Illinois lawyer says Kilmar Obrego Garcia case is a ‘constitutional crisis’

"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, ..."

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Illinois News Connection

CHICAGO - 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."

Other interesting articles:
 
at

SAVE Act faces scrutiny as advocates warn of voter suppression risks

A new voting bill could make name changes a voting hurdle for many women. Illinois leaders are speaking out.


URBANA - A newly revived federal voting bill is drawing renewed scrutiny, especially in Illinois, where voting rights advocates warn it could create significant barriers to ballot access.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House last week with unanimous Republican support and four Democratic votes, would require all voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — when registering or updating their registration. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate, though no vote has been scheduled.

This is not the first time the legislation has surfaced. A previous version passed the House during the last session of Congress but stalled in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate.

Proponents of the SAVE Act argue it is essential for protecting the integrity of elections by ensuring that only American citizens can cast ballots. However, critics see it as a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voter participation under the guise of security. The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVIL) delivered that message directly to lawmakers during a subject matter hearing before the Illinois House Ethics and Elections Committee on April 22 in Springfield.

Kathy Cortez, LWVIL’s Vice President for Issues and Advocacy, testified that the legislation risks disenfranchising large swaths of the voting population by introducing new hurdles that disproportionately affect low-income individuals, women, and others who may have difficulty assembling documentation.

No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote

“We believe every citizen should be protected in the right to vote, and that electoral systems should encourage participation and enhance representation for all voters,” Cortez said. “The League of Women Voters opposes the SAVE Act because, by imposing inequitable economic and administrative requirements, the bill would create unnecessary barriers to voting participation.”

A major point of concern raised during the hearing was the bill’s disproportionate impact on women. Cortez explained that because many women in Illinois changed their names after marriage, the SAVE Act would require them — and not men — to produce documentation of name changes through marriage, divorce, or remarriage in order to vote.

The League also highlighted the financial implications of the legislation. For many residents living paycheck to paycheck, obtaining official documents like certified birth certificates or divorce decrees could present a real hardship.

“No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote,” Cortez said. “We believe that even one individual losing their ability to vote because they could not afford to comply with the requirements of the SAVE Act is one voter too many.”

Despite their opposition to the measure, LWVIL expressed a willingness to support voters if the bill becomes law. With a statewide network and long-standing relationships with Illinois' 108 election authorities, the League says it is prepared to help residents navigate any new requirements.

As the debate continues, Illinois remains a microcosm of a broader national conversation — one that pits concerns over election integrity against the practical realities of access and participation.

Subscribe
at

Immigration courts offer many barriers and too few solutions to a complex process

Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin.

courtroom

Photo: Saúl Bucio/Unsplash

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Illinois News Connection

CHICAGO - As the Trump administration's deportation efforts continue, more people find themselves in immigration court.

Immigration law is complicated, and most immigrants who navigate the court system do so by themselves.

Kelly Garcia, a reporter for Injustice Watch who covers immigration courts in Chicago, said the lack of legal representation and language barriers add to the complexity. Garcia noted almost no one she has encountered in the Chicago court speaks English, yet all the signs and case sheets are in English. Many show up late or miss their hearings because of it.

"If you miss your court hearing, the judge can order your removal," Garcia pointed out. "These barriers have very serious consequences for people - and it's very sad, honestly. It's very sad to witness that."

Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin and said most people do not know they need to request a court interpreter in advance of their hearing or risk having their case delayed. Those who show up late or not at all could be immediately removed from the country.

Research shows those with legal representation fare better in court. But people in immigration court do not have the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one. The burden of proof, to show they were charged incorrectly or request temporary relief through asylum, falls on them.

Groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center and Legal Aid Chicago are on-site to help address some gaps. As the daughter of an immigrant, Garcia emphasized she can relate to the range of emotions she sees in court.

"It just feels very personal to me, because I know how it impacted my mom," Garcia recounted. "I know how hard and difficult that was for her and I also recognize that it's only gotten harder for a lot of people, especially for people who have migrated [from] very dangerous conditions, here."

Garcia added she has seen many people come to the U.S. for reasons beyond their control. She said her time covering the immigration court has prompted her to work on creating an "explainer" story to help answer the many questions she hears from defendants every day.

Other interesting articles:
Read our latest health and medical news
 
at

Commentary |
Anti-Immigrant legislation doesn’t serve anyone but prison contractors

by Sulma Arias
      OtherWords


The Laken Riley Act is an assault on due process, undermining all of our rights to make for-profit prison CEOs richer.

You’re reading the words of a formerly undocumented immigrant.

When I fled El Salvador four decades ago, I was 12 years old and alone. I was escaping the country’s civil war, where U.S.-backed death squads had made murders and rape our daily reality.

I reunited with my sisters, my only surviving family, in Wichita, Kansas. Once there, I helped open churches, started businesses, and raised three daughters. There were times I wasn’t sure we’d make it to the end of the month, but I was grateful for the sense of peace and security we were able to create here.

That’s why I’m so alarmed that the new Republican-led Congress has chosen to open with a bill, H.R. 29,  that strikes fear in the hearts of immigrant families all across the country. This bill would strip judges of discretion and require immigrants to be detained and subject to deportation if they’re accused — not even convicted — of even minor offenses like shoplifting.

This major assault on due process won’t keep anyone safer. It would terrorize all immigrants in this country, who studies show are much less likely to commit crimes of any kind than native-born Americans.

So who benefits from H.R. 29? Private prison corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group, who made a fortune during the last Trump administration by running private prisons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

CoreCivic and GEO kept immigrants and asylum seekers in inhumane and toxic conditions with poor hygiene and exposed women and children to sexual predators. Under this new law, cynical executives will siphon off more public dollars, and wealthy investors will reap more rewards, from abusing and demonizing people seeking refuge from violence or poverty.

When Trump won, private prison stocks soared. Why? Because investors anticipated making a fortune detaining immigrants. More than 90 percent of migrants detained by ICE end up in for-profit facilities.

GEO Group, which maxed out its campaign contributions to Trump, told its investors they could make almost $400 million per year supporting “future needs for ICE and the federal government” in a second Trump term. Their stock price nearly doubled in November.

Whether those detained are guilty or not, CoreCivic and GEO get paid. That’s what H.R. 29 is for: advancing corporate greed, not protecting Americans.

We all have a stake in stopping private prison corporations from becoming more powerful, regardless of our language, race, gender, or community. In addition to jailing immigrants, for-profit prison companies also look for ways to put citizens in prison more often — and for longer — so they can make more money.

Whenever we allow fundamental rights to be taken away, we erode our shared humanity and diminish all of our rights and freedoms.

The people behind H.R. 29 want us to be afraid of each other so we won’t stand together. They want to be able to barge into our homes, schools, and churches to take our neighbors and loved ones away. They want workers to be too scared to stand up to their bosses’ abuse. All so their donors in the private prison industry can make more money.

Democrats will need to find their way in this new Congress. Falling in line behind nativist fear-mongers who take millions in campaign contributions from the private-prison industry is not the right way to do it.

Americans demand better. We want true leadership with an affirmative vision for the future of this country and dignity for all people, including immigrants.

H.R. 29 targets whole communities because of the language we speak and the color of our skin. Instead, our elected leaders, regardless of party, must work to address people’s needs through building an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

is executive director of People’s Action, the nation’s largest network of grassroots power-building groups, with more than a million members in 30 states. This op-ed was adapted from OurFuture.org and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.

Read our latest health and medical news

at

Viewpoint |
Think you are exempt, you're not - If they can take my rights, Republicans will take yours, too

The GOP’s attacks on trans people are setting a stage for a broader assault on rights we all enjoy.

Illustration: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

by Robin S.C. Griffin
      OtherWords

Most days in my depraved, transsexual lifestyle start the same: I wake up at 5:15 a.m. to pet my cat, have some coffee, and journal a little before I get out the door.

I bike down the street to a gym where I get to see a few friends and sweat a little before putting in my time at the office. After work, I do a few chores and relax for a while. Half the time I cook dinner, half the time my wife takes care of it.

Like you, I like to listen to music, play a game, or watch a show unless I make plans with friends. I try to write in my free time and then get to bed on time to do it all again.

The simple fact is that most trans people’s lives are pretty normal — we’re human after all.

It’s a simple life, but it’s full of joy and meaning for me. I’m not Christian anymore, but it feels like I’ve managed to find the kind of life King Solomon talked about in Ecclesiastes 5:12: “Sleep is sweet to the one who works.”

The simple fact is that most trans people’s lives are pretty normal — we’re human after all. So why is attacking us the number one priority of the incoming Republican-controlled government?

Republicans recently decided to welcome Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, who will be the first openly trans member of Congress, by introducing a resolution that would ban trans women from using restrooms at the Capitol. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has spoken in support of the measure.

Days later, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas introduced the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024,” which seeks to prohibit the federal government from recognizing trans people and lays the groundwork for further discrimination.

There’s a lot going wrong in our world. So why are Republicans chasing down trans people?

These cruelties come on top of a wave of anti-trans laws in statehouses across the country, a wave which continues to build in GOP-controlled states.

All this in a country where most families can’t afford surprise expenses of a few hundred dollars, where people call an Uber to the emergency room so they aren’t bankrupted by the ambulance bill, and where many workers would have to toil for decades to earn what their CEO makes in a day.

