ILNews

At new immigration clinic, 'We're all family'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At its most basic level, Lafayette Urban Ministry's immigration services clinic is about family.

That notion was in the forefront of Jefferson High School senior Devon Wolfe's mind as he designed the logo for the newly launched clinic.

"The real motivation behind such immigration ... is it's more of a process about becoming family," Wolfe told the Journal & Courier. "As humans in such a big world, you really tend to lose touch, and then you look around and you realize we're all family. We're all here to help each other."

Last month, the Journal & Courier profiled the clinic when it received accreditation from the U.S. Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals.

Since then, the clinic has operated quietly, until Tuesday. That's the day LUM officials and supporters gathered for a grand opening — the first push to announce the clinic's services to the general public.

"We understand that those who are immigrants have a special bureaucratic challenge that many other travelers don't have," said Joe Micon, executive director. "Navigating that system takes an awful lot of knowledge, expertise and energy."

Under the leadership of program director Susan Brouillette, the clinic will provide confidential legal support to immigrant families. That includes determining eligibility for immigration benefits and connecting clients with other services, such as English classes or civics lessons.

That service will be offered on a sliding fee scale.

Brouillette spent 26 years working for former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, who dealt extensively with immigration issues.

"There are such a few number of clinics," Brouillette said. "People may be eligible for benefits and don't even know that they are. Or they don't even know there's help here, or maybe they're being stopped because they don't have the funds to go through the process."

The Census Bureau estimates there are 13,127 foreign-born residents in Tippecanoe County — about 8 percent of the total population — who are not U.S. citizens.

One of them is Diana Michel, 21, who was born in Mexico. Michel said she could have used LUM's immigration services clinic two years ago when she was preparing her deferred action application to gain temporary permission to remain in the U.S.

She faced more than $800 in application and attorney fees. Now a LUM volunteer, Michel wishes she'd had such a clinic to walk her through the process.

"It was very nerve-wracking," Michel said.

With the clinic, "they're giving you assurance, giving you the confidence to do things. If you have any doubt that you're going to be deported, or you're not doing something right, she has the knowledge — rather than somebody just getting things off the Internet."

Zach Szmara, a pastor of The Bridge Community Church, said his church opened a similar clinic four months ago in Logansport. The first clients, he said, were from Lafayette.

"I am just so excited (that) we can tell clients from Lafayette, 'Hey, there is a great clinic serving your needs right here in Lafayette,' " Szmara said.

Even with the new Lafayette clinic, there is more work to be done across the state and country, Szmara said. More than 300,000 immigrants are in Indiana.

"There are only 15 accredited legal representatives in the state of Indiana at 12 different sites," Szmara said. "If we all did a full caseload, it would take us 56 years to meet the need."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT