illegal aliens

ARTESIA, N.M. (AP) — The majority of an estimated 1,200 Central American immigrants held at a southeastern New Mexico detention center over the last six months have been released, authorities said Monday...

Those more than 800 people face follow-up court appointments before an immigration judge. An additional 370 immigrants were deported, and 15 remaining people will be relocated to a new family detention center in Karnes, Texas, ICE spokeswoman Leticia Zamarripa said.

American Civil Liberties Union officials in New Mexico say most of the immigrants plan to seek asylum, while some want to argue their cases in court.

Immigration advocates say immigrant families are often fleeing drug or gang violence in Central America and should be released to relatives already in the U.S. rather than being locked up. To qualify for asylum, immigrants must prove "credible fear of persecution" in an interview and before a judge.

...The number of families caught at the south Texas border this year spiked to more than 52,000. That is a 600 percent increase, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Stephen Manning, a Portland, Oregon-based attorney, organized more than 330 lawyers to represent detained families pro bono in Artesia last July.

  Read more about Majority of migrants at New Mexico center released

A man accused of shooting a BB gun at a car in Oregon City this spring and later found to have packaged bindles of heroin in his vehicle is expected to change his plea and be sentenced in federal court on Tuesday.

Daniel Jimenez-Barragan, 22, was indicted in U.S. District Court for possession with intent to distribute heroin and illegal re-entry to the country. He was a convicted felon who had been deported to Mexico two years earlier...

Jimenez-Barragan was arrested on April 9 after Oregon state police responded to a report of a motorist driving recklessly on Interstate 205...

Jimenez-Barragan provided a fake Mexican driver's license. Police searched the truck and said they found a BB gun, $6,600 in cash and approximately five grams of heroin.

Jimenez-Barragan, 28, then gave police a second phony name. After he was fingerprinted, police learned his real identity.

Jimenez-Barragan was deported from the United States on April 25, 2012. He has prior criminal convictions in Multnomah County for delivery of heroin in March 2012 and possession of heroin in October 2011.

A plea in the federal case would result in the dismissal of pending charges against Jimenez-Barragan in Clackamas County, Mygrant wrote in a sentencing memo.

His plea and sentencing is set for 11:30 am. on Tuesday. Jimenez-Barragan is being held at Multnomah County's Inverness Jail...
  Read more about Felon deported to Mexico two years ago to face sentencing next week following arrest for pointing BB gun at motorist

These nonprofit organizations in nine Oregon communities are accredited to represent individuals in proceedings before federal immigration authorities, including the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Department of Homeland Security or both.

For the complete list click here.

Corvallis
Acorn Outreach
1740 NW Division St.
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-224-6590

Hood River
Hood River Valley Legalization Project
205 Oak St.
Suite 15
Hood River, OR 97031
541-386-3433

McMinnville
Lutheran Community Services Northwest
McMinnville (Yamhill) Branch
617 NE Davis St.
McMinnville, OR 97128
503-472-4020

Portland
Catholic Charities
2740 SE Powell Blvd.
Suite #8
Portland, OR 97202
503-231-4866

Immigration Counseling Service
519 SW Park Ave.
Suite 610
Portland, OR 97205
503-221-1689

Jewish Family and Child Service
1130 SW Morrison St.
Suite 316
Portland, OR 97205
503-226-7079

Lutheran Community Services NW
(Formerly: Lutheran Family Service)
605 S.E. 39th Ave.
Portland, OR 97214
503-231-7480

Sponsors Organized to Assist Refugees (SOAR)
7931 NE Halsey St.
Suite 302
Portland, OR 97213
503-384-2482

Salem
Causa of Oregon
700 Marion St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
503-409-2473

Woodburn
Centro de Servicios Para Campesinos
(Service Center for Farmworkers)
300 Young St.
Woodburn, OR 97071
503-982-0243

Source: U.S. Department of Justice Read more about Oregon nonprofits authorized to help with federal immigration issues

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California prosecutors said Tuesday they will seek the death penalty for a Utah man charged with killing two deputies during an hour-long rampage that also left a motorist and another deputy wounded.

Prosecutors in Placer and Sacramento counties decided after consulting with the victims' families that the death penalty is appropriate for defendant Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes, Placer County Supervising Deputy District Attorney David Tellman said...

No inmates have been executed in California since 2006, and no executions are currently scheduled because of ongoing legal challenges...

Bracamontes' wife, Janelle Marquez Monroy, also is charged in the case but does not face the death penalty. Prosecutors allege her husband fired the fatal shots.

Her attorney, Peter Kmeto, declined comment after a separate hearing. The pair is scheduled to return to court Feb. 4.

Neither has entered pleas to multiple charges of murder, attempted murder, carjacking and attempted carjacking. They also face counts involving weapons violations...

The couple appeared to be living quietly in the Salt Lake City area until their arrest in California.

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones released a YouTube video last month chastising President Barack Obama and Congress for their lack of progress on illegal immigration, a problem Jones linked to Bracamontes because the Mexican national has a long criminal history and was in the U.S. illegally.

Jones said Bracamontes had been deported four times before he was charged with killing the two deputies.
  Read more about Death penalty sought in California deputy killings

Three McMinnville police officers faced off with Juventino Bermudez-Arenas as he held the large blade he'd just used to kill a 20-year-old Linfield College student.

Officers pulled their guns. One, who spoke Spanish, reached for her Taser but dropped it and grabbed her pistol as Bermudez-Arenas lowered his head and his hands and appeared to move forward.

Seconds before they fatally shot the 33-year-old Mexican man, police yelled, "Get on the ground," and, "Drop the knife," again and again.

They yelled their commands in English, the dominant language in the U.S...

Police agencies nationwide have worked over the past 20 years to improve how they work with victims and suspects who understand limited English. Departments have taught officers basic language and culture courses, distribute pocket-size phrase books and provide plasticized cards with Miranda rights translated.

But few have woven bilingual commands into tactical training for encounters such as what the McMinnville officers faced...

Some law enforcement officials bristle at the idea that officers fall short if they don't use bilingual commands. They say many incidents – such as the Nov. 15 shooting of Bermuduz-Arenas – happen too quickly and officers must rely on training.

"People don't come with tags around their necks saying 'I speak this,' or 'I speak that,'" said Capt. Dennis Marks of the McMinnville Police ...

Marks said his department has had Spanish language training in the past, some successful and some not...

"As an officer," he said, "I've been in situations where you give (non-English speakers) commands and they respond, whether that's putting their hands up or getting on the ground."

But that's not enough, some law enforcement and researchers say, when it comes to both protecting the public and officers themselves.

"Law enforcement doesn't have the luxury of assuming that everyone is totally healthy and with it," she said, "and understands what is meant by showing a gun or acting something out."

Cadets in the Tulsa (Oklahoma) Police Academy learn 27 commands in Spanish during their five-month training course. As part of their final exam, cadets must defuse a series of situations, ranging from a missing-child call to a high-risk car stop, using only Spanish commands.

Some law enforcement agencies say it's dangerous to have police who speak only a little Spanish, leaving a suspect or crime victim thinking they're working with a fluent officer. But Officer Jesse Guardiola, who created the program in Tulsa, doesn't agree...

He says his officers learn how to say they only know limited Spanish. But ultimately, he added, the training is intended so officers can do everything possible to achieve a good outcome in the stressful seconds of a potentially life-and-death call.

Or take towns with large numbers of residents who speak different languages, such as Woodburn, home to both large Spanish and Russian communities.

"There's an expectation today that a law enforcement officer is a Swiss Army knife," Gabliks said. "They're supposed to be able to respond to any incident at anytime with all tools available that anybody else has."

That's not realistic, he added, pointing out how some remote rural communities have no local police at all.

"It doesn't mean that our law enforcement wouldn't like to have those tools or that training," he said. "They're just not available to them."...

