Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Trial Challenging Unconstitutional Conditions Inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Facilities in Arizona Ends

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2020

CONTACT
– Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
– Marcela Taracena, ACLU of Arizona, 602-773-6004, [email protected]
– Maria Frausto, American Immigration Council, 202-507-7526, [email protected]
– Matt Kovac, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, 415-543-9444, [email protected]
– Kristin Loe, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 415-268-6410, [email protected]

Trial Challenging Unconstitutional Conditions Inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Facilities in Arizona Ends

Immigration groups advocated on behalf of detained migrant men, women, and children who experienced dirty, cold, and overcrowded conditions in Border Patrol detention centers in the Tucson Sector

TUCSON — Today, a federal judge heard closing arguments in Doe v. Wolf, a lawsuit filed by the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the American Immigration Council, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015, seeks a permanent remedy to the inhumane conditions in U.S. Border Patrol detention centers in Arizona’s Tucson Sector. Evidence gathered in the case revealed cold and overcrowded conditions where there was no access to beds and limited access to soap, showers, adequate meals, and medical care.

During the course of the trial, a federal judge heard from qualified experts who testified on the inadequate medical care and severe conditions inside CBP detention centers. Another witness summarized government data that showed detention in these facilities are intended only for short-term confinement.

The judge also heard from two witnesses previously held in Tucson Sector facilities. One witness described very cold and filthy conditions and alleged she was not provided with any personal hygiene items or received any medical attention to an infected wound. She also described receiving a burrito that looked green and was past its expiration date. Another witness described inadequate medical care for her high-risk pregnancy and cells so overcrowded that she was forced to sleep on the floor next to a bathroom stall. She recounted the trouble she had moving around to get to the toilet to vomit.

“This case is about the dignity we provide to vulnerable men, women, and children seeking safety,” said Alessandra Navidad, executive director for the ACLU of Arizona. “We hope the court remedies Border Patrol’s harsh treatment of migrants and that those detained in the future are granted the humane treatment the constitution provides them.”

“Very few facts were in dispute at trial,” said Colette Reiner Mayer, trial counsel from Morrison & Foerster. “It was undisputed that although these facilities were designed for short-term detention, they are now routinely used to hold detainees for more than 72 hours. Likewise, there was no dispute that detainees are forced to sleep on the floor and are provided nothing for warmth but a thin mylar blanket. We are happy to be one step closer to ending the unconstitutional conditions in the Border Patrol’s hold rooms.”

“At trial, plaintiffs’ case revealed a systemic problem that’s been allowed to persist for far too long,” said Karolina Walters, staff attorney at the American Immigration Council. “Now that the court has all the facts and heard the arguments, we hope for a permanent remedy that will build upon the court’s earlier findings, ensure humane conditions in the Tucson Sector, and serve as an example for other CBP facilities.”

“This trial has made clear what we already knew: that CBP cannot justify the disgusting and dehumanizing conditions to which it subjects immigrants in its custody,” said Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “Our clients testified that they spent days in CBP custody with nowhere to sit or lie but on the floor in the doorway to a bathroom, that they vomited continuously without receiving medical attention, and that they spent night after night in freezing hold rooms, shivering and unable to sleep. These conditions are as senseless as they are harmful. We hope that this trial will lead to a permanent solution that brings the agency into compliance with the Constitution and guarantees humane treatment for our clients.”

“At the heart of this matter are issues of basic human dignity,” said Alvaro Huerta, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “As the judge aptly reminded the courtroom at the outset of this trial, this case is fundamentally about how we, as a country, treat people and what consequences that treatment has in their lives. We stand firmly in our belief that all people should be treated humanely and with dignity, and not detained in conditions that put their health and safety at risk.”

Immigration attorneys involved in the case held a telephonic press briefing following the trial, where they spoke on the inadequate medical care and severe conditions inside CBP detention centers. A recording of the briefing is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Doe-v-Wolf-telepressconference-2020-01-22.mp3.

# # #

Immigrant Rights Advocates and Individual Immigrants File Petition to Block Three Interrelated “Public Charge” Rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2020

CONTACT
– Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, (213) 375-3149, [email protected]
– Yatziri Tovar, Make the Road New York, (917) 771-2818, [email protected]
– Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, [email protected]
– Alejandra Lopez, The Legal Aid Society, (917) 294-9348, [email protected]

Immigrant Rights Advocates and Individual Immigrants File Petition to Block Three Interrelated “Public Charge” Rules

Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction to protect immigrants seeking green cards while litigation continues

NEW YORK, NY — Today, immigrant rights advocates filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for a preliminary injunction in Make the Road New York v. Pompeo, the first federal lawsuit seeking to jointly block three interrelated “Public Charge” rules promulgated by the Trump administration.

Attorneys from The Legal Aid Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, National Immigration Law Center, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP are litigating the case on behalf of Make the Road New York (MRNY), African Services Committee (ASC), Central American Refugee Center New York (CARECEN-NY), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Catholic Charities Community Services (CCCS), and individual plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs argue that these interrelated rules seek, independently and together, to wholly transform the United States’ longstanding family-based immigration system, which allows immigrants and their loved ones to seek a new and better life in the United States, into a system that favors the wealthy and discriminates against people of color. These radical proposed changes violate the immigration statutes and the Constitution.

“Trump’s private health insurance proclamation is a stunning and illegal attempt by the administration to rewrite immigration law behind the back of Congress,” said Center for Constitutional Rights senior attorney Ghita Schwarz. “When you add it to the unlawful public charge wealth tests, a clear picture of this administration’s goal emerges: keeping out low-income immigrants of color.”

“The injunction we are seeking today is critical in protecting millions of immigrant families who are simply pursuing a better life for themselves and their children here in the U.S.,” said Susan Welber, staff attorney in the Civil Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society. “We will not allow Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda to reshape the very fabric of this country, and [we] look forward to fighting in court on behalf of our clients and all low-income noncitizens and their families.”

“The Trump administration’s repeated unlawful attempts to restrict family-based immigration by executive mandate are already causing immediate irreparable harm. They’re denying low-and moderate-income immigrants of color equal access to legal immigration and family unity, as well as clear access to the health, food, and housing that families need in order to thrive,” said Joanna E. Cuevas Ingram, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “All three consular rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fail to explain how they would prevent harm to public health or the U.S. health care system. Experts warn that the health insurance coverage the White House proclamation requires would actually cause more people to become uninsured and underinsured, driving up uncompensated costs, jeopardizing public health, undermining the U.S. health care system, and frustrating the will of Congress.”

“The Trump administration’s public charge tests are racist and unlawful,” said Javier H. Valdés, co-executive director of Make the Road New York. “The administration’s first round of public charge rules sought to make life miserable for low-income immigrants, and this set of rules builds on that by seeking to change the composition of who can immigrate to the United States to exclude immigrants of color and low-income families. We urge the court to put a full stop to any attempts to impose these racist wealth tests on our immigration system.”

BACKGROUND

The lawsuit challenges the legality of the following three rules:

1. The Department of State’s (DOS’s) January 3, 2018, changes to the public charge provisions of its Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) governing consular processing, which led to a twelvefold increase in visa denials, largely of nonwhite immigrants.

2. The DOS October 11, 2019, Interim Final Rule, which changes the public charge regulations that pertain at the point of consular processing and would require DOS to apply the same enjoined U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “public charge” criteria to immigrants who must undergo consular processing before entering the country to unify with their parents, children, and spouses.

3. The “Presidential Proclamation Suspending the Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the Health Care System,” issued on October 4, 2019, which would bar entry to any immigrant who cannot demonstrate the ability to obtain certain types of private health insurance within 30 days of arrival.

Judge George B. Daniels recently enjoined a similar “public charge” rule (Make the Road New York v Cuccinelli) issued by DHS, which targeted low-income immigrants of color seeking to become lawful permanent residents through adjustment of status in the U.S. Last week, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s “emergency” request to stay that injunction, which is in effect nationwide, and on Monday, the Trump administration made an application to the U.S. Supreme Court to again seek a stay.

Two of the rules that advocates asked be enjoined today, both issued by DOS, concern changes to “public charge” determinations at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. The FAM changes are already in effect, and the DOS public charge rule is nearly identical to the blocked DHS rule, which redefines public charge from a person who is predominantly reliant on government aid for subsistence to include anyone that a government officer predicts is likely to use any amount, at any time in the future — even long after becoming a U.S. citizen — of various cash and noncash benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps, and federal housing subsidies.

The rules challenged today apply to immigrants who must undergo consular processing abroad, including longtime residents of the U.S. who must temporarily leave the country in order to complete the process for becoming a lawful permanent resident. Thus, though immigrants obtaining their green card from within the U.S. are not subjected to the DHS rule because it is currently enjoined, individuals who are required to complete the process through consular processing are threatened by nearly identical provisions via the DOS rule.

The lawsuit states that denials of admissions and permanent status on public charge grounds are likely to rise dramatically if the DOS public charge rule goes into effect. The FAM changes implemented in early 2018 have already caused a twelvefold increase in denials between 2016 and 2019, with disproportionate impact on immigrants from nonwhite countries. The lawsuit cites studies showing that 81 percent of the world’s population would fail to satisfy the wealth test that is a factor in the public charge determination under the DOS’s Interim Final Rule. More than 40 percent of U.S. citizens use the benefits the government seeks to penalize in its new definition of public charge.

Advocates also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking an unprecedented presidential proclamation and agency implementing actions that bar entry to immigrants who cannot demonstrate the ability to obtain certain private health insurance plans within 30 days of arrival or financial resources to pay for foreseeable medical costs, claiming, with no support, that new lawful permanent residents impose financial burdens on the U.S.’s health care system. No president has ever used the Immigration and Nationality Act’s proclamation authority to impose new immigration requirements based on domestic policy goals. Our lawsuit alleges this, too, violates the public charge statute, which requires that the government evaluate immigrants based on a totality of circumstances, not just whether they can purchase expensive private health care plans.

The impacts of the DOS public charge criteria and the health care proclamation and agency implementing actions will be particularly severe on immigrant families of color, who are more likely to be denied admission and separated as a result of this rule. For example, plaintiff Eric Doe, a U.S. citizen suffering from a chronic form of cancer requiring ongoing treatment, is sponsoring his wife, an intending immigrant from Mexico. They also reside with three of their children. As a result of the proclamation and agency implementing actions, Eric Doe could be separated from his wife upon whom he relies for care, and the children could be separated from their mother.

Plaintiff Carl Doe, a business owner from El Salvador who is the primary financial and emotional support for his U.S. citizen wife, could be barred from entry if he does not purchase highly expensive insurance that does not provide basic coverage. If he is barred, his wife will not be able to support herself through her low-wage job and may have to access supplemental public benefits as a result.

As a further consequence of these draconian policies, more immigrants and mixed–immigration status families like theirs are also more likely to refuse or cease use of benefits such as health care to which they are entitled — even benefits not impacted by the new policies. The new rules impose nonsensical requirements on immigrants and will cause needless hardship and suffering.

For more information, see www.nilc.org/make-the-road-new-york-et-al-v-pompeo-et-al/.

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (filed Jan. 21, 2020)

# # #

Know Your Power. Consider Renewing Your DACA Today (The Torch)

Know Your Power. Consider Renewing Your DACA Today

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Ignacia Rodriguez and Diana Pliego
JANUARY 17, 2020

Earlier this week, on January 13, 2020, we marked the two-year anniversary of the first injunction that reopened the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal application process. The first injunction and the injunctions that followed were results of brave decisions made by DACA recipients across the U.S. to share how the termination of DACA by the Trump administration affected them.

Thanks to their bravery, well over 600,000 people have been able to apply for renewal since the DACA renewal application process reopened. This is no small victory, and their bravery and this victory are worth keeping in mind as we continue working toward an America that honors all people and families — no exceptions.

 

As the fight continues, however, the new year brings with it a number of possible new developments and uncertainties. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision that could affect the availability of DACA renewals. For another, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could implement proposed fee hikes that would make DACA renewals less affordable. And there are new reports of delays in DACA renewal application processing times. Each of these factors is very important to DACA recipients and impacts each person’s decision about when or if to submit a renewal application.

If you’re a DACA recipient considering when or whether to renew, it can be easy to become overwhelmed. However, despite the uncertainties, you do have some measure of control in this situation. You have the power to decide whether to apply to renew your DACA. And if your DACA expires any time in 2020, we encourage you to consider submitting a renewal application soon.

As you weigh all the factors and make your decision, we urge you to make use of tools we’ve developed with partners to help you with this process:

  • Our DACA renewal calculator can help you identify when you have to submit your DACA renewal application based on the recommendation by USCIS to apply 120 to 150 days prior to your current DACA and work permit expiration date.
  • Our “FAQ: USCIS Is Accepting DACA Renewal Applications” includes the most recent information we have on DACA renewal processing. If your DACA expires in more than 150 days and you’re considering applying early, you can find a list of pros and cons to consider under “I am interested in applying to renew my DACA. Does it matter when my DACA expires or expired?” We encourage DACA recipients to review this FAQ as they consider whether and when to apply for renewal.

The choice to apply for renewal is not one you have to make alone. We recommend that DACA recipients talk to accredited legal service providers first and, if they choose to apply, to consider renewing their DACA very soon. The Supreme Court will issue its decision about DACA no later than June of this year, and it could come as early as later this month (January)

As you consider renewing your DACA, remember: we will always stand alongside immigrant youth, who are a critical part of the fight for immigrants’ rights. We are committed to reporting the latest updates and recommendations, and we encourage you to sign up to receive our emails (sign up on any page of www.nilc.org) and follow us on social media to receive real-time updates. Stay informed as we continue this fight together.

Ignacia Rodriguez is NILC’s immigration policy advocate. Diana Pliego is a NILC policy associate and a DACA recipient.

Migrant Justice Settles Discrimination Lawsuit with Vermont DMV

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2020

CONTACT
– Juan Gastelum, NILC, [email protected], 520-313-4921
– Will Lambek, Migrant Justice, [email protected], 802-321-8393
– Beth Nolan, ACLU-VT Communications Director, [email protected], 802-223-6304 x111

Migrant Justice Settles Discrimination Lawsuit with Vermont DMV

Federal case over immigration information-sharing ends

MONTPELIER, VT — Human rights organization Migrant Justice and the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles have reached a settlement in a federal antidiscrimination lawsuit. The Vermont-based farmworker group, accompanied by its legal team, announced the settlement Wednesday in a press conference in the state’s capital.

“With this settlement, the state of Vermont makes good on its promise to guarantee access to driver’s licenses without discrimination,” said Migrant Justice leader and suit plaintiff Enrique Balcazar. “Though justice delayed is justice denied for the many whose lives have been ruined by the DMV’s harmful collaboration with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], we firmly believe that this settlement will put an end to that abuse of power going forward. Vermont’s immigrant community can now safely exercise this hard-fought right.”

The case stems from the Vermont DMV’s practice of information-sharing and collaboration with federal immigration agents, particularly targeting Latino applicants. In 2013, after a campaign spearheaded by Migrant Justice, Vermont passed legislation creating a new class of driver’s license available regardless of immigration status, called “driver’s privilege cards.” Following the law’s implementation, DMV officials began routinely colluding with ICE in the immigration detention and deportation of many DMV customers, prompting one ICE agent to write to a DMV employee, “We’re going to have to make you an honorary ICE officer!”

Despite a 2016 settlement with the Vermont Human Rights Commission, the DMV continued to discriminate against applicants and share information with immigration agents. In 2017, the DMV sent to ICE the driver’s license application of community leader Enrique Balcazar, on which a DMV employee had written “Undocumented,” an act that resulted in Enrique’s subsequent detention and potential deportation. Enrique is one of many human rights leaders in Vermont who have been targeted by ICE due to their activism, a pattern detailed in the lawsuit.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Migrant Justice farmworker leaders signed the settlement agreement to end the organization’s claims against the DMV. The lengthy and detailed settlement formalizes new regulations to restrict communication and information-sharing between the state department and federal immigration agencies. Furthermore, the DMV will be prohibited from retaining copies of birth certificates, passports, and other sensitive information of applicants for driver’s privilege cards. The DMV must retrain all personnel and hire an auditor for a minimum of 18 months to ensure compliance with the agreement.

ACLU of Vermont Attorney Lia Ernst said, “Today’s settlement puts a stop to the DMV’s history of close collaboration with Border Patrol and ICE and ensures greater protections for our immigrant communities. The settlement limits what information the DMV collects and under what circumstances that information can be shared with the federal government. We know, however, that the protections our clients fought for and won are only as strong as their implementation and enforcement. That is why this settlement also includes training, transparency, and accountability measures that ensure that those protections are realized. The ACLU and our allies have long fought for the rights of immigrants in Vermont, and this detailed, far-reaching, and comprehensive settlement helps further disentangle Vermont from the Trump administration’s deportation machine.”

Under today’s settlement, Vermont has adopted strong provisions protecting drivers’ personal information from unlawful disclosure. Across the country, states are increasingly recognizing it is necessary to vigilantly safeguard the information submitted to motor vehicle agencies to ensure the success of driver’s license programs, such as Vermont’s driver privilege card, increase public and road safety, and make a state more welcoming for all who call it home.

“We strive for communities in which all of us, regardless of where we were born, have access to the tools and opportunities necessary to thrive, including the ability to drive lawfully,” said Sarah Kim Pak, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “As a country and in our local communities, we cannot allow the weaponization of essential DMV and other government services, which require the disclosure of personal information and data, to infringe upon fundamental civil rights, to instill fear, or to bring harm to our families and neighbors. With this settlement, Vermont is taking a significant step toward safeguarding the rights, information, and data privacy of all its residents. We are proud to stand alongside our courageous plaintiffs and partners who have fought to secure this important victory for all Vermonters.”

“Today’s settlement is a testament to the power of every individual to demand and achieve accountability of public actors,” said Joel Cohen, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. “We are hopeful that this agreement will serve as a model for other public agencies across the country to evaluate their information-sharing practices and adopt more robust antidiscrimination protections that ensure equal access to public services for all.”

While the portion of the case against the Vermont DMV was settled today, the case continues against ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiffs sued the federal agencies in November 2018 following an unlawful, multi-year operation to surveil, harass, arrest, and detain Migrant Justice members and leaders. Those activities were undertaken in retaliation for plaintiffs’ First Amendment–protected speech and assembly and in order to destabilize Migrant Justice and its successful organizing of Vermont’s immigrant farmworkers.

Migrant Justice is a Vermont-based human rights organization founded and led by immigrant farmworkers. The organization is a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with members Enrique Balcazar, Zully Palacios, and Victor Diaz, all of whom have been unlawfully targeted by ICE.

Plaintiffs in the suit are represented by the ACLU of Vermont, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the National Immigration Law Center, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

For more information, visit www.nilc.org/migrant-justice-et-al-v-nielsen-et-al/.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Migrant-Justice-v-Nielsen-settlement-2020-01-15.pdf.

###

Proposed Immigration Fee Increases Favor the Wealthy, Diminishing Opportunities for Asylum-Seekers and DACA Recipients (The Torch)

Proposed Immigration Fee Increases Favor the Wealthy, Diminishing Opportunities for Asylum-Seekers and DACA Recipients

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Holly Straut-Eppsteiner
DECEMBER 17, 2019

A new set of fee increases proposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the latest tactic by the Trump administration to fundamentally alter our immigration system to favor wealthy people.

Under USCIS’s proposed regulations, people fleeing violence and persecution would have to pay a fee — $50 — simply to apply for asylum. Family members of immigrants with U visas (crime survivors) would be charged $1,515 for their petitions to immigrate, a more than 500 percent increase. Fees to apply for U.S. citizenship would increase 83 percent, to $1,170, and the cost of renewing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) would increase by 55 percent, to $765. These fee increases fly in the face of longstanding policies not to charge for asylum application processing and to keep other immigration applications affordable, sending a clear message: The United States is closed to people who can’t afford to pay.

 

These fee increases could significantly harm immigrant youth with DACA. DACA doesn’t provide permanent lawful status; it must be renewed every two years. As a result, DACA recipients must continually pay the high renewal fees every two years in order to retain their work authorization and protection from being deported. Until Congress acts to provide permanent protections for this population, immigrant youth will rely on DACA, and we know that DACA allows recipients to thrive. DACA is associated with improved mobility pathways through the access it provides to higher education, better jobs, increased wages, credit, and improved financial positions. These new fees may block some recipients from being able to renew their DACA and cut off this crucial pathway to opportunity for immigrant youth and their families. In fact, past research has shown that the present cost of applying for and getting DACA already presents barriers for immigrant youth and their families.

Many young people who’ve applied for DACA come from low-income backgrounds. Research shows that DACA recipients already struggle to pay the present, lower fees, that not being able to afford the fees has delayed renewals, and that lack of affordability has prevented some people from applying or renewing at all. In addition to having to pay the fees, many DACA recipients retain paid legal assistance to submit renewal applications. We know that participation in DACA is lower in communities that have high unemployment and low levels of economic opportunity. In other words, the people who have the most to gain from DACA may be prevented from accessing its benefits because of these exorbitant fees.

Another troubling aspect of the new rule is its plan to bypass Congress and transfer more than $112 million in USCIS fees to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for detaining and deporting hundreds of thousands of migrants every year. This means that the same fees paid by DACA recipients, asylum-seekers, and other petitioners would be used to pay for enforcement against their undocumented family members. A recent survey found that more than two-thirds of DACA recipients think at least once a day about a family member being detained or deported.

Fortunately, this rule is not yet in effect, and there’s still time to try to prevent it from taking effect. As part of the federal rulemaking process, USCIS must take into consideration the voices of concerned individuals who submit public comments through its portal. You can submit a comment through December 30 on the Regulations.gov website.

Holly Straut-Eppsteiner is NILC’s Mellon/ACLS Public Fellow and research program manager.

Spending Compromise Hurts Immigrant Communities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2019

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, [email protected], 202-805-0375

Spending Compromise Hurts Immigrant Communities

WASHINGTON, DC — Ahead of the vote in the House of Representatives on a governmentwide spending bill, Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The final U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bill will ultimately allow this administration to continue to inflict widespread harm on immigrant communities and flagrantly abuse its power right under Congress’s nose. We applaud the work of our Defund Hate coalition partners and members of Congress who fought to ensure that the bill did not concede to more of President Trump’s wish list.

“Unfortunately, because the bill gives the administration continued permission to transfer funds however it chooses, this makes any attempts to set limits on the number of people in detention and the amount of funds spent on a border wall meaningless. While the bill tries to mitigate some of this harm by including important oversight provisions, it ultimately does shamefully little to outweigh the dangers of Congress writing a blank check to DHS.

“The fact that House Democrats are poised to pass articles of impeachment based partially on this president’s abuse of authority makes it even harder to accept that they would consider a DHS spending bill that they know will invite more abuse of authority.

“Congress is meant to serve as a check on government spending — to ensure that the executive and his cabinet don’t misuse funds on pet projects or an agenda that is out of sync with our values. But this deal weakens our system of separate and coequal branches of government and opens up the country’s bank account so that Trump can abuse taxpayer dollars however he likes in order to fulfill his racist agenda — which includes a wasteful and xenophobic border wall and locking up immigrants in horrific detention conditions that have resulted in record numbers of deaths.

“This deal tacitly signals that Congress has conceded to the wall and to locking up record numbers of immigrants. Anyone committed to ending this administration’s abusive policies and practices must vote no on this bill.”

###

New Jersey To Join Growing Number of States Extending Access to Driver’s Licenses for All Residents

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2019

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, [email protected], 202-805-0375

New Jersey to Join Growing Number of States Extending Access to Driver’s Licenses for All Residents

New Jersey is the 15th state to pass legislation extending access to driver’s licenses to all residents, regardless of immigration status

TRENTON, NJ — The New Jersey State Legislature voted today to pass critical legislation that expands access to driver’s licenses to all residents who are otherwise eligible, regardless of immigration status. Once the governor signs the legislation into law, it is estimated that 500,000 more New Jersey residents will now be newly eligible to drive with a license.

This major policy victory for immigrant families in New Jersey comes the same week that New York’s Green Light Law goes into effect, expanding access to driver’s licenses in that state regardless of citizenship or immigration status, and just a few months after Oregon passed similar legislation. New Jersey is the 15th state to pass licenses-for-all legislation. With the bill’s passage, most immigrants in the United States will now live in a state that issues licenses to all, regardless of immigration status

“This victory is life-changing for hundreds of thousands of immigrant families throughout the state of New Jersey who will now have the opportunity to live more freely and fully in their communities,” said Jackie Vimo, NILC economic justice policy analyst. “Access to driver’s licenses has long been a core ask from immigrant communities. For everyday working families, a driver’s license is more than just about any other document — it means they are able to drive to work, take their kids to school, visit the doctor, go to church, all without the added fear that a broken tail light might lead to deportation. Today’s win is another milestone in a growing movement to advance policies that allow immigrants to live more fully in their communities throughout New Jersey and across the country.”

“I am in awe of the power of immigrant communities here in New Jersey. We launched the Let’s Drive New Jersey campaign in January 2018, building on the progress and infrastructure we had built during the years before. It has been a long fight to achieve this victory,” said Johanna Calle, director of the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice.  “We couldn’t have done this without the support of our partners and advocates across the country. Every time one state wins, another state gets closer and closer — and that’s really what these fights are about. I’m proud that New Jersey will be joining the other 14 states across the country that have passed this groundbreaking legislation, and I’m excited for what this means for our fight going forward.”

The NILC Winning in the States initiative aims to tangibly improve the lives of immigrants in the communities where they live and to help change the national narrative around immigration. NILC is investing in building power in these communities to accelerate the progress being made. We are creating a structure for advocates across the country to share resources and support each other so that, together, we can ensure that every immigrant living in the United States can feel safe and supported in their community. Learn more: https://www.winninginthestates.org

###

Appeals Court Ruling Reckless, Advocates Warn

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2019

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, NILC, 202-805-0375, [email protected]
Beverly Quintana, AAPCHO, 510-500-5944, [email protected]

Appeals Court Ruling Reckless, Advocates Warn

WASHINGTON, DC — A federal appeals court Monday lifted the second of four court orders blocking implementation of the Trump administration’s public charge regulations, which threaten the health, nutrition, and housing of millions of families. Yesterday’s order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit follows last week’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit lifting another injunction.

One nationwide injunction remains in place, keeping the rule blocked for now. The administration has asked the Second Circuit to lift that order, and it has asked the Seventh Circuit to lift the remaining, more limited injunction in place in that circuit, which would allow the administration to implement the regulations.

“Just this past October, courts across the country blocked this devastating regulation from harming families, and for good reason: it is both legally and morally bankrupt. As a lawyer, and as an immigrant, I am deeply disappointed,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “Although this is a difficult day for the legal battle, the public charge regulation remains blocked and the fight to protect immigrant families is far from over. We will continue to fight — both in the courtroom and along with our communities — for dignity for all.”

“The public charge regulations are about telling immigrant families that if you’re not white and you’re not wealthy, you’re not welcome — that means it’s against the law,” Hincapié said. “We will continue to fight Trump’s effort to redefine who is considered worthy of being an American and what we look like as a nation. We won’t stop until we win and all families have the opportunity to live healthy lives and thrive.”

The public charge regulations were finalized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in August, despite receiving a record-breaking 266,000 public comments, the overwhelming majority of which opposed the proposed changes to the regulations. The regulations represent a drastic departure from how the public charge test was previously administered, and they were opposed by experts who predicted that they’d result in large-scale increases in poverty, hunger, and unmet health and housing needs.

Since then, the regulations have already done considerable harm. In addition to the first uptick in America’s child uninsured rate in more than a decade, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported last month that about half of community health centers reported people declining or cancelling coverage because of the public charge regulations. Anecdotal accounts nationwide suggest similar harm with respect to anti-hunger programs. Experts expect the fear resulting from the appellate rulings will deepen the chilling effect.

“By fueling fears, as families all over our country gather together for the holidays, this reckless order puts the food, medical care, and homes of millions at risk,” said Jeffrey Caballero, executive director of the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO) and a member of the Protecting Immigrant Families Campaign steering committee. “The regulation itself directly affects only a small number of people, but the Trump administration is counting on fear to amplify the harm. Don’t let Trump win — fight fear with facts and make the best decision to protect your family. Then keep fighting, by making sure you’re counted in the 2020 census and, for the millions of U.S. citizens in immigrant families, by registering to vote and to turning out on election day.”

###

Stakes Are Huge for Hundreds of Thousands and Their Communities after Today’s Supreme Court Argument (The Torch)

Stakes Are Huge for Hundreds of Thousands and Their Communities after Today’s Supreme Court Argument

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Trudy Rebert
NOVEMBER 12, 2019

Departing the U.S. Supreme Court into a cold fall day, dozens of people whose lives are in the balance — plaintiffs, their mothers, and other Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients — emerged from today’s oral argument with their arms linked and raised. There, at the top of the long bank of marble steps, they paused before a sea of young people below who were waving signs and cheering to welcome them out of the courthouse. Their departure from the courthouse today was a reminder of the organizing, courage, and fight for inclusion that led to the creation of DACA in 2012, as well as of what’s at stake before the nine justices inside the courthouse.

DACA recipients and others who attended oral argument are greeted by friends and supporters on the Supreme Court’s steps.

Formally, today’s argument addressed two legal questions: (1) whether courts can even review the government’s decision to terminate DACA, a policy that had been in place since 2012, and (2) whether the Trump administration engaged in reasoned decision-making when it decided to terminate DACA (in nonlawyer terms, whether the administration properly “showed its work” or, instead, ended DACA arbitrarily).

But in practical terms, the daily lives of close to 700,000 young people — teachers, parents, medical professionals, neighbors — and the health and welfare of the communities they call home are at stake. Individuals like our plaintiffs Eliana Fernández, a community organizer with Make the Road New York who lives on Long Island with her two U.S. citizen children, and Martín Batalla Vidal, who lives in Queens, New York, and is finishing his college degree while working as a certified nursing assistant caring for people with traumatic brain injuries. Eliana and Martín, along with the plaintiffs in the eight other lawsuits currently before the Court, challenged the administration’s termination of DACA in September 2017.

DACA, first announced in 2012, has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people who grew up and went to school in the U.S. — who are integral members of their many communities — to come forward, declare themselves to the government, and in return receive work authorization and a measure of protection from deportation. DACA is consistent with a long history of deferred action programs enacted by administrations of both parties dating back to the Eisenhower era.

The vast majority of Americans support DACA recipients and their place in our national community. A recent poll showed that 83 percent approve of allowing DACA recipients to become U.S. citizens, meaning that Americans agree more about DACA recipients than just about anything else. This was also evident in the huge outpouring of supporting briefs filed with the Court before today’s hearing, including support from national security experts, many large corporations, medical schools, the Catholic Church, law enforcement, and more. As Justice Stephen Breyer noted from the bench today, 66 medical associations, 210 educational institutions, 3 home builders, 109 municipalities and cities,129 religious organizations, 145 businesses — and more — identified countless different reliance interests in DACA.

The lawyers presented detailed legal arguments about reviewability and the Administrative Procedure Act today, but what it comes down to is quite simple: The Court is also being asked to decide what government accountability means in our democracy. Should the government be able to hide behind legal reasons for ending DACA to avoid having to face the political consequences of ending a popular policy — even if the legal reasons it relies on are unexplained and directly conflict with an existing legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel? As Justice Sotomayor noted, “[T]his is not about the law; this is about [the] choice to destroy lives.”

Prior to the Trump administration’s termination of DACA, the president assured the public that DACA recipients would be treated with “great heart,” yet after receiving a letter from the attorney general on September 4, 2017, the then–acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) abruptly ended the program, writing that she had no choice but to end DACA because it is unlawful.

But through documents obtained as a result of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation that the National Immigration Law Center filed on behalf of Make the Road New York and Make the Road Connecticut, we know that the decision to terminate DACA was actually made at a meeting in the White House on August 24, 2017. There the administration hatched a plan to have the U.S. Department of Justice send DHS a letter “outlining the legal reasons that the DACA program is unlawful,” for DHS to draft a memorandum to terminate DACA, and for the administration to develop a list of legislative items that the president would trade to protect DACA recipients. Even Newt Gingrich warned that such a strategy risked sending a signal that the administration was dehumanizing DACA recipients as a “bargaining chip.” The Trump administration also reportedly considered terminating DACA by having the president issue an executive order, but abandoned that path.

DACA recipients around the country hope that the Supreme Court will see through the administration’s unreasoned decision-making and attempts to shirk responsibility for an unpopular political decision. Their lives and families depend on it. We have strong arguments that court after court have agreed with, U.S. district courts from California to New York to Maryland to DC. But whatever happens when the Court issues its opinion sometime between January and June, we will continue fighting alongside immigrant youth as they courageously lead the immigrant justice movement, fighting for inclusion and recognition and for the future of our country.

Trudy Rebert is a NILC staff attorney.

