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.



Commentary |
When climate disasters hit, who should flip the bill?


Some states are landing on a straightforward answer: fossil fuel companies.


Tornado damaged police car

Photo: PEXELS

by Sonali Kolhatkar
     OtherWords


Rebuilding from California’s recent wildfires will cost more than a quarter of a trillion dollars — an unprecedented amount. The estimated damage from Hurricane Helene in the Southeast is almost as much, on the order of $250 billion.

Who will pay for that damage? It’s a question plaguing localities around the country as climate change makes these disasters increasingly common.

Some states are landing on a straightforward answer: fossil fuel companies.

The idea is inspired by the “superfunds” used to clean up industrial accidents and toxic waste. The Superfund program goes back to 1980, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The law fined polluters to finance the clean up of toxic spills.

Thanks to the hard work of groups such as the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont recently became the first state to establish a climate superfund in May 2024.


It’s an idea whose time has come, especially now that states are less able to rely on the federal government.

Months later, New York followed suit, again in response to pressure from environmental groups. Both bills require oil and gas companies to pay billions into a fund designated for climate-related cleanup and rebuilding.

Now California is considering a similar law in the wake of its disastrous wildfires. Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey may take up the idea as well.

It’s an idea whose time has come, especially now that states are less able to rely on the federal government. The Trump administration is disabling government agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with major cuts and putting conditions on other aid.

At the recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference, Trump aide Ric Grenell unabashedly endorsed “squeezing” California’s federal funds unless they “get rid of the California Coastal Commission.” (Trump apparently hates the commission, the Fresno Bee explains, because it prevents “wealthy people from turning public beaches into private enclaves.”)

Fossil fuel companies — the lead perpetrators of climate disasters — spent more than $450 million to elect their favored candidates, including Trump. In return, Trump has promised to speed up oil and gas permits and stacked his cabinet with oil-friendly executives.

Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill to clean up the destruction wrought by this industry, one of the most profitable the world has ever known? As a spokesperson for New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “corporate polluters should pay for the wreckage caused by the climate crisis — not every day New Yorkers.”


To be fair, a climate superfund is a “downstream” solution to the climate crisis.

Not surprisingly, 22 Republican-led states disagree. They’ve sued to block New York’s law and protect oil and gas profits at the expense of ordinary people. They have no answer for the question of who pays for recovery from climate disasters or helps people reeling from one disaster after another.

Fossil fuel companies can think of paying into a climate superfund as the cost of doing business. If they’re in the business of extracting and selling a fuel that destroys the planet, it’s only fair they pay to clean up the damage.

And the public agrees. Data For Progress found more than 80 percent of voters support holding fossil fuel companies responsible for the impact of carbon emissions.

To be fair, a climate superfund is a “downstream” solution to the climate crisis, one that seeks to raise the costs to perpetrators. A climate superfund can pay to rebuild homes, but it cannot replace priceless family heirlooms or undo the trauma of surviving a disaster. Most of all, it cannot bring back lives lost. It is only one tool in a multi-pronged tool box to end the climate crisis.

Upstream solutions centering the prevention of climate change — that is, reducing carbon emissions at their source — must be at the center of our fight if humanity is to survive. But in the meantime, fossil fuel polluters should pay.


About the author:
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


Keywords:


More Sentinel Stories



Photo Galleries


2025 Illinois Marathon Photo Gallery
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.

Photos: Sentinel/Clark Brooks