Opinion: Immigration updates from The Times
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Various sundry bits of immigration news have slipped through Opinion L.A.’s fingers in the past few days, but let’s start with today’s hits. Fresh off the virtual press, The Times reports that a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department that sought to nix Special Order 40 has been dropped:
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu, granting a motion from the city and the ACLU, said the plaintiff failed to prove that ‘Special Order 40’ was in conflict with federal laws that dictate the flow of information between local and federal agencies regarding people’s immigration status.... [The plaintiff’s] lawyers called Special Order 40 ‘essentially a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy regarding illegal aliens.’ They said the policy restricts the LAPD’s ability to share information with federal immigration officials -- a claim that city attorneys denied.
But even if Special Order 40 is here to stay, L.A. County jails are expanding immigration screenings (Special Order 40 does allow officials to question those accused of or incarcerated for a crime.) As The Times notes, officials have interviewed 20,000 inmates and had more than half of them referred for possible deportation. But even with five extra interviewers (for a grand total of 13), every foreign-born inmate can’t be interviewed. And of course, people lie. As the story notes, referring to the case that launched the Special Order 40 scrutiny, even though the order wasn’t to blame for the tragic murder:
Pedro Espinoza, an illegal immigrant and alleged gang member, is accused of killing high school football star Jamiel Shaw II in March, one day after Espinoza was released from an L.A. County jail. Espinoza wasn’t red-flagged for an interview because he said during booking that he was born in the U.S., sheriff’s officials said. A judge ruled last week that Espinoza would be tried for murder.
Meanwhile, advocates of stricter illegal immigration enforcement are doing what they can without a presidential candidate to guide them. The Times reports that they’re focusing efforts on state and local governments (where a lot of enforcement measures have already passed). And they’re taking it to the streets.
Finally, the editorial board has two immigration editorials today, see our previous post for more.