- Eli Kantor
- Beverly Hills, California, United States
- Eli Kantor is a labor, employment and immigration law attorney. He has been practicing labor, employment and immigration law for more than 36 years. He has been featured in articles about labor, employment and immigration law in the L.A. Times, Business Week.com and Daily Variety. He is a regular columnist for the Daily Journal. Telephone (310)274-8216; email@example.com. For more information, visit beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com and and beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thousands Eager to Vote Won’t Become Citizens in Time
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Associated Press (Arizona)
September 21, 2016
Officials voted Wednesday to pay $4.4 million in legal fees to attorneys who won a racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, marking yet another expense in a case that's projected to cost taxpayers $72 million by next summer.
The attorneys have attributed most of their fees to Arpaio's contempt-of-court violations for ignoring court orders in the profiling case, including a decision to prolong his immigration patrols months after he was ordered to stop them.
County officials bemoaned having to pay the attorney fees, but they said the law required them to do so.
"What could we have done with the money, other than pay it to attorneys?" Supervisor Steve Gallardo asked rhetorically moments before the unanimous vote.
The racial profiling lawsuit that Arpaio lost more than three years ago morphed into a contempt case after the judge accused Arpaio and his aides of violating court orders.
Arpaio, who is seeking a seventh term in November, has since been found in civil contempt, and federal prosecutors are considering whether to bring a criminal contempt case that could expose him to jail time.
So far, the county has been on the hook for $48.2 million in the case and will face additional costs in the future because of costly court-ordered punishments handed down in Arpaio's contempt case.
The future costs include $9.8 million for a court-ordered overhaul of the sheriff's internal affairs operations, which the case's judge found had been manipulated to shield sheriff's officials from accountability.
Another new cost was $1 million for setting up a county-funded system for compensating Latinos who were illegally detained when Arpaio ignored the immigration patrol order.
The sheriff's office had no immediate comment on Wednesday's decision. The agency had earlier blamed the lawyers pushing the profiling case for the skyrocketing legal costs, saying they refused to settle the contempt case and instead drove up taxpayer tab by letting the contempt hearings drag on.
The opposing attorneys say they would have never incurred those costs if Arpaio had followed the judge's orders.
The vote Wednesday marked the second time in two years that Arpaio's legal foes in the case have sought fees. Two years ago, the attorneys were awarded nearly $4.5 million for the costs of bringing the case to trial. Federal law lets the winners of civil rights cases seek reimbursement for legal costs.
Arpaio, who earns $100,000 annually as sheriff and owns commercial real estate worth more than $2 million, hasn't had to pay for legal bills directly tied to his official duties in any lawsuits filed against him in his nearly 23 years as sheriff.
The lawyers who won the profiling case asked the judge to require Arpaio to put $300,000 of his own money into the fund to compensate Latinos who were illegally detained in violation of the immigration-patrol order. But the judge rejected the request, questioning whether there was legal authority to impose such penalties and saying doing so would have only a symbolic benefit.
By Andrew Guerra Luz
September 21, 2016
Seven years ago, when she graduated from Arizona State University with an engineering degree, Dulce Matuz couldn’t get an engineering job.
The reason: Matuz was an undocumented immigrant.
But that undocumented status didn’t stop Matuz from political organizing for immigrant rights, or from being named one of Time’s “The World’s 100 Most Influential People” in 2012.
On Monday, Matuz, 31, became an American citizen.
She joined 131 other immigrants from 33 nations at a naturalization ceremony at Trevor G. Browne High School. About 700 students witnessed the event. When Matuz got her citizenship certificate, she smiled and waved an American flag.
And then she walked outside the auditorium and registered to vote.
In doing so, she challenged 473,000 unregistered Latino voters to join her in registering to vote in the presidential election. “I want to challenge them and motivate them and explain to them that it is very important that they get involved and they vote,” she said.
“We want to create an Arizona that embraces diversity and immigrants instead of being in an Arizona that’s been recognized for anti-immigrant rhetoric and SB 1070,” Matuz said.
Now a local realtor, Matuz remains active in the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, a youth movement that advocates for immigrant rights and education.
“When you have 11 million people who have been living here their entire life ? paying taxes, [they] contribute in every way ? and you’re not able to fully integrate them into this country, I think that’s wrong,” Matuz said.
Matuz, who said she immigrated to the United States from Mexico as a teenager, believed that when she was shut out of an engineering job in the U.S. she had two choices. She said she could “self-deport” and get a job “anywhere else in the world.” Or she could stay and fight for legislation like the federal DREAM Act, which never passed but would have given young law-abiding undocumented immigrants temporary relief from deportation so they could work or go to school.
As an undocumented immigrant, she said she had encouraged eligible voters to register to vote for years.
But that hasn’t always been easy.
“It is very hard to stay motivated when you have a Republican party that is always alienating the Latino vote and when you have a democratic party that hasn’t done a good enough job to have a backbone for the Latino community,” Matuz said.
Still, she said, there’s more to registering to vote than just partisan politics.
“This is about American values and respecting all those people that have fought and died for us to be able to vote today and participate,” she said.
She has lived in the United States for 16 years, she said, after entering legally with a tourist visa. When that visa expired, she became undocumented for 12 years.
In 2011, she said, she married an American citizen. Because Matuz originally entered the United States with a tourist visa, she was able to adjust her undocumented status to get a work permit after the marriage, she said. From there, she said, she obtained a conditional permanent resident card, followed by a permanent resident green card. That final green card springboarded her to citizenship.
Those options aren’t open to unauthorized immigrants who enter the United States without a visa, she said.
She has advocated for adjusting the immigration status of the nation’s law-abiding undocumented immigrants for years, no matter how the immigrants cross the border.
But such immigration reform, including allowing young law abiding immigrants to temporarily live in the United States without fear of deportation, has met with strong resistance.
Dave Ray, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit that seeks to significantly limit immigration, wrote in an email that some young undocumented immigrants find themselves in difficult situations because they were brought into the United States “illegally”.
Still, he said, the parents “created the situation in the first place.”
September 22, 2016
Sometimes the best response to overheated political rhetoric is one of those dull if worthy white papers issued with alarming regularity by Washington think tanks and research organizations. So it is with a report on immigration, which is a useful corrective to Donald Trump's statements on the subject.
The Pew Research Center's report, released this week, confirms the findings of previous reports: The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. peaked in 2007 before dropping sharply -- with more undocumented Mexicans, in particular, leaving the U.S. than entering. Net illegal immigration is flat, and has been for several years. Contrary to Trump's claims, undocumented immigrants are not "pouring across our borders unabated" before going on to commit "great amounts of crime."
That Donald Trump lacks credibility no longer qualifies as news. More interesting are the implications of this report for his immigration policy.
First, the U.S. border with Mexico is not being overrun. So an elaborate, expensive wall is entirely unnecessary. Second, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. -- about two-thirds -- have been in the country for more than a decade. Pew estimates that, as of 2012, 4 million of them lived with their U.S.-citizen children.
Another study released this week -- this one by the Center for American Progress, a think tank allied with Hillary Clinton's campaign -- found that expelling the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants would cost the federal government almost $900 billion in lost revenue over a decade while reducing the nation's gross domestic product by $4.7 trillion. Those losses would be in addition to the costs of deportation.
The Pew data lead to the same conclusion that a bipartisan supermajority of U.S. senators reached in 2013: The settled, stable undocumented immigrants in the U.S. need a path to legalization and, eventually, citizenship.