Not to mention 2024 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded human history, leaving a wake of climate-driven disasters across the country.

There’s a lot going wrong in our world. So why are Republicans chasing down trans people?

Attacks on trans people are broadly unpopular outside Trump’s base, and we make up a small fraction of the population. Policies that make our lives better and safer — or even just leave us alone — come at essentially no cost to everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans are warming up for their bigger goals. If they can wipe away two decades of progress for trans people in a few short months, they’ll have a playbook for overturning gay marriage by the end of the year.

If they can convince you to look the other way while they invade the medical history of trans people, maybe you won’t notice when they use the same authority to let insurance companies deny you coverage for a preexisting health condition.

They don’t care how normal my life is — or yours. The point is to crush anyone they don’t like and to reward their wealthy backers. I can’t say where they’ll stop, but I share Solomon’s cynicism from the back half of Ecclesiastes 5:12: “But the satiation of a wealthy man will not permit him to sleep.”


About the author:
Robin S.C. Griffin is a development associate at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


More Viewpoints:
Letters to the Editor
at

A threat to democracy, fighting back against voter suppression and intimidation

SNS - The right to vote is legally protected from intimidation and harassment. Federal law makes it a crime to intimidate, harass, or deceive voters at home or at the polls.

Voter suppression is any attempt to prevent or discourage certain Americans from registering to vote or casting their ballot. It is any act that deliberately restricts or discourages certain groups from voting, undermining electoral fairness. You may not be threatened, coerced, frightened, assaulted, compelled, or discouraged to vote one way or another, or not to vote at all. The right to vote necessarily includes the right to be free from intimidation and harassment.

“A true democracy is where every person has the desire, the right, the knowledge, and the confidence to participate,” said Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois. “We encourage you to join the League of Women Voters of Illinois in our fight to support everyone’s freedom to vote.”

After the Civil War, African Americans in the former Confederacy were able to exercise their newly won rights to vote; to run for local, state, and federal offices; and to serve on juries. These rights were given and protected by federal laws and the 14th and 15th Amendments. The laws, adopted to curtail white supremacist violence, specifically criminalized the terrorist activities of white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and authorized the use of federal troops to protect polling stations and suppress white supremacist violence.

Over time, white supremacists found other ways to control voting in their towns, counties, and states without direct physical violence. Political parties have used five key methods to suppress voting by targeted groups: voter ID laws, gerrymandering, voter purges, felony disenfranchisement, and criminalizing voting through the arbitrary enforcement of oppressive, unfair laws.

Today, experts warn that voter suppression and intimidation trends are moving to the digital spaces, becoming embedded in technology.

"It might include robocalls and social media posts that provide incorrect information about where to vote or promote the false idea that voters' personal information or ballot choices will be shared with the government, the public, or law enforcement," wrote the League of Women Voters of Illinois in a recent statement.

The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVI) is fighting voter suppression and intimidation by mailing thousands of Get Out the Vote postcards, deploying nonpartisan poll watchers throughout the state, observing public testing of voting equipment, and actively fighting misinformation and disinformation.

According to the ACLU, "More than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person."

What should you do if you witness voter suppression or intimidation? Document incidents thoroughly using your phone (outside the polling place) or by taking notes. If your voter registration is denied at your polling place, you may ask a poll worker to double-check your registration, and you may still cast a provisional ballot.

The LWVI recommends that you avoid engaging with groups or individuals who are actively trying to intimidation fellow voters and immediately reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections at 217-782-4141 or the Election Protection Hotline:

English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)

at

Commentary |
Mass deportations would be a nightmare for America

by Alliyah Lusuegro
OtherWords.org

There’s an image that’s stayed with me for weeks: A sea of people holding up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the Republican National Convention.

Since then, I’ve been plagued with nightmares of mass raids by the military and police across the country. I see millions of families being torn apart, including families with citizen children. And I see DACA recipients — like me — carried away from the only life we’ve ever known.

Mass deportation wasn’t just a rallying cry at the GOP convention. It’s a key plank of Project 2025, a radical document written by white nationalists listing conservative policy priorities for the next administration.

And it would be a disaster — not just for immigrants, but for our whole country.

I moved to the United States when I was six. Until my teenage years, I didn’t know I was undocumented — I only knew I was from the Philippines. I grew up in Chicago with my twin brother. Our parents worked hard, volunteered at my elementary school, and ensured we always had food on the table. They raised us to do well and be good people.

But when my twin and I learned that we were undocumented, we realized that living our dreams was going to be complicated — on top of the lasting fear of being deported.

Everything changed right before I entered high school in 2012: The Obama administration announced the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. The program was designed to protect young people like my twin and me who arrived in the U.S. at a young age with limited or no knowledge of our life before. We’re two of the 600,000 DACA recipients today.

