News (Noticias) Tagged ‘ACLU’

CONTACT: Maria Archuleta, ACLU national, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Sara Mullen, ACLU of Pennsylvania, (215) 592-1513 x 122

PHILADELPHIA – On Thursday, October 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the city of Hazelton’s local anti-immigrant law. The city’s law would punish landlords and employers who are accused of renting to or hiring anyone the city classifies as an “illegal alien.”

In a landmark ruling in July 2007, a federal district court struck down the anti-immigrant law as unconstitutional and in violation of federal civil rights laws. The Third Circuit is now considering Hazleton’s appeal of that ruling.

The case has been closely watched across the country and is the only lawsuit challenging a state or local anti-immigrant law to have been decided after a full trial.

The Hazelton ordinance was adopted in August 2006, and a lawsuit challenging the law was immediately filed on behalf of Hazleton residents, landlords and business owners by a civil rights coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (now LatinoJustice PRLDEF), the Community Justice Project and the law firm of Cozen O’Connor.

Omar Jadwat, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project staff attorney, and Vic Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director, will argue on behalf of the coalition that the city law is unconstitutional.

Friend-of-the-court briefs opposing the Hazleton law have been filed by numerous civil rights, religious and business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Jewish Committee, Capuchin Franciscan Friars, Lutheran Children and Family Services, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Legal Momentum, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Attorneys from the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Community Justice Project and the law firm of Cozen O’Connor will be available to answer questions from the media after the hearing.

WHO: ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Vic Walczak and ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project staff attorney Omar Jadwat

WHAT: Oral arguments in Lozano v. Hazleton appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit before federal appeals judges Theodore A. McKee, Richard L. Nygaard and Eugene E. Siler, Jr.

WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 1:30 p.m. EST

WHERE: The Albert Branson Maris Courtroom
21400 United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

More information on the case, Lozano v. Hazleton, is online at: www.aclu.org/hazleton“

In a radical departure from years of legal precedent, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is considering ending the practice of allowing immigrants to reopen cases that they lost because of their lawyers’ mistakes or incompetence. Mukasey announced that he was considering the issue late this summer and then imposed the unrealistic deadline of October 6 for interested parties to submit briefs, preventing organizations opposing the change, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association (ABA), from providing a meaningful response.

“It is remarkable that the attorney general would refuse to give the legal community sufficient time to respond to a change that would so dramatically break from fairness and due process,” said ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project Deputy Director Lee Gelernt. “There is absolutely no reason why the justice system should penalize anyone, including immigrants, for the harm done by incompetent or unscrupulous attorneys.”

On August 7, Mukasey instructed that any briefs responding to the proposed reversal of the “ineffective assistance” right be submitted by Sept. 15. After many organizations and lawyers protested that this provided insufficient time to respond to such major legal and policy issues, he extended the deadline a scant three more weeks.

Though the U.S. Department of Justice has also proposed new rules that would give the department more latitude to punish incompetent immigration lawyers, organizations from the entire range of the political spectrum say that penalizing attorneys is not a substitute for the right to competent counsel.

“It can never be considered a fair process when you lose your case because your lawyer missed a deadline or made some other egregious error,” said Gelernt. “Punishing your lawyer does nothing for you while you’re on your way to being deported.”

Mukasey’s orders as well as letters to Mukasey from the ACLU, ABA, the American Immigration Law Foundation and numerous partners at some of the country’s most prestigious law firms opposing the change or objecting to insufficient time allotted for submitting briefs are available online at:

City officials in Farmers Branch, Texas today agreed not to fight a request from residents’ to block the city’s latest anti-immigrant ordinance from taking effect while a legal challenge continues. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a request in federal court on the residents’ behalf for a preliminary injunction blocking the ordinance. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is expected to enter the injunction today.

The challenged ordinance, Ordinance 2952, is the city’s third attempt at restricting residency based on immigration status. It would require all adults in the city who live in rental housing to register with the city and provide citizenship and immigration information in order to obtain a so-called “residential occupancy license.” Under the ordinance, landlords would have to evict all residents who the city deems “not lawfully present in the United States,” including people living with U.S. citizen children, spouses and parents. The civil rights groups charge that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, federal and state statutes and is discriminatory.

At an earlier hearing on Friday, September 12, U.S. District Court Judge Jane J. Boyle temporarily blocked the ordinance.

“The city saw which way the wind was blowing. It’s highly unlikely that the court will uphold this discriminatory law and the city decided to give up this part of their losing battle,” said Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Counsel for MALDEF. “We are confident that the order blocking the ordinance will be made permanent should this case proceed to trial. Immigration reform is a federal responsibility and local anti-immigrant ordinances only hurt city economies and community relations.”

The city’s anti-immigrant ordinances have been defeated over and over again in the courts. The city withdrew its first ordinance in the face of multiple lawsuits by business and civil rights groups. The second ordinance was temporarily, preliminarily and then permanently blocked by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas. When it became clear that the second ordinance was doomed, the city passed Ordinance 2952, which Judge Lindsay observed was “yet another attempt to circumvent the court’s prior rulings and further an agenda that runs afoul of the United States Constitution.” Judge Boyle’s September 12 ruling was the fourth federal court order to block the city’s anti-immigrant ordinances, and today’s preliminary injunction is the fifth.

“The politicians who support this ordinance and their advisors from national anti-immigrant organizations seem to regard this as some sort of game, even though the laws they have invented are terribly serious and have real consequences for the city and its residents. But it’s time for them to realize that they’ve long since struck out,” said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“Every court in the country that has reviewed these local anti-immigrant housing ordinances has put a stop to them,” said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas. “Farmers Branch has taken the curious approach of recreating their ordinance to be even more intrusive and offensive, to the point of subjecting everyone to an intrusive, Big Brother-like licensing regime. The city has lost sight not only of the law, but of common sense, in this case.”

Attorneys who are working on the case include Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Jennifer Chang Newell and Farrin Anello of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Graybill of the ACLU of Texas; Perales and Marisol L. Perez of MALDEF; and David Broiles.“

Contact: Maria Archuleta, ACLU national, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Dotty Griffith, ACLU of Texas, (512) 478-7300 x 106; dgriffith@aclutx.org
Estuardo Rodriguez, MALDEF, (202) 631-2892

DALLAS – Friday, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas filed a complaint in federal court charging that Farmers Branch Ordinance 2952 violates the U.S. Constitution and federal and state statutes. The ordinance, which requires all renters in Farmers Branch to register their presence with the City and obtain an occupancy license, is the city’s third effort to restrict residency in Farmers Branch.

“Unfortunately, the City of Farmers Branch doesn’t know when to quit,” said Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Counsel for MALDEF. “Despite several rulings striking down predecessor ordinances, Farmers Branch continues to try to regulate immigration by violating the rights of all renters in Farmers Branch.”

A federal judge has twice ruled unconstitutional the city’s attempts to pass such measures. The third such effort, Ordinance 2952, was passed by the city just five days after U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay struck down an earlier version of the rental ban. The ordinance was scheduled to take effect Saturday, September 13 but was enjoined late Friday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle in a separate related lawsuit.

“Anyone with a sense of history should be wary of an ordinance requiring a city’s residents to ‘register’ and obtain an ‘occupancy license,’” said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director for the ACLU of Texas.

“Far from curing the defects of the previous ordinances, the new ordinance continues to violate the Constitution. Rather than ending the city’s misguided meddling in people’s lives, it seeks to expand its reach by subjecting everyone to this intrusive registration and licensing regime, which would expose private domestic arrangements and personal details,” noted Omar Jadwat, staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

The lawsuit charges that Ordinance 2952 allows Farmers Branch to enforce immigration law, a responsibility of the federal government. The ordinance also violates the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution.

A copy of the complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/36759lgl20080912.html

Attorneys who worked on the case include Jadwat and Lucas Guttentag of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Graybill of the ACLU of Texas; Perales and Marisol L. Perez of MALDEF; and David Broiles.“

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Contact: Linda Paris or Matt Allee, 202-675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – Today, after months of compelling TV and newspaper exposés detailing deficient medical care and over 60 immigration detention deaths, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up a bill requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop procedures to ensure adequate medical and mental health care for all detainees held by DHS Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The ACLU urges the House Judiciary Committee members to vote for H.R. 5950, the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008, introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

The following can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel:

“The Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008 is long overdue. Too many immigration detainees have needlessly suffered, and even died, as a result of shabby or no medical care. These accounts have been documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post, ‘60 Minutes,’ and many other news outlets.  Month after month we learn of horror stories of detainees who have unnecessarily had to face amputation, chemotherapy, radiation because ICE repeatedly ignored their cries for medical help.

“The bill will set standards for timely and effective delivery of medical care to immigration detainees by providing medical screenings and examinations, continuity of care, and discharge planning. Health care professionals will be required to make all treatment decisions based on medical clinical judgments, not on cost-savings to DHS. The legislation will also require ICE to report detainee deaths to Congress and the DHS Office of the Inspector General.

“ICE’s handling of immigration detainees, which includes repeated denials or delays of medical care, contradicts American values. The time has come for Congress to take action to halt any more detainee deaths by ensuring that DHS provide basic medical and mental health care to all immigration detainees.”

“

CONTACT: Maria Archuleta, national ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Dotty Griffith, ACLU of Texas, (512) 478-7300 x 106 or 923-1909; dgriffith@aclutx.org

McALLEN, TX – Today nine American citizens sued the federal government, challenging the U.S. Department of State’s refusal to issue them passports because of their race and ancestry and because their births were attended by midwives. The class action lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, the international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP and Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc., builds upon a complaint filed earlier this year.

The lawsuit charges that the State Department categorically questions the citizenship of virtually all midwife-delivered Mexican-Americans born in southern border states. According to the lawsuit, the State Department has been forcing these applicants to go to unreasonable lengths to prove their citizenship by providing an excessive number of documents that normally are not required. Then, even after the applicants supply further proof of their citizenship, the Department responds by summarily closing their applications.

“Based on blanket race-based suspicion, the State Department is sending this select group of passport applicants on a veritable scavenger hunt and then refusing to issue them passports without a fair examination of their individual cases,” said ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project attorney Robin Goldfaden. “Denying passports to U.S. citizens in this way is clearly against the law and violates our core American values of fairness and equality.”

The need for a passport has become particularly urgent for citizens who need or wish to travel outside the U.S. By virtue of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), every American who wishes to enter or reenter the U.S. must have a valid U.S. passport or passport card by June 2009. Prior to WHTI, only a U.S. driver’s license was required to enter or reenter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico. As a result, there has been a surge in passport applications. Americans who must cross the border daily for work or family obligations but have not yet received their passports will be effectively barred from conducting the everyday business of their lives.

For countless Latinos who were delivered by midwives in the Southwest, however, trying to obtain a passport has become an exercise in futility. Although midwifery has been a common practice for more than a century, particularly in rural and other traditionally underserved communities, the U.S. government has imposed unsurpassable hurdles on midwife-delivered Latinos to prove their citizenship and eligibility for U.S. passports – even when their citizenship has already been established in the past. The government has demanded documents that never existed, like a 1935 census report; that no longer exist, like elementary school records that school districts long ago destroyed; and documents that only the government itself could produce, like immigration documents returned to the Immigration and Naturalization Service years ago.

The lawsuit contends that this pattern and practice by the State Department amounts to discrimination on the basis of race and ancestry in violation of applicants’ right to equal protection under the law. The lawsuit also charges that the Department’s practices violate due process and the Administrative Procedure Act, which was enacted as a safeguard against arbitrary and capricious government agency procedures.

“The U.S. government has effectively reduced a whole swath of the population to second-class citizenship because of their last names and because they happened to be born at home with a midwife,” said Vanita Gupta, ACLU Racial Justice Program staff attorney. “Our clients have more than satisfied the requirements for a U.S. passport. It’s wrong for the government to raise the bar to impossible heights and then arbitrarily shelve the applications for an entire group of people.”

David Hernandez, a plaintiff in the case, is a U.S. citizen and was born in San Benito, Texas in 1964. Hernandez lived and attended school in the Rio Grande Valley and served honorably in the U.S. Army, earning various medals and ribbons. Hernandez’s passport application was closed even after he responded to the Department’s demand for additional documents by providing further evidence of his birth and baptism in the U.S., evidence of his mother’s residency in the U.S. at the time of his birth, his immunization records, school records, and even a letter from the Mexican Civil Registry stating that there was no record of Hernandez being born in Mexico.

“I thought that in America everyone was supposed to be equal,” said Hernandez. “I was born here. I’ve lived and worked here and served in the Army. I feel betrayed, like my country is stabbing me in the back just because my mother didn’t have the luxury of having me in a hospital.”

Juan Aranda, also a plaintiff in the case, was born in Weslaco, Texas in 1970 and has lived and worked in the U.S. his entire life. He works as a supervisor at a U.S. company that sells drinking water in Mexico and must frequently cross the border as part of his job. In anticipation of the new passport requirement, he applied for a passport last year and included his birth certificate in the application. He received a letter from the Department stating that more documentation was necessary to prove he was born in the U.S., including records of prenatal care that his mother did not have. Aranda sent in school records, immunization records, his baptismal certificate and a letter explaining that his mother did not receive prenatal care because she could not afford it.

“The cases of Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Aranda, and the other plaintiffs in this case are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Lisa Brodyaga, the attorney for Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc. “There are countless other passport applicants like them who have done everything in their power to track down extra evidence, only to be told that their applications were being closed.”

ACLU of Texas Legal Director Lisa Graybill said, “For citizens living on the border, a passport is as necessary as a driver’s license. It’s wrong for the government to deny people their basic rights because their parents could not, or chose not, to have them delivered in a hospital.”

Defendants in the case before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty, Passport Services Directorate Managing Director Ann Barrett and the United States of America.

Lawyers on the case, Castelano, et al. v. Rice, et al., for the plaintiff class include Goldfaden of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Gupta of the ACLU Racial Justice Program; Graybill of the ACLU of Texas; Adam K. Levin, Melissa Henke, David Weiner and Robert Wolinsky of Hogan & Hartson; and Brodyaga of Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.

The complaint is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/36669lgl20080905.html

Podcasts with community leader Father Mike Seifert, Hernandez and Goldfaden are available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/passports.html“