zones - and voted unanimously to keep the status quo in place and allow those travelers to enter the United States.

The story is far from over, said Democracy Fund senior fellow Daniela Gerson, who teaches journalism with a focus on immigration and ethnic issues at California State University at Northridge. While she isn't surprised by the verdict, Gerson said, what did surprise her is how divisive this issue has been locally.

"The amount of interest this has triggered, and the emotion on both sides, is really extraordinary," she said. "It's nothing I have ever seen, and I'm fascinated to see how that continues to play out, as the story continues to develop."

Gerson's point is underscored by a recent Los Angeles Times review of what California's 54-member congressional delegation has said about the ban. It showed a distinct split down party lines on the question of whether to restrict people's entry into the United States from certain countries.

California often is portrayed as spearheading the so-called sanctuary movement, but its politics reflect more traditional party divisions than secessionist tendencies. Gerson said she'll be watching in the coming weeks to see if this case will have wider implications for Trump's other executive orders.

"I will be watching as the other executive orders are implemented," she said, "and where they're brought to the courts and where they're not - both on local levels, in district courts and then ultimately, also on the national level."

President Trump's order flagged travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations. Supporters of the ban have said these nations contain active sponsors of terrorism and that the president should have the authority to institute such a ban. The Trump administration could continue to push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The appeals court's decision is online at cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov. The Times article is at latimes.com.


get more stories like this via email

During last week's Republican National Convention, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Americans are not safe due to immigrants committing violent crimes.

That's just one claim being challenged by leading immigration experts.

Nancy Foner, Ph.D., professor of Sociology at City University of New York's Hunter College, said labeling immigrants as criminals is an old, but persistent, myth.

She pointed to data showing that the vast majority of immigrants are not violent criminals.

"The foreign born, in fact, are much less likely than the native-born to commit violent crimes," said Foner. "And in fact, cities and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have much lower crime and violence than comparable non-immigrant neighborhoods."

Immigrants were also blamed for smuggling fentanyl across the 2,000-mile southern border.

But according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 90% of the drugs linked to overdose deaths are smuggled by U.S. citizens through legal ports of entry.

Cruz also said immigrants were being allowed into the U.S. to vote in the upcoming elections - a conspiracy theory about something that never, or almost never, happens.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, pointed out that non-citizens are not legally allowed to vote in federal elections, and don't in part because they could be immediately deported if caught.

"To cast one ballot in an election in which 160 million ballots are going to be cast, it happens exceedingly rarely," said Becker, "largely because the states and federal government already have really good policies in place."

Others claimed immigrants were "receiving welfare."

Pia Orrenius, vice president and senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said immigrants are not eligible for the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps), Social Security or other benefits - although they do pay payroll and other taxes that fund those programs.

She said immigrants actually strengthen America's economy, but local governments can feel squeezed if immigrants earn low wages.

"That negative impact, it mostly comes from education," said Orrenius. "K-12 education is expensive. The spending on education is an investment. Those investments are going to pay back many times what's invested."



get more stories like this via email

Leaders at the 5th annual Immigration Summit, which wrapped up in Los Angeles Friday, have vowed to stand strong no matter what happens with the November election.

The Republican candidate for president has called for mass deportations.

Miguel Santana, president and CEO of the California Community Foundation, said it alarms many people in a county where more than one-third of the residents of all ethnicities are foreign-born, and about 60% of children have at least one immigrant parent.

"We've been engaged in scenario planning," Santana explained. "We've prepared our immigrant community so that they know their rights, that we have the proper defense, but also, we're advancing comprehensive immigration reform. That is really what's needed."

The summit was co-sponsored by the California Community Foundation, the Council of Immigrant Inclusion and the Equity Research Institute at the University of Southern California.

Manuel Pastor, director of the institute, said deportations would leave a huge hole in the economy and tear families apart.

"In L.A. County, about a fifth of all Angelenos are either undocumented themselves or living with a family member who is undocumented," Pastor pointed out. "Fear of deportation, problems with accessing services because of status, affect a wide number of families."

Researchers also released the 5th annual State of Immigrants in Los Angeles report, which found naturalizations and wages for immigrants are up over the past few years. It also recommended continued support for county programs providing legal aid and help people access services in their preferred language.


get more stories like this via email

The Missouri House of Representatives has formed a special committee to look into what the House Speaker refers to as crimes committed by immigrants living illegally in Missouri.

The formation of this committee has sparked a debate between those who see it as a necessary step for public safety and those who view it as a misuse of resources driven by political motives.

House Speaker Dean Plocher - R-St. Louis County - said he's convinced this committee's findings will increase the safety of Missourians.

"The message needs to be," said Plocher, "'If you're not here in the state of Missouri legally, you're going to be detained - and you're going to be deported if you're committing crimes.'"

Data provided by Customs and U.S. Border Protection show last year, there were more than 1,200 violent crimes by committed non-citizens in the U.S. nationwide, and more than 2,000 related to drug trafficking and possession.

The first committee hearing will be in Jefferson City on July 11.

State Rep. David Tyson Smith - D-Columbia - said this isn't an issue in Missouri, and believes the committee is a waste of time and resources. He said it's all being done for political talking points.

"If we are really serious about these issues," said Smith, "we would form a special committee on gun violence to crack down on the shootings that are happening all over our state, that need to be clamped down on."

Studies have repeatedly shown that immigrants - legal and illegal - are more law abiding than people born here.

Research from The Marshall Project has found no correlation between undocumented immigrants and a rise in violent crimes.

However, some committee members believe people living in the U.S. illegally are to blame for an increase in Fentanyl and sex trafficking.




get more stories like this via email