Anti-Immigrant Group and Police Attend ACLU Know Your Rights Talk

I must admit that since starting work at the ACLU, I have gotten surprisingly used to being protested. So when we arrived at the Civic League in Framingham, Massachusetts last Thursday evening to give a presentation to community members, I wasn’t totally surprised. Word had gotten out that the ACLU was in town.

“Welcome to Framingham: Document Fraud Capital of Metrowest!” That’s what the six foot banner, carried by two men outside of the Civic League on Thursday night, loudly proclaimed for all to see. The men had positioned themselves on the sidewalk directly in front of the building entrance so passing drivers and pedestrians could get a clear view. One man wore an army green Border Patrol t-shirt and matching baseball cap, while another person carried a camcorder, presumably to intimidate anyone who wanted to enter. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, these men have gained notoriety over the years through their public bashing of Brazilian immigrants.

We were in town that evening because a local community group had invited the ACLU, along with a lawyer from MLRI, to speak with community members about various police issues, including a segment to educate people about their constitutional rights. Over the last several months, we have been meeting with local activists, lawyers and social service providers in Framingham to discuss the police department’s policies and practices relating to immigration enforcement. Based on my conversations with community members, I learned that the police’s policy on immigration enforcement is one of the most the most pressing issues the community faces.

This is in part due to the fact that cracking down on illegal immigration has been a top priority of local officials. In fact, Framingham is the first and only town in Massachusetts to enter into a 287(g) agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what a 287(g) is, it’s the agreement that gives local police the power to be immigration agents. It’s a highly contentious issue for immigrants rights advocates who feel that only the federal government should be in the business of enforcing immigration laws. We learned through a meeting with Chief Carl that he entered into the agreement and created a policy on immigration enforcement primarily to address gang and violent crimes; however, we continue to receive reports that many people, regardless of their immigration status (or alleged gang affiliation!), are scared of the police and unsure about how the agreement impacts their community.

This is all taking place in a town that, according to some estimates, has one of the largest Brazilian communities of any town in the United States. Knowing that fact, however, made for this disappointing surprise – less than a handful of community members attended our presentation on Thursday night.

Maybe that’s because a couple of surprise guests were in the audience that night. In the back row sat one man who has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an infamous leader of a local “nativist extremist group.” And in the front row sat a lieutenant from the Framingham Police Department. The lieutenant intermittently “clarified” points during our presentation, until I asked him politely not to interrupt. At the end of the presentation, the lieutenant stood up to remind audience members that the police’s primary mission is not always to conduct arrests and that often they need the cooperation of witnesses to report crimes. But, he said, many immigrants don’t do so in Framingham.

That's exactly the point, I responded. With police agreements like the 287(g) on one hand, and hate groups on the other, it’s not hard to see why immigrants are living in fear. It’s especially not hard to see why people who most need to know what their rights are – the subject of our talk – might be too afraid to show up to a place where the could learn more about them.

ACLU Cuba suit hits the headlines

Reporter Terri Hallenbeck of Vermont's Burlington Free Press covered yesterday's hearing on an ACLU challenge to Bush administration restrictions on travel to Cuba in this story. Plaintiffs are challenging rules which prevent them from visiting sick or dying relatives.

The Associated Press is running similar coverage today, and Maria Sacchetti of the Boston Globe wrote another great story looking at the issue yesterday.

Press Release: ACLU of Massachusetts backs suit challenging Bush Administration travel restrictions on family visits to Cuba

Three state ACLU affiliates, Center for Constitutional Rights join first challenge to increased restrictions on family visits announced in 2004

BOSTON, MIAMI and MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Decrying the Bush Administration’s attack on families, American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Massachusetts, Florida, and Vermont, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), today filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in Vilaseca v. Paulson, a federal lawsuit in Vermont against the Treasury Department, challenging severe restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on travel to visit close family members in Cuba.

The lawsuit is the first challenge to the U.S. government's increased restrictions on visits to family members which were announced in 2004. They are being challenged now by four individuals who have current urgent needs to visit with elderly or ill relatives. The regulations prohibit Americans from visiting close family members in Cuba more than once every three years, even in emergency humanitarian situations. Previously, Cuban-Americans could visit family every year or even more frequently in emergencies. For the first time, the regulations also prevent Americans from visiting aunts, uncles or cousins at all. Anyone who violates the rules could face fines of up to $1 million and up to ten years in jail.

"Shame on the Bush Administration," said Sarah Wunsch, Staff Attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts. "It apparently has no compassion for the need of families to gather together in times of death, illness, weddings, and births. Our government is playing politics with one of the most personal needs of human beings, to maintain their family relationships," said Wunsch.

According to John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, "these regulations gut the previous humanitarian rules allowing for close family visits and visits to Cuba in case of family emergencies." With major assistance from the national law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, the ACLU argues that the due process right to preserve family relationships is deeply rooted in the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the brief points to international human rights law that confirms that the preservation of family relationships is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of four individuals, Armando Vilaseca, Yurisleidis Leyva Mora, Jared Kingsbury Carter, and Maricel Lucero Keniston, all of whom reside in Vermont. The parties are asking the court to enter an injunction requiring the Government to cease enforcement of the "Family Visit Regulations" and allow Vilaseca and other Cuban-Americans to resume annual and humanitarian travel to Cuba for family reasons.

The lawyers on the brief are James L. Messenger, Malick W. Ghachem, Okey Onyejekwe, Wasif Qureshi and Arthur D’Andrea, all of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, which represented the groups pro bono, and Mitchell L. Pearl, of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP in Burlington, Vt.; Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida Legal Director; John Reinstein and Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts; and Darius Charney, Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.

Download the original lawsuit at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/vilaseca.pdf

Video: Interview with "The Visitor" filmmaker

Maybe you've already seen the film The Visitor, which is playing in theaters now. The story turns on the callousness of U.S. immigration policy after 9/11, and the ACLU has done a video interview with the film's creator, Tom McCarthy, here.

News: Bartenders serve up drinks, customs checks

Boston Globe reporter Maria Sacchetti quotes our Equal Justice Works Fellow, Anjali Waikar, in this story about bartenders at the Orpheum Theatre and Bank of America Pavillion who have reportedly been told to check the validity of passport stamps when serving customers who aren't U.S. citizens.

Waikar says this is "ridiculous."

Here's one "Visitor" no one should miss!

How often do you get a chance to be simultaneously entertained, informed and inspired to take action at the movies – and emerge with your paycheck intact?

This can be your experience on Wednesday, April 16 when "The Visitor" is screened for free at Boston's Regal Fenway (7 PM; 201 Brookline Ave., near Fenway T stop). To make sure you are assured of a seat, email jmathews@alliedadvpub.com, call (617) 425-8930, or just plan to be there early.

How can I vouch in such positive terms for a film that has yet to be released? Last night I introduced it on behalf of the ACLU of Massachusetts at another special screening at Coolidge Corner, and afterwards moderated a discussion with the audience and the film's convincing lead actor, Richard Jenkins, of "Six Feet Under" fame. The ACLU is involved because Participant Media, one of the film's producers, has launched a consciousness-raising campaign around the film, taking on one of our most poorly understood issues, the rights of immigrants.

I don't want to give the story away. Suffice it to say that if you don't know much about the detention and deportation polices of the Bureau of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), director Tom McCarthy ("The Station Agent") provides the basics in "The Visitor." The film bridges the gap between "them" and "us" with such sweet grace that it can be a great conversation-starter, judging from last night's lively Coolidge Corner discussion.

So plan to visit "The Visitor" when it is shown in Boston on April 16 – and then work with us to restore fairness and humanity to our immigration system.

Nancy Murray
Director of Education
ACLU of Massachusetts

Press Release: International Human Rights Experts Denounce U.S. Record On Racial And Ethnic Discrimination

ACLU Applauds Recommendations And Demands Immediate Action

Report coincides with first anniversary of ICE raid in New Bedford

BOSTON -- A United Nations committee today issued a strongly worded critique of the United States' record on racial discrimination and urged the government to make sweeping reforms to policies affecting racial and ethnic minorities, women, and immigrants in this country. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the U.S. government to take vigorous steps to implement the committee's recommendations and fulfill its human rights treaty obligations.

"The message from the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is clear when it comes to the U.S.' record on human rights and racial equality -- the government can't just talk the talk, it must also walk the walk," said Jamil Dakwar, Advocacy Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "To claim the high moral ground and assert leadership on the issue of human rights, the U.S government must address the systemic discrimination and injustice that exists in its own backyard."

The CERD committee, which oversees compliance with an international treaty to end racial discrimination that was ratified by the U.S. in 1994, reviewed testimony and research by the ACLU and other human rights groups before issuing its final report. Representatives of the ACLU were in Geneva last month to testify before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the state of racial and ethnic discrimination in the U.S.

Among its recommendations, the committee called on the U.S. to:

* Pass the federal End Racial Profiling Act or similar legislation and combat widespread ethnic and racial profiling practices by law enforcement, especially against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 9/11 attacks;
* Protect non-citizens from being subjected to torture and abuse by means of transfer or rendition to foreign countries for torture;
* Adopt and strengthen the use of affirmative action programs to eliminate discrimination, and allow school districts to voluntarily promote school integration;
* Eliminate systemic inadequacies in criminal defense programs that have a disproportionate effect on indigent minorities and ensure competent counsel in all cases;
* Restrict felony disfranchisement policies and eliminate barriers to post-sentence voting rights restoration;
* Address the problem of violence against indigenous, minority and immigrant women, including migrant workers, and especially domestic workers;
* Pass the Civil Rights Act of 2008 or similar legislation, and otherwise ensure the rights of minority and immigrant workers, including undocumented migrant workers, to effective protection and remedies when their employers have violated their human rights; and
* Address the problem of the school-to-prison pipeline -- the trend of funneling minority children into prison.

Although the United States asserted that a "broad brush characterization such as the 'school-to-prison' pipeline cannot be made" and that "no data documents such a phenomenon," because school discipline and environment are individual to each school, the CERD committee disagreed.

"Children, particularly poor children of color, are pushed out of schools and into the juvenile justice system in a number of ways," said Amy Reichbach, Racial Justice Advocate at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "These include arrests of children for incidents such as 'disturbance of schools or assemblies' that were, in the past, handled through more informal school channels. Furthermore, under Massachusetts law, the Commonwealth has no obligation to educate a child who has been expelled. Given the significant negative consequences for children of expulsion and court involvement, we should implement the recommendations of the United Nations and urge school districts to review 'zero tolerance' policies to limit suspensions and expulsions except in the most serious cases, provide training for the growing number of police officers deployed to patrol school hallways, and adopt measure to address the racial achievement gap in education."

Also in Geneva today, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante, presented a report on the injustices faced by migrants and immigrants in the U.S., denouncing immigrant detention policies and facilities that fail to meet international standards and have few protections for the rights of migrant workers.

"The U.S. should heed the recommendations of this international expert and do more to create fair, humane policies and conditions for immigrant communities in this country," said Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "It's time for the government to match its soaring rhetoric on the importance of human rights globally with a renewed commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable immigrants here at home."

The ACLU is calling on the government to adopt the recommendations made by Bustamante in his report, including:

* Eliminating mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants and determining whether non-citizens pose a risk to society on a case-by-case basis;
* Allowing immigrants in detention the chance to have their custody reviewed before an immigration judge;
* Creating binding human rights standards governing the treatment of immigration detainees in all facilities, including the removal of non-citizen children from jail-like detention centers;
* Establishing standards for the mental and medical health needs of migrant women who have been the victims of mental, physical, or sexual abuse;
* Ending harassment and racial profiling of migrant workers by local and federal law enforcement agents; and
* Ensuring health, safety and labor protections for migrant workers and providing health benefits for migrant workers injured on the job.