DACA opened many doors for us. It’s allowed us to drive, attend college, and have jobs. And we’re temporarily exempt from deportation, a status we have to renew every two years.

DACA helped me set my sights high on my studies and career. Although I couldn’t apply for federal aid, with DACA I became eligible for a program called QuestBridge that granted me a full-ride scholarship to college. Today I work in public policy in the nation’s capital, with dreams of furthering my career through graduate school.

But if hardliners eliminate DACA and carry out their mass deportations, those dreams could be swept away. And it would be ugly — mass deportation would be a logistical disaster, taking decades and costing billions.

Imagine your friends, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and caretakers being dragged away from their homes. For me, it would mean being forced back to the Philippines, a place I haven’t seen in two decades. My partner, my friends, my work — all I’ve ever known is here, in the country I call home.

This country would suffer, too.

An estimated 11 million undocumented people live here. We’re doctors, chefs, librarians, construction workers, lawyers, drivers, scientists, and business owners. We fill labor shortages and help keep inflation down. We contribute nearly $100 billion each year to federal, state, and local taxes.

Fear-mongering politicians want you to believe we’re criminals, or that we’re voting illegally. But again and again, studies find that immigrants commit many fewer crimes than U.S.-born Americans. And though some of us have been long-time residents of this country, we cannot vote in state or federal elections.

Despite all the divisive rhetoric, the American people agree with immigration advocates: Our country needs to offer immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. According to a Gallup poll last year, 68 percent of Americans support this.

My dark dreams of mass deportations are, thankfully, just nightmares for now. And my dreams of a secure future for my family and all people in this country outweigh my fears. We must do everything possible to keep all families together.


Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Letters to the Editor

at

League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship

CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?

Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.

Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.

She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.

In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.

Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.

To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.

at

Commentary |
State-Level marijuana legalization has been a stunning success


Contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.


by Paul Armentano

It’s been over a decade since Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize marijuana for adults. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s fair to ask: Has this policy been successful?

Absolutely. A policy of legalization, regulation, and education is preferable to a policy of criminalization, stigmatization, and incarceration.

Let’s be clear. Legalization didn’t create or normalize the marijuana market in the United States. The market was already here.

Illustration by Gordon Johnson/Pixabay
But under a policy of prohibition, this market flourished underground — and those involved in it remained largely unaccountable. They didn’t pay taxes, they didn’t check IDs, and they didn’t test the purity of their products. Disputes that arose in the illicit marketplace were not adjudicated in courts of law.

By contrast, under regulation, cannabis products in many states are now available from licensed manufacturers at retail stores.

Cannabis is cultivated, and products are manufactured, in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Products are lab tested and labeled accordingly. And sales are taxed, with revenues being reinvested in the community. Since 2014, retail sales of adult-use cannabis products have generated more than $15 billion in tax revenue.

Most importantly, millions of Americans — many of them young adults — are no longer being arrested for possessing a substance that is objectively safer than either tobacco or alcohol.

According to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the annual number of marijuana-related arrests in the United States fell from 750,000 in 2012 to 227,000 in 2022, the last year for which data is available.

In short, these state-level policy changes have resulted in countless Americans being spared criminal records — and the lost opportunities that accompany them — in the past decade.

Teen use of cannabis has not grown with legalization. A CDC report says use has actually dropped among high school students.
Photo: Dimitri Bong/Unsplash

And contrary to opponents’ fears, cannabis use by teens has not risen in parallel with legalization.

According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high schoolers who use marijuana actually fell 30 percent over the past decade. Compliance check data from California, Colorado, Nevada, and other legal marijuana states show that licensed marijuana retailers do not sell products to underage patrons.

Also contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

According to findings published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, rates of psychosis-related health care claims are no higher in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal than in those where it’s not. Stanford University researchers similarly reported last year that residents of states where cannabis is legal exhibit no higher levels of psychosis than those in non-legal states.

Legalization is also successfully disrupting the illicit marketplace. According to a 2023 survey, 52 percent of consumers residing in legal states said that they primarily sourced their cannabis products from brick-and-mortar establishments. By contrast, only 6 percent of respondents said that they primarily purchased cannabis from a “dealer.”

Many consumers in non-legal states also reported that they frequently traveled to neighboring legal states to purchase cannabis products rather than buying from illicit dealers in their own state.

Twelve years into states’ marijuana legalization experiment, public support for making marijuana legal nationwide has never been higher. To date, 24 states have legalized the adult-use market.

None of these states have ever repealed their legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.

After a century of failed policies and “canna-bigotry,” the verdict is in. Legalization is a success, and the end of cannabis prohibition can’t come soon enough.

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This op-ed was adapted from an earlier version published at The Hill and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.

Read our latest health and medical news

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

More Sentinel Stories