Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

State lawmakers in Arizona are considering legislation to mandate hospitals to ask patients whether they are in the country legally.

Rep. John Gillette, R-Flagstaff, noted while the proposal includes a provision to let patients know their answer would not affect the type of care they receive or lead to any immigration enforcement, it is a needed measure to collect information on the effect undocumented immigration is having on the state's health care system, including the state's Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, commonly referred to as AHCCCS.

"Right now in Yuma County, there's 1,676 people receiving some type of benefits on AHCCCS from the same address, but we don't know who they are and we don't know where they live," Gillette stated. "We just know they have the same address, but we haven't been provided that access. This bill aims to do that."

Gillette explained the bill is intended to track Medicaid spending with the purpose of uncovering if taxpayer dollars are being used to treat those who are not in the U.S. legally. Opponents of the measure argued it could deter patients from seeking and accessing essential medical care. The legislation is headed to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' desk.

Rep. Mariana Sandoval, D-Yuma, fears the bill could have unintended consequences and the data collected could be used for ulterior motives. Republicans have modeled the legislation after a similar Florida law which highlighted the cost of undocumented migrants to the state.

Sandoval pointed out the legislation is not taking place in a vacuum.

"They conveniently overlook that undocumented workers contribute significantly to the state and local taxes," Sandoval emphasized. "These workers contributed an estimated $766 million in combined state and local taxes, just in 2022 alone."

Sandoval contended the bill would directly target those who she called some of Arizona's hardest working and vulnerable residents such as agricultural, hospitality and construction workers. She added hospitals should remain places of healing, not become ports of entry.

While Gov. Ron DeSantis touts "Operation Tidal Wave" as a success, advocates for Florida's immigrant families say the crackdown is tearing them apart - and ignoring their legal rights.

In a Thursday news conference at Miramar's ICE facility, where immigrants routinely report on their cases, officials celebrated the operation - even as community members now fear detention for keeping appointments.

Cuban mother Heidy Sanchez was deported after checking in and forced to leave her 1-year-old U.S.-citizen daughter behind, according to Renata Bozzetto, deputy director of the
Florida Immigrant Coalition.

"Heidy was just like every other immigrant going to that facility in Miramar to do what she was told to do - to present herself, follow the rules and be in constant contact with ICE agents - only to be trapped and deported," she said, "and that is absolutely heartbreaking."

Bozzetto said many immigrants who comply with ICE check-ins are being swept up. DeSantis claimed the operation has led to a 63% arrest rate of people with prior criminal convictions, but Bozzetto argued the state is obscuring the real impact - of families torn apart, workers disappearing from jobs, and U.S. citizens caught in the dragnet.

The operation has also raised concerns about racial profiling and what critics see as the state's disregard for court orders. Bozzetto pointed to constitutional violations and the lack of information about the 1,120 people Operation Tidal Wave claims to have taken into custody.

"When these stories are not given to us with the detail and the transparency that they deserve, we have various questions," she said, "including, did these individuals have the right to due process?"

Florida's aggressive approach includes its embrace of what are known as 287-G agreements, which allow local law enforcement to act as federal immigration agents. DeSantis has called these a key tool in immigration enforcement.


get more stories like this via email

An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings.

On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge denied the Justice Department's request to further delay the wrongful deportation case of a Maryland man, Kilmar Obrego Garcia, who was sent to a prison in El Salvador. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" his return.

Victoria Carmona, clinical professor of immigration law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, said regardless of citizenship status, the lack of due process for one person is a crisis for everyone.

"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, because if they're going to do it for one person, this is the test case," Carmona explained. "This is to see what can the government get away with and start pushing the odometer further and further away from due process. And it should be scary to everyone."

The government now has until May 5 to report any efforts it is making to comply with the court orders. In the meantime, Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois is looking into ways to cut any state financial ties to Salvadoran companies in protest of that government's imprisonment of hundreds of deportees taken from the U.S. without court hearings.

Obrego Garcia already had a set of protections which said he could not return to his native country of El Salvador for fear of government persecution. The Justice Department said deporting him was an administrative error, although the Trump administration insists he is affiliated with a gang.

Carmona pointed out both countries' leaders are making the case more difficult to resolve.

"From El Salvador's perspective, I'm sure they're upset because their citizen had essentially claimed protections and saying that the El Salvadoran government would harm him if he returned," Carmona observed. "But this idea that the U.S. has no position to facilitate his return is an absolute lie."

Whatever happens to Obrego Garcia, Carmona added the unprecedented nature of the executive branch ignoring judicial orders has set the U.S. up for a constitutional crisis.

"At this point, I think Congress should be looking at impeachment," Carmona contended. "If Trump is going to clearly violate the Supreme Court orders, the resolution is impeachment."


get more stories like this via email