Spanish arrest commands

The National Institute of Justice offers training for police on basic arrest commands in Spanish.

Stop!

¡Alto! (¡AHL-toh!)

Don't move!

¡No se mueva! (¡noh seh MWEH-vah!)

Drop it!

¡Suéltelo! (¡SWEHL-teh-loh!)

Hands up!

¡Manos arriba! (¡MAH-nohs ahr-REE-bah!)

Be quiet!

¡Silencio! (¡see-LEHN-see-oh!)

Show me!

¡Enséñeme! (¡ehn-SEHN-nyeh-meh!)

Answer me!

¡Contésteme! (¡kohn-TEHS-teh-meh!)

Stop or I'll shoot!

¡Pare o disparo! (¡PAH-reh oh dees-PAH-roh!)... Read more about Should Oregon police issue commands in Spanish when facing a suspect at gunpoint?

Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

This is the first judicial opinion to address Obama’s decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully present in the United States. [I've now posted the opinion here.]

This isn’t the only case...two-dozen states have filed suit challenging Obama’s recent immigration policy reforms. Led by Texas, these states claim that the president as exceeded the scope of executive authority in this area.... even if the states don’t have standing, the legality of the president’s actions could nonetheless be decided in federal court.

UPDATE: Here are some additional thoughts on the ruling.

It is quite unusual for a district court to reach this sort of constitutional issue in this sort of case. Indeed, Judge Schwab appears to have reached out quite aggressively to engage the lawfulness of the President’s actions...

On the merits, I understand the concerns that motivate Judge Schwab’s reasoning, but I am not persuaded... President Obama’s actions are broader in scope, but not clearly different in kind from what his predecessors have done and to which Congress has acquiesced.

It is true, as Judge Schwab notes, that the President’s announced policy identifies broad criteria for deferring removal of individuals unlawfully in the country. This would appear to make the action somewhat legislative, but I don’t think it’s enough to make the action unlawful. The new policy does not preclude the executive branch from revoking deferred action in individual cases and does not create any enforceable rights against future executive action...

President Obama’s action may be broader than many are comfortable with, and it is understandably hard to stomach given all the President’s prior statements disclaiming authority to take these steps — but such concerns are rooted in customary political norms, not judicially enforceable constitutional rules. Read more about District court declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional

Conservatives who had wanted to see language to block President Obama’s executive actions inserted into the massive, must-pass government funding bill are expressing frustration and anger at House Republican leadership’s lack of an appetite to fight amnesty now.

“The fix is in, which I’ve been saying all along,” Rep. Matt Salmon said after leaving the GOP’s conference meeting Wednesday morning.

Tuesday night the House Appropriations Committee posted its $1.1 trillion spending package. The measure is expected to receive a vote Thursday. If no funding bill is passed by that night, the government would shut down.

“Promises around here — regardless of who they are made by — don’t seem to mean anything,” Salmon told reporters.

He explained that lawmakers’ phones have been “lighting up” with constituents asking them “do what [they] were elected to do.”

The Arizona lawmaker is spearheading an amendment with other conservative lawmakers to attach an amendment to the funding bill that would prohibit funding for Obama’s executive amnesty. His spokesman estimated to Breitbart News that the amendment currently has 55 co-sponsors. The amendment is, however, unlikely to receive a vote.

Leadership’s spending package instead is designed to fund most of the government through September, but only fund the Department of Homeland Security into February, when Republicans will have more reinforcements in the Senate to pursue a fight against Obama’s executive actions on immigration...

Conservative lawmakers Wednesday not only expressed frustration with the short amount of time given to consider the 1,603 page bill and the fact that it does not defund executive amnesty immediately, but they also questioned whether leadership would actually give a full-fledged fight next year.

“What is there to suggest that a few months from now you will oppose the amnesty that you have today funded?” Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), also a co-sponsor of the defund amendment, asked.

“My biggest concern is that there are a significant number of Republicans who support amnesty, they just don’t support the way in which the president did it. That is a big distinction,” the Alabama conservative said...

Some of the ability to fight Obama on executive amnesty will be lost if House Republicans go along with allowing it to be funded, if only for a short time, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argues.

“My point is you either defend the Constitution when the president violates it or you lose some of your ability and traction to do so later,” King said. “I think its better to fight now than it is later. So therefore I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, that’s for this Congress and I expect to be standing on the floor January 6th taking another one. I don’t want to have voted to fund the lawless, unconstitutional act by the president and then I could take an oath and mean it.”...

This entry contains excerpts - read the complete article Read more about Conservatives Express Anger That Amnesty Not Defunded In Omnibus - The Fix Is In

Post updated at 9:38 p.m. ET.

A massive federal spending bill finally won the House's approval Thursday night, less than 3 hours before a midnight deadline that threatened a federal shutdown. The measure's fate had been in doubt after it narrowly survived a rules vote earlier in the day. The final tally was 219-206.

Faced with uncertainty over Congress meeting its deadline to approve a bill, the House's leadership scheduled a vote on both the long-term spending bill and a stop-gap continuing resolution. It passed a two-day resolution in order to give the Senate time to consider the spending bill.

The $1.014 trillion spending measure has been criticized for easing rules on campaign finance and the banking industry. But its supporters say it's also a bipartisan deal that would fund most of the U.S. government until next October.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., called it a "hold your nose vote."

The final tally for the spending bill was starkly different from that in an earlier procedural vote.

Around mid-day, no Democrat voted in favor. But after the final vote was called shortly after 9 p.m. ET, more than 30 Democrats voted for the spending bill. In contrast, more than twice as many Republicans voted against it in the final tally than had earlier in the day.

We've updated this text; from our earlier post:

Disagreement over the bill forced the final vote to be delayed for hours Thursday. It also created unlikely alliances: The White House joined with House Speaker John Boehner to rally support for the measure, most House Democrats agreed with a small group of Republicans – including Rep. Michele Bachmann – that the bill should be rejected.

You can read the bill, broken down by government agency, on the House Appropriations Committee site.

The legislation was nicknamed "cromnibus" because it combines the traditional sweeping scope of an omnibus spending bill with a continuing resolution (CR). While it would fund most of the government until the next financial year, the Department of Homeland Security would only be funded through February, in a move that seeks to limit President Obama's recent executive actions on immigration.

Another part of the measure would vastly increase the maximum amount of money a contributor can give to a political party.

"Right now a person can give just under $100,000 a year to a party through its various committees," NPR's Ailsa Chang reports on All Things Considered. "And under this bill, that cap goes up to almost $800,000."

After no Democrats voted in favor and more than a dozen Republicans defected to vote against, the House was adjourned so Boehner could organize his support.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi spoke out against the bill in the House earlier Thursday, sharply criticizing it for altering rules in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to let banks place both standard accounts and accounts that handle riskier derivative trades under the protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

"I was so really heartbroken ... to see the taint that was placed on this valuable appropriations bill from on high," Pelosi said. She told her colleagues that anyone voting for the legislation would be putting their name next to what she called "a ransom" and "blackmail" that would profit Wall Street.

Discussing the opposition, Boehner said the provisions were "agreed to in this bill on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. So while some members may have objected to this issue or that issue, nobody did this unilaterally. We've done this in a bipartisan fashion, and frankly it's a good bill."

Others have criticized the bill for containing provisions such as one that seeks to block Washington, D.C.'s bid to legalize the recreational use of marijuana — as more than 65 percent of the federal district's voters decided to do last month.

The Hill tells us who voted with the Democrats against the spending measure earlier Thursday:

"The 16 Republican defectors were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Dave Brat (Va.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Raúl Labrador (Idaho), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Matt Salmon (Ariz.) and Steve Stockman (Texas)." Read more about 'Cromnibus' Spending Bill Passes, Just Hours Before Deadline