Last year, Bustamante conducted a three-week fact finding mission at the request of the U.S. government, visiting a detention center in Arizona and meeting with migrant communities and government officials in California, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington D.C. During that time Bustamante was denied entrance to New Jersey's Monmouth County Correctional Institution and Texas's Hutto immigration detention center, a converted prison that currently houses about 150 immigrants, including children and asylum seekers. In 2007, the ACLU filed successful federal lawsuits that resulted in the release of 26 children and greatly improved conditions at the Hutto facility. The U.S. has a history of blocking international experts from access to controversial detention facilities.

Yesterday, Senator John Kerry expressed deep disappointment with the fact that a year after the New Bedford raid, ICE continues to conduct enforcement actions in an inhumane manner, devastating families and communities.

"Last year, Massachusetts saw firsthand what some of the problems identified in this report mean to real people, when ICE conducted its chaotic raid on the Michael Bianco Inc. factory in New Bedford," said Laura Rótolo, Human Rights Fellow for the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We will continue to fight against unjust policies that put families and communities at risk by challenging illegal conduct and educating the public about ICE abuses."

The ACLU's report on the state of racial discrimination in the U.S. and other relevant documents can be found online here: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/racialjustice/cerd.html

The ACLU's statement on the U.N. Special Rapporteur's report on the human rights of migrants is available here: www.aclu.org/pdfs/humanrights/oralstatement_to_jorge_bustamante.pdf

One year after the New Bedford raid, has anything changed?

Today marks one year since the raid on the Michael Bianco factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has said that it has learned its lesson. But raids continue at an alarming pace, both in workplaces and in homes.

In the past year, ICE carried out over one hundred workplace and home raids, and it plans to do more. In Fiscal Year 2007, ICE deported 276,912 persons - an all time record - and this year promises to be no different, with immigration detention now being the fastest growing form of incarceration in the country.

Immediately following the New Bedford raid, ACLUM, together with other advocates, filed a lawsuit challenging ICE’s practices. While a court ultimately found that jurisdictional issues prevented it from hearing the case, it said that it hoped “ICE .. will treat this … series of events as a learning experience in order to devise better, less ham-handed ways of carrying out its important responsibilities.”

Yesterday at a press conference, ICE chief Julie Myers continued to defend the New Bedford raid, stating that no children were left stranded. Of course, we know that this simply is not true. On the day of the raid, community groups counted 200 affected children and could name those who had been left without a caretaker. While ICE, at the insistence of Senator Kerry, has come up with humanitarian standards to be used when carrying out large raids, problems continue, and the “ham-handed” approach still seems to dominate.

Just last month, the ACLU of Southern California was forced to bring a lawsuit when 100 immigrants were arrested in a workplace raid and ICE denied their lawyers the ability to accompany them to interviews where officials questioned them about their status.

Without binding rules and extensive training on how to conduct enforcement actions, each raid is an opportunity for abuse.

In Massachusetts, fear and distrust of authorities continues in immigrant communities, leading to crimes going unreported and previously active members of communities going underground. The Boston Globe recently reported that a pair of robbers dressed as police officers were targeting homes of undocumented immigrants because they knew that they would not report the robberies.

ACLUM continues to fight against unjust policies that put families and communities at risk by challenging illegal conduct and educating the public about ICE abuses.

Driving While Immigrant: Immigrants in Central MA Share their Experiences with Local Police

“Do you have T.B.?”

This is what Jorge’s son was asked when his car was pulled over by a local police officer in Milford, Massachusetts. Jorge said that his son didn’t know why he was pulled over; the officer decided not to tell him.

“Do the police have the right to question us like this?” asked Jorge, a small-framed man from Ecuador who spoke only in Spanish. Jorge was among the forty or so community members I met on Saturday afternoon who came to express their concerns that they are being targeted by the police. I could see several other men in the audience nodding as Jorge spoke, as if to say that they, too, had had similar encounters with law enforcement.

Another man, Luis, raised his hand and stood up to speak. Luis was stopped while driving his truck in Holliston, he explained in Spanish. But Luis wasn’t told why he was stopped. The officer instead ordered him out of the driver's seat and told him to walk to the back of his truck. The officer then pulled out a camera. He snapped a picture of Luis' face. Luis doesn’t know what ever happened to his picture.

These are a few examples of the stories community members shared with me and other organizers on a Saturday afternoon in a small town church basement in Central Massachusetts. A couple of community members organized the event to address concerns that the immigrant communities in their towns are being targeted by the police. They asked me to speak about their rights and about what they can do as a community to address these issues. Most of the audience members were men who had fled their indigenous communities in Ecuador to work as roofers and construction workers in Massachusetts in order to support their families.

Do the police have the right to question us like this?

This question rang in my head the entire afternoon, like it has for the past year and a half. As a matter of law, um, well it depends, I thought to myself. As a matter of human dignity, NO, I wanted to scream. I put on my lawyer hat and thought, how can we prove that people are being targeted?...What was the basis for the stop?... Did the officer have reasonable suspicion?.... Did these men even have the legal authority to drive in Massachusetts? And then a moment of honest frustration swept over me as I thought, aren’t some of these men lucky that they weren’t transferred to immigration custody like so many other people in other parts of the state?

But what these stories reveal is that this isn’t just about illegal drivers in Massachusetts. And this certainly isn't just about illegal immigration. Even immigrants who are here in full compliance with the law seem to be suffering under these efforts to target anyone who “looks foreign.”

Later in the afternoon, for example, another man pulled me aside to say that he heard of two people who hold green cards and Massachusetts driver’s licenses. When they were picked up by the police for allegedly committing minor traffic violations, the officers didn’t believe that their licenses were real. Both of them had their licenses confiscated and their cars were towed.

For the past year and half, I have been listening to peoples’ stories. From what I have seen and heard, the theme in Massachusetts is far too pervasive: if you’re a brown-skinned immigrant, you are presumed illegal until you prove otherwise.

News: Immigrant worker background checks have precedents

Peter Reuell, a reporter for the MetroWest Daily News, cites ACLU concerns in his story on proposed measures to crack down on immigrants in Framingham.

A thousand words....

By now, the government has learned that the old saying is true: "A picture speaks a thousand words." Even though reporters had been writing about torture in Iraq months before the Abu Ghraib photos leaked, it was the images that captured the public's attention. And even though we know that the CIA has used "enhanced interrogation techniques" our lawyers are still fighting in court over tapes the CIA may or may not have destroyed.

That's why, when acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie Myers was asked at her confirmation hearings about pictures she had taken at an ICE Halloween party with a man in dark makeup, a dreadlocked wig and prison stripes, which she awarded the "most original" costume of the night, she responded that all pictures had been destroyed. Sound familiar? She said that when she realized her error in judgment, she ordered that all pictures of the ICE employee be deleted.

Then along comes CNN with a Freedom of Information Act request and, guess what? The pictures were found!

When the Halloween episode happened, ACLUM's Board President wrote a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe. Now that the photos are available, maybe Congress will step up and ask the questions that naturally follow. Did Julie Myers know about the existence of the photos when Congress asked her for them? Did others in her office? And, is it appropriate for a person with such insensitivity toward issues of race and justice to head the law enforcement agency that plans to detain and deport 200,000 immigrants this year?

Press Release: Ellsberg, Maddow to headline ACLU of Mass. Membership Conference

Amid 2008 election season, gathering will focus on "Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties," Saturday at Bentley College

BOSTON -- More than 300 people from Cape Cod to the Berkshires plan to attend the first annual membership conference of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, this Saturday, January 26, 2008, at Bentley College in Waltham. The conference theme is "Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties."

