Archive for the ‘Immigration Issues’ Category:
On Feb 10, 2013, we held a Symposium in Austin to find a cure to our state’s addiction to mass-incarceration. We learned from the best and most experienced: folks at the grassroots level, from the ACLU of Texas professionals who deal with the Texas Legislature every day and from an ACLU professional who has won victories in Florida, a state not unlike ours. Listen to what they think needs to happen in Texas.
Hope and Naz Mustakim | One Couple’s Battle Within a Broken Immigration System
Howard Simon | Using Electronic Communications to Enact Social Change
Panel Discussion| Key Policies to Focus on in 2013
ACLU of Texas | 75 years of protecting your liberty
Mass-incarceration is not the answer to all of our social problems like drug addiction or undocumented immigration, yet our country spends billions to lock people up instead of investing in real solutions. Want to help us end mass-incarceration in Texas? Be our eyes and ears in your part of the state when you join the Community Action Network. We need people like you to stand with us. Together we can make a difference.
Geoffrey A. Hoffman
Clinical Associate Professor, Director, University of Houston Immigration Clinic
Recently, CNN commentator and British citizen Piers Morgan has been the subject of a White House petition to deport him. The cascade of petitioners, now numbering more than 100,000, is troubling. A person’s exercise of free speech is not something that should lead to a threat of deportation. More than that, a non-citizen may not be deported based merely upon the desires of 10,000, 100,000, or even a million angry petitioners. Deportation may only be based on some valid, legal basis.
As a non-citizen lawfully present in the U.S., Mr. Morgan is entitled to due process, a point which may surprise many. Due process means he has to be served with notice in a particular way and be advised of the ground of removal. He is entitled to present evidence, witnesses in his defense, and argue for relief from removal if any exist.
What does calling for someone’s “deportation” – even a deportation with no valid basis- say about us as a nation? The First Amendment protects even probing foreign journalists and especially dissenters. Calling for one’s expulsion at a time of tragedy is one way to discipline those who profess unpopular ideas. Focusing on a non-citizen’s opinions in especially pernicious because it does two things: it seeks to expel the offending person’s views from the marketplace of ideas, but also, more importantly, shifts discussion away from the truly important issues underlying the tragedy in Connecticut: gun control. There is no valid ground for deportation which exists against Mr. Morgan. It is interesting that the voices which have now coalesced in support of his deportation have succumbed to a false assumption: that the federal government can be persuaded to exercise its extraordinary power to rid the polity of someone who has said something controversial or at odds with a special-interest group. This assumption is unsound.
The exercise of the federal deportation power which is the exclusive province of Congress and the executive branch in such a manner would be tantamount to unlawful and discriminatory “selective prosecution.” In a famous case, Reno v. AADC, 525 U.S. 471 (1999), the Supreme Court has stated that although there may be no Constitutional right to bring a selective prosecution case in the immigration context, the door was left open to such a claim where the basis for the alleged discrimination is “outrageous.” In this case, to enforce the immigration laws against Mr. Morgan for the exercise of his free speech rights would be “outrageous” in the way conceived of by Justice Scalia in his opinion in Reno v. AADC.
It concerns me deeply that as a polity we can envision the use of deportation in such a way with little analysis about the misuse of such power and no appreciation of the effects that such a proposed use would have on other parts of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment should not be trampled upon because the federal government has been imbued with other equally important powers, such as those over immigration and foreign affairs. To go down this road is dangerous and corrosive. While Mr. Morgan, a journalist and CNN celebrity, may not be fazed, all our rights are diminished if free speech can be subjected to the chilling effects of threatened deportation against those among us who espouse controversial or dissenting views.
By Gislaine Williams, ACLU of Texas Outreach Coordinator
We are fast approaching the start of the 2013 Texas legislative session. Starting January 8 through the end of May, Texas lawmakers will meet in Austin for the 83rd Legislature. They will be proposing, debating, and passing laws that will impact all of us.
As Texans, we have the right and responsibility to be a part of this political process. You can make a difference by raising your voice to demand policies that will make a positive change in our communities. Learn how to become a grassroots activist at Community Watchdog TX.
The first step is to educate yourself. Become familiar with the major issues in Texas. Learn about the legislative process and get to know your representatives. Our toolkits provide you an overview of the critical issues facing our state:
- Criminal Justice TX: Learn about mass incarceration, the rise of for-profit prisons, and the death penalty.
- Educate, Don’t Incarcerate: An overview of school discipline policies pushing students out of school.
- Religious Freedom: A look at how our religious freedoms are threatened in Texas.
- Immigrants’ Rights: Find out how we’re working to reclaim the civil rights of all Texans, regardless of immigration status.
- Find out who your representatives are here.
- Learn how a bill becomes a law here.
Contact your legislator. There are a number of ways you can contact your representative about an issue. You can write a letter, telephone, or set-up a meeting in the local district office. Use our lobbying guides to learn how.
Ready to meet with your legislator? We can help you schedule and prepare for your local meeting. Just email email@example.com to get started.
Lobby with us in Austin! The ACLU of Texas will host our first ever Symposium & Lobby Day in Austin Feb. 10-11. On Feb. 10, you will hear from advocates and policy experts working on criminal justice and immigrants’ rights issues. The following day we will go to the state capitol to meet with representatives to talk to them about the major civil liberties issues in our state. Sign-up today to receive more information.
Stay involved. Join the Community Action Network to get updates on ways you can advocate for change this legislative session.
By Adriana Pinon
The October 25th shooting of two Guatemalan immigrants by a DPS sharpshooter triggered a firestorm of criticism from various organizations and public officials. For the past month, the public has been trying to understand the details of this tragedy and whether the policy that allowed it should be revised. This piece, written by Geoffrey A. Hoffman, an Associate Professor at the University of Houston Law Center, analyzes the legality of the shooting astutely and accessibly.
By Vicki B. Gaubeca, ACLU of New Mexico and Krystal Gómez, ACLU of Texas
A year ago this week , a young woman working with the ACLU of New Mexico arrived at the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) offices at the Ysleta-Zaragoza port of entry in El Paso/Ciudad Juárez. She was there to meet with a New Mexico State Police sergeant investigating her allegations of sexual assault by a Border Patrol agent that occurred while she was detained at a fixed checkpoint in NM. The meeting had been arranged in advance with CBP officials at the port of entry by the NM State Police, and CBP was made aware of the nature of the meeting.
What happened next frightened the young woman so much that she dropped the investigation. This story, along with other stories of CBP abuse, will be featured tonight in a PBS special report on the program Need to Know. (Please see local listings for air times.)
This case is only one of many stories of abuse and impunity at the hands of CBP officers. The ACLU recently documented eleven cases of abuse at official ports of entry in a letter to the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The cases come from ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, and most involve U.S. citizens. The letter calls for an investigation into the cases and increased oversight of DHS Customs and Border Protection, an agency that has swelled in size to become the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country.
This PBS Need to Know documentary is the second installment in the series, “Crossing the Line,” that aired April 20 and focused on deaths and serious injuries caused by CBP officials. The April 20th segment told the story of Anastasio Hernandez-Rojas, a 42-year-old father of five who, in May 2010, died after a group of CBP officers beat him and shocked him with tasers at the San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego. Live videotape of the beating shows bystanders calling on the officers to stop beating Hernandez-Rojas, hogtied and lying prostrate on the ground, as he screamed in pain and pled for his life.
On July 24-26, 2012, a delegation that includes members from ACLU-San Diego and Imperial Counties, ACLU-New Mexico and ACLU-Texas will travel to Washington, D.C., to meet with White House staff members, top officials at DHS and CBP, and congressional members to demand more accountability and oversight of Border Patrol agents.
Congress should create an external, independent oversight commission with investigatory, auditing, and subpoena power to respond to complaints from whistleblowers and the general public about CBP abuses, while protecting the identity and status of complainants. The oversight commission, which should include non-governmental organizations among its members, should be required to issue public reports on its activity and have the authority to make legislative, regulatory, or policy recommendations.
The time has come to create a mechanism for holding CBP accountable and to check the rising trend of abuse and deaths.
Elizabeth, native born, was subjected to the kind of racial profiling – discrimination based on skin color or accent — that civil rights leaders predict will be widespread when law officers enforce the “show me your papers” law.
Watch the ugly situation that never should have gone beyond a difference in taste for regional cuisine.
Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube’s privacy statement on their website and Google’s privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of Texas’ privacy statement, click here.
Stand with the ACLU of Texas: Racial profiling is un-American. It violates the Constitution and the principles America stands for. We will fight to prevent laws like Arizona’s from being passed in Texas. And we will respond when towns like Farmers Branch pass ordinances that discriminate. Celebrate freedom this Fourth of July by joining the ACLU of Texas Community Action Network (CAN) to help us hold the line against these bad laws in Texas.
By Olga Medina
Summer Legal Intern
Today, in a memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would halt the deportation of immigrant youth. In effect, young immigrants who would otherwise qualify for the DREAM Act will receive deferred action for two years (subject to renewal) and become eligible for work authorization upon the satisfaction of certain requirements. The memo authorizes the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in cases involving immigrant youth, regardless of whether or not an individual is in removal proceedings.
The announcement comes on the 30th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe, which declared that immigrant and citizen children alike should have equal access to public education. Today’s announcement is a significant step forward for immigrants who were brought to the country at a very young age, have grown up in American society, and have obtained a public education under Plyler. The announcement is a testament to the work of young activists and their allies who have advanced their cause and builds momentum for necessary policy changes in our immigration policies.
By Olga Medina
Summer Legal Intern
Tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, which declared that immigrant and citizen children alike should have equal access to public education. The effect of the Court’s decision was especially pronounced in Texas. The case followed passage of a state law that denied school districts funding for the education of undocumented students and authorized charging tuition based on a child’s immigration status. Justice Brennan articulated the Court’s reasoning: “By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.” In effect, the Court reinforced the idea that principles of fairness, rather than one’s identity, should dictate educational access.
Thirty years after Plyler, immigrant students continue to confront obstacles that impede their full contribution to their communities and society. Texas remains a battleground. Although it was the first state in the nation to offer in-state tuition rates to undocumented students, efforts to repeal the law persist. Even students who manage to obtain higher education often are unable to apply their skills and knowledge because of the roadblocks they face due to their immigration status. These circumstances call for consideration of comprehensive immigration reform and enacting measures such as the DREAM Act, legislation that would establish a path to legal status for immigrant youth who pursue higher education or complete military service. As of 2008, there were an estimated 258,000 potential DREAM Act beneficiaries in Texas.
While Plyler had a major impact on the ability of immigrant students to obtain an education, significant challenges continue to prevent them from becoming full members of society. Addressing these challenges will be critical to ensuring that these youth can contribute to our nation’s progress, as envisioned by Justice Brennan, and ensuring that Plyler’s promise is fulfilled.
For more information, visit DreamActivist.org.
By Daniel Collins
Summer Policy Intern
Last week, the Washington D.C. Council announced they would refuse to comply with the federal Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) controversial “Secure Communities” deportation program (“S-Comm”). The program, under which ICE requests local law enforcement agencies detain arrested individuals with questionable immigration status so they may be taken into custody by ICE, is an open invitation to racial profiling, undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and has led to the deportation of more than a million people, many arrested for low-level, non-violent offenses.
The nation’s capital joins a growing list of jurisdictions declining to participate in the federal government’s deportation dragnet. Unfortunately, that trend has yet to reach Texas. In fact, Austin—thought by many to be the Lone Star State’s most progressive city—deports more persons for low-level offenses than almost any other U.S. city!
One important fact: The decision to honor an ICE detainer request is completely discretionary. In fact, under federal law such detainers must be voluntary and local governments risk being sued if they detain someone mistakenly or for too long. Furthermore, local police have no business acting as de facto ICE agents. Ultimately, S-Comm drives a wedge between local police and their communities by making undocumented community members afraid to report a crime for fear of being deported. There simply is nothing “secure” about that.
The law that just passed in Washington D.C. will instruct local police to only comply with detention requests for those over 18 who have been convicted of a dangerous crime. Other jurisdictions like Milwaukee have enacted similar laws. Other counties have taken more aggressive measures to keep S-Comm out of their communities. Some, for example, have required ICE to reimburse local government for any costs of complying with a detainer, while others have simply ignored all of ICE’s requests.
So why in Texas do Travis County Jail officials honor every detainer from ICE? Why is it that twice as many of the more than 2,000 total people deported from Travis County were arrested for only a misdemeanor offense? Sheriff Greg Hamilton still believes the detainer requests are mandatory, despite ICE guidance and legal interpretation to the contrary. He also argues that ICE detainers should be complied with because released persons might possibly commit violent crimes. This argument simply cannot justify denying arrestees due process rights, or holding them without proof of crime.
In Austin, a coalition of local civil and human rights groups have called on city and county government to end compliance with S-Comm detainers. Only with community support may it be ensured that Austin truly is a secure community for all residents.
By Kali Cohn
Summer Legal Intern
Two weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder signed the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)’s implementation regulations, which set forth detailed processes for sex abuse prevention, detection, and response to criminals in federal prison. These critical regulations come on the heels of the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s recent study surveying prison inmates about sexual violence, where 1 in 10 inmates identified themselves as victims of sex abuse while serving time. Albeit much overdue, the PREA regulations represent an important step in addressing sex abuse during confinement.
There’s just one problem: PREA doesn’t cover immigrant detainees.
PREA only covers DOJ criminal facilities. Since immigrant detainees haven’t committed a criminal offense, they’re detained in DHS and other civil facilities exempt from PREA regulations. (The ACLU of Texas recently filed a federal class-action damages lawsuit on behalf of three immigrant women who came to the United States seeking a safe harbor from violence and persecution in their home countries – read about it here). To address the problem, the Obama administration issued a memo on May 17 asking all PREA-exempt federal confinement facilities to create procedures in line with PREA. The memo is a glimmer of hope in the face of continued sexual abuse against immigrant detainees in federal custody.
But there’s bad news: President Obama’s requirements are just that – Obama’s requirements. Since they’re not congressionally mandated, they aren’t law. That leaves no guarantee that the President’s requirements will be lasting or meaningfully enforced – especially after a change in administration.
Even worse: the federal agencies running the facilities, like DHS, have 360 days before they have to finalize any plans – a time-period that jeopardizes the provisions of the order, given the possibility that Obama may not be re-elected.
This bad news is especially troubling given the DHS’s own inability to implement meaningful internal practices to prevent sex abuse in ICE facilities.
All the while, sex abuse against detainees – including asylum seekers – continues to run rampant.
In fact, between 2007 and mid-2011, nearly 200 allegations of sexual abuse came from immigrant detainees in facilities across the US – a number that most consider just the tip of the iceberg, given the widespread underreporting of sex abuse, especially by detainees.
So yet again, we’re waiting another year to see if there will be actual government protection of immigrants in detention against sex abuse.