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 New Mexico. 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.
As the immigration debate continues across Arizona, most pragmatic people seem to agree on a few undeniable facts: racial profiling is illegal. Stopping a motorist for no reason other than their skin color is wrong. Terrorizing American citizens under the guise of immigration enforcement is intolerable.
This week, a class action lawsuit brought by the victims of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling practices will get underway. These proceedings will hopefully change the way Arpaio runs the Sheriff’s Office and prevent future instances of discrimination. Among our goals: helping deputies return to pursuing outstanding felony warrants and child rape cases that have been ignored for years, rather than being forced to detain law-abiding citizens for “traffic violations.”
By Chris Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 12:24pm
Leading yesterday’s New York Times op-ed page is a column by Bill Keller, Show Me Your Papers. It supports the faulty claim that we can solve our nation’s immigration woes if we just create a national ID system, and it specifically lauds a 2010 proposal by Sens. Schumer and Graham to create a biometric social security card that would function as a national ID for every American.
The highest court in the land has had its say. Politicians and media pundits have had their news cycle. And in Arizona, we’re back to where this all begins and ends—where the resolve of people across the state will again be tested in the coming weeks and months as the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070 is implemented.
In Arizona, part of that resolve requires simply sorting out the facts. In their zeal to claim victory, Gov. Jan Brewer and others in Arizona have incorrectly announced that SB 1070 would take effect immediately. Inaccurate statements such as these are irresponsible and muddy the already dark waters. Yesterday, civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Arizona, sent a letter to the attorneys representing Gov. Brewer and other defendants in the Friendly House v Whitingcase, explaining that the court order forbidding implementation of SB 1070's racial profiling provision, Section 2(B), remains in place unless and until it is modified by a further order from a federal court. Until that time, no law enforcement agency in Arizona should implement Section 2(B).
By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 6:05pm
The Supreme Court handed down a mixed decision Monday for Arizona and the handful of states that have copied its anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Striking down three of the four provisions at issue in Arizona v. United States, the Justices affirmed the federal government’s exclusive role in enforcing immigration law. On the one hand, the Court delivered a significant rebuke to legislators who tried to make being an undocumented immigrant a crime. But on the other hand, the Court let stand the discriminatory “show me your papers” provision, or Section 2(B). And while it’s true that the Court sent a warning that Section 2(B) could still be ruled unconstitutional based on pending challenges (by the ACLU and other civil rights groups) focused more directly on racial profiling and prolonged detention, it nevertheless has thrown Arizona and other states into chaos by reversing the lower courts’ decision to block the “show me your papers” law. Arizona officials immediately announced that they would begin enforcing Section 2(B), even though the Supreme Court’s ruling does not immediately lift the order blocking. The Court’s decision now sends the case back to the lower district court in Arizona for further proceedings.
On Monday, the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States struck down three provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 racial profiling law, but reinstated, for now, the most controversial provision, which requires Arizona police officers to demand the immigration papers of anyone they stop, arrest, or detain. S.B. 1070 makes racial profiling Arizona state policy. When a police officer asks for papers, it’s based on bias because there is no way to tell by looking at or listening to someone whether the person is lawfully in the United States.
In the midst of an election year in which Democrats and Republicans seem prepared to fight about whether the sky is blue, here’s one thing that both parties actually agree on: the lifeline President Obama extended last week to America’s undocumented youth is not a permanent solution.
Last week the president used well-established executive authority to institute“deferred action” for this class of DREAMers—promising students who are American in all but status—which will halt their pending or future deportations for a period of two years. Although Republicans have criticized the measure as an expedient, short-term solution, the president has made clear this policy is not a permanent fix: “This is a temporary stop-gap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.” Indeed, the president ended his announcement by calling on the only branch vested with the ability to grant DREAMers longstanding relief: Congress.
The love of a parent is immeasurable and immigrant parents are no different than any other parent. Families will do anything for their children and they often move to another country to give them better lives. My family migrated from Ecuador in 1996 while I was in fifth grade. Though the transition was rough, I found hope when my ESL teacher told me about the American Dream and the benefit of a good education.
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 12:15pm
(Updated below)
LA Weekly has published an investigative report on the use of License Plate Scanners in Southern California. In addition to reporting that the rapid embrace of the technology by local law enforcement has led to “one of the most densely concentrated license plate recognition systems in the United States,” the article includes this signficant piece of news:
