May, 18 2010, 12:57pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jennifer Carnig, NYCLU, (212) 607-3363
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
John Garcia, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, (212) 739-7513
NYCLU, ACLU And LatinoJustice PRLDEF Challenge Unconstitutional Anti-Immigrant Ordinance On Behalf Of Day Laborer Groups
Oyster Bay, NY Law Restricts Free Speech Rights Of Day Laborers
NEW YORK
The
New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union and
LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a lawsuit today on behalf of two day laborer
groups challenging an Oyster Bay town ordinance that violates the core
rights of free speech and equal protection under the law and is
intended to drive Latino immigrants from the community.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de
Locust Valley and the Workplace Project, challenges an ordinance
enacted in September 2009 that prohibits standing on the sidewalk to
solicit employment and bars motorists from stopping to solicit
employment or hire workers. The Oyster Bay law, enacted in September
2009 purportedly to address traffic and pedestrian safety, criminalizes
a wide variety of constitutionally protected speech that presents no
threat to traffic safety, including, for example, students soliciting
cars for a high school carwash fundraiser.
"This misguided ordinance uses
public safety as a smokescreen for intolerance and violates the
constitutional rights of day labors and all Oyster Bay residents," said
Samantha Fredrickson, director of the NYCLU's Nassau County Chapter.
"It is a symptom of the anti-immigrant hostility that has swept across
Long Island and the country in recent years."
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against the town of Oyster
Bay and Town Supervisor John Venditto, maintains that the ordinance
violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
"The true purpose of this ordinance
is to prevent a group of predominantly Latino day laborers from making
a living in Oyster Bay," said Cesar Perales, president and general
counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF. "Day laborers are hardworking people
and provide a valuable service to this community that we are all part
of; their kids go to school here and they work, spend money and go to
church. But as a result of this law, many of them have lost the ability
to earn a living wage."
"Local attempts to regulate
immigration by passing ordinances that restrict free speech are
unconstitutional, ineffective and only drain state and local budgets
while hurting workers and local businesses," said Farrin Anello, an
attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Standing on the
sidewalk to let people know that you are available for work is not a
crime. The Constitution protects all people in this country, regardless
of their background."
For nearly two decades, day laborers
have gathered in Oyster Bay, particularly the Hamlet of Locust Valley
and the Village of Farmingdale, to find work. Since passing the
ordinance, the town has stationed law enforcement officers at a corner
at which workers and contractors typically meet, keeping contractors
away from the site and intimidating workers seeking employment. The
ordinance has had a devastating effect on the workers, who typically
depend on these jobs to feed themselves and their families and
frequently lack transportation to seek work elsewhere.
"Oyster Bay's ordinance is hurting
families and it's hurting children," said Luz Torres of the Centro de
la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley. "These people have to work so
that they can feed, clothe and house their children, and they have the
right to talk to anyone they want."
In recent years, Latino day laborers
in Oyster Bay have endured harassment and intimidation from neighbors,
government officials and law enforcement when they gather to seek work.
In a 2006 survey by Hofstra University's Center for the Study of Labor
and Democracy, more than 43 percent of day laborers on Long Island
reported being targeted for slurs based on their nationality while more
than a quarter reported having been threatened while seeking work. When
residents of Farmingdale attempted to establish a hiring site for day
laborers, news reports indicated that someone had left a .50-caliber
anti-aircraft shell and carved the depiction of a gun in a picnic table
at the proposed location.
At the same time, Latino immigrants
across Long Island have increasingly faced discrimination, harassment
and violence. In November 2008, Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero was
stabbed to death on Long Island following an altercation with local
teens who were specifically trolling for a Latino victim. In 2003, the
house of an immigrant in Farmingville was firebombed. Three years
earlier in the same town, two Mexican day laborers were brutally beaten
after being lured out of their home by the promise of work.
"Oyster Bay's discriminatory law is
promoting anger and distrust toward Latinos and contributing to an
environment where we feel like constant targets of harassment," said
Nadia Marin-Molina of the Workplace Project. "The town should do
everything in its power to ease tensions, not be fanning the flames of
hate by passing unconstitutional laws."
At a March 2009 Oyster Bay Town
Board meeting, several Oyster Bay residents complained of the "invasion
of day laborers," calling the workers "unsafe and unsightly." Following
the meeting, the Town Board introduced the ordinance. At a May 2009
public hearing on the proposed ordinance, several residents and local
lawmakers expressed displeasure with federal immigration policy. The
board approved the ordinance unanimously.
Local lawmakers and police officials
have never explained why current road safety laws - such as New York
State's vehicle and traffic laws - are inadequate to protect motorists
or pedestrians. At the public hearing, no resident or Oyster Bay Town
Board member indicated that a single traffic accident had occurred as a
result of a day laborer soliciting work. The legislative record on the
ordinance contains no evidence that the presence of day laborers causes
traffic problems.
Lawyers on the case, Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley et al. v. Town of Oyster Bay et al.,
are Corey Stoughton, Adriana Pinon and Arthur Eisenberg for the NYCLU;
Alan Levine and Christina Iturralde for PRLDEF; and Anello and Lee
Gelernt for the ACLU.
The complaint is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-et-al-v-town-oyster-bay-et-al-comp
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Budget Proposal Shows GOP 'Is the Party of Cutting Social Security and Medicare'
"Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," said the head of Social Security Works. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him."
Mar 20, 2024
Defenders of Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday swiftly criticized the biggest caucus of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for putting out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2025 that takes aim at the crucial programs.
The 180-page "Fiscal Sanity to Save America" plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) follows the release of proposals from Democratic President Joe Biden and U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)—who is leading the fight to create a fiscal commission for the programs that critics call a "death panel" designed to force through cuts.
The RSC document features full sections on "Saving Medicare" and "Preventing Biden's Cuts to Social Security," which both push back on the president's recent comments calling out Republican attacks on the programs that serve seniors.
The caucus plan promotes premium support for Medicare Advantage plans administered by private health insurance providers as well as changes to payments made to teaching hospitals. For Social Security, the proposal calls for tying retirement age to rising life expectancy and cutting benefits for younger workers over certain income levels, including phasing out auxiliary benefits.
The document also claims that the caucus budget "would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform, pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages, work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work, and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth."
In a lengthy Wednesday statement blasting the RSC budget, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman pointed out that last week, former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in the November election, "toldCNBC that 'there's a lot you can do' to cut Social Security."
"Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
"Now, congressional Republicans are confirming the party's support for cuts—to the tune of $1.5 trillion. They are also laying out some of those cuts," Altman said. "This budget would raise the retirement age, in line with prominent Republican influencer Ben Shapiro's recent comments that 'retirement itself is a stupid idea.' It would make annual cost-of-living increases stingier, so that benefits erode over time. It would slash middle-class benefits."
"Perhaps most insultingly, given the Republicans' claim to be the party of 'family values,' this budget would eliminate Social Security spousal benefits, as well as children's benefits, for middle-class families. That would punish women who take time out of the workforce to care for children and other loved ones," she continued. "This coming from a party that wants to take away women's reproductive rights!"
The caucus, chaired by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), included 285 bills and initiatives from 192 members in its budget plan—among them are various proposals threatening abortion care, birth control, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) nationwide.
"The RSC budget would also take away Medicare's new power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, putting more money into the pockets of the GOP's Big Pharma donors," Altman warned. "And it accelerates the privatization of Medicare, handing it over to private insurance companies who have a long history of ripping off the government and delaying and denying care to those who need it."
"In recent days, Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," she noted. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him. The Republican Party is the party of cutting Social Security and Medicare, while giving tax handouts to billionaires."
"The Democratic Party is the party of expanding Social Security and Medicare, paid for by requiring the ultrawealthy to contribute their fair share," Altman added. "Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler also targeted the Republican presidential candidate while slamming the RSC plan, saying that "Donald Trump's MAGA allies in Congress made it clear today: A vote for Trump is a vote to make the MAGA 2025 agenda of cutting Social Security, ripping away access to IVF, and banning abortion nationwide a hellish reality."
"While Trump and his allies push forward their extreme agenda, the American people are watching," Tyler added, suggesting that the RSC proposal will help motivate voters to give Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris four more years in the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Mulling Israel Claims, Biden Urged to 'Stop Weapons Sales Now'
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," said one campaigner. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately."
Mar 20, 2024
As the Biden administration wrestles with whether to certify that Israel is complying with a presidential directive requiring human rights assurances from governments receiving American weapons, Palestine defenders on Wednesday renewed calls for a suspension of U.S. arms sales to Israel's genocidal government and military.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has until March 25 to certify to Congress that Israel is adhering to President Joe Biden's February 2023 memo stating that "no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit... genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949... or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
If Israel fails to provide written assurance that it is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international law, arms sales would automatically be suspended. According toHuffPost, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew on Tuesday privately claimed to the State Department that Israel is in compliance with domestic and international law.
However, the Israeli daily Haartezreported Wednesday that officials from three State Department bureaus—Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; and the Office of Global Criminal Justice—as well as the United States Agency for International Development are deeply skepitcal of Lew's claim.
"America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Uncommitted National Movement—a coalition of pro-Palestine, peace, and progressive groups urging people to vote "uncommitted" in U.S. Democratic primaries in a bid to pressure Biden to push Israel for a Gaza cease-fire—led demands for a suspension of arms transfers to Israel.
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," Uncommitted National Movement co-chair Layla Elabedsaid in a statement Wednesday. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately. America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Canadian Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off arms exports to Israel. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly subsequently said that the government would cease future weapons sales to the country.
Other countries including Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium have suspended or restricted weapons sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 113,000 Palestinians since the October 7 attacks while forcibly displacing around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and fueling famine and disease by besieging the embattled strip. Most of those killed have been women and children.
On January 26, the
International Criminal Court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Both the ICJ and a U.S. federal judge have found that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza. Palestinians, human rights groups, and legal experts have accused Israel of ignoring the World Court's directive.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Human Rights Watch and Oxfam called Israeli assurances that U.S.-supplied weapons are not being used in violation of international law "not credible." The groups also dismissed false Israeli claims that the country is not blocking humanitarian aid from reaching starving Gazans.
The U.S. gives Israel approximately $4 billion in annual military aid. Since October 7, the Biden administration has requested an additional $14.3 billion in armed assistance for Israel, while repeatedly circumventing Congress to fast-track emergency weapons transfers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite WSJ Reporting, Julian Assange Lawyer Says 'No Indication' of Plea Deal
"The United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition," said an attorney for the jailed WikiLeaks journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
As the world awaits a U.K. court ruling on Julian Assange's potential extradition to the United States, The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder's attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice officials "have had preliminary discussions" about allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge to end the lengthy legal battle.
"If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense," the Journal detailed, citing unnamed sources. "Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S."
"The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded," according to the report—on which a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The 52-year-old Australian has been imprisoned at London's Belmarsh Prison since British authorities dragged him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019, after the South American nation's president terminated the diplomatic asylum granted to him in 2012. In the United States, he faces Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing material that includes the "Collateral Murder" video, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
Assange attorney Barry Pollack said in a statement Wednesday that "it is inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the U.K. High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
Human rights and press freedom advocates worldwide and even some U.S. lawmakers have warned of the broader impacts of a conviction. Kathleen McClellan and Jesselyn Radack wrote Saturday in Salon that the precedent set by the cases of Assange, Timothy Burke, and Catherine Herridge "will apply in future to anyone engaging in such entirely normative journalistic activities as cultivating sources while protecting their anonymity, and seeking to publish information in the public interest that governments or other powerful forces seek to control."
Focusing specifically on Assange's case, Croatian philosopher and Belmarsh Tribunal co-founder Srećko Horvat similarly said in December that "more than one man's life is at stake, but the First Amendment and freedom of the press itself. As long as the Espionage Act is deployed to imprison those who expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe."
Ahead of a U.K. High Court hearing on extradition last month, Stella Assange, Julian's wife and the mother of two of his two children, pointed to her husband's physical and mental health problems, and warned that "this case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."
The Journal noted Wednesday that the court "is expected to decide within weeks whether to grant Assange a further right to appeal his extradition" and the United States has pledged that "he could be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence."
Australia's government "could shorten any sentence once he landed on Australian soil," the paper added. Nick Vamos, a partner at London law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of extradition for England and Wales' Crown Prosecution Service, said that "I honestly think as soon as he arrived in Australia he would be released."
Shortly before the February hearing, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined 85 members of Australia's Parliament in voting for a motion demanding that the U.S. and U.K. drop the extradition effort and allow Assange to return to his home country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular