Continue reading »]]>

As previously noted, the administration recently proposed a new rule that would help keep American families —the “Proposed Rule on Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives.” This proposed rule would streamline the application process for many relatives of U.S. citizens currently eligible for a green card by minimizing the amount of time that applicants would have to be away from their families before being admitted into the United States. While the proposed rule is certainly a welcome change and would be an improvement over current procedures, there are ways in which the rule could be improved to help even more immigrants.

• Expand eligibility for new streamlined process to additional family members:  Under the proposed rule, the streamlined process is only available to spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens who claim that their absence would create an extreme hardship for the U.S. citizen.  It does not apply to other people eligible for a green card through the family preference categories. Expanding the proposed rule to people whose absence would cause extreme hardship for LPR spouses or parents and unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens would rescue additional American families from prolonged separations.
• Expand eligibility for new streamlined process to people in removal proceedings:  People who are currently in removal proceedings, who have been issued a Notice to Appear (NTA), or who have already been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview are not eligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.  In order to apply, these individuals would have to get their cases terminated or dismissed; those whose cases have been administratively closed would need their cases to be reopened for voluntary departure; and those who have been issued an NTA would need to get the NTA cancelled. These are serious obstacles to eligibility. Allowing them to apply would help keep more people together.
• Include enhanced due process protections:  Under the current proposed rule, there is no appeals process for those who are denied a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Applicants that are denied could petition for a waiver only through the current process, outside of the U.S.  Allowing immigrants to appeal their denials or to file for the waiver again in the U.S. would be another positive step to avoid potentially harmful separations.

It’s important to note that none of these changes to the proposed rule would mean anyone would automatically get the waiver. Those eligible would have to go through the application process and could be denied the waiver. But expanding eligibility to additional family members and individuals in removal proceedings, as well as allowing immigrants to appeal their denials and apply from inside the U.S. would be an improvement to the rule and would go a long way in keeping more American families together.

Comments on the proposed rule are due June 1, 2012. Submitting comments, which can include suggested improvements like the expansions of eligibility, is easy. Submit your comment by e-mailing it to uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov with “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003” in your subject line.

Photo by treviño.

Continue reading »]]>

Last week, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley publically criticized a bill intended to revise key sections of the state’s controversial immigration law (HB 56). He even announced a special legislative session to address his issues with the bill­­­­­—namely, a provision that requires school officials to check the immigration status of enrolling students and that of their parents and a provision that requires Alabama’s Department of Homeland Security to publically post the names of undocumented immigrants on their website. The day after his announcement, however, Governor Bentley backpedaled his criticisms, declared the legislature didn’t have the “appetite to address further revisions,” and signed the bill (HB 658) into law.

Governor Bentley explained his reversal in a statement following the bill’s signing:

The bill that the full Senate ultimately passed was different and did not reflect all of the changes we had agreed upon. However, the bill did include most of the suggested revisions and represented substantial progress in simplifying the bill while keeping it strong … as we worked with legislators during the special session, it became clear that the Legislature did not have the appetite for addressing further revisions at this time.

In an effort to remove the distraction of immigration from the other business of the special session, I decided to sign House Bill 658 and allow the progress made in the legislation to move forward.  We can now also move forward on the other business of the special session.

So how does HB 658 affect Alabama’s already extreme immigration law? In addition to keeping the “papers please” provision of the original law intact, HB 658:

• Adds a new provision that requires the Alabama Department of Homeland Security to publically list the names and counties of any undocumented immigrant who appears in court for any state violation on its website
• Continues to require school administrators to check the immigration status of enrolling students and that of their parents
• Continues to criminalize religious and humanitarian groups for “harboring crimes,” i.e., providing humanitarian relief to its members
• Continues to prohibit landlords from renting apartments to undocumented immigrants (a provision that has been struck down in every state that has tried to enact such a law)
• Increases the criminal penalty for harboring undocumented immigrants

While Governor Bentley expressed concern over the school provision and the provision that requires the public listing of undocumented immigrants, he noted that “there [were] too many positive aspects of House Bill 658 for it to go unsigned”—referring to changes that lessen restrictions and penalties on businesses who have been found to hire or employ undocumented immigrants. HB 658 also exempts from the original business provision, which voids all business contacts with undocumented immigrants, contracts entered into prior to the enactment of the law.

To date, several provisions of HB 56 have been temporarily enjoined by the courts, including the school provision, harboring provision, provisions that make it a crime for an unauthorized immigrant to fail to carry immigration documentation or apply for, solicit or perform work, a provision baring state courts from enforcing a contract with an unlawfully present person, and a provision which makes it a felony for an undocumented immigrant to enter into a “business contract” with the state. The courts said they would not issue a final ruling until after the Supreme Court issues a decision on Arizona’s immigration law in June.

In the meantime, Govenor Bentley said they will “re-address issues” with the law “if the need arises.”

Photo by governor.alabama.gov.

Continue reading »]]>

While some states pushed for punitive immigration measures over the last year—measures designed to drive immigrants away —others, like those in Michigan, were busy putting together a plan that welcomes immigrants and their revitalizing power to the state. This month, leaders in Michigan—including state Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) and U.S. Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit)—helped launch “Welcoming Michigan,” a statewide initiative that seeks to welcome immigrants and their entrepreneurial talents to Michigan.

A project of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and Welcoming America, Welcoming Michigan brings together community, city and business leaders, clergy, and charitable organizations “to raise the level of discourse around immigration” and “promote an understanding of the contributions that immigrants make to the U.S.”  Welcoming Michigan is also a partner to Global Detroit, an initiative launched last year that seeks to “revitalize southeast Michigan’s economy by pursuing strategies that strengthen Detroit’s connections to the world.”  Michigan joins 19 others states in welcoming immigrants, including Ohio whose recent “Welcome Dayton Plan” has garnered national attention as a model for other states.

U.S. Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit), whose father emigrated from Bangladesh, supports the program and wants to remind people that immigrants are an economic boon to the state—a state which faced a $767 million budget gap in 2012. According to Rep. Clarke:

“Michigan is welcoming immigrants, [but we’re] also welcoming jobs and investments, and more importantly, welcoming hope and opportunity to this country — what this city has stood for many decades and now can stand again.”

While proponents of harsh immigration laws falsely believe that forcing immigrants out of the state “will free up jobs for Americans,” Welcoming America points out that in an aging America, booting immigrants from the state means a “smaller gross state product, smaller revenue bases for the state shrinking budgets, and smaller local markets for products and services produced in the state … a smaller population base means a poorer, weaker, and less competitive Michigan.” In fact, Standard and Poor’s Rating Service reported this week that cities with high numbers of foreign born saw tax bases grow and per-capita income increase.

Immigrants who live in Michigan are already contributing to the state’s economy. They accounted for 11% of total economic output in the Detroit metropolitan area as of 2007 and comprised 6.8% of the state’s workforce. Additionally, the U.S. Small Business Administration found that the foreign born were more than three times as likely as non-immigrants to start a new business. Last year, according to CNN Money, “immigrants created 28% of all new firms.”

Immigrants have and will continue to contribute to the U.S., both economically and culturally. Hopefully, leaders across America will recognize these contributions and adopt a more welcoming attitude. As Susan Reed, campaign organizer at Welcoming Michigan, put it:

“Being welcoming is not only the right thing to do, it’s really in all of our interest,” Reed said. “I think our goal will be met if immigrants continue to come to Michigan, make Michigan their home, start businesses here, feel welcome and feel comfortable.”

Photo by ifmuth.

Continue reading »]]> Today, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley announced his disapproval of a bill intended to change parts of the state’s extreme immigration law (HB 56) and initiated a special legislative session  to address the problems. Yesterday, on the last day of the state’s regular legislative session, the Alabama Senate passed a version of a tweak bill that, according to one source, “preserved a section allowing law enforcement to check the status of those they have “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country unlawfully, language banning undocumented aliens from renting property and a requirement for schools to ask for the immigration status of students at time of enrollment.” Additionally, the bill approved yesterday would require the DHS to “post a quarterly list of the names of any undocumented aliens who appear in court for a violation of state law.”

“There were some things added (to the bill) that I think is a public relations problem that I would like to deal with,” Bentley said. “I just don’t want children to be asked about the parents’ legal status.”

Continue reading »]]>

BY TEJAS SHAH*

While the U.S. economy continues to recover at a sluggish pace, the administration continues to emphasize immigration reform’s critical role in promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S. This week, Cecilia Munoz, the Domestic Policy Council Director at the White House, spoke at a forum hosted by The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution about the administration’s commitment to immigration reform and easing pathways for foreign investors in the United States. Sadly, however, talented and dynamic foreign entrepreneurs seeking authorization to direct, operate, manage, or work for their investment vehicles often face tedious barriers. Easing these barriers would benefit our economy and enhance our ability to out-compete other countries in the modern global economy. After all, with out foreign entrepreneurs, we wouldn’t have such U.S. companies as Yahoo, Google, and Intel.

To its credit, the administration has taken some progressive steps forward. For example, last August, USCIS announced a series of operational, policy, and outreach initiatives to spur job growth and fuel American economic competitiveness. The initiative included the announcement of an H-l B temporary visa category and an EB-2 National Interest Waiver category to foreign national entrepreneurs. This announcement plugs important gaps in the availability of immigration options to foreign investors.

While foreign business owners have utilized the E and L categories for short-term stays, and the EB-5 category for permanent residency, these options present limitations. The E visa is limited to nationals of countries with which the United States has entered into appropriate treaties, the L visa is categorized by unpredictable adjudications, and the EB-5 visa’s $1 million capitalization requirements are often out of reach for many new investors.

The new H-1B temporary visa policy is significant, however, because it lifts a previous restriction barring self-owned business from sponsoring themselves for H-1B status. Affirming the availability of both H-1B visas and EB-2 National Interest Waivers to foreign nationals is also important because it opens the door for many investors with appropriate qualifications and/or achievements to clear immigration hurdles in the United States.

Although many welcome these two visa categories, USCIS has not yet provided further detail, leaving immigration attorneys to work with their clients to sufficiently document stringent visa requirements. Given the high stakes for our economy, one hopes that DHS and the White House view this announcement as a first step in a longer series of changes. Changes in policy must be accompanied by a thorough programmatic review of adjudications. H-1B visa adjudications, for example, are routinely characterized by burdensome and often-unnecessary Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on topics such as educational equivalence and the bona fide nature of a job opportunity.

The inconsistency and complexity of the immigration process renders foreign investors leery of making the necessary investments in the United States. While many other rules, including tax and securities regulations impact foreign investors in the United States, immigration rules are particularly significant as a threshold issue determining whether foreign nationals can even lawfully work in the United States. Adjudicators, who appear to be trained to find any reason to deny an application for benefits, must be trained to shift their focus to the actual legal and regulatory requirements of H-1B and EB-2 National Interest Waivers applications and to adjudicate applications in the spirit of this announcement.

It is essential that USCIS recognize the importance of immigrants to job creation in the United States and facilitate, rather than hinder, the immigration of dynamic foreign entrepreneurs to the United States.  This will significantly promote our country’s edge in a very competitive global economy.

*Tejas Shah is an attorney at the Kriezelman and Burton law firm in Chicago, IL, focusing primarily on employment-based immigration. He can be reached at tshah@krilaw.com.

The original version of this article first appeared in the Globe, the newsletter publication of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Section on Intl. and Immigration Law.

Continue reading »]]>

The administration recently published a proposed rule that will help keep American families together. The “Proposed Rule on Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives” is an effort to streamline the application process for many relatives of U.S. citizens currently eligible for a green card by minimizing the amount of time that applicants would have to be away from their families before being admitted into the United States. The proposed rule is currently in its “comment period,” and advocates are encouraged to submit comments in support of the rule. All comments are due on June 1, 2012.

Why is this proposed rule important? Currently, thousands of persons who qualify for green cards must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent residence status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for three or ten years because of a period of unlawful presence in the United States of more than 180 days. There is a family unity waiver available, but the way the law is currently implemented, the waiver can only be adjudicated overseas. Because the process can often take many months, many otherwise eligible applicants do not apply for their green cards, and choose to remain unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk leaving the country and being unable to return.

Under the proposed rule change, spouses and children of U.S. citizens who apply for a green card, but need a family unity waiver to re-enter the United States will be allowed to apply for the waiver without leaving the U.S. This “in-country processing” proposal means that USCIS could grant a provisional waiver here in the U.S, and many applicants would not face the same waiting period outside the country. Applicants would still be required to leave the U.S. before receiving final approval and their green card. But eligible immigrants will be encouraged to go through the process rather than remain unlawfully in the U.S.

The proposed rule does not change the eligibility standards for green cards or waivers. It does, however, mean that waiver can be adjudicated here in the U.S. so that the immigrant will know whether or not he or she will be able to re-enter the U.S. after receiving the green card, which would make a huge difference in the lives of many U.S. families. Allowing these family members to have their waivers adjudicated in the U.S. may save them from long, potentially dangerous separations from their families.

It is critical that USCIS receive many comments in support of the proposed rule. They need to know that there is overwhelming support from the American people for keeping families together and fixing this glitch in immigration law. Submit your comment by e-mailing it to uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov with “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003” in your subject line on or before June 1, 2012.

Photo by Olaru Radian-Alexandru.

Continue reading »]]>

The U.S. Border Patrol’s newly released strategic plan is a decidedly mixed bag when it comes to border security—just like the Border Patrol’s last strategic plan, released in 2004. On the plus side, both documents advocate an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to border security which focuses on the greatest security threats. Both plans also call for disruption of the smuggling networks which bring unauthorized immigrants, drugs, and other contraband into the United States. On the down side, each plan embraces the simplistic “prevention through deterrence” mentality in which it is believed—or hoped—that heightened border enforcement will scare off unauthorized immigrants and smugglers alike. More broadly, both documents are a reflection of the federal government’s continued misguided emphasis on securing the territory between ports of entry, even though most smuggling now occurs through ports of entry.

To its credit, the 2012 plan is more precise that its 2004 predecessor in defining the security threat posed by smuggling. Specifically, the 2012 plan identifies transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) as “a significant cross-border threat to homeland security. These organizations control most cross-border trafficking in guns and illegal drugs, as well as an increasing percentage of human smuggling.” The latest Border Patrol plan is also more explicit and detailed than its 2004 counterpart in describing the sort of cross-jurisdictional, multi-agency approach to law enforcement that will be needed to defeat TCOs.

Nevertheless, the latest Border Patrol plan over-states the extent to which it departs from the past. For instance, the “risk-based strategic plan” of 2012 is contrasted with the “resource-based strategy” of 2004. Yet a central tenet of the 2004 plan was the use of “intelligence-driven operations” that would “target areas of greatest risk.” Likewise, the 2012 plan proposes to deal with “illegal entrants” into the United States through “a new Consequence Delivery System (CDS) that guides management and agents through a process designed to uniquely evaluate each subject and identify the ideal consequence to break the smuggling cycle.” Yet this “new” system is simply the old “prevention through deterrence” approach dressed up in new clothes. And it was a fundamental component of the Border Patrol’s 2004 strategic plan as well.

Herein lies the greatest weakness of the Border Patrol’s new plan. As it acknowledges, the U.S. Border Patrol is tasked with “securing our Nation’s borders between Ports of Entry (POEs) against all threats.” During the May 8 Congressional hearing at which the plan was unveiled, Marc R. Rosenblum, a Specialist in Immigration Policy at the Congressional Research Service, pointed out that “many of the most serious transnational criminal and terrorist threats to the United States may be more likely to exploit points of vulnerability at ports of entry (POE) and at northern and coastal borders.” In other words, sinking more resources into Border Patrol enforcement between ports of entry is not necessarily the best way to bring down the transnational criminal organizations which the Border Patrol wants to defeat.

As many border experts have pointed out, “securing” the U.S.-Mexico border will require a comprehensive, integrated, bi-national assault on the TCOs that smuggle immigrants and drugs into the United States, and guns and money out of the United States. TCO leaders must be put behind bars, and their money laundering operations shut down. Moreover, POEs must be modernized and adequately staffed, since this is where most smuggling is taking place. Building fences and chasing unauthorized workers through the desert will not do the job.

Photo by CBP Photography.

Continue reading »]]>

After ICE Director John Morton issued a memo last June outlining how and when ICE officials should exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, many were optimistic that the memo’s implementation would relieve backlogs and help the agency focus on higher priority immigration cases. Months later, however, folks are finding that one large group of people has limited access to this review process—immigrants without legal representation. In fact, nearly half of all immigrants in removal proceedings  appeared without legal representation in 2011, also known as “pro se.” While immigration attorneys often explain the effect of these prosecutorial discretion policies to their clients, pro se immigrants may be unaware that new policies are even in effect.

Unlike immigrants who have legal representation, pro se immigrants do not have access to information specifically directed at them explaining the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, how to obtain it, or what it means. This compounds the already serious problem that most pro se immigrants do not have access to information about what relief might be available to them. Moreover, whether or not they are aware of possible options for relief, they may be unaware of the implications of either accepting or foregoing an offer of prosecutorial discretion from ICE.

Underlying all of these deficiencies is a fundamental inequity—immigrants who cannot hire or find scarce pro bono attorneys are not entitled to government-provided representation in a deportation process that has devastating consequences, including separation from family for decades or forever.

To prevent pro se immigrants from falling through the cracks, immigration authorities can take a number of steps to ensure they understand what prosecutorial discretion is, how they can seek it, and what they should do after receiving (or not receiving) an offer of it. First, ICE should advise pro se respondents prior to reviewing their files and explain how to submit documentation for agency officials to consider. Second, if ICE declines to offer a favorable exercise of discretion, agency officials should inform pro se respondents how they can “appeal” the decision to higher agency officials. Third, when ICE offers a favorable exercise of discretion, the agency should provide information explaining the consequences of accepting such an offer. And finally, prior to approving a favorable exercise of discretion, Immigration Judges should affirmatively confirm that pro se immigrants understand these consequences.

By adopting these recommendations, immigration officials can help alleviate one of the most fundamental inequities of the removal process: that the government does not provide attorneys to immigrants who cannot afford one.

Photo by OtnaYdur.

*This blog is excerpted from a new report by Joan Friedland, entitled Falling Through the Cracks: How Gaps in ICE’s Prosecutorial Discretion Policies Affect Immigrants without Legal Representation.

Continue reading »]]>

The House Judiciary Committee sent the wrong kind of Mother’s Day message to women this week, proposing to roll back protections for victims of violence that have been in place even before the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was first passed in 1994. While the proposed amendments were discouraging in their own right, the fact they were targeted at immigrant women is an even sadder commentary on just how much some members of Congress will use any legislation as a vehicle for attacking and undermining the immigration system.

In this case, the vehicle was a bill providing for reauthorization of the VAWA. The Senate’s version of the VAWA reauthorization passed a few weeks ago with strong bi-partisan support, and included provisions that enhanced existing protections for immigrant victims.  In contrast, the House bill considered by the Judiciary Committee this week strikes at the heart of VAWA, stripping away confidentiality provisions that have always been critical to preserving the lives of immigrant  women and children abused by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The bill goes further, however, increasing the requirements for U visas, a critical protection for undocumented women who have been the victims of many forms of violence and serious crimes. It also eliminates the ability to transition from U visa status to lawful permanent residence, a provision that has been in place for humanitarian reasons since the visa was created.

In its original form, the House bill rolled back protections even further, but passionate debate during the Committee hearing and the support of Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), led to modifications of some aspects of the bill.  For instance, a provision that would have required applicants for a U visa to have reported their abuse within sixty days of the incident in order to qualify for a visa was stripped away.

But the bill that passed the Committee on a 17-15 vote (again with Congressman Poe as the sole Republican to vote against it), remains a jarring example of the cynicism of the current Congress and its failure to think logically about anything related to immigration.

Fracturing the bipartisan nature of the VAWA over immigration flies in the face of the history of the law. For example, the immigration provisions of the VAWA have always been notable for two reasons: (1) They were part of a broader framework of protections for combating domestic violence and other abuse that were enacted to protect everyone without regard to immigration status, and (2) they recognized that the immigration system created particular barriers for immigrant women and children who were often dependent on an abuser for legal immigration status.

As Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and John Conyers (D-MI) pointed out in an Op-Ed in Politico, the stakes are enormously high for these women and children:

The VAWA was designed to protect all women and empower law enforcement to go after abusers. Of prime importance are protections for immigrant women — particularly vulnerable because of their dependence on spouses for immigration status. Abusers often use threats of deportation and permanent separation from children as powerful tools to control their battered wives.

The VAWA’s principal protection gives victims the ability to petition for their own immigration status. By letting women take control of their own lives and provide for their children, the law helps them leave abusive relationships and cooperate with police to hold perpetrators accountable.

The House Judiciary Committee took an enormous step backward this week by weakening VAWA protections.  It doesn’t matter that those protections were within the context of immigration law.  The committee fundamentally gave back power to abusers, sending a message to women everywhere that scoring political points on immigration is more important than protecting women from violence.

Continue reading »]]> Earlier today, the Department of Justice filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office alleging a pattern and practice of discriminatory behavior against Latinos. According to the complaint, officers under Arpaio’s command targeted Latino drivers during traffic stops and neighborhood sweeps, and used ethnic slurs against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency in county jails. The suit, which was filed in federal court in Arizona, comes five months after the Department’s Civil Rights Division issued a report based on an extensive investigation that contained similar findings.

The federal investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) was initiated to explore violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids recipients of federal funds from engaging in racial or ethnic discrimination. The investigation had already resulted in a previous lawsuit based on Sheriff Arpaio’s refusal to provide Justice Department investigators access to internal files. After the prior suit was settled and records were disclosed, the Obama administration released a report last December 2011 detailing the finding of its investigation. Once pre-trial negotiations broke down, the Justice Department filed a 32-page complaint containing extensive allegations of misconduct by MSCO deputies and Sheriff Arpaio himself. Selected excerpts from the complaint include:

• “MCSO supervisors involved in immigration enforcement have expressed anti-Latino bias, in one instance widely distributing an email that included a photograph of a Chihuahua dog dressed in swimming gear with the caption ‘A Rare Photo of a Mexican Navy Seal.’” (p.2)

• “[D]uring a crime suppression operation, two MCSO officers followed a Latina woman, a citizen of the United States, for a quarter of a mile to her home. The officers did not turn on their emergency lights, but insisted that the woman remain in her car when she attempted to exit the car and enter her home. The officers’ stated reasons for approaching the woman was a non-functioning license plate light. When the woman attempted to enter her home, the officers used force to take her to the ground, kneed her in the back, and handcuffed her. The woman was then taken to an MCSO substation, cited for ‘disorderly conduct,’ and returned home. The disorderly conduct citation was subsequently dismissed.” (p.11)

• “In another raid, a U.S.-born Latina was taken into custody for four hours to determine whether she was lawfully in the United States. In response to media inquiries about this incident, Arpaio was quoted as saying: ‘That’s just normal police work.’” (p.13)

• “Arpaio received a letter stating ‘[i]f you have dark skin, then you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegals who are here illegally. . . I’m begging you to come over . . . and round them all up.’ Arpaio labeled the letter as ‘intelligence,’ forwarded it to his Deputy Chief of Enforcement Operations and told the Deputy Chief to ‘[h]ave someone handle this.’” (p.19)

• “Arpaio maintains an ‘immigration file,’ in which he keeps letters that advocate blatant bias against Latinos.” (p.19)

• “MCSO personnel responsible for prisoners held in MCSO jails routinely direct racial slurs toward Latino prisoners, including calling Latino prisoners ‘paisas,’ ‘wetbacks,’ ‘Mexican bitches,’ ‘fucking Mexicans,’ and ‘stupid Mexicans.’” (p.19)

• “MCSO’s Chief of Enforcement acknowledged that the majority of undocumented persons in Maricopa County are Latino and described undocumented persons as ‘the lowest element in our society.’” (p.20)