Hanna: The Immigration Project Undertakes 'Compelling' Mission

Amid global poverty and violence and current U.S. rhetoric, many individuals and families are seeking basic safety or stability in the U.S.

Hanna Tarbert, AmeriCorps VISTA communications and development coordinator with the Normal office of The Immigration Project, is committed with Project attorneys and volunteers to helping provide it.

The Immigration Project provides quality citizenship and other legal assistance for immigrants in 85 counties across downstate Illinois, from Kankakee on the east to Moline on the west and on a north-south line from Fairmount City to Carbondale. Statewide, the Project serves an estimated 53,000 undocumented immigrants.

Tarbert previously worked for six months with refugee resettlement in Dayton, Ohio, where she met several immigration attorneys and became interested in legal advocacy for those who’ve sought a better or simply safer life in the States.

“There are people fleeing conflict; they’re fleeing for their lives,” she related. “From a human element, I don’t think there’s anything more compelling than that. Refugees have literally lost everything, and they’re starting over.

“We did get a lot of people coming out of Central America who were fleeing gang violence. There were people there leaving poverty, or they were reunifying with family. There are a lot of good reasons to work in immigration and help people get status here.”

The Project’s largely rural-regional approach includes regular local information clinics with staff attorneys and partnerships with area groups who set up permanent webcam sites to facilitate long-distance interviews and case preparation. An August 19 clinic is set for Bloomington-Normal.

Tarbert – who graduated with a Master of Arts in International and Comparative Politics and a Master of Arts Certificate in Women’s Studies from Wright State University in 2015 -- must grapple with a variety of “huge misconceptions” particularly about undocumented immigrants. “A lot of people don’t think immigrants pay taxes, and they do,” she said, noting Project clients must document that “they have been contributing.”

In fact, unauthorized immigrants in Illinois paid $499.2 million in state and local taxes in 2010 alone, according to data from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. That includes $85.4 million in state income taxes, $45.8 million in property taxes, and $368 million in sales taxes.

Further, the 2012 purchasing power of Illinois’s Latinos totaled $46.1 billion — an increase of 422.2 percent since 1990. Asian buying power totaled $28.7 billion — an increase of 463 percent since 1990, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.

While U.S. immigration debate focuses largely on Latino populations, The Immigration Project deals with immigrants from across the globe, including a growing influx of French-speaking arrivals from Togo and other African countries and Canadian and European immigrants.

Immigrants who currently must remain in the legal shadows effectively are “living in limbo,” Tarbert said, limiting work or educational opportunities. On a national level, she argued the Immigration Project and similar groups would benefit from a U.S. Supreme Court re-review of the currently court-deadlocked case challenging President Obama’s immigration reform plan, which had reflected elements of a stalled bipartisan Senate package. The 2012 purchasing power of Illinois’s Latinos totaled $46.1 billion—an increase of 422.2% since 1990. Asian buying power totaled $28.7 billion—an increase of 463% since 1990, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.

The case, United States v. Texas, concerned a 2014 executive action by the president to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who were the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).

“Just having those programs implemented would go a long way toward helping a lot of people,” said Tarbert. “It would really have made a lot of things easier for a lot of our clients.”

Project clinics in 2014 and 2015 nonetheless covered a range of issues beyond DAPA, including citizenship application assistance. The group also assists in visa petitions, consular processing for family members, and waivers of inadmissibility, and provides immigrant crime victim support addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.

“We tend to be more service-based than advocates,” Tarbert advised. In 2015, 37 percent of client “intakes” involved those seeking naturalization and citizenship. Nearly 30 percent of clients sought support for childhood arrivals.

Clients pay an initial $25 consultation fee, though many other services are free or charged based on a sliding financial scale based on case type, family size, and household income.

The Project also taps a healthy volunteer base, which provides English/Spanish/French translation, case follow-up management, or coordination of legal clinics and area citizenship workshops.

“There are a lot of people who want to support the attorneys,” Tarbert noted.

--

The Immigration Project receives no federal funding, depending instead on low legal fees, donations, and grants. Those who wish to support the Project can check to see if their employer is eligible for Matching Gift Programs to match personal donations or offers any Volunteer Grant Programs which allow an employee to volunteer a set number of hours.  Amazon donates 0.5 percent of the price of an eligible purchase to The Immigration Project for every purchase made through AmazonSmile when the buyer opts to make it the charitable organization of their choice. And PayPal enables donors to use their credit card without making an account.

Bob: Kentucky Clerk Furthers Oppression

Bob Bradley

WJBC Forum

In a short period of time my daughter will be getting married. She will marry her soul mate. They share a love that will sustain them through any tough times that may lie ahead.

The wedding ceremony will be one of joy and celebration. Friends and family from near and far will join in the happy festivities. They will eat, drink, laugh, dance, and be merry. As a father I could not be more proud and happier.

So should my and others’ delight in the ceremony be tempered if the gender of the bride and groom were the same? Should my pride be diminished if my daughter had chosen as the love of her life a same-sex partner? Should my happiness and love for my daughter be lessened if the ceremony was a same-sex marriage? Clearly not.

As for the Kentucky county clerk, the contempt finding against her is not depriving her of religious liberty and her actions are not comparable to those of Martin Luther King. Consider if she was a Quaker and refused to issue a license to carry a firearm based on her strong belief in non-violence. Would the outrage by certain segments of the community and particular presidential candidates be the same?

In fact, her actions are similar to those of local authorities who claimed it was against God’s will to allow biracial couples to marry in the 1960s despite a Supreme Court ruling saying they could. And are comparable to the refusal of certain Southern school authorities to integrate public schools in the 1950s after the issuance of the famous Brown decision.

The clerk used her official position to force citizens to abide by her religious views. This runs counter to the principle of the separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution. That principle was designed to prevent the government from making people conform to a specific religion.

And by not carrying out a Supreme Court decision granting a right to a minority group, the clerk is furthering the oppression of that group. This is the opposite of King’s actions, which tried to eliminate laws that were oppressive of minorities.

I hope my daughter’s wedding goes well and that she continues to live in a country where a specific religion does not dictate government actions.

Bob Bradley is a professor emeritus from Illinois State University where he primarily taught law-related courses in the political science department for 30 years. He did a weekly-segment for WJBC on politics and law for more than a decade. He also co-hosted a live- radio show from the Democratic and Republican national conventions in 2008, and reported live from the 2012 Republican convention. Currently, he serves on several community boards, does volunteer work, enjoys golf and fishing, and likes landscaping and bird-watching. He is married to the love of his life, Reenie, and has one daughter, Erin.

Dave: My Thoughts on Marriage Equality

Dave Bentlin

Prairie Pride Coalition Board Member

I was asked to share my thoughts about the significance of Obergefell v. Hodges, the June Supreme Court decision that confirmed marriage equality and held that there is a constitutional right to marriage for same sex couples in our country. 

Truth be told, the reaction locally, while jubilant, was a bit more muted than in other states, given that Illinois had already expanded marriage equality to same-sex couples in 2014. In some ways our big celebration came a year ago when couples in Illinois first started getting marriage licenses through their county clerks.

Still, the June 26 decision was monumental for members of our local LGBTQ community.  Before, marriage equality across the country was a patchwork of inconsistent laws that were confusing and potentially discriminating, even to couples in states like ours where marriage is available.  A couple legally married in Illinois always had to remember that their marriage license was worthless if they traveled to one of the 14 states where marriage equality was illegal.  It was not uncommon for couples to work with their attorneys to draw up additional legal paperwork they could take with them in the event it was needed.

This patchwork of marriage inequality also was worrisome to same-sex couples whose careers might require them to move to another state.  Here in Bloomington/Normal many people in our workforce – particularly those in the insurance industry and the postsecondary education field – relocate to either further their careers or to take on new assignments within their company.  State Farm, our major employer, is expanding its presence with “hubs” in Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix; two of those metro areas are in states that before the Supreme Court decision banned same-sex marriages.  If not for the Supreme Court, any same-sex married couple that relocated from Illinois to one of those states would not be recognized as legally married.

So it’s clear that Obergefell v. Hodges provides sorely-needed legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples. Beyond that, though, it is a deeply personal triumph for the LGBTQ community. 

It’s a victory for couples like my good friends Elizabeth and Caroline who are raising their children in a home filled with love and who now have all the federal rights and protections of any family unit.

It’s a victory for couples like my fellow activists Ron and Tom, Suzie and Danielle, and Peggy and Donna, whose decades-long relationships have weathered anti-gay attacks, bigotry, and inequality.  They have lived their lives lovingly, openly, and authentically, and by their example they won over a lot of people who previously didn’t understand or appreciate the importance of marriage equality.

It’s a victory for today’s generation of LGBTQ youth who will never have to experience or worry about non-recognition of their relationships.

It’s a bittersweet victory for some gay and lesbian people whose partners didn’t live to see marriage equality.  I also think about the many, many gay men we lost to AIDS who I hope are somehow aware of this victory and are dancing with wild abandonment and joy…because it’s their victory too.

“I believe the public debate has helped shed light on the many other issues that still face our LGBTQ community (youth homelessness, discrimination based on gender identity, hate crimes).””

— Dave Bentlin

I argue it’s a victory even for members of our LGBTQ community who either have no interest in getting married or oppose the institution of marriage. This struggle has strengthened our overall cause and I believe the public debate has helped shed light on the many other issues that still face our LGBTQ community (youth homelessness, discrimination based on gender identity, hate crimes).

I’d also assert that this victory presents a challenge and a new responsibility:  Winning hearts and minds.  For while polls regularly show majorities approve of same-sex marriage, almost 40 percent of those respondents do not.  It is my hope that through information and interaction we can bring that number down. The Prairie Pride Coalition welcomes the collaboration with Not In Our Town (NIOT) and I hope we can take steps together in this effort.  After all, at the end of the day our similarities far outweigh our differences.

For me personally?  I guess I still find it hard to describe the depth of my feelings; in some ways the effects of the decision haven’t yet sunk in, possibly because I am single – for the moment - and less invested in the institution of marriage.  Nonetheless, I think I will always get a lump in my throat whenever I reread the closing paragraph of Justice Kennedy’s opinion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.  Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

High Court Rules For Marriage Equality

Same-sex couples won the right to marry nationwide Friday as a divided Supreme Court handed a crowning victory to the gay rights movement, setting off a jubilant cascade of long-delayed weddings in states where they had been forbidden.

"No longer may this liberty be denied," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Chicagoans react.

The vote was narrow — 5-4 — but Kennedy's majority opinion was clear and firm: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."

Same sex marriages have been legal in Illinois since June 1, 2014.

The ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages.

Kennedy's reading of the ruling elicited tears in the courtroom, euphoria outside and the immediate issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in at least eight states. In Dallas, Kenneth Denson said he and Gabriel Mendez had been legally married in 2013 in California but "we're Texans; we want to get married in Texas."

In praise of the decision, President Barack Obama called it "justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

Four of the court's justices weren't cheering. The dissenters accused their colleagues of usurping power that belongs to the states and to voters, and short-circuiting a national debate about same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

"If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as "this court's threat to American democracy." He termed the decision a "judicial putsch." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Several religious organizations criticized the decision.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was "profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage."

Kennedy said nothing in the court's ruling would force religions to condone, much less perform, weddings to which they object. And he said the couples seeking the right to marry should not have to wait for the political branches of government to act.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals, he said

"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter," Kennedy wrote in his fourth major opinion in support of gay rights since 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The stories of the people asking for the right to marry "reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond," Kennedy said.

As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears when the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight.

Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John Arthur, and said the ruling establishes that "our love is equal." He added, "This is for you, John."

Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the decision as an affirmation of the principle that "all Americans are created equal."

The crowd in front of the courthouse at the top of Capitol Hill grew in the minutes following the ruling. The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, D.C., sang the "Star-Spangled Banner." Motorists honked their horns in support as they passed by the crowd, which included a smattering of same-sex marriage opponents.

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But county clerks in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas began issuing licenses to same-sex couples within hours of the decision.

The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders, and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the same lineup as two years ago.

The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

The states affected by Friday's ruling are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

ACLU/Prairie Pride Hosting Talk on Marriage Equality Case

The Central Illinois Chapter of the ACLU of Illinois and the Prairie Pride Coalition would like to invite you to a discussion on the Supreme Court's marriage equality case at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Normal Public Library Community Room, at 206 West College Ave.

The event will take place one day after the Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage as a constitutional right for couples across the country.

Sara Benson from the University of Illinois School of Law and ACLU of Illinois Communications and Public Policy Director Ed Yohnka will discuss their reactions to the hearing and share their predictions for the ruling on the case when it comes down.
 
The event is free and open to the public.

As of now, gay marriage is legal in 36 states. By the end of this Supreme Court term, either same-sex couples will be able to wed in all 50 states, or gay marriage bans may be reinstituted in many of the states where they've previously been struck down.

Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments focus on two questions: First, whether bans on gay marriage are constitutional; and second, if they are, whether those states with bans may refuse to recognize out-of-state gay marriages performed where they are legal.

The court has scheduled 2 1/2 hours of argument and will make the audio available online late Tuesday.

Four states — Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky — are defending their bans. They won their case in the lower court, and because other appeals courts threw out bans enacted in other states, the Supreme Court now must resolve the conflict.

The high-stakes legal battle is the culmination of a decades-long struggle in the courts, state legislatures and at the ballot box. During that time, public opinion has changed, and done so more rapidly — and dramatically — than on any major social issue in memory.

In 1996, public opinion polls showed, on average, only 27 percent of the public favored legalization; this year, although many states still adamantly resist gay marriage, public opinion polls put the approval number nationally at well over 50 percent.

Tuesday's courtroom battle pits states' rights against the fundamental right to marry; it pits the traditional definition of marriage against a more modern definition; and it pits majority rights against minority rights.

Before the court are the consolidated cases of 12 couples and two widowers. Among them are nurses, teachers, veterinarians, an Army sergeant and businessmen and women.