Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is now claiming he asked Assemblyman Vito Lopez to step down following accusations against him of sexual harassment in the workplace. These claims follow evidence in recent weeks Silver agreed to pay $100,000 to settle workplace harassment claims made against Lopez. Silver also stripped Lopez of his Assembly chairmanship, reports Gothamist. 

As criticism was leveled against Silver, he responded he had originally asked Lopez to resign, but the 71-year-old Lopez was not happy to hear it. Silver told the New York Times he no longer believed Lopez would be able to fulfill his duties, but seemed to avoid the subject of the allegations altogether.

“He won’t be a committee chair anymore,” Silver told the Times, “and his ability will be impaired significantly as a legislator.” Silver, reportedly, was not able to convince Lopez to step down.

Lopez also formerly paid $32,000 to the two staffers making accusations against him, reports Gothamist. Other female staffers have also come forward, many anonymously, to report inappropriate advances made by Lopez against them.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that largely amends Arizona’s controversial 2010 anti-immigration law. However, despite ruling out several important elements, the court upheld the “show me your papers” provision, which authorizes police officers to operate random identity checks on “suspicious” persons.

By Laurent Berstecher

The Court ruled out three key provisions of the SB-1070 bill for going against the constitution, leading to the following changes:

1. It is now no longer legal for police officers to arrest immigrants on probable cause charges (e.g. without a warrant)
2. It is no longer a crime for immigrants not to carry identification and registration papers with them
3. It is no longer a crime for illegal immigrants to look for a job or solicit work

However, it maintained what is perhaps the most controversial aspect of SB-1070. The provision, which has cynically been nicknamed the “show me your papers” law by its opponents, basically enables police officers to undertake ‘random’ identification checks, provided that there is “reasonable suspicion.”

Critics have voiced their discontent at this half-decision, claiming that the “show me your papers” provision remains one of the most dangerous aspects of the law and that it will lead to instances of racial profiling.

While a step in the right direction, Monday’s ruling will have left many pundits bitter and disappointed.

City Council speaker Christine Quinn praised the Court’s decision, but deplored that it did not go all the way, adding that upholding the “show me your papers” provision undermined “the ideal that America was founded on […] the welcome and support of every person who comes into this nation in pursuit of the American Dream.”

Meanwhile, President Obama also expressed his concerns in a written statement, pointing out that “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the original SB 1070 back in 2010, assured the public that police officers were receiving special training not to profile people based on their skin colors. However, as many critics duly pointed out, random immigration status checks are in essence targeted towards people of color.

We spoke with M. Walter Barrientos, Program Officer at the North Star Fund, an organization supporting immigrant communities in New York. Along with his parents and sister, Barrientos left Guatemala in 1996 in pursuit of a better life. In a turn of fate, Barrientos was offered a special visa after he was attacked by a gang and collaborated with the police on the investigation. However, he told us that his parents only got their visas processed in January, 16 years after they came to the United States.

“I know first-hand how it feels to be taken apart from the group,” says Barrientos, referring to his past experiences with racial profiling. Before he obtained his visa, recent-graduate Barrientos was on a train to Chicago when immigration officers proceeded to a ‘random’ sweep. “They told me to follow them, and took everyone who wasn’t white into questioning.” Walter and the others illegals were detained in a high security prison for three days, after which he was released on a $10,000 bail. “I got lucky, I had connections,” Barrientos says. “Everyone else got deported.”

Walter Barrientos’ views on Monday’s ruling reflect the majority of the public’s opinion. While he sees it as an encouragement for future battles, he cannot bring himself to call the Court’s decision a victory.

“The Court definitely struck down some of the weaker provisions, but the one that could have the most impact was upheld,” says Barrientos. “[Show me your papers] makes it the most difficult because it breaks the trust between the community and the police.”

Walter Barrientos also expressed his concerns that police officers will increasingly double as “immigration agents.” And this is not limited to Arizona either. Not only will the Supreme Court’s ruling set a precedent for similar immigration laws to be passed in other states, but the City of New York has recently begun implementing an aggressive immigration program known as Secure Communities, which aims to reinforce cooperation between local police, the FBI and the ICE.

While the Supreme Court’s crackdown on parts of Arizona’s controversial immigration law certainly holds hope for the future, prospects largely remain gloomy and uncertain for many immigrant communities in America.

Lawmakers and tenants groups urged Gov. David Paterson to sign the illegal hotel bill the Legislature passed.

With a Saturday deadline looming for him to veto or sign the bill into law, Paterson’s spokesperson said he is reviewing the legislation.

The bill’s authors, State Sen. Liz Krueger of the East Side and Assembly Member Richard Gottfried held a rally with tenants at City Hall July 21. Nearly every West Side elected official expressed support of the legislation.

Krueger said the bill was one of the rare instances where the city, the unions, trade associations and lawmakers support the same law.

“I believe if [Paterson] reviews the research done by his own counsel and policy staff, reviews the report that was produced and memos of support by pretty much everyone who’s been involved in this issue at all, he will understand how critical it is that he signs this bill,” Krueger said.

Borough President Scott Stringer said the loophole in the law hurts New Yorkers and tourists that stay in these hostels.

“I call on Governor Paterson to quickly sign this bill to ensure that our City’s residential buildings are kept safe from these illegal uses,” Stringer said.

There has been push back from hostel operators that feel they are being targeted for making money off their buildings fairly and providing low-cost accommodations for tourists.

Gottfried, however, noted the law would give the city power to shut down the most egregious illegal hotels that rack up complaints.

“The Buildings Department concentrates on people who are really bad actors,” Gottfried said. “No one ever heard of the city going after someone for occasionally renting out their apartment to an out-of-town visitor. It’s never happened.”

Legislation to force gun manufacturers to “code” bullets fired from semi-automatic pistols was tabled after State Senate Democrats failed to muster the 32 votes necessary to pass.

Stamping would help law enforcement officials identify the make, model and serial number of the gun that fired the bullet.

Most of the State Senate Republicans were either against the legislation or uncommitted. One Republican, Frank Padavan of Queens, supported the bill while three upstate Democrats vowed to be “no” votes.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate who has donated to State Senate Republicans in the past, was a major supporter of the legislation.

After the measure was set aside, Bloomberg released a statement scolding the bill’s opponents, who felt that gun manufacturers would carry the financial burden of implementing the technology.

“This was a defeat for our police officers, district attorneys and the public – and a victory for criminals who use illegal guns to shoot and kill innocent people,” Bloomberg said in a statement.

State Sen. Eric Schneiderman, the bill’s author and an attorney general candidate, felt that the failure to pass the legislation was a setback for public safety.

“Opposing microstamping is like opposing DNA evidence or fingerprinting to solve crimes,” Schneiderman said in a statement.

State Sen. Eric Schneiderman, who chairs the committee on criminal justice matters, said the state is behind the curve on giving courts an opportunity to reverse convictions in cases without DNA evidence. Currently, state law only provides a narrow avenue to present a claim of innocence. Under this new bill, if a defendant can provide reliable and relevant proof of innocence, a criminal court could grant a “post-conviction motion.”

“This ‘actual innocence’ legislation is about justice and fairness,” said Schneiderman, who sits on a task force for wrongful convictions. “It ensures that innocent people don’t spend decades behind bars while real criminals go free.”