WHAT: ACLU Membership Conference: Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties
WHERE: Bentley College, Waltham, Massachusetts, Lindsay Hall, 1st Floor
WHEN: January 26, 2008, 12–6 pm

Speakers include Daniel Ellsberg, the writer, activist, and former U.S. military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and Rachel Maddow, the Air America host and frequent commentator on networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and LOGO. Ellsberg will speak on "2008 and Beyond: What will it take to end the abuse of power?" Maddow's speech is entitled "Don't Wait for November '08!"

The conference also features ten workshops:

• Moving Beyond the War on Drugs
  
• Confronting the Surveillance Society: Real ID, NSA Spying, Warrantless Wiretapping, and Fusion Centers
  
• Torture, Rendition and Guantánamo
  
• Next Steps for LGBT Rights
  
• Freedom of Speech and Association in the Post 9/11 World
  
• Racial, Ethnic & Religious Profiling in the Post 9/11 World
  
• Ensuring Reproductive Freedom
  
• Which Way Forward for the Immigrant Rights Movement?
  
• Blogging for Civil Liberties
  
• Building and Sustaining Strong Student Groups
  

"Many of us concerned about the abuses of power we've seen in our country in recent years are focused on the 2008 elections. That's important, but for our conference this year, we've chosen to focus on specific issues and what individual people can do about them," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The erosion of our civil liberties has been so severe that it is unlikely that the next president and Congress alone will be able to undo the damage. We need the sustained involvement of concerned, committed citizens, and that is what the ACLU is working to develop."

Press Release: New ACLU Report Reveals Pervasive Racial Discrimination

Group Calls U.S. Report to United Nations a Whitewash

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts is holding a press conference today at 10:30AM in Room B1 of the State House to coincide with the release of a comprehensive analysis by the national ACLU of the pervasive institutionalized, systemic, and structural racism in America.

The report, Race & Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice, is a response to the U.S. report to the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released earlier this year. It contains information about the ongoing impact of racism in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and across the country. The U.S. report, which the ACLU called a “whitewash,” swept under the rug the dramatic effects of widespread racial and ethnic discrimination in this country.

“The America we believe in is one where people are treated fairly regardless of their race and ethnicity. But unfortunately, as this report makes clear, the country and the Commonwealth are not living up to our ideals,” said Nancy Murray, Director of Education at the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Addressing the State House press conference will be Steven Watt, one of the report's authors and a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Human Rights Program; state representative Byron Rushing who is an ACLU of Massachusetts board member; Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner, and representatives from local organizations that are in the forefront of the fight against racism and racial discrimination in Massachusetts.

The U.S. government submitted its report in April to the CERD committee, an independent group of internationally recognized human rights experts that oversees compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1994. All levels of the U.S. government are required to comply with the treaty’s provisions, which require countries to review national, state, and local policies and to amend or repeal laws and regulations that create or perpetuate racial discrimination. The treaty also encourages countries to take positive measures, including affirmative action, to redress racial inequalities.

In its “shadow report” to the U.N., compiled jointly by the ACLU’s Human Rights and Racial Justice Programs and based on information provided by the ACLU affiliates in more than 20 states, the ACLU documents the U.S. government’s failure to fully comply with CERD in numerous substantive areas affecting racial and ethnic minorities. The report closely examines policies and practices at the federal, state and local levels which place a disproportionate burden on those most vulnerable in society -- including women, children, incarcerated persons, immigrants, and non-citizens.

Since its ratification, U.S. reporting on compliance has been inadequate, and this most recent report is no exception -- it is a combination of two overdue reports spanning the years 2000-2006. The government’s report is riddled with misrepresentations and inaccuracies and fails to honestly assess the ways in which racial and ethnic discrimination and inequality persist.

The ACLU’s report details the setbacks in the promotion of racial and ethnic equality, including the government’s attack on affirmative action and the courts’ curtailment of civil rights and remedies for discrimination. The ACLU report finds that discrimination in America permeates education, employment, the treatment of migrants and immigrants, law enforcement, access to justice for juveniles and adults, court proceedings, detention and incarceration, the death penalty, and the many collateral consequences of incarceration including the loss of political rights. 

The ACLU report also criticizes major shortcomings in the U.S. government’s report including: a minor mention of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (and only in the housing discrimination context) and a total omission of the “school to prison pipeline” phenomenon, which involves the overzealous funneling of students of color out of classrooms and into the criminal justice system. The government's report also suffers from a complete lack of information on the dramatic increase in hate crimes and the escalating problem of police brutality.

The ACLU report examines human rights violations that took place before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, a crisis that exposed to the world the persistence of racial and economic inequalities in America, and their impact on African-American and other minority communities. It also documents the epidemic of minorities being subjected to racial profiling, a practice most often associated with African-Americans and Latinos, but one which also affects other minority communities. Since 9/11, racial profiling has increasingly been directed at Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians.

In addition, the report highlights the government’s failure to protect immigrants and non-citizens, and particularly low-wage workers, from racially discriminatory policies and acts such as governmental crackdowns and workplace raids.

December 10th is celebrated worldwide as International Human Rights Day. Today the ACLU and many of its affiliates across the country will hold events as part of the ACLU’s National Day of Action Against Racial Discrimination.

A copy of the ACLU’s report on the U.S. government’s report to CERD can be found online at: http://www.aclum.org/pdf/ACLU_CERD_report.pdf

News: ACLU weighs in on raid

The Milford Daily News quotes Ron Madnick, Director of our Worcester County Chapter, in this story about the immigration raid in Milford.

Press Release: ACLU Denounces Immigration Raids in Milford

Sweep tears apart families and communities

Worcester- The Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today urged federal immigration officials to comply with humanitarian and due process standards when enforcing immigration law following reports of an early morning raid in Milford last Friday.
 
During the raid, officials from the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and local law enforcement officials reportedly detained 14 Ecuadorian immigrants and arrested the owner of a local contracting company.  Daniel Tacuri, owner of Same Day Roofing and Construction in Milford, faces charges of hiring illegal immigrants. The other 14 people arrested in the raid, 12 men and two women, will go before a civil immigration judge to determine whether they will be deported.
 
“The US Constitution says that everyone's fundamental due process rights must be respected while it is being determined whether or not they have a right to be here,” said Ronal C. Madnick, director of The Worcester County Chapter of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Most US citizens could not prove their citizenship on demand. Most people don't carry documents such as a passport or birth certificate with them at all times. And in a free society, you shouldn't have to.”
 
“People detained by ICE deserve basic human rights protections, such as the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, legal representation, and, when necessary, interpretive services,” said Madnick.  “They need time and a fair chance to prove their case. It's also critical to make provisions for the children and other dependents of those arrested.”
 
Throughout Massachusetts, ICE-led immigration sweeps have been tearing apart families and communities.  A recent study, released by the National Council of Law Raza shows that this approach is especially destructive to young children of people who are detained.
 
“We are concerned about the way these sweeps are being conducted,” said Madnick.  “People often are detained and deported quickly without having the opportunity to exercise their rights to call family members or a lawyer.  We urge ICE officials to give the people they detain an opportunity to exercise their rights to speak to an attorney and call their family members, and that they be allowed to remain in Massachusetts where their lawyers, families and community can have access to them.”
 
The Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts will meet with immigration organizations at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
 
For more information on the ACLU of Massachusetts Immigrants Rights work, go to:  http://www.aclum.org/issues/immigrant.html

News: Policy defines trooper role on immigration

The Boston Globe cites Anjali Waikar, our Equal Justice Works Fellow, in this article on the use of State Troopers to enforce immigration law.

Letter to the Editor: The offensive costume at the ICE Halloween party

Nancy Ryan, Board President of the ACLU of Massachusetts, has a letter in today's paper about the "award-winning" costume at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement party on Halloween. The controversy seems to reveal a lot about ICE's true attitudes toward immigrants.

Immigration Raids and Kids

We've been saying that immigration raids like the one this March in New Bedford have caused hardships for children, because their parents were whisked away with no warning. The National Council of La Raza and the Urban Institute yesterday released a more detailed study which makes an even more compelling case. Among other things, the study found that for every two adult immigrants detained, about one child is left behind. Two-thirds of these children are U.S. citizens, and two-thirds are under age 10.

News: State groups look to DREAM

Boston University's Free Press quotes Chris Ott, ACLU of Massachusetts spokesperson, in its story about the failure of the DREAM Act, which would have created a path to citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants.

We think that passing something like the DREAM Act is both the right thing to do, and a smart move. Even if parents come here illegally, it's not fair to punish their children -- and it doesn't make sense either.

Measures that reward children for things like doing well in school helps ensure a better future for them, and is better for all of us in the long run. If someone is talented and educated and could be a productive member of the economy and society, kicking them out of the country or forcing them to live in the shadows and margins of society doesn't help anyone.

Press Release: ACLU Sues Over Exclusion of South African Democracy Scholar

BOSTON -- The Departments of State and Homeland Security are illegally blocking South African scholar Adam Habib from entering the U.S. under circumstances that suggest he is being excluded because of his political views, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts. The ACLU charges that censorship at the border prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

"Immigration officials should not be in the business of blocking our borders to people with political views they dislike," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Silencing critics and forbidding Americans the right to hear dissenting voices harms academic and political freedom in the United States. For example, the next meeting of the American Sociological Association will be held in Boston next August, and we want to make sure that Professor Habib is allowed to speak if he is invited again."

"Once again, the Bush administration is stifling debate by preventing U.S. audiences from engaging prominent scholars face-to-face," said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "When the government excludes scholars from the U.S. -- particularly scholars who frequently traveled to this country without any problems in the past, but who happen to be vocal critics of U.S. policies -- it sends the cowardly message that our government is afraid of opposing voices. This kind of political litmus test is both unconstitutional and un-American."

The ACLU's lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S. in the near future, including the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights (BCPR). The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff as defendants, seeks the immediate processing of Professor Habib's pending visa application and a declaration that his exclusion without explanation since October 2006 violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. organizations, citizens, and residents.

Habib is a renowned scholar, sought after analyst, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and certain U.S. terrorism-related policies. Until the government suddenly revoked his visa last October without explanation, he never experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New York for years while earning a PhD in Political Science from the City University of New York.

The October 2006 revocation of Professor Habib's visa prevented him from attending a series of meetings with representative from institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University, and the Gates Foundation. When he landed, Habib was detained for seven hours and interrogated about his associations and political views. Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of Professor Habib's wife and two small children, again, without explanation.

"I find it profoundly disturbing that the U.S. government continues to deny me the opportunity to participate in the kind of robust academic and political debate that is central to the American democratic system," said Habib. "Now more than ever, people from around the world recognize the consequences of American isolation within the global community. By letting in outsiders who represent ideological diversity, the U.S. can make good on its democratic ideals."

Last May, Habib applied for a new visa that would allow him to travel to the U.S. to attend speaking engagements, including the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in August 2007. However, on the eve of his scheduled departure to New York, the State Department informed Habib that his visa application would not be processed in time for the meeting. As a result of the State Department's unexplained visa denial, Habib was prevented from speaking to the ASA and its members. His visa application continues to languish.

Professor Habib's exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists, and writers -- all vocal critics of U.S. policy -- have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on unspecified national security grounds.

In 2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004, Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. The Ramadan lawsuit challenges the legality of his exclusion and the constitutionality of the Patriot Act provision under which he was initially excluded. He remains excluded today.

Today, the ACLU also launched a new interactive web feature that tells the stories of the artists, scholars and politicians the U.S. government has kept out of the country since the inception of ideological exclusion in 1952. It is available at: http://www.aclu.org/passportflash

Today's complaint is available at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31921lgl20070925.html

More information about ideological exclusion is available at: http://www.aclu.org/exclusion

Attorneys in the case are Goodman, Jameel Jaffer, Nasrina Bargzie, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU, and Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts.