OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
For Immediate Release
July, 17 2009, 12:54pm EDT
Contact:
Maria Archuleta, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Linda Paris, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
DHS Continues State and Local Immigration Enforcement Program Without Meaningful Changes
New MOA Governing Federal 287(g) Initiative Does Not Address Program's Serious Flaws
WASHINGTON
After a congressional request and multiple Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests, including one from the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a new standardized
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that it will use in its expanded 287(g)
program granting state and local law enforcement agencies federal
immigration enforcement authority. The 287(g) program has led to
serious civil rights abuses and public safety concerns, and according
to an analysis by the ACLU, the changes in the new MOA do nothing to
solve these problems.
"The new standardized MOA makes no
serious attempt at discouraging illegal racial profiling or reducing
the conflict between sound community policing principles and the
expansion of this program," said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The Department of Homeland Security
has claimed that the new MOA contains many significant improvements,
but now that we actually have the document, it is clear that many of
the claimed changes are really not changes at all, that the remaining
changes have little or no positive operative effect, and that the new
MOA actually takes several disturbing steps backward, particularly in
the area of transparency."
Section 287(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act provides for the delegation of immigration
enforcement authority in certain circumstances to specific state or
local agencies. Previously, MOAs between U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement varied by jurisdiction, but
the new standardized MOA would govern all 287(g) partnerships.
In a comparison of the new
standardized MOA to the MOA that ICE signed with Maricopa County,
Arizona in February 2007, the ACLU found that the new MOA would do
little or nothing to correct the egregious racial profiling and civil
rights abuses that have occurred there, and in some respects, the new
MOA is actually worse than the original from the Bush administration.
The new MOA includes a list of
"priority levels" of different categories of suspected violators, but
even assuming those priorities are sound, the MOA does not include any
measures to ensure that its priorities translate into practice, such as
requiring that arrest statistics reflect the priority levels, requiring
agencies to implement an effective prioritization system or preventing
the use of local resources to go after low-priority offenders.
A number of DHS's claimed
improvements simply cannot be verified by comparing the old and new
MOAs. For example, DHS claimed that the new MOA would reduce concerns
that individuals are arrested for minor or pretextual violations by
requiring that the arresting authority pursue any criminal charges that
justified the original arrest. But the new MOA only "expect[s]," rather
than "requires," the pursuit of charges. The old MOA contained the same
"expectation."
Some aspects of new MOA are clearly
a step in the wrong direction. The new MOA reduces the amount of
experience that a local law enforcement officer needs to become
MOA-designated; expands the list of powers granted to task force
personnel; attempts to remove 287(g) documents from public scrutiny by
subjecting even state or local records to ICE control and claiming that
documents related to the 287(g) are no longer public records; reduces
the already-low data collection and tracking requirements under the old
agreement; and authorizes the exclusion of civilian personnel from some
program reviews.
"Contrary to DHS's announcement, the
new 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement is not substantially different from
the Bush administration MOA, including the much abused agreement
currently in place in Maricopa County, Arizona," said Joanne Lin, ACLU
Legislative Counsel. "This new 287(g) MOA is not government reform.
Cosmetic changes to a written agreement will not solve the fundamental
problems associated with local police enforcement of federal civil
immigration laws. Under the Bush administration 287(g) program, local
law enforcement committed illegal profiling and civil rights violations
under the cloak of federal immigration authority. Under the newly
released 287(g) MOA, local law enforcement are free to continue the
same abuse of power. It is time for the Department of Homeland Security
and Congress to end, not mend, the 287(g) program."
The new standardized MOA, Maricopa County's MOA and the ACLU side-by-side comparison of the two can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/local/40350lgl20090716.html
The ACLU's FOIA request can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/40308lgl20090714.html
ACLU's submitted testimony on 287 (g) program can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/39062leg20090304.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
DOJ Sues West Virginia Governor's Coal Empire Over Millions in Unpaid Fines
"Over a five-year period, defendants engaged in over 130 violations of federal law, thereby posing health and safety risks to the public and the environment," said U.S. Attorney Christopher R. Kavanaugh.
May 31, 2023
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday sued Republican West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice's family coal empire in federal court for millions of dollars in unpaid penalties, fees, and interest for dozens of legal violations.
The two-term governor—who is seeking U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) seat in next year's election—is not named in the civil suit but his son, James "Jay" Justice III, is, as the owner or operator of the 13 defendant companies.
Politiconoted that "although the suit doesn't name the elder Justice, he's faced scrutiny before for the unpaid fines as well as reports that he's still maintained a firm grip on the family business."
Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement that "our environmental laws serve to protect communities against adverse effects of industrial activities including surface coal mining operations."
"Through this suit, the Justice Department seeks to deliver accountability for defendants' repeated violations of the law and to recover the penalties they owe as a result of those violations," Kim added.
"The filing of this complaint continues the process of holding defendants accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of the public and our environment."
The department's complaint accuses the 13 coal companies of violating their legal obligations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), or permits issued under the law, and failing "to pay uncontested penalties assessed for their uncontested violations."
"Defendants have been cited for over 130 violations and have failed to pay over $5 million in civil penalties assessed by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (“OSMRE”)," the filing states. "In addition, certain defendants also collectively owe, and have not paid, over $190,000 in abandoned mine land (“AML”) reclamation fee debts."
When interest, late payment penalties, and administrative expenses are included, the defendants owe approximately $7.6 million, according to the Justice Department—which took legal action on behalf of the “OSMRE”, a branch of the Interior Department.
"Over a five-year period, defendants engaged in over 130 violations of federal law, thereby posing health and safety risks to the public and the environment," said U.S. Attorney Christopher R. Kavanaugh for the Western District of Virginia.
“After given notice, they then failed to remedy those violations and were ordered over 50 times to cease mining activities until their violations were abated," Kavanaugh explained. "Today, the filing of this complaint continues the process of holding defendants accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of the public and our environment."
Justice took office as a Democrat in January 2017 and later that year, at a rally with Republican then-President Donald Trump, announced he was returning to the GOP. His online biography boasts about various business ventures, stating that after his father's death, "Jim launched a massive expansion of multiple businesses which included significant coal reserve expansion, Christmas tree farms, cotton gins, turfgrass operations, golf courses, timber enhancement, and land projects."
The 72-year-old "has dozens of business holdings listed on his annual state ethics disclosures," West Virginia's MetroNewsreported Wednesday. "The governor has not placed most of his family's holdings in a blind trust but has repeatedly said the responsibility of running the businesses has been passed on to Jay and adult daughter Jill Justice."
During a Wednesday briefing, the governor reportedly reiterated that he does not control the coal companies' day-to-day operations and said that "the Biden administration is aware of the fact that with a win for the U.S. Senate, and everything, we could very well flip the Senate. You know, government agencies can sometimes surely react, and this could be something in regard to that."
"But with all that being said—as I've said over and over, and you've seen it a thousand, million times—when something comes up and someone rears an ugly head, do we run and jump in a hole and die? We don’t do that," Justice added. "You know, my son and my daughter and our companies will always fulfill obligations, every single one, and absolutely at the end of the day have we not done it and done it and done it?"
MetroNewspointed out that in 2019, under Trump, federal prosecutors filed a similar $4.7 million lawsuit against several Justice coal companies stemming from nearly 2,300 citations—which resulted in a 2020 settlement. Earlier this month, prosecutors filed a motion over those companies' failure to make four consecutive payments since February.
The new suit comes after the East Carolina University Center for Survey Research on Tuesday released polling results which show that in a hypothetical 2024 U.S. Senate race between Justice and Manchin, the governor has a 22-point lead, securing support from 54% of registered West Virginia voters compared with the 32% who said they would support the incumbent.
The 75-year-old Democratic senator—who has come under fire nationally for serving fossil fuel interests and thwarting his own party's agenda—has not yet said whether he plans to seek reelection. However, there has been speculation that he may instead run for president next year. Manchin
said in a statement last month, "Make no mistake, I will win any race I enter."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Report Warns Inaction Pushing US Childcare System to 'Brink of Collapse'
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray warned that the looming expiration of emergency funds "will likely force providers to lay off staff or shut down."
May 31, 2023
Already among the worst and least affordable in the developed world, the U.S. childcare system could soon be "pushed closer to the brink of collapse" if Congress doesn't act before emergency federal funding runs dry at the end of September.
That grave warning is at the heart of a report released Tuesday by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), top members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Sanders, the chair of the panel, summarized the report's findings during a HELP Committee hearing on Wednesday, noting that more than $37 billion in pandemic relief funding approved under the American Rescue Plan and other legislation helped keep the nation's fragmented childcare sector afloat during the deadly public health crisis.
"This funding kept over 200,000 childcare providers in business, sustained childcare for nearly 10 million kids, and prevented a million childcare workers from losing their jobs," the Vermont senator said Wednesday, referring to the $24 billion in Child Care Stabilization Grant (CCSG) funds approved under the American Rescue Plan, which Biden signed in March 2021.
All 50 states as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands operated Child Care Stabilization programs during the pandemic, according to the Biden White House, and 90% of providers that received funding from the federal grant program said the money helped them keep their doors open during the coronavirus crisis.
"That is the good news," Sanders said Tuesday. "The bad news is that if Congress does nothing, this funding will expire on September 30th of this year, making a very bad situation even worse."
\u201cLIVE: Every family in America deserves high quality, affordable child care and every child care worker deserves a livable wage. The HELP Committee is holding a hearing NOW on how we can make that a reality. https://t.co/ogDf1n1TV0\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1685541749
Citing survey responses from more than 12,000 early childhood educators, the new report says the end of the emergency federal funding could force many childcare providers to raise prices for families, serve fewer children, or slash wages for childcare workers who are already badly underpaid.
By law, states have until September 30 to distribute the federal money provided under the American Rescue Plan.
"Just as these grants helped to temporarily fill a gap in funding in the childcare sector," the report notes, "they will likely leave programs with a significant hole when funding runs out on September 30, 2023."
Childcare workers and advocates across the country have been bracing for the end of federal funding for months and sounding the alarm about the consequences of inaction.
In a July 2022 letter, dozens of national organizations warned congressional leaders that failure to make new investments in the nation's funding-starved childcare sector would shove the system "closer to a catastrophic funding cliff that will affect America's entire economy, resulting in higher prices and longer waitlists for families and reduced access to quality care for children, while lower wages push more early educators out of the field."
That letter was sent shortly before Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, legislation that was gutted by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other right-wing Democrats.
Childcare provisions were stripped out of the bill entirely.
"How can a working family, making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, afford to spend $15,000 or $30,000 on childcare?"
Murray, the former chair of the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement Tuesday that "failing to invest in childcare means failing to invest in our economy—it means worsening an already serious workforce shortage."
"Our nation's childcare sector was hanging on by a thread before the pandemic, and it was headed straight for collapse when Covid hit our country and providers prepared to close their doors for good," she said. "The historic federal investment in our nation's childcare sector that I fought tooth and nail to deliver saved the childcare sector from collapse."
"But the funding we provided will expire this fall—which will likely force providers to lay off staff or shut down, force parents to leave work when they lose their child care, and take a wrecking ball to our economic recovery—unless we take action," the Washington Democrat added.
As of 2021, The New York Timesreported that year, the governments of rich countries spent an average of $14,000 per kid on childcare annually. The U.S., by contrast, spent just $500 per child.
During Wednesday's hearing, Sanders stressed that in addition to renewing the federal funding that is set to lapse in a matter of months, Congress needs "a vision for the future which understands that every family in America has the right to high-quality, affordable childcare."
"I think that all of us pride ourselves as a nation that loves our kids. We all understand that our children are the future of America. But, we have a funny way of showing that love," Sanders said. "Today, it costs about $15,000 a year, on average, to send an infant to childcare in our country and in D.C. it can cost, in some cases, $30,000 a year. How can a working family, making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, afford to spend $15,000 or $30,000 on childcare?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Two GOP Abortion Bans Are Unconstitutional
The court found that two bans passed in 2022 conflicted with the Oklahoma Constitution's guarantee of a pregnant person's "inherent right" to life.
May 31, 2023
The Oklahoma state Supreme Court on Wednesday became the latest state-level court to rebuke Republican legislation passed in recent months to bar residents from accessing abortion care, ruling that two laws signed by GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt are unconstitutional.
The court found that S.B. 1603 and H.B. 4327 both conflict with an earlier ruling in March, when five of the nine justices ruled that the Oklahoma Constitution guarantees the "inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life."
Earlier this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that a six-week abortion ban violated the state's constitutional right to privacy. Republicans in the state ignored that finding this month as they passed another six-week ban, only to have a state judge grant abortion providers and three rights groups a temporary restraining order, blocking the law from taking effect.
The ruling by the Oklahoma court on Wednesday was 6-3, with Justice Richard Darby joining the majority due to the precedent set by the March ruling.
S.B. 1603 banned abortion care after the point at which an ultrasound can detect an electronically induced sound from the tissue that will become a fetus' heart—often erroneously referred to as an actual fetal heartbeat by pro-forced pregnancy groups and lawmakers.
H.B. 4327 imposed a near-total ban on abortion care with exceptions for medical emergencies in which a pregnant person's life was at risk and for cases of rape or incest that had been reported to law enforcement.
As Common Dreamsreported in April, the life of at least one woman in Oklahoma was put at risk by those so-called "exceptions" when she developed a cancerous molar pregnancy and was told by three different hospitals that she could not obtain an abortion for the condition, which had no chance of ever developing into a fetus.
The woman, Jaci Statton, was eventually advised by one hospital staffer to wait in the facility's parking lot until her heavy bleeding and other symptoms reached the point of "crashing," at which point doctors would be able to treat her without fearing a lawsuit permitted under Oklahoma's laws.
In the state Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday, said Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern, "the majority found that both the total ban and the 'heartbeat' ban lacked a sufficient exception for medical emergencies."
\u201cThe majority found that both the total ban and the "heartbeat" ban lacked a sufficient exception for medical emergencies, and that the remainder of each bill was not severable from the emergency provision. So it struck down both laws in their entirety. Quite a big deal.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1685547764
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond responded to the ruling by saying a 1910 abortion ban is still in effect due to the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. The law bans abortion care except when it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant person.
"Except for certain circumstances outlined in that statute, abortion is still unlawful in the state of Oklahoma," Drummond said.
\u201cThe Oklahoma AG appears to believe that abortion remains illegal in the state under a 1910 criminal ban, which tees up another challenge at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It strikes me as ... unlikely that this court will allow that law to be enforced.\nhttps://t.co/sH4pG2DM17\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1685547764
The Republican attorney general's claim "tees up another challenge at the Oklahoma Supreme Court," said Stern.
Considering the justices' recent rulings, he said, "it strikes me as... unlikely that this court will allow that law to be enforced."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT
JOURNALISM TODAY
JOURNALISM TODAY
We Can't Do It
Without You!
Without You!