UNDERDOG - Criminal/Drunk Driving Defense in Maryland, Virginia, DC - Immigration

BUENAS NOTICIAS Y MALAS NOTICIAS EN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

nospam@example.com (Jay Marks) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:31 -0400

Image from NASA's website.

Tuve el agrado de reunirme junto a otros abogados con el director del centro de detención “7 Locks” y sus tenientes. El motivo de nuestra reunión fue la preocupación de parte de nosotros los abogados sobre la tendencia de los oficiales de detener ilegalmente a los emigrantes a causa de los “Detainers” de la Migra. Opriman aquí para leer mi blog anterior sobre este tema. El Director del centro de detención se demostró preocupado y sensible sobre los derechos constitucionales de todos los reos, inclusive los reos buscados por ICE. Nos reportó abiertamente y transparentemente con sinceridad que la política del centro de detención “7 Locks” es de soltar a los detenidos si ICE no llega a recogerlos después de 48 horas de terminar la sentencia. El Director categóricamente nos explicó que no existe ningún arreglo escondido ni abierto entre “7 Locks” y la Migra para detener los inmigrantes mas de 48 horas conforme a la ley. Hasta nos dio el número de teléfono de su casa para lidiar con cualquier problema que se presente con cualquiera de nuestros clientes.

La mala noticia es que todavía nuestro comité de abogados no ha conversado con los comisionados – representantes del poder judicial dentro de las cárceles locales - que se encargan de imponer y aceptar las fianzas en casos criminales. Se recordarán de mi blog anterior sobre los “Detainers” en el cual les exponía que uno de los problemas en las cárceles locales sucede cuando los comisionados se niegan a poner fianza o se rehúsan a aceptar la fianza después de que un juez ha dictado dicha orden de fianza. El Director de “7 Locks” me dirigió a reunirme con el comisionado local, pero esa reunión tendrá que esperar para que se lleve acabo y platicar con el--reportaré el resultado de dicha reunión en cuando suceda.

Salí convencido de la reunión de que Montgomery County sigue siendo un lugar muy diferente a Loudon y Prince William pues los derechos constitucionales todavía importan.

Mientras tanto sigamos velando por nuestros derechos celosamente aquí en Montgomery County trabajando junto con los oficiales que todavía son dedicados a la constitución, los derechos humanos, el respeto mutuo y la tolerancia. Jay Marks

Fighting for immigrants.

nospam@example.com (Jay Marks) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Image from NASA's website.

NOTE from Jon Katz: Our immigration partner, Jay Marks, has submitted some legal articles in Spanish to Radio Zol 99.1 FM, which has posted them directly to its website and to a blog set up for his articles, which address Maryland probation agents helping set up non-U.S. citizens to be detained by immigration agents; fighting stale immigration detainers lodged on non-U.S. citizens who want to bond out of jail pretrial for criminal cases; and empowering ourselves for justice.

For three years or so, Jay has been the Wednesday morning voice of immigration law on the number one Radio Zol 99.1 FM, which broadcasts music, news and views in Spanish from its studio in Lanham, Maryland. For a half hour each Wednesday morning at 7:30 a.m., Jay seamlessly moves between answering callers' burning immigration law questions to joining in the radio personalities' banter. Next time you're in traffic between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. on a Wednesday, give Jay a listen and even a call on El Zol radio 99.1 FM.

JAY MARKS'S THREE RECENT SPANISH-LANGUAGE IMMIGRATION LAW ARTICLES FOLLOW:.

La Esclavitud Ya No Existe…. Verdad?

Trabajando 7 días por semana, entre 9 a 11 horas por día, semana tras semana, mes tras mes, aguantando los comentarios amenazadores – “Te voy a reportar a la migra si no trabajas bien!” – el inmigrante soporta toda clase de injusticia para alimentar a su familia, especialmente cuando no tiene papeles.

Y encima de todo, el famoso patrón decide que su casa nueva en Potomac es más importante que la planilla de pago (el “payroll”) y los cheques para sus trabajadores rebotan como pelotas de fútbol. O el patrón decide que va a deducir un porcentaje del pago como un “deposito.” O el patrón decide que va a quitar un porcentaje por “uniformes” cuando en realidad son deducciones ilegales. He visto estas deducciones chuecas en dos casos con mi oficina.

A pesar de todas las dificultades que tiene el inmigrante en los EEUU., todavía es un país maravilloso – porque existe una solución al problema del patrón ladrón: la ley federal “Fair Labor Standards Act” (FLSA por sus siglas en inglés) y las similares leyes estatales pro-trabajador.

Primero – la ley FLSA y similares leyes estatales ordenan que el patrón pague tiempo y medio (“overtime”) por toda hora trabajada encima de 40 cada semana. O sea, si uno gana $10.00 por hora y trabaja 60 horas por semana, tiene que recibir 40 horas a $10.00 por hora y 20 horas pagadas a $15.00 por hora, por un total de $700.00 en sueldo bruto.

¿Y quiere mejores noticias? Si el patrón no te paga el “overtime” porque quiere abusar para ahorrar dinero y no por un error inocente, le tiene que pagar 2 veces la cantidad que le debe más los honorarios de su abogado. J.

Aun más: según las leyes estatales de Maryland, si el famoso patrón ladrón simplemente deja de pagarle por necio, rudo, o crudo, como si uno fuera esclavo y el patrón el amo, no se preocupe – la ley permite que recupere 3 veces la cantidad de sueldo que le debe, encima de los honorarios de su abogado. J

Ultimo detalle: el patrón ladron siempre intenta usar el estatus indocumentado de uno contra el imigrante en estos juicios – pero hay muchas decisiones de muchos jueces por todos los EEUU rechazando esta clase de chantaje – decisiones que han declarado claramente que el estatus inmigratorio de uno no tiene nada que ver con la cuestión si el patrón tiene que pargarle su sueldo o no.

En este país, tu eres el mejor defensor de tus derechos laborales.

¿Existe la esclavitud todavia?

Depende de ti la respuesta. Jay Marks.

____________________________________________________________________

Continue reading "Fighting for immigrants."

People are humans, not aliens, Part II.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:00:00 -0500

Cesar Chavez: A champion for the empowerment of workers and immigrants.

In May 2007, I decried the continuing and widespread use of the terms "illegal aliens" and "illegals". After a fellow criminal defense listserv member disagreed with my view against using the term "illegal aliens" (he apparently does not say "illegals"), I decided to see the extent to which statutes and regulations use the phrase "illegal alien," and was saddened to learn how frequently it is used, including in the following instances:

- A federal statute provides for reimbursing states for incarcerating "illegal aliens" after conviction for a felony. 8 USCS § 1365(a).

- A federal statute requiring the Attorney General to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the numbers of "illegal aliens" convicted of felonies and incarcerated for felonies, and to provide a plan for removing and barring such people from the United States. 8 USCS §1366.

- The Labor Department's migrant worker regulations define "illegal alien" as "any person who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment in the United States." 29 CFR 500.20(n).

- Virginia law prohibits "illegal aliens" from working in gun stores. Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:3(B).

The phrases "illegal aliens" and "illegals" serve to dehumanize people; I do not want them used in my name by the government nor by government officials and employees. Jon Katz.

Toking photo keeps Amy Winehouse from the Grammys?

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:00:00 -0500

Image from public domain.

Tonight will air portions of the fiftieth Grammy awards. I say portions, because the annual awards are notorious for going off-camera and offstage for giving awards for high quality music that draws limited mass appeal.

However, being wildly popular does not automatically guarantee a Grammy stage spot for non-United States citizens suspected of committing drug crimes, even if the suspected activity is as minor as smoking marijuana. Amy Winehouse learned that, and I suspect that U.S. immigration authorities may not have sped along her visa denial appeal so quickly had the whole story not been so much in the spotlight. Although her appeal was ultimately granted, that happened too late for her to have had enough time to arrive at the Grammys ready to perform.

According to the Associated Press: "Winehouse's original visa application was denied under U.S. immigration rules regarding the 'use and abuse of narcotics,' a senior State Department official said Friday, on condition of anonymity because the U.S. Embassy in London's application deliberations are confidential."

What evidence did U.S. immigration officials have of Ms. Winehouse's alleged "narcotics" abuse? The A.P. report also states: "Last month, The Sun newspaper ran still images from a video that it claimed showed Winehouse inhaling fumes from a small pipe. The images were said to have been filmed during a party at her London home. Shortly thereafter, Winehouse entered a London rehabilitation center, and has been questioned by police." Was that the sole basis for the initial denial of a visa for Winehouse to travel to the United States? Since when is marijuana a narcotic, anyway, aside from any 1984-speak description of marijuana in the law books?

One is left to wonder whether the United States' Orwellian state of immigration law and enforcement will continue like this even if Clinton or Obama take over the White House. Jon Katz.

Michael Maggio leaves the planet.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:00:00 -0500

Photo from website of U.S. District Court (W.D. Mi.).

Today, Michael Maggio passed away. The world is all the poorer for it.

In 1987 during my second year of law school, I was obsessing over how to overlap my goal of doing good with my law degree while not being relegated too long by my earnings to living in a group house and eating only rice and beans for dinner; of course, many honorable pursuits do not enable living much more luxuriously than with rice and beans.

One evening in my immigration law class that year, in walked highly-skilled and optimistic immigration attorney Michael Maggio (my immigration clinical and law class professor Paul Grussendorf also has been very inspirational), talking to us about determining when immigration matters are ripe for federal court action; his client Margaret Randall, who eventually tried regaining her United States citizenship after having previously renounced it (in 1989, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals ruled she never had lost her U.S. citizenship); and circumstances where maids in developing countries have maids. Instead of cursing the darkness in government and the legal system, Michael fought and fought for immigrants' rights in the courthouses, and in the so-called immigration courts that are actually part of the executive branch.

My ears pricked up during law school when I learned that Michael had served as the personal court representative for the late Orlando Letelier (who served as an ambassador and defense minister to the Salvador Allende regime), having joined the survivors of Ronni Moffitt in suing the government of Chile for the bombing death of both people. (See Michael's comments here about the 1986 burning murder of young photographer Rodrigo Rojas, apparently by Chilean military members during the Pinochet regime.)

Michael's law firm grew and grew, to include substantial business immigration work on top of immigration representation for individuals. Michael's remained a reliable voice in navigating the complex and overgrown area of immigration law analysis. My law partner Jay Marks, being an immigration law practitioner, knows numerous lawyers at Michael's law firm, and gave me the sad news of his passing today. On a website set up to share good wishes during Michael's illness, today I posted the following before knowing he had already passed:

"Michael- You have been an inspiration to me ever since I first met you over twenty years ago, when you guest-lectured at my immigration law class taught by Paul Grussendorf. Instead of cursing the darkness, I saw you lighting a blowtorch towards eliminating it. Your name was already big by the time I met you, yet you still would speak with me as if I was one of your equals. Thanks, Michael. Jon Katz."

ADDENDUM: Here is Michael's obituary, including information on his memorial services and coverage of his rise from humble beginnings in a one-room office.

The feds: Censoring overseas voices by keeping them from America's shores.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Bill of Rights (From public domain.)

A huge problem I have faced with my decades of civil liberties activism are the often attendant feelings of upset, anger, and disbelief at the extent to which people step on other's basic liberties, often in the guise of well-meaning politicians, judges, prosecutors, cops, and government bureaucrats, as well as from such other power structures as the rest of the government-military-industrial complex. That is what I get for not having pursued the path of blissful ignorance.

On the immigration front, in law school, I finally learned how deeply the spirit of McCarthyism survived his Senate censure to this day. Repeatedly, the United States government bans and substantially impedes even brief visits by non-citizens to the United States (even for lecture circuit purposes) on the basis of ideology and speech. Those banned include Nelson Mandela (listed as an "undesirable alien" until 2003, requiring special permission to enter the United States); Gabriel Garcia Marquez (who had to apply for special permission for each entry to the United States, through 1996, due to his leftist leanings and friendship with Fidel Castro); and John Lennon (who was subjected to an attempted ban in the early 1970's, when the United States government mightily tried to deport him due to his pro-peace stance). When comparing the dates of these exclusionary efforts to the presidents in office, we see that such Democratic administrations as Clinton's allowed such bannings; once again, as in the First Amendment squelching arena (and bannings of such visitors amounts to censorshiop of their voices, too), neither major political party has a monopoly on such repressive activity. More on this sad state of affairs is here at the American Civil Liberties Union's website.

Such banning of brief visitors for their views and voices amounts to government censorship that often goes below the public's radar. As we gear up for the 2008 Presidential, House and Senate elections, please include considerations of what those candidates will do about the rights of non-United States citizens to visit the United States, and the rights of United States citizens to meet and hear visitors with views different from the presidential administration or the majority of Congress members. Jon Katz.

The right to bear arms; the right to drive for undocumented folks; and living where such driving is lawful.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Cesar Chavez: A champion for the empowerment of workers and immigrants.

In 2004, I went to the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Pittsburgh, to learn more about modern-day firearms in order to strengthen my ability successfully to defend criminal gun cases, and also to get a better handle on the realities of my support for a Second Amendment with teeth (believing that being disingenuous to enforcing Second Amendment rights -- unless and until the Second Amendment is amended --disserves robust protection of First Amendment rights. (Compare: (1) "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the First Amendment); and (2) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (the Second Amendment).)

The mantra at the NRA meeting, though, was scary: throw money at Second Amendment-supporting politicians even if they urinate on the rest of the Constitution; and "there would not have been a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union if people had the right to bear arms." Another NRA mantra is supporting hunting, so that people may live off the land and enjoy the great outdoors (which I, as a strict vegetarian do without fishing, hunting or eating animals). It was too much for me to deal with; I resigned my NRA membership, which membership was necessary to attend the annual NRA convention, which had more than a football-sized display area of the latest handguns, rifles, and weaponry accessories.

At the NRA conference, some people asked me what it was like to live in the People's Republic of Maryland, so named for Maryland being inhospitable to the Second Amendment, as opposed to Virginia, where in some parts of the state people are permitted to pack a concealed pistol while walking down the street, which can give all the more cause for pause about looking anyone cross-eyed in the former cradle of the Confederacy. Of course, worse than Maryland, District of Columbia statutory law does not even permit gun ownership at home, but D.C.'s highest federal court this year ruled such crabbed laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

By now, I have lived in all three Capital Beltway jurisdictions. I started in Arlington, Virginia, for a year, at a point just a mile from Georgetown in Washington, D.C. I hurled at the thought of living in a state that so actively executes people. I moved to Washington, D.C., and stayed there for fifteen years. For people living in the area, the city has its lure; however, taxation without representation did not sit well with me; on the other hand, at least D.C does not have the death penalty (that's reserved for the federal courts). In 2002, I moved not only to Maryland, but to Montgomery County, which in many ways is a people's republic within a people's republic. On the other hand, all three places have miserable histories of racial segregation and racial injustice.

Overall, of the areas surrounding the Capital Beltway -- where I need to live for easy access to the many courts where I practice -- I prefer living in Maryland, including some great nearby hiking, biking and boating places. Curiously, little did I know until speaking recently with a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration employee that undocumented people are eligible for drivers' licenses in Maryland. (I should have talked about this with my law partner, Jay, who would have told me he already has handled such assistance.) I was under the misimpression that such a benefit was not available in Maryland, and possibly not elsewhere, either. As much as many Marylanders might want to eliminate such a benefit, I want the benefit to remain forever. Fortunately, many Maryland lawmakers agree.

It appears that very few states make drivers' licenses available to undocumented people, and that the number is dwindling. Over a year ago, CASA of Maryland filed a lawsuit over the allegedly glacial pace for plenty of non-U.S. citizens to obtain driver's licenses; I do not know that status of that lawsuit yet.

Lawmakers have identified how to continue making drivers' licenses available to undocumented people while still coming into compliance with the Big Brother Real ID Act, which is to make Real-ID-applicable drivers' licenses only available to those who request them (apparently such Big Brother "Real IDs" ultimately will be required to board planes and who knows what else (maybe I will find out that Maryland already has them, by the time I renew my driver's license in a few months).

New York is another state that looks out not only for undocumented people in permitting them to have drivers' licenses, but as a result looks out for all drivers and passengers, whom are better served by having all drivers licensed, to assist in assuring at least minimally adequate driving skills by all drivers, and to assure that everyone is eligible to purchase car insurance. The next step will be to encourage people to get out of their cars often, so as to wake up and smell the jasmine flowers, and to help reduce the environmental degradation from driving. Meanwhile, welcome to Maryland, everyone who is not eligible to get licensed in neighboring jurisdictions. Jon Katz.

People are humans, not aliens.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:05:00 -0400

Cesar Chavez: A champion for the empowerment of workers and immigrants.

NOTE: I recently posted the attached message to a local lawyers listserv.

Regarding the title of the recent listserv message asking whether employers are liable for hiring people who the writer refers to as illegal immigrants and illegals, I urge the use of “undocumented person” or “undocumented worker” and the scrapping of “illegals” and “illegal aliens”.

Insurance defense lawyers constantly try to marginalize non-US citizens, in order to try to scare them and their lawyers into settling for lowball money offers, to try to convince juries to give them less money than U.S. citizens, and sometimes (if not often) as an expression of their own prejudices.

The anti-immigrant movement has been very successful in convincing even WTOP news reporters and lawyers on the plaintiffs personal injury side (who advocate for immigrants all the time) to say “illegal alien” and even “illegals”. The phrase is not objective at all, and can be downright damning and harmful to immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that a huge number of non-citizens who are undocumented (that is to say, without documents showing they’re in the United States with visas) are actually on their way to having visas (or are awaiting the results of visa applications) or already have documented status without knowing it (including children of a person who obtained a green card without telling the child).

Moreover, both United States law and international law protect political asylees from deportation. Most people who obtain political asylum in the United States are undocumented at the time they have applied for political asylum. Clearly, then, people who qualify for asylum -– and the U.S. government routinely denies asylum to people who merit asylum (the factfinding is done at the Executive Branch level, not at the judicial level, unless an Article III court will re-visit such factfinding on appeal), including for cynical political reasons (e.g., often people are more likely to win asylum if they are from a country whose government is at odds with the U.S. government, versus a government that is a U.S. ally) – certainly do not merit being called “illegals”.

The anti-immigrant movement is hot to trot to marginalize undocumented people (and often to lump documented people in with them) as rule-breakers greedily seeking economic benefits in the United States while disrespecting non-citizens patiently waiting abroad sometimes for years for approval of their visa applications.

In reality, plenty of immigrants still are escaping non-economic misery, and not just economic misery. Moreover, such economic misery often is created in significant part by the demand of U.S. consumers –- backed up by U.S. government support for governments permitting inhumane working conditions -- for overseas goods produced cheaply as a result of underpaid labor often required to work inhumanely long hours in horrid conditions (not least of which might involve severely limiting any breaks, let alone bathroom breaks). Just see what happens when you google “Nike Indonesia”. It sounds disingenuous at best to benefit from the misery of such mistreated workers and then to bar them from entering the United States to leave such misery.

Anti-immigrant propagandists who try to portray non-documented people as money seekers, want people to forget those fleeing from wartorn zones, brutal governments, brutal courts, brutal jailers, and brutal military members. Refugees from Darfur and Burma –- as examples –- are fleeing oppression that goes far beyond the economic.

Additionally, millions of people who want to obtain visas to permanently live in the United States are barred from doing so, because U.S. immigration law primarily favors white collar professionals and relatives of citizens and green card holders. Such people who are ineligible for visas are not cutting in front of any line, because no waiting line has been created for them in the first place; they often live in the United States as third-class citizens at best, as they don’t automatically receive visas merely because they are in the United States.

I’ve written more recently about defending immigrants here: http://markskatz.com/blog2/serendipity/archives/479-Non-citizen-criminal-defendants-need-to-know-immigration-consequences..html. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM: WTOP news is not the only culprit using the far from objective phrase illegal aliens. For instance, here is a FoxNews commentator doing the same thing.

Why is the Virginia Tech shooter's immigration status even discussed?

nospam@example.com (Jay Marks) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:30:00 -0400

Image from NASA's website.

Why is the shooter's immigration status even being discussed? Why is it relevant to our national analysis of this tragedy?

Sacco and Vanzetti's wrongful conviction for a murder they didn't commit, was a trial of their politics and their immigrant status (see, http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html) at a time when America was seized by anti-immigrant hysteria. The anti-immigrant mob mentality prevailed then, much like today, when pundits and politicos paint every act of every immigrant an indictment of all those who don't "look like us," scooping out the soul and leaving a shell to backfill with "they're all the same" "you know what they're like" "what do you expect from them" "you can't trust them" "they're so odd" "they don't look like us" "they don't talk like us" "they dress so funny."

But there is no them, no they. Just us. All of us.

Just how much pain and alienation must the shooter have felt, how ill must he have been, to terrorize and kill those innocent people and then take his own life? What was the depth of his psychological and emotional abyss? His desperation and sense of isolation? That is the real question -- not whether he had a green card. And what will we - all of us - do to connect with one another to relieve our neighbor's pain and loneliness and desperation, so that this will never happen again? Jay Marks.