How the Trump Deportation Machine Relies on Inaccurate Databases and Unregulated Data Collection (The Torch)

How the Trump Deportation Machine Relies on Inaccurate Databases and Unregulated Data Collection

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Joan Friedland
NOVEMBER 1, 2019

In a groundbreaking decision, a U.S. district court in California recently concluded that the immigration databases U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on are too unreliable to form the basis for probable cause to issue “detainers” (administrative arrest warrants) against people whom ICE seeks to detain. The court reviewed multiple immigration and criminal justice databases, finding that “[t]he databases on which ICE relies for information on citizenship and immigration status often contain incomplete data, significant errors, or were not designed to provide information that would be used to determine a person’s removability.”

Operating without accountability, these same databases play a major role not only in ICE enforcement decisions, but also in decisions made by other U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials about immigration applications, etc. In addition, to populate its databases DHS increasingly relies on unregulated private companies that sweep up vast quantities of unvetted data. This information is used to surveil immigrants and expand the Trump administration’s deportation machine.

According to a recent New York Times Magazine article, DHS contracted with Thomson Reuters, the Canada-based multinational media company, to use its Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR) service to target immigrants. The Times says that “CLEAR is powered by personal information: data from credit agencies, cellphone registries, social-media posts, property records, utility accounts, fishing licenses, internet chat rooms and bankruptcy filings, all fused and vetted by algorithm to form an ever-evolving, 360-degree view of U.S. residents’ lives.”

Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash

License plate–reader data from a company called Vigilant Solutions are also integrated into CLEAR and used for immigration enforcement. License plate readers are cameras that take pictures of passing cars indiscriminately, recording license plates and date and time of capture. Vigilant Solutions also collects data from local law enforcement agencies and private companies. ICE can query the database for current and historical information that documents a license plate’s movements over the past five years.

ICE also has a contract with Thomson Reuters “for subscription data services” that allow “continuous access to commercial database aggregators and real time jail booking databases.” An ICE notice about the contract makes clear that the system must obtain these types of data: “FBI numbers; State Identification Numbers; real time jail booking data; credit history; insurance claims; phone number account information; wireless phone accounts; wire transfer data; driver’s license information; vehicle registration information; property information; pay day loan information; public court records; incarceration data; employment address data; Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) data; and employer records.”

ICE also uses information technology systems and law enforcement management tools created by another for-profit company, Palantir, such as the company’s Investigative Case Management (ICM) and FALCON Search & Analysis (FALCON-SA). According to The Intercept, ICM enables ICE to obtain access to a vast “ecosystem” of data to use in deportation cases.

The vast range of unregulated information available to DHS through these private companies is troubling. Access to Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) data is of particular concern, as federal law generally protects tax-filing information from being disclosed. ITINs, which are issued so people can file tax returns and use banking services, are available to individuals who are not eligible for a Social Security number. The inclusion of ITIN data in the information harvested by these companies raises questions about how they obtain the data.

Data brokers play a significant role in feeding information into other databases and systems. DHS has access to driver’s license databases through state criminal justice networks, a state-owned nonprofit called Nlets, and specific state networks such as, until recently, Washington State’s Driver and Plate Search (DAPS) database. But it also has access to driver’s license and vehicle information through data brokers, who can buy information from states. As reported by the New York Times Magazine, “[I]n 2017, [Washington’s Department of Licensing] earned $26,371,232 selling driver and vehicle records to 19 principal data brokers, including Experian, LexisNexis and R.L. Polk — a group of companies that had its own relationships with some 34,500 ‘subrecipient’ brokers, including TransUnion, Acxiom and Thomson Reuters” (emphasis added).

So even as states limit access to driver’s license data through their own networks, they must be mindful of the data that brokers are buying from them, which can then be used by DHS for immigration enforcement.

In an early executive order, the Trump administration reversed DHS policy that had applied Privacy Act protections to all persons whose information is in a database or system that includes U.S. citizens and noncitizens with various immigration statuses. Instead, it would protect only citizens and lawful permanent residents. In addition, DHS generally exempts its own records systems from Privacy Act protections, including those systems that rely on information from outside the agency.

The commercial databases that DHS relies on are even more unregulated and shielded from public scrutiny than DHS databases. As private entities, these companies’ practices are not necessarily subject to the Privacy Act, which “governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies,” or by the Freedom of Information Act’s disclosure requirements.

The Trump administration continuously vets and monitors immigrants via these data-gathering and surveillance systems. This practice certainly harms noncitizens and undermines their rights, but it also undermines U.S. citizens’ privacy rights, because the surveillance systems indiscriminately sweep up and store information about all of us. The government and its vendors must be held accountable for this unfettered access to our personal information.

Joan Friedland is a NILC consultant and the primary author of our report “Untangling the Immigration Enforcement Web: Basic Information for Advocates about Databases and Information-Sharing Among Federal, State, and Local Agencies.” She formerly was a managing attorney at NILC.