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

A New Mexico immigrant advocacy group says all Americans should be alarmed that the IRS has agreed to share immigrants' taxpayer information with ICE agents because their personal data could be next.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service have reached a deal to provide sensitive taxpayer data to federal immigration authorities as part of the deportation push by President Donald Trump.

Marcela Díaz, executive director of Somos Un Pueblo Unido, called the action unconscionable and immoral.

"This is an extreme breach of trust between a federal government agency that has promised immigrant communities, for over 30 years, that it would not share information for the purpose of immigration enforcement," she said.

Díaz noted that other Americans could be next if the Trump administration decides to overturn longstanding laws that protect their personal information. It's estimated that New Mexico's immigrant population contributes nearly $1.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes.

There are close to 15,000 New Mexicans who use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number to file their state taxes every year. Diaz said many will face a "Catch-22" -- a choice between breaking tax laws by not filing or possibly suffering even worse consequences.

"By doing it, you are exposing your family and your community to the devastation of detention, deportation and separation of families," she continued.

Díaz believes fear instilled by the new directive will have profound consequences nationwide.

"We are seeing a deterioration of that trust between the citizens of this country and the residents of this country and the essential hard-working families of this country, including immigrants, and these federal government agencies," she explained.

Somos Un Pueblo Unido is a plaintiff in a national lawsuit filed by Public Citizen against the Trump administration and the IRS.

As of Wednesday, the IRS acting commissioner was planning to resign rather than participate in sharing immigrants' tax data with Homeland Security.


get more stories like this via email

Latino media outlets in Arizona are coming together to ensure the Hispanic and Latino communities are informed and educated about their rights amid the current immigration climate.

Laura Madrid, CEO of the radio stations "La Onda" 1190 AM and 99.5 FM, said this sort of initiative is not new to Arizona. She recalled a similar campaign after Arizona enacted its controversial 2010 immigration law Senate Bill 1070, which critics said led to racial profiling.

Now as an immigration crackdown is underway, Madrid stressed information is power. The campaign consists of Spanish and English digital and radio public service announcements, social media posts and a website.

"Everybody brings in a different role and I think it is important that we open the dialogue to everyone," Madrid explained. "Social media, as you know, is very important in our society and everyday lives, especially rural areas. I wish we could do more in the rural areas of Arizona because those are always forgotten."

Madrid encouraged all Arizonans to know their rights, make a plan, find someone that can offer sound legal advice and to stay informed. The ACLU of Arizona has put together materials on what to know if you are stopped by authorities.

Last week, more than 200 people in Arizona were charged with illegal immigration activity, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona.

Raquel Terán, director of the group Proyecto Progreso, said Spanish media outlets have a committed history of covering the real-life impacts of what she called anti-immigrant and anti-Latino policies. Last November, Arizona voters approved Republican-backed Proposition 314, which would give the state authority to enforce federal immigration policy. The measure is facing legal challenges as opponents argued the law violates the state constitution since it includes no funding mechanism to pay for enforcement.

Terán added it is precisely why communities need to be in the know.

"It is a voice of confidence," Terán stressed. "By the community seeing a coalition of media outlets, it hopefully produces greater confidence and I hope it doesn't alarm folks but rather, prepares them."

Terán added independent of a person's immigration status, everyone has constitutional rights. She and other coalition members want to ensure people are aware of what they are and how to use them.


get more stories like this via email

Almost 600 children in Pennsylvania, many fleeing abuse or persecution, are being forced to navigate the immigration court system without legal representation, according to immigrant advocacy groups.

Recent federal funding cuts have left more than 26,000 unaccompanied minors nationwide without legal aid.

Cathryn Miller-Wilson, executive director of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society-Pennsylvania, said federal funding unexpectedly stopped four weeks ago, leaving attorneys without support to help migrant children in shelters in Bethlehem and northwestern Pennsylvania.

"All work, except for the 'Know Your Rights' work - which is the going out to the shelter and just educating the kids about the Know Your Rights work - that was the only work that was supposed to be maintained," Miller-Wilson explained. "No more representation of any kind could be done, or at least wouldn't be paid for by the federal government."

Miller-Wilson noted Acacia Center for Justice received a notice stating it could keep up the Know Your Rights visits for six more months but provide no legal representation. A lawsuit led to a temporary order restoring legal services until a hearing on April 16 to determine whether the temporary order will become permanent.

Miller-Wilson pointed out there are some remedies -- like Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, 'T' visas for trafficking victims, and 'U' visas for victims of certain crimes -- but it can take months or even years to secure temporary legal status. In her view, government support for such children is not only a moral obligation but also an investment in saving an entire generation.

"The funding is an investment in their future," Miller-Wilson contended. "We represent them. They get status, they get to go to school, they get jobs, they pay taxes, they have spending power and they become part of the American fabric."

She added her group helps people with incomes of less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level with legal and social service needs. She argued targeting immigrants, of any age, does not make economic sense for the country, as there is overwhelming evidence the nation's economic strength and well-being are deeply connected to immigrants.