Cheryl Thomas, The Advocates' Womens Human Rights Program Director, testified on March 21, 2006 about the impact that pending legislation would have on battered refugee and immigrant women.

Ellen Sampson, a The Advocates' Board Member and a partner at Leonard, Street and Deinard, also testified on March 21, 2006 on the legality of city separation ordinances.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony of Jesus Purisaca, Volunteer
Civil Law and Elections Committee Hearing on H.F. 3014
March 8, 2006

My name is Jesus Purisaca. I am a lawyer in my home country of Peru. In the United States I am an associate educator at Anderson Elementary School in Minneapolis. I came to the United States in June 2003 on a special visa for fiancés of United States’ citizens.

Shortly after I arrived to the United States I went with a friend to apply for a Minnesota ID. I took the legally required documents to prove my identity and legal status. The Department of Motor Vehicles counter person told me that I was not eligible for a Minnesota ID because my visa would expire in three months. I was confused, but I did not know what to say, so we left.

A few days later, my wife, who is a lawyer, returned with me to the same office to try again. This time my wife presented the documents to the counter person. One of the documents required to apply for an ID is a certified copy of my birth certificate with an English translation. This time the counter person rejected the certified copy of my birth certificate. She said that I had to provide the actual original document. My wife knew this was not true and asked to speak to the supervisor. The supervisor acknowledged that we had the correct documents and I was able to finally apply for an ID. BUT, if my wife had not been with me, I would not have known what to do and I would have felt obligated to leave again without applying for my ID.

Finally, I did receive my ID in the mail, marked with a red status check date in the lower right hand corner. I am handing it around for you to see what that looks like. Now I was marked, branded. The document that I needed to use to transact all my business let people know that I am an outsider. That I do not belong. That I am different from other Minnesotans. Well, Minnesota was now my home. I am NOT an outsider. I DO belong. I am NOT so different from other Minnesotans. So, I think it is terrible for society to brand people based on their national origin. Morally and professionally, I think this is a bad law. Thank you for your respectful attention to my story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony of Cheryl Thomas, Director of the Women’s Program
House Public Safety Committee Hearing on H.F. 3308
March 21, 2006

 Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee:

Thank you very much for hearing this testimony.  My name is Cheryl Thomas, and I am the Director of the Women's Human Rights Program at The Advocates for Human Rights here in Minnesota.  We are a locally-based human rights organization that does work both in Minnesota and around the world.  My program works on issues of violence against women.

We are here to oppose the local enforcement of federal immigration law provisions in the bill, particularly Article 6 and Article 7, which focus on local enforcement.  We feel that these articles would weaken public safety in our communities and would exacerbate an already serious problem with domestic violence, especially for immigrant victims of domestic violence.

Minnesota has a powerful legacy on the issue of domestic violence.  I know this, because I travel around the world, and I see how, particularly in Eastern Europe, our laws and our enforcement models are being modeled and repeated - duplicated, in fact.  We have now a powerful and proud legacy.

Still, immigrant victims in our community are still often extremely isolated and are very scared to report crimes against them.  We have a serious problem this way in Minnesota.  We recently released a report called "The Government Response to Domestic Violence Against Immigrant Women in Minnesota: A Human Rights Report" that documents this problem.  Immigrant victims often feel that they or their husbands will be deported if they contact authorities.  Abusers may have threatened immigrant victims that they and their children will be deported
if they report assaults.

Keep in mind the victims may be documented people here. They may have appropriate papers, and they may be being lied to by violent offenders telling them that if they report crimes to the police, they will be deported, they will be separated from their children.  So, it is a very serious issue that we have with immigrant women reporting domestic violence crimes.

This problem will be exacerbated if we dismantle the trust that we have created between criminal law enforcement authorities and immigrant communities.  That trust between criminal justice officials and community members has been part of that powerful Minnesota legacy in ending domestic violence.

I will just end my testimony by asking you: Do we want this legacy that Minnesota has worked so hard to create over decades to end domestic violence in our communities to only be applied to a certain number of people in our community and not to others?

I think that is the risk we take. It is a serious issue. It is one of the greatest public safety issues our state faces. A survey showed that 26% of all violent crime victims for 2002 in Minnesota were victims of domestic violence.

Thank you very much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony of Ellen Sampson, Board Member
House Public Safety Committee Hearing on H.F. 3308
March 21, 2006

The Advocates for Human Rights is a non-governmental 501C3 organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of internationally recognized human rights.  I serve on their Board of Directors and am also an attorney at the law firm of Leonard, Street and Deinard.  My comments today represent my opinions and the opinions of The Advocates and not my law firm.

My comments address the articles in this bill which attempt to overturn separation ordinances which limit the inquiries that public safety officials may make regarding the immigration status of a person with whom they are dealing and which open the door to a memorandum of understanding, otherwise known as an MOU, a document developed between the State and the Department of Homeland Security, which would deputize local police officers to enforce civil immigration law at the expense of the state or local government; in other words an unfunded mandate.  A mechanism is already in place under federal law which permits local law enforcement to assist the Department of Homeland Security with the apprehension of an unlawfully present criminal.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power to establish a uniform method of naturalization; this power does not devolve to the states or local governments.  Public Safety officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul, both of which have separation ordinances, are committed to these ordinances for a reason.  The Advocates shares those reasons.  Community policing relies heavily on trust between residents and law enforcement officials.  If a resident thinks that the public safety official with whom he/she is interacting is a member of the immigration police, the individual is much less likely to talk with the official.  Immigrant communities will be less willing to report crimes and suspicious behavior, less willing to cooperate in investigations, and less willing to come forward as witnesses, which will lead to more undeterred and unsolved crimes.  Indeed, instead of trapping criminals, this kind of statute may encourage criminals to exploit fear within the immigrant communities.

In addition to the unwillingness of some members of the immigrant community to cooperate in law enforcement activities or to report crimes, victims of domestic abuse will be less likely to seek safety for themselves and their children and prosecution for their abusers if they fear that their efforts will precipitate them and their families into the hands of the immigration police.  Battered, abused, poor, and uneducated immigrant women already fear seeking medical assistance and other services from any governmental institution.  Now they will be even less willing to call the police to report violence at home or a crime in the neighborhood. 

Without this law, police, state and local authorities, will continue to work with federal authorities in accord with federal law to address immigration related matters as appropriate.  Addressing immigration issues is the responsibility of federal officials who are trained to do so.  It is not, and should not be, the responsibility of local public safety officers who have neither the expertise nor the resources to engage in this activity.  The Department of Justice itself acknowledges that 99.99 percent of undocumented immigrants pose no terrorist threat.  The harm done by these sorts of statutes far outweighs any benefits that they might provide.  For a nation of immigrants and a nation which purports to value the civil and human rights of its immigrants , this statute is both wrong-headed and unnecessary.