SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Liberty is the Rule': Federal Court Blocks Immigrant Detainment Policy
The government "cannot deprive individuals of their liberty merely to send a message to others," says ACLU
Feb 21, 2015
A U.S. federal court on Friday put a temporary halt on the so-called "no release" policy to detain immigrants seeking asylum from violence in Central America.
The New York Times reports:
During the influx of migrants last summer, the Department of Homeland Security started holding most women who came with their children in detention centers in Texas and New Mexico, to discourage others in their home countries from embarking on an illegal passage to the United States. The women and children were detained even after they had asked for asylum and passed the initial test to prove their cases, showing they had credible fears of facing persecution if they were sent home. Their petitions for release were routinely denied.
The Obama administration's "incantation of the magic word 'national security' without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty," Judge James E. Boasberg wrote in his decision.
Boasberg's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the University of Texas. The civil liberties group launched the suit "on behalf of mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the U.S. for safety."
Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, stated, "The court held that it was illegal to detain families based on deterrence. It made clear that the government cannot deprive individuals of their liberty merely to send a message to others.
"This ruling means that the government cannot continue to lock up families without an individualized determination that they pose a danger or flight risk that requires their detention."
Denise Gilman, a University of Texas law professor who brought the lawsuit along with the ACLU, told the Times that federal authorities will now have to "look at individual cases rather than making these broad stroke determinations that moms and children should be deprived of their liberty in order to discourage future migrants from coming to the U.S. border."
The decision shows "liberty is the rule in the United States," she added.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A U.S. federal court on Friday put a temporary halt on the so-called "no release" policy to detain immigrants seeking asylum from violence in Central America.
The New York Times reports:
During the influx of migrants last summer, the Department of Homeland Security started holding most women who came with their children in detention centers in Texas and New Mexico, to discourage others in their home countries from embarking on an illegal passage to the United States. The women and children were detained even after they had asked for asylum and passed the initial test to prove their cases, showing they had credible fears of facing persecution if they were sent home. Their petitions for release were routinely denied.
The Obama administration's "incantation of the magic word 'national security' without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty," Judge James E. Boasberg wrote in his decision.
Boasberg's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the University of Texas. The civil liberties group launched the suit "on behalf of mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the U.S. for safety."
Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, stated, "The court held that it was illegal to detain families based on deterrence. It made clear that the government cannot deprive individuals of their liberty merely to send a message to others.
"This ruling means that the government cannot continue to lock up families without an individualized determination that they pose a danger or flight risk that requires their detention."
Denise Gilman, a University of Texas law professor who brought the lawsuit along with the ACLU, told the Times that federal authorities will now have to "look at individual cases rather than making these broad stroke determinations that moms and children should be deprived of their liberty in order to discourage future migrants from coming to the U.S. border."
The decision shows "liberty is the rule in the United States," she added.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A U.S. federal court on Friday put a temporary halt on the so-called "no release" policy to detain immigrants seeking asylum from violence in Central America.
The New York Times reports:
During the influx of migrants last summer, the Department of Homeland Security started holding most women who came with their children in detention centers in Texas and New Mexico, to discourage others in their home countries from embarking on an illegal passage to the United States. The women and children were detained even after they had asked for asylum and passed the initial test to prove their cases, showing they had credible fears of facing persecution if they were sent home. Their petitions for release were routinely denied.
The Obama administration's "incantation of the magic word 'national security' without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty," Judge James E. Boasberg wrote in his decision.
Boasberg's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the University of Texas. The civil liberties group launched the suit "on behalf of mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the U.S. for safety."
Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, stated, "The court held that it was illegal to detain families based on deterrence. It made clear that the government cannot deprive individuals of their liberty merely to send a message to others.
"This ruling means that the government cannot continue to lock up families without an individualized determination that they pose a danger or flight risk that requires their detention."
Denise Gilman, a University of Texas law professor who brought the lawsuit along with the ACLU, told the Times that federal authorities will now have to "look at individual cases rather than making these broad stroke determinations that moms and children should be deprived of their liberty in order to discourage future migrants from coming to the U.S. border."
The decision shows "liberty is the rule in the United States," she added.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.