New York News Network

By Maurice Pinzon
On July 23 about 700 youths from New York awoke early in the morning to participate in a trip to Washington D.C. for the “Rock the House and Hill Youth Rally.î The youths, ranging in age from 10 to their early 20ís, went to the nationís capital to protest their exclusion from the benefits of the Child Tax Credit.

The scope of their argument seems to have grown on their way to Washington. They carried signs in front of the White House that asked President George Bush to redirect tax cuts from the wealthy to people who need the money more. Then the children and young adults went to Capitol Hill, where they called on Congress to reverse the trend. Afterwards they met with representatives from the offices of Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

The experience was still fresh on the minds of two participants who spoke to New York News Network yesterday over the telephone.

Jocelyn Parson, 16 said she got up at 3:30 a.m. for the trip. When asked what issue she had protested, she said, “George Bush gave 936 thousand million dollars to all the wealthy, but low income people only get $100.”

If the figures were a little hard to grasp, the issue was straightforward in her mind. “Low income people need a lot of money” because, as Jocelyn said, “every child should be able to have a normal child life. They shouldnít have to struggle.” Of the Presidentís tax policies so far, Jocelyn said she thought the following would happen: “The tax cuts, cuts programs and activities for youth, education.”

Virgil Sancer, 17, who wants to study law when he graduates from high school, said he went to Washington “to tell the staff that we’re getting hurt by the tax cuts.” Virgil also thought the money would not go to those who most needed it: “We’re not benefiting,” he said. Then he added, “The money is not going to youth programs.” Instead money “should go for the people that really need it to survive,” Virgil said. He even had an idea of how the money might be spent. “The wealthy are getting money to buy yachts and Mercedes,” he said.

According to White House spokesman Ken Lisaius, President Bush has gone on record in support of the expansions of the child tax credit. President Bush “has asked Congress to work together to resolve their differences and pass the tax credit,” Mr. Lisaius said. He referred to a speech given by President Bush in Philadelphia on July 23.

On that day President Bush said: “One of the things that’s important is that tax relief helps people from all walks of life. And one of the things I’ve asked Congress to do, by the way, is to help low-income familiesÖby making more of the child credit refundable. The benefits of the Jobs and Growth Act should be as broad as possible, should be widespread throughout our society. The House and the Senate have passed different versions of extending the child credit. They’ve got to resolve their differences and get it to my desk as quickly as possible, so people can get additional help.”

Jocelyn appears ready to hold President Bush to his word. She said, “We will be back next year until he [President Bush] does something about this.”

Sandra Trujillo, Deputy Director of the Children’s Defense Fund in New York, seemed to agree that other children who went on the trip felt the same way. She said that the children told “deeply personal stories, they demanded that their leaders in Washington ‘Invest in Us!’ particularly stressing the importance of their youth programs for themselves, their friends, their brothers and sisters, and their communities.”

Ms. Trujillo said the “Rock the House and the Hill” put a face on the injustice of excluding 12 million children, including 800,000 in New York, from receiving the Child Tax Credit checks that went in the mail on Friday, July 25th.”

For more information about how to join this youth program to “Leave No Child Behind,” contact Sandra Trujillo at 212-697-2323 or email her at strujillo@cdfny.org.

By Maurice Pinzon
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is ready to meet with Council member Hiram Monserrate to address the concerns of the Council member and advocates over an Executive Order the Mayor issued. The developing dialogue between the Mayor and Council member Monserrate seeks to strike a balance that allows immigrants to access City services without fear while the City complies with Federal law.

Until now, don’t worry, we promise not to tell ”” unless Federal law forces us ”” seems to have been the Executive Order 34’s logic. The Executive Order signed by Mayor Bloomberg in May “revoked” former Mayor Edward Koch’s previous order prohibiting City employees from sharing information about New Yorkers’ immigration status. However, Mr. Koch’s Executive Order did have provisions for instances of suspected criminal activity.

Nevertheless, it appears that Mayor Bloomberg has recognized flaws in Executive Order 34’s message, if not its content, and is moving to address the criticism. Mayor Bloomberg said, “The Councilman and I have discussed our mutual understanding and concern for undocumented immigrants who need to access City services.” He continued, “We are trying to protect immigrants and all New Yorkers while meeting the mandates imposed on us by Federal law. In the end it is our job to promote the public health, welfare and safety of all residents and to make sure they have access to essential City services such as health care and education.”

In early June when the Executive Order was first revealed, Council member Monserrate and advocates for immigrants immediately criticized the Mayor’s policy. Council member Monserrate believes Mayor Bloomberg’s Executive Order 34 would discourage immigrants from cooperating in police investigations if they thought their personal information would be shared unnecessarily with authorities.

Indeed, on June 20 when reporters from New York News Network were interviewing Council member Monserrate in his office, he received a call from the local police precinct, which asked him to reach out to the community and ask for cooperation in an investigation of the homicide of teenager Alejandro Brito. The police turned to Council member Monserrate because he served on the police force for 12 years, and he also has close ties to the immigrant community.

In response, Council member Monserrate organized a press conference to which he invited the local and immigrant press. There the Council member said, “The only way to take back our streets is to ensure criminals are found and prosecuted. We cannot do that without your help. Anyone with information related to Alejandro’s death is urged to come forward.”

Donna Liberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, agrees that such cooperation would be hindered if the Executive Order were left in place. In a telephone interview with New York News Network, Ms. Liberman said Executive Order 34 “completely exempts police enforcement. This is a problem when someone is a victim or a witness”¦People will be afraid to report crime.”

The New York Immigration Coalition sent Mayor Bloomberg a letter urging him to revise the Executive Order with “provisions that protect New Yorkers from inquiry into confidential information when they interact with law enforcement officers, unless there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a person is engaging in criminal activity and such information is necessary to cooperate in a criminal investigation.”

Another major problem with the Mayor’s Executive Order 34, according to advocates, is the difficulty in determining which services immigrants can access without being asked about their immigration status. The Bloomberg administration has not yet compiled a list of essential services immigrants can access, such as City hospitals and Board of Education schools.

Norman Eng, a spokesman for The New York Immigration Coalition, gave an example of a mother whose children may be eligible for services. When she is asked about her immigration status, she may decide not to enroll her children in the program. The immigration status of one family member ends up affecting everyone else in the family.

Until now, various sources have indicated that advocates have not received a list of essential services that immigrants can access without being subject to reporting requirements by City employees. In reviewing Executive Order 34, Ms. Liberman said, “Organizations cannot say to their clients access these services.”

Lupe Todd, a spokeswoman for New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, said the Speaker recognizes the “yeoman job” Council member Monserrate has done on this issue. But Ms. Todd said Speaker Miller “would like to see the goals of the legislation addressed through Executive Order 34.” Ms. Todd was referring to the “Access Without Fear” legislation introduced by Council member Monserrate to protect the privacy of all New Yorkers when they request City services.

By Maurice Pinzon
After a meeting on Friday with City Council member Hiram Monserrate, Mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed to review Mayoral Executive Order 34. The order, which the Mayor signed in May 2003, allows City agencies to share New Yorkers’ immigration status with federal authorities.

In an interview with New York News Network, Mr. Monserrate said the “Mayor made a commitment to revisit the Executive Order.” He went on to say, “I was quite frank with him,” telling the Mayor the order was counterproductive and detrimental to the city’s immigrant community.

Soon after the Executive Order was announced in early June, Mr. Monserrate and other council members organized a press conference on the steps of City Hall to oppose Executive Order 34. The executive order reversed a previous long-standing executive order, which Mayor Ed Koch issued in August 1989 to prevent City agencies from sharing immigration information with federal authorities.

At that press conference, Council member Monserrate said, “In a city that is 40 percent foreign-born, it is essential that these communities do not fear to access city services that stop disease from spreading, keep crime levels at historic lows, and put an end to discrimination.” Anthony Miranda, President of the Latino Officers Association, said at the same press conference that the order would “deter immigrants from reporting crimes and cooperating with authorities.”

The Bloomberg Administration indicated in documentation accompanying the Executive Order that, “Federal statues and case law since 1996”¦have affected the Order’s reporting prohibition. The Mayor’s press office today faxed a statement to New York News Network by former Mayor Ed Koch that said, “I support the mayor’s decision in this matter.” Mr. Koch indicated it was his understanding “the change is required by law and judicial decision.”

Council member Hiram Monserrate is director of the New York City Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus. In the City Council he represents Corona, Elmhurst, Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst, some of the most diverse communities in the United States.

Mayor Bloomberg’s executive order undermined the objectives of Council member Monserrate’s “Access Without Fear” legislation, introduced in December of 2002. The proposed local law, sponsored by 33 council members (including Council members Bill Perkins and Chris Quinn), seeks to protect the confidentiality of all New Yorkers””not just immigrants. The bill’s drafters believe that making confidentiality universal to all New Yorkers would make the legislation more difficult to challenge in court and comply with federal statues.

“The ”˜Access Without Fear’ bill will protect people’s confidentiality,” Mr. Monserrate said. The proposed legislation contains provisions that allow city agencies to share information in limited circumstances, including criminal investigations.

After his meeting with Mayor Bloomberg, Council member Monserrate said he was “cautiously optimistic.” Mr. Monserrate said he would be meeting with the Mayor and other administration officials in the coming weeks to discuss the executive order and the legislation. “We need to see how we can reconcile their concerns with our concerns,” he said.