DAPA is effectively shut down by the Supreme Court; racist legal system marches on — Efectivamente la corte suprema cierra DAPA; sistema legal racista marcha adelante

Yesterday there was discouraging news for immigrants and their families and friends.

In November 2014, President Obama proposed an executive action called DAPA, which would have have granted certain undocumented immigrants permission to work and some protection from deportation. A federal judge in Texas, who has been vocal in his bias against immigrants, ordered the DAPA program to be stayed, meaning that Obama could not carry out this plan. A higher court, the 5th Circuit, affirmed this decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court decided, in the form of a 4-4 tie vote, that the DAPA program could not go forward. The Court did not issue a written decision, meaning that we don’t know why the justices made that decision.

DAPA would have granted a bare minimum of safety and stability to the immigrants who qualified for it; the ability to work and to know that you will not be summarily and forcibly uprooted from your life are basic human rights. This is a good moment to remind ourselves of how paltry are the protections that undocumented immigrants are even permitted to request.

It’s also a good moment to remember how inadequate DAPA would have been to truly protect immigrants and immigrant communities. In his speech announcing the DAPA program in 2014, President Obama took care to note that his policy is to deport “felons, not families,” as though people who have been caught up in the racist criminal legal system do not have families. DAPA would have granted those protections only to immigrants who have children born in the U.S. before a certain date, excluding many LGBTQ people and others who have varying family structures and reproductive realities. DAPA would have granted its protections only to an estimated 4 million immigrants who fit specific characteristics, out of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who are part of our country today.


At CLO we will continue to fight with and for immigrants to seek whatever protections are available to them, whether that is relief from removal or immigration-related benefits; fair wages and workplace safety; a safe and habitable place to live; and due process in criminal proceedings.

Read more about the DAPA decision in the links below.


Ayer salieron noticias desalentadoras para los inmigrantes y sus familias y sus amigos.

En noviembre de 2014, el presidente Obama propuso una acción ejecutiva llamada DAPA, lo que habría concedido el permiso a ciertos inmigrantes indocumentados para trabajar y una cierta protección contra la deportación. Un juez federal en Texas, que ha sido vocal en su sesgo en contra de los inmigrantes, ordenó que el programa DAPA sea parado, lo que significa que Obama no podría llevar a cabo este plan. Un tribunal superior, el 5º Circuito, confirmó esta decisión, y el caso fue apelado al Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos. El Tribunal Supremo decidió, en forma de un voto de empate 4-4, que el programa DAPA no podría seguir adelante. El Tribunal no emitió una decisión por escrito, lo que significa que no sabemos por qué los jueces tomaron esa decisión.

DAPA habría concedido un mínimo de seguridad y estabilidad a los inmigrantes que califican para el programa; la capacidad de trabajar y saber que uno no será sumariamente y por la fuerza arrancado de su vida es derecho humano básico. Este es un buen momento para recordar de lo ínfimo son las protecciones que los inmigrantes indocumentados siquiera se les permite solicitar.

Es también un buen momento para recordar lo inadecuado habría sido DAPA para proteger a los inmigrantes y sus comunidades. En su discurso anunciando el programa DAPA en 2014, el presidente Obama se encargó de dar claro que su política es deportar  “a criminales y no a las familias”, como si las personas que han sido atrapados en el sistema jurídico penal racista no tuvieran familias también. DAPA habría concedido su protección sólo a los inmigrantes que tienen hijos nacidos en los EE.UU. antes de cierta fecha, con exclusión de muchas personas LGBTQ y otros que tienen diferentes estructuras en sus familias y sus realidades reproductivas. DAPA habría concedido su protección sólo para un estimado de 4 millones de inmigrantes que conformaran a características específicas, de los 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados que se calcula que son parte de nuestro país en la actualidad.

En CLO seguiremos luchando junto con y para los inmigrantes a conseguir cualquier protección que esté disponible para ellos, ya que es defensa contra deportación u otros beneficios relacionados con la inmigración; salarios justos y seguridad en el trabajo; un lugar seguro y habitable para vivir; y el debido proceso en los procedimientos penales.

Favor de leer más en cuanto la decisión de la DAPA en los enlaces de abajo.






Immigrants Demand Moratorium on Deportations as Supreme Court Fails to End Partisan Attack on DAPA

Being sued by a debt collector? Help is available.

Being sued by a debt collector is confusing.  You may receive a letter from a company you’ve never heard of, or from a law firm representing a company you’re sure you never had a credit card with.  You may get harassing phone calls, sometimes many times per day, sometimes even at your work.  The company might not tell you what the original debt was, or why they get to sue you for it now. It can be frightening and stressful.

Third-party debt buyers, companies that buy debt from the company that originally issued the card or the payday loan, are often going after low-to-moderate income communities, which in many places are very likely to also be communities of color and/or immigrant communities. The business (and sometimes the scam) of third party debt buying has been written about a lot, but this article from ProPublica makes clear the disproportionate impact these cases have on those communities, and highlights the shame and stigma of being a party to this kind of suit.

If you’re being sued by a third party debt collector, here are a few things to know: you have protections under federal and state law.  The debt collector has to prove, in court, that they own the debt and this is often difficult – so don’t just not go to your court date.  We help people with these kinds of cases, so if you’re being harassed by debt collectors on the phone or if you’ve received a letter that says you’re being (or will be) sued on a debt, you can call us.  The Volunteer Lawyers Project runs a debt collection clinic at the Boston Municipal Court every Wednesday from 9am to 1pm.  You are not alone.  Help is available.

You can reach us at (857) 220-7175 or info@communitylawofficellc.com.

Standing up for free speech in the courtroom

Oren Nimni, founding partner of Community Law Office, is in the news! During jury selection for a criminal case in Worcester, where Oren is representing one of a group of Black Lives Matter activists, the judge took issue with one of the activist’s Black Lives Matter sweatshirt.  The judge said that the Black Lives Matter message is unfair to the Commonwealth – Oren wasn’t having it.  If the police can wear their uniforms in the court room, he said, the activists should be able to wear clothes that say Black Lives Matter. The rest of us at Community Law Office agree, and we’re proud to have Oren on our team.

Here’s the activist in his own words on what happened: