Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Catching Up

I've been away for awhile. My book manuscript States without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals is now with the copy editors at Columbia University Press. I've been catching up with some other loose ends but am now happy to be back with much more to report, some good news and some awful.

The first good news: The Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled on November 10, 2008 that ICE may not detain people who have non-frivolous claims to US citizenship. The decision Flores v. Mukasey (November 10, 2008)reverses earlier holdings denying habeas review of Herbert Flores-Torres's detention. The Court wrote:
"The government's authority to detain Torres appears to depend on the question of whether he was legitimated by his father under El Salvadoran law. The district court is the appropriate forum to resolve such a claim. We hold that Torres does not have to wait until his removal proceedings are completed and a final removal order is issued before he can secure habeas review of his citizenship claim andof his contention that he may not be detained under the INA."


In other words, the law says that ICE does not have jurisdiction over US citizens and ICE has to stop holding people who have non-frivolous claims to US citizenship.
Before this decision, people who were born outside of the US had to endure detention while their appeals were winding their way through the immigration review process.

As I've reported in The Nation, this was a ludicrous approach for the simple reason that US citizens are not the right targets of an immigration review: they're CITIZENS. It's great to see the 9th Circuit Court also take this position, and will be even better if the DHS attorneys and immigration judges adhere to it.

Congratulations to Holly Cooper, Supervising Attorney at UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, for her work on this.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Department of Homeland Security Withdraws Appeal to Deport US Citizen



Late Monday, August 25 attorney Neil Rambana received a notice from the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney in Atlanta who had been trying to deport his client, a US citizen, stating that she was dropping her appeal of the judge's second order terminating deportation proceedings.

Since 1999 ICE and its predecessor agency the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) have been trying to deport David (for more on the background, click on the the David tag below). This has meant that David has spent nine years misclassified as an alien in the Georgia prison system, enduring maximum security incarceration and the loss of liberty from being denied the parole process due citizens.

If not for the ICE detainer, David would have been eligible for parole in 2005. Now he is still in prison and a Georgia Corrections Officer told me yesterday that because David's entire sentence will be served within a few months, “the parole board will not ramp up machinery for parole with so little time,” a response that does not fit Rambana's plans to seek David's immediate release.

Rambana described his response to the DHS withdrawal of its appeal this way:
The way this reads, it identifies that he has met his burden of proof and is a US citizen, and it memorializes for us that he's been put through the ringer unnecessarily and that all those things he suffered as a result of the detainer while he was in in prison is because they pushed the envelope unnecessarily. When they recommend withdrawing their appeal, they are saying that the judge [who twice terminated deportation proceedings] is right. That is malfeasance or nonfeasance.

Rambana continued, describing what happened in 2006 after Rambana had obtained an order from an immigration judge terminating the deportation proceedings, which ICE appealed without notifying Rambana:
I'm angry and I know his family must be angry too. He's been put in a situation where his security level increased; he was in isolation; and he was treated as a second class person. This is very upsetting.

The most upsetting part is that they did this behind our backs when we were attorneys of record. We could have addressed this issue several years ago. It was as though this person's life and wellbeing wasn't worth anything and they don't care. That is unacceptable and someone has to put them on notice that you cannot look at people and because of questionable immigration status treat them as a lesser person. You're not seeing a human being as a human being. You're treating them as pariahs or lepers because of an immigration matter. This is a US citizen, but because you didn't give them the benefit of due diligence they must suffer. How can they not do this? Who has all the resources? They [the DHS] do.

The attorney who withdrew the appeal is on vacation but Rambana hopes to learn the reason for the reversal next week. David is very fortunate to have an attorney who has been able to fight off the DHS in its maniacal, relentless efforts to remove him from the country despite his US citizenship, but many, many others are not so fortunate. For more on these cases, see the NationArticleFacts tag below.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

ICE Acts Like Gestapo: Black Shirts Try to Punish US Politicians for Calling ICE Gestapo


CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – IMMIGRATION
Aug. 6, 2008 – 11:28 p.m.

ICE Chief Calls for Congress to Discipline Lawmaker for 'Gestapo' Remark

By John Bicknell, CQ Staff

The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will ask Congress to consider taking disciplinary action against one of its members for a statement he made equating ICE agents with the Gestapo, a senior agency official said Wednesday. Luis V. Gutierrez , vice chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that handles immigration, has called for a moratorium on ICE enforcement actions until Congress passes a comprehensive overhaul, something it has failed to do in each of the past two years.

In a column written for Politico, Gutierrez, D-Ill., commenting on recent ICE arrests of illegal immigrants in Iowa, said: 'You know who is in charge now? The Gestapo agents at Homeland Security. They are in charge.'

A senior ICE official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was 'absolutely appalled and deeply angered' by the statement. The official said Myers would send a letter to senior members of Congress asking that disciplinary action be taken against Gutierrez' for his remarks.

Another official, Jamie Zuieback, director of congressional affairs for ICE, went on the record.

'It's not OK,' Zuieback said. 'Aside from being demeaning to the law enforcement officer
s that uphold the very laws passed by Mr. Gutierrez's Congress, it's potentially dangerous. No member of Congress should be encouraging the public to defy or demean federal law enforcement officers. Words matter.'

A call seeking comment from Gutierrez was not returned. Similar comments from the immigration activist community are not all that uncommon, and at least one other Democratic House member has made a similar remark. At a February hearing, California Democrat Sam Farr , assessing ICE's tactics, said, 'What happens is the public image of you becomes one of not this compassionate law enforcement agency but essentially a Gestapo-type agency that is knocking on doors.'

At that hearing, Myers responded by saying 'Congressman Farr, we are not the Gestapo, and I will not listen to you call . . . us Gestapo.'

A version of this story originally appeared on CQ Homeland Security.

--------------
Thanks to Rachel Rosenbloom, Supervising Attorney at the
Post-Deportation Human Rights Project for bringing this story to my attention.

Image from blog noting Gestapo tactics of ICE raids.

Monday, August 11, 2008

The Epistemology of Race and Citizenship

The State Department absent proof in individual cases, has been using the possibility of fraud in a particular region to deny citizenship documents to Mexican-Americans born in this country.

According to an article by Miriam Jordan in today's Wall Street Journal, Juan Aranda's
birth certificate says he was delivered unto Weslaco 38 years ago, and church records say he was baptized here soon after. School files list him as a student in the local district from kindergarten through high school, and voter rolls show he votes for president here. But to the U.S. State Department, all that black and white looks a lot like gray. It recently refused to issue Mr. Aranda a passport; the government isn't sure he's an American.
While the possibility of fraud may require vigilance in certain areas of the country among US Citizenship and Immigration Service agents, that is different from categorically questioning the birth certificates of all comers born in a certain region, especially when they present other documentation.

Any epistemologist knows there is no such thing as metaphysical certainty of anything. Either the US government must prove in individual cases that the documents it is receiving are fraudulent or they must grant the appropriate citizenship documents. Anything else is a violation of due process as well as the equal protection clause.
(Thanks to my colleague at UCLA Joshua Dienstag for sending this my way.)

Friday, August 8, 2008

California Prisons and Jails Deny Due Process to Citizens and Legal Residents



As discussed in yesterday's post (August 7), the 1994 Crime Bill and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act incentivized states to reclassify their inmate populations as aliens. The 1994 program designed for early parole on condition of deportation for nonviolent aliens turned into program of the federal government paying states to hold aliens for their normal sentences, or even longer. And this program provides no protections for citizens and legal residents who are misclassified. They too were put in maximum security prisons; held in detention centers; and in some cases, deported.

Here is some more information on how this was established in California.

The Texas legislative analyst's 1994 report Identify All Incarcerated Illegal Aliens and Deport Eligible Nonviolent Criminal Aliens was written to inform the Texas legislature on how other states had been handling their alien inmate population, and to asses the potential fiscal impact of signing up for the alien identification and deportation program with the federal government.

Here's what it says about California:
California's Department of Corrections reports that its process of identification goes far beyond self-reporting. An official in its Classification and Institution Division stated that caseworkers look at court records, "rap sheets," probation officer reports and other forms of identification, including Social Security cards and birth certificates. If there is any doubt about citizenship, the inmate is referred to INS for further review. Basically, California's policy is
that, unless inmates can prove they are U.S. citizens, they are referred to INS, which will screen and identify those it deems to be deportable.

This is a denial of due process for everyone, and clearly illegal in the case of those inmates who claim citizenship based on birth in the United States.

That this policy has continued through today in California is suggested in LA Sheriff Department's Officer Al Woods in his June 14, 2007 affidavit included in the government's responses to the habeas petition filed by the Southern California ACLU on behalf of Peter Guzman in June, 2007. In that document, Woods acknowledges that Guzman had told the police who arrested him and the agents who admitted him to the jail that he was born in California.



This is a remarkable statement, in which Woods is admitting that the LASD routinely breaks the law. Regardless of Woods' unsubstantiated assertion that “illegal aliens often times falsely represent their place of birth” the law requires that the assertion of birth in the United States puts the burden of proof on the government to show otherwise. The admission that Guzman “stated he was born in California” absent any other proof otherwise means that there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting Guzman was lying, and therefore no grounds for coercing him into signing a “voluntary” deportation order other than the illegal ones of racial profiling, incentivized by the compensation to local jails for housing criminal aliens.

Moreover, the jails and prisons who profile aliens and continue to house them are violating Congress's admittedly bad intentions. The 1996 IIRPA legislation, in explaining the desire to revise bilateral treaties to deport criminal aliens, states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the focus of negotiations for such agreements should be (A) to expedite the transfer of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are (or who are about to be) incarcerated in United States prisons.” The measure specifically calls for the treaties to end the requirement of prisoner consent to these transfers.

However, as was the case for David in Georgia, Guzman was not transferred to a Mexican prison but served the same amount of time in the LA County Jail as other prisoners would serve.

The only difference between the sentence of Guzman and other inmates with US citizenship in the LA County Jail is that Guzman (and Robert, and other US citizens wrongfully deported to Mexico whom I profiled in “Thin ICE”) had alien classifications leading to substantial federal dollars to the local and state prison systems, as discussed in yesterday's post.

(Note: I was planning to post the habeas petition on behalf of a Maryland inmate who is a US citizen but was misclassified as an alien without due process by the Maryland prison and then Department of Homeland Security. However, since sending me the information, the attorney has expressed a desire to consult his incarcerated client for permission to publicize his situation; I am respecting the attorney's request not to post the habeas petition until that has been obtained or the hearing has been held, whichever comes first.)

Photo by Don Bartletti, LA Times.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

How Early Release Turned into Indefinite Detention: Criminal Alien Laws from the 1990s



I've been writing this summer about David, a US citizen who should have been paroled in 2005 but continues to be held in Hancock State Prison in Sparta, Georgia because of wrongfully initiated deportation proceedings that have twice been terminated by an immigration judge. Nonetheless, the Department of Homeland Security attorneys continue to appeal and the Georgia Correctional Authority continues to hold David. (To read more on this case, see yesterday's post and also the posts tagged David.)

Why is this Happening?


Yesterday's post ended with a quotation from David's attorney's response to the DHS appeal charging them with failure to carry out their duties as government officials to the rule of law and justice. Neil Rambana alleged a procedural quagmire depriving David of his liberty.

Why the quagmire? What kind of quagmire is this, exactly? It turns out that David's situation is not an esoteric anomaly but symptomatic of a quiet scheme whereby state prisons and the INS and now DHS were collaborating to rip off the federal government and deport aliens without due process.

As readers of “Thin ICE” may have noticed, some of the detentions of US citizens I describe were occurring before 9-11. The mechanisms for deporting US citizen are not the result of a newly over-vigilant DHS but were put in place during the Clinton administration.

In 1994, just before the elections that gave Republicans a majority and elevated Newt Gingrich to Speaker of the House, Congress passed the most expansive and expensive crime bill in history. One key part aimed at deporting aliens who were convicted of a felony. The ostensible goal was budgetary: in exchange for identifying criminal aliens and targetting for early parole on condition of deportation those convicted of nonviolent offenses, Congress was going to reimburse the state prisons and jails for alien inmates. The funds appropriated for this purpose alone were enormous:
`(A) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
`(B) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
`(C) $330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
`(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
`(E) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
`(F) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

The program has been reauthorized and is now called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

Subsequent authorizations were between $250 and $565 million per year.

In other words, Congress wanted to give states an incentive to identify and deport criminal aliens. The outlay in federal expenditures, the thinking went, would be dwarfed by the savings from states not having to care for another country's criminals. A requirement for the funding is that states house all those classified as criminal aliens in maximum security facilities.

Even before the measure was implemented it was clear that the states realized that this was a huge bonanza for them, and that the big money was not going to be from the early release of inmates, but from the federal funds coming to them once they identified their inmates as aliens. Here's what the Texas legislative analyst wrote of the program in the 1994 Identify All Incarcerated Illegal Aliens and Deport Eligible Nonviolent Criminal Aliens:

The recently passed federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, popularly known simply as the "Crime Bill," creates an additional incentive to identify all incarcerated illegal aliens. The bill provides that the federal government will compensate states and local jurisdictions for the average cost of incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens.11 Any enhancement to TDCJ's current method should improve its ability to properly identify undocumented aliens.


Later the report states:
The major gains to general revenue would be in the form of additional federal aid received under the Crime Bill for compensation to the state for the incarceration of illegal aliens.


In 1996, this measure was further strengthened through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, a law designed to harm immigrants in many ways, including by depriving them, and therefore also citizens, of due process rights during immigration proceedings. The bill lowered the threshold for deportation to a felony OR two misdemeanors, and it added language bolstering the criminal identification and deportation program:
“To the extent of available appropriations, funds otherwise made available under this section with respect to a State (or political subdivision, including a municipality) for incarceration of an undocumented criminal alien may, at the discretion of the recipient of the funds, be used for the costs of imprisonment of such alien in a State, local, or municipal prison or jail.” (Sec. 328).


The bill further states that “Of the $130,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1995 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the Department of Justice disbursed the first $43,000,000 to states on October 6, 1994, 32 days before the 1994 general election, and then failed to disburse the remaining $87,000,000 until January 31, 1996, 123 days after the end of fiscal year 1995.” This section goes on to complain that the States are owed $66,000,000 in funds for housing “documented illegal immigrant felons,” when in fact the people identified as “illegal” were never given hearings before this designation was assigned. (Section 328).

If Congress only pays for aliens, then the state prisons can ask the federal government to pay for anyone's incarceration by designating them aliens. Since there are no hearings to determine or even appeal this, the only losers are the inmates. (Section 250 gives the INS the authority to deport people who have records of criminal convictions and Section 328 provides the rules for implementing this policy through the prisons.)

Sure enough, this is exactly what happened to David, giving Georgia Correctional Authorities an incentive to not only misclassify a US citizen as an alien, but also to hold him for a period longer than he would otherwise be incarcerated. Each day David is held means more money going to the Georgia state prisons.

The evidence for this is as follows:

-The Notice to Appear form used for David's initial reclassification in 1999 was printed in 1997 by the INS as part of “removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” relying on the section allowing for the use of state records of a criminal conviction to be grounds for the removal of aliens.

-The form used for David's parole is one that was issued in 8/95 and titled: “Order of Conditional Transfer to I.N.S. Detainer, with Detainer.” Its language is consistent with the 1994 law.

It states that the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole has been

“informed by the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service that the subject of this Order is an alien subject to deportation, and the Board finds the welfare of the citizens of Georgia and the orderly administration of this state's penitentiary resources would be best served by an action allowing the subject of this Order to depart Georgia custody for the sole and limited purpose of enabling such actual deportation action to occur.”


The order concludes, “Failing actual deportation, the subject of this Order shall be returned to Georgia custody to resume service of all sentences without credit for the time lapsing while out of Georgia custody.” This means that David's prison sentence could be extended an additional 8 months, the amount of time he was released for deportation proceedings into ICE custody.

-If the incarceration of 8 years for a prison sentence of ten years for a nonviolent crime is not sufficient evidence in itself of Georgia pocketing the federal per diem money for housing aliens, rather than releasing them early, then perhaps the direct statement of a Parole Board officer should suffice. In mid-July, before I saw a copy of David's "early" parole on condition of deportation order, I had been asking various Georgia prison officials whether aliens who were paroled on condition of deportation were paroled and deported earlier than they would be if they had been citizens, or whether they served the same length in prison that they would serve if they were US citizens.

Most prison officers said they had wondered about this themselves and didn't know. But when I finally found someone in a policy-making position in the Parole Board office, here's what he said: “If the Parole Board in Georgia makes a decision to grant parole, they don't make it earlier than what it would be if they do not have an ICE detainer.” He reiterated the point later in the conversation, as I was asking about the particulars of David's case, “Just because they have an ICE detainer does not mean we will consider them [for parole on condition of deportation].” This is a direct violation of the federal law under which Georgia is receiving compensation for their criminal aliens.

During this conversation, I pointed out the contradiction of this officer conceding that for David to be paroled on condition of deportation he would have had to have served his entire sentence and him also stating that David would be reincarcerated rather than released after the judge issued an order terminating his deportation proceedings.

If they only release people for conditional parole who have served out their sentences, then on what grounds can these people be returned to prison if ICE does not deport them?

His reply: “This conversation is over.”

After reading the language of the so-called early deportation orders, the travesty of law and justice become even more clear. Georgia is using David to line the coffers of their prison system. Georgia saves money only if it releases people classified as US citizens. It earns money by holding people it helps ICE classify as aliens, even if these people are also US citizens denied due process necessary for them to maintain their citizenship rights, including at minimum protections again wrongful imprisonment.

Tomorrow: Habeas petition filed for Maryland inmate in similar situation.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

US Citizen Continues to be Wrongfully Imprisoned

In June 2008, Neil Rambana, an immigration attorney in Tallahassee, contacted me about a client who was being held in deportation proceedings in Georgia, even though an immigration judge had issued an order terminating deportation proceedings in 2006. Over the next couple of weeks I posted a few pieces about the case of the man I'm calling David, which you can find by clicking on this tag below.

As I continued doing my research I realized that just as US citizen Peter Guzman's 2007 removal to Tijuana was a symptom of ICE detaining and deporting thousands of US citizens, David's wrongful classification turns out to be a symptom of a widespread practice of prisons gaming laws that Congress passed in the 1990s. Prisons classify their inmates as aliens and then receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, with no safeguards for those who are actually US citizens.

This posting describes what happened to David. Tomorrow's will show how it fits a nationwide pattern. (Meanwhile, the report documenting the political screening of immigration judges and DHS prosecuting attorneys is here.

David's Story


In 1998 David began a ten year prison sentence for a nonviolent crime (omitted for reasons of privacy) at the privately run Coffee Prison, a medium security facility in Georgia used for inmates posing a low risk of violence or flight. Prison blogs are generally favorable about the conditions there. As Georgia prisons go, Coffee isn't that bad.

In 1999, the INS classified David as an alien and initiated deportation proceedings against him.

David, however, is a US citizen at birth by operation of law, and has the documents to prove this, as he has done twice to the satisfaction of an immigration judge. David's father, José, now deceased, had a birth certificate showing he was born in Los Angeles in 1925. Similar to another case I describe in “Thin ICE” (The Nation, June 23, 2008), José's family returned to Mexico in the early 1930s. This was during period when immigration agents were illegally removing legal residents and US citizens with Mexican ancestry, a phenomenon documented in a contemporaneous government report published in 1931, as well as by historians today (for more on the link between these earlier illegal deportations and those of today, see this post).

José married David's mother and fulfilled the other requirements that would allow his Mexican-born children to be US citizens at birth by operation of law. In 1989, when David was 15, he went to the US Consulate office in Mexico and presented the relevant documents. The American Vice Consul signed a document indicating that David had “registered at this office as a citizen of the United States, having acquired United States citizenship by birth under Section 301(g) INA 1952.”

David then joined his other siblings in the US and used these papers for the purposes of marrying his wife and bestowing US citizenship on her as well. In other words, David has documentation of two different immigration agents in two different time frames, one in Mexico and another in the US, accepting his documents as proof of his citizenship.

According to David, an immigration agent told him that a corrections officer at Coffee had contacted Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1999 to request the immigration hold. David writes, “You can prove he is lying because he didn't want to take my fingerprints or even a picture. Thanks to this hold I had to do seven years of my sentence at a high security level prison because of the hold I had from immigration.”

There are several problems with this policy but perhaps the most glaring one is that there is no due process for appealing the classification. INS and now ICE puts the hold on the inmate and the earliest this can be appealed is when the prison releases the inmate into the deportation process, after the damage of their reclassification has occurred.


A Georgia Corrections agent who works in the Georgia Correctional Authority Classifications office told me that once ICE notifies their office of an immigration hold, the inmate is automatically reclassified as high security. I asked what the person could do if he is a US citizen, if there were any appeal process within the prison. I was told that the only way the Classifications office would change the status is “if immigration contacts us and says they're a citizen. Immigration has to tell us.”

I asked about the inevitable delay before this would occur, that the sentence would be over before an opportunity to change the status. Her response: “We just have to wait until the outcome. We don't say this person's wrong or right; we just wait until the final outcome.” This is a bizarre reply. The reclassification is indeed privileging the assertion of the government's claim that the individual is an alien and ignoring the citizen's protest against this without any due process.

For David, it took seven years of him waiting in a maximum security facility for him to prove that he should never have been incarcerated this way, and even now this proof has not been sufficient for him to be released and he remains incarcerated with an immigration hold.

A complicating fact in this narrative was the 90% policy Georgia initiated in 1998, requiring anyone convicted of almost any felony, including nonviolent ones, to serve 90% of their sentences. A judge eventually ruled this unconstitutional, and in 2005 David received a form letter from the Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles informing him of this:
“A Fulton County Superior Court judge recently signed an order ruling that the Parole Board's 90% policy, adopted in 1997, was 'implemented improperly and as a result is ineffective and has no force or effect.' After consulting with the office of the Attorney General, the Board has decided not to appeal the decision and to apply the ruling to all cases previously considered using the 90% policy.”

The letter informs David that he will be evaluated for parole based on his “grid score,” which in light of all the certificates and other commendations in David's file, must have been quite high. The letter also said that because of the large number of inmates affected, there would be delays in evaluating the cases—hardly respectful of the important liberty interests at stake.

In the event, in late 2005, eight years into David's sentence, the Board granted David “parole on condition of removal.”

The order was called an “Early Release” even though David was not being parole early, but by the state's own account, he had been held too long! (Apologies for being mysterious here but David's attorney, Rambana, requested that I not reveal the crime. I can say that it is nonviolent, victimless, and virtually never charged.)

David's sister told me that David had been in touch with her to obtain legal representation for this. Rambana's firm provides pro bono representation and he accepted the case. In August, 2006 Rambana thought his work was done. The immigration judge William Cassidy issued an order terminating deportation proceedings and Rambana assumed David would be released.

After ICE lost the case, they did as they normally do and appealed the adverse decision. This meant that the immigration hold continued. Due process required that ICE notify David's attorney, Rambana, of any further action but this never happened. ICE sent their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and withheld notice of this from Rambana.

During this period, according to David's sister Erica, David was desperate to be released and repeatedly said he was going to sign the deportation order, just so he could leave the prison where he'd been for almost 9 years, even if that meant losing his citizenship rights and being sent to Mexico. Erica tried calling the parole office to find out what was going on but no one answered the phone and when someone finally called her back she began to cry in frustration.

Erica, who works in animal control in southern California, expressed her frustration at the absence of the rule of law, complaining that every time she spoke to a different person she was told a different story, “One day I tell them, this does not depend on what officer I get, but what the law is. No matter who I talk to, I should get the same answer.”

Erica also told me about David's threat to sign out: “We said, no, you don't resign. You've already been in there 9 years, just one more year.”

In March 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which, like ICE, has been documented as being illegally staffed by political appointees, instructed the judge to hold a new hearing and issue his decision in writing. This is the order that was sent to Rambana's office, alerting him 19 months after he thought his client had been freed that David still was in deportation proceedings and still being held in prison.

It is unconscionable that it took the BIA this long to act on the appeal. The delay is itself part of the coercion used to pressure detainees to sign out. The absence of a decision is not neutral but gives the power of a punishing imprisonment to ICE, which uses this to pressure detainees to drop their appeals and be released in a foreign country. Although David was physically in the custody of the Georgia prison, this was only because of the ICE detainer. Absent the INS hold, David would have been paroled and out of prison at the end of 2005.

That neither ICE nor the BIA are especially interested in the law here can be seen by their failure to adhere to the burden of proof requirements for deportation cases. According to the law established through BIA and Supreme Court precedents, once a foreign-born person claiming to be a US citizen produces reasonable evidence substantiating a claim of US citizenship, then the burden of proof shifts to the Government show otherwise.

The DHS appeal of the first termination order does not even come close to providing this proof. Instead it raises allegations of the possibility of fraud and illegality that any skeptic could raise about any document, and provides not a single scintilla of evidence challenging their authenticity. For instance, after acknowledging that David had submitted a copy of a card recognizing him as a US citizen to the court, the DHS states, “there is no indicia of reliability in such card.” First, so what? The law does not require people to have US passports or fraud-proof certificates of citizenship, just reliable evidence of citizenship in any form. David presented copious documentation in the form of receipts, envelopes, and notarized, dated stamps indicating that this was a genuine card that had been issued to him in 1989. David also submitted his father's US birth certificate and death certificate—both indicating US citizenship—and documentation of his father's paystubs showing residence in the US for the requisite time frame.

The DHS states “This scant, unauthenticated evidence, cannot serve as a basis for the determination of Respondent's citizenship.” This is demonstrably false since the documents were authenticated by a notary and because an immigration judge had judged this evidence sufficient to determine David's US citizenship. Moreover, DHS provided no counter-evidence other than its own epistemic authority to decree its doubt. This is not proof but bullying. The immigration judge seemed to agree and on June 11, 2008 reaffirmed his first ruling terminating the deportation proceedings.

Sit down. DHS appealed AGAIN. In this appeal, submitted on June 12, the ICE attorney stated that the immigration judge had not complied with the BIA decision directing a new hearing with a transcript. There is not a shred of evidence proffered to indicate that David is not a US citizen, only a delaying tactic without substantive foundation to deprive David of his liberty.

In his reply to this appeal, David's attorney, Rambana, lashed out at the reckless disregard for lawfulness on the part of the DHS:
“[During the course of his removal proceedings DHS counsel's obligation to see that the law was observed was not fulfilled. 'Counsel for the government has an interest only the law being observed, not in victory or defeat in any particular litigation.' See Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991). See also Freeport-McMoRan Oil and Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., citing the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility holding government lawyers to a higher standard than private lawyers and finding 'it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an applicant into submission.' Freeport-McMoRan Oil and Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., 962 F. 2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, the truth of the matter is that the government wins when justice is done. Matter of S-M-J, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997). However, here, the Respondent who should have been aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation or a controlling court decision was left to linger in the procedural quagmire of DHS.”

For an explanation of the national policies driving this, please read tomorrow's post.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

43 Years Ago Today at 7:15 pm EST...

the United States government's Enola Gay airplane dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, instantly killing tens of thousands and leaving hundreds of thousands to die from their internal and external radiation burns. The United States, which recently invented the Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse to invade Iraq, has been the only country to use nuclear weapons in war, and the only country to kill such a large number of civilians in a single attack.

Here's what one US citizen wrote in his letter to Time magazine on August 6, 1945:
Sirs,
The United States of America has today become the new master of brutal infamy, atrocity. Bataan, Buchenwald, Dachau, Coventry Lidice were tea parties compared the horror which we, the people of the United States of America, have dumped on the world in th form of atomic energy bombs. No peacetime applications of the Frankenstein monster can ever erase the crime we have committed. We have paved the way for the obliteration of our globe. It is no democracy where such an outrage can be committed without our consent!

Walter G. Taylor of New York City

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Republicans Point out Hypocrisy of Anti-Torture Legal Scholars


Ric Keller (R-FL): "Isn't killing the ultimate torture?"

Walter Dellinger, Solicitor General under President Clinton and currently a law professor at Duke University Law School visiting at Harvard Law School was questioned by Rep. Dan Lufgren (R-IN) and Rik Keller (R-FL) during the House Judiciary July 17 hearings on interrogations. These Republicans deftly revealed the hollowness and distraction of the anti-torture legal analysis in this country.

To paraphrase the Republicans' line of questioning highlighting the absence of a serious peace movement: why are these liberal scholars so self-righteous in protesting the torture of a few detainees (who clearly should not be held this way much less tortured), but say nothing about our policy of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and indeed support targeted assassinations?

Dellinger had been making the case of "24"-s Jack Bauer--the President in the case of a "ticking time bomb" can authorize torture, but then needs to turn himself in and be accountable. (Bauer regularly breaks laws but acknowledges this is his decision, for which he will accept the legal consequences.)

Lufgren made a really great point in pressing Dellinger to distinguish the narrow case of torture from the President's use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians on a daily basis. Dellinger folded.

Here's the exchange (at 1:48 on the hearing streamed via C-SPAN).

Lufgren: Mr. Dellinger, you set up a scenario by which you think we ought to operate, that is in certain dire circumstances the president ought to break the law by directing people to break the law to do something that should save American lives. If that had been the case in WWII should Pres. Truman have submitted himself to the law after he ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb on two occasions.

Dellinger: I don't know that that was unlawful, in violation of any statute.

Lufgren: Even though that ended up with the loss of many lives that were innocent men women, and children who were not described in any way as belligerents or combatants?


Dellinger: I think that may well have been in the scope of his authority.

Later, Ric Keller (R-FL) pushed even further (at 2 hours):

Keller: It seems to me that the gist of your testimony is that it was okay for the Clinton Justice Department to authorize the killing of bin Laden but it's not okay for the Bush administration to aggressively question terrorists who want to kill us, and that seems just a bit inconsistent to me.

Dellinger: I can answer that precisely.

Keller: Okay.

Dellinger: The reason is quite simple. It would not have been against the law of the United States to assassinate bin Laden. It was against the law of the US to engage in torture. Those are decisions that have been made by Congress.

Keller: Isn't killing the ultimate torture. I mean, my god. What worse torture is there than killing somebody?

Dellinger We kill enemy combatants all the time. That is very different. than subjecting them to cruelty. I happen to have a personal belief that the executive order forbidding assassinations, whenever that's been in effect, is probably a mistake.

Keller: Let me just say to you. We have a Supreme Court and they just ruled that the death penalty was too cruel and unusual a punishment for someone who raped an 8 year old girl. So if the death penalty is too cruel of an unusual a punishment, how the hell is it okay to kill someone but not okay to aggressively question them?

Dellinger: Well, Osama bin Laden is not a United States citizen and not being detained in the United States, under the custody of the United States, and therefore, has no Constitutional rights.

Keller: But you agree with me that the Clinton Justice Department specifically authorized the killing of Osama bin Laden?

Dellinger: I am not privy to that, nor could I address it if I did.

Keller: I'm privy to that, and hell I was in school during that administration, because I'm looking at page 132 of the 9-11 Commission Report and I'll let you be privy to it now. “The new memorandum would allow the killing of bin Laden. The administration's position was that under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States would be an act of self-defense, not assassination. On Christmas eve 1998 bin Laden [sic] sent a final draft to President Clinton with an explanatory memo. The President approved the document. Because the White House considered this operation highly sensitive only a tiny number of people knew about this memorandum of notification. A message from Tenet to CIA field agents directed them to communicate to the tribals the instructions authorized by the President of the United States that preferred that bin Laden and his lieutenants be captured, but if successful capture operation was not feasible the tribals were permitted to kill them.”

Now you see the contradiction. You have testified with respect ot questioning from my colleague from California Mr. Lungren, that even with Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, that is not an exceptional extraordinary circumstance that should allow us under the law that should allow us to question him aggressively, right? He's not a United States citizen. That was your concern before, but he's not a United States citizen..

Dellinger: The question you're asking, I think is a question directed to the Congress of the United States. And if there's a contradiction between our legal authority to assassinate persons who are foreign leaders and the prohibition on torture that's to be resolved by Congress. My concern is that the claim in this, the fundamental flaw in these memoranda is that they take the term “the inherent authority of the president,” that is, what a president can do in the absence of any prohibition by Congress, which I think is a broad area in the area of national defense, and then will say once Congress has enacted a criminal prohibition, the President can still do it because it's quote within his “inherent authority.” That, I think, fundamentally disregards the central role of Congress in establishing what the law is.

Analysis. Dellinger is trying to avoid the blatant ethical hypocrisy of picking on the government for torturing a few people while ignoring the widespread suffering caused by, say, an atomic bomb, the effects of which are torture by any measure, by shifting the problem to Congress. Not only does the magnitude of the contrast warrant comment, even if it is on Congress' decision-making, but Keller is making an astute Constitutional point and not just one about statutes.

Keller is pointing out that the Supreme Court has declared that when the state executes people who are criminally convicted of raping children, that is torture under the Eighth Amendment. Dellinger tries to claim that because the murder of civilians and targetted assassinations are authorized by law, this makes them different from torture that violates the law. But if a legislative body passes statutes that are unconstitutional, e.g., executing rapists, then these are not laws.

If the Supreme Court says killing people who are not convicted of killing someone else is "cruel and unusual punishment" then isn't that an interesting argument against dropping bombs on civilians? The argument would be novel and is not the direction that this Supreme Court would go. But it is an intriguing opening that anyone who truly cared about the excesses and cruelties of state sovereignty would pursue. Dellinger's effort to deflect this line of questioning by claims about state custody is not only ethically indefensible but also incorrect in some cases, for instance, when the US government is an occupying power.

Rather than advancing a marginal if not distracting question about the US use of torture in a few dozen cases at most, why not hearings on the US army killing hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Lawsuit Charges Maricopa County Sheriff with Racially Profiling Latinos


Attorneys working with the American Civil LIberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed an amended complaint today against Joseph Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff in southern Arizona.

The lawsuit profiles the Sheriff's Wild West brand of racist vigilantism, with the Sheriff plaing to hometown bigotry and illegally detaining and searching US citizens and legal residents who appear to be Latino. You can find the complaint here.

Here are some scenarios the lawsuit describes:

1) Arpaio ordered his deputies to detain and arrest Latinos who were in an area populated by day laborers as retaliation for community protests against these policies. "In an apparent effort to suppress the Pruitt store protesters' exercise of their First Amendment rights, Arpaio announced that he would continue to patrol the area until the protests ended" (pp. 13-14).

2) "Arpaio praised as 'patriotic' the private groups, including the American Freedom Riders, that...had been harassing all Latino persons entering and leaving [a] legal center" (p. 14).
This is the equivalent of conservative politicians in pre-Nazi German pandering to the brown shirts by informally deputizing them and tacitly supporting their thuggery directed against Communists and Jews.

In fact, most of Arpaio's actions resonate with events during the transition era of the German goverment in 1932, when a country compensated for its loss of stature in international and specifically military arenas by bullying its own citizens. Can't beat the French? Then attack the Jews. Can't beat Al Qaeda? Harass Latinos.

3. A Mexican citizen was visiting with a legal visa and in a car with other Latinos. The car was pulled over supposedly for speeding but a ticket for this was not issued. Instead the Sheriff's officers searched, arrested and handcuffed Mauel de Jesus Ortega Melendres without probable cause and after he had shown them his valid legal documents. Weirdly, he was ridiculed as a sex pervert, then held for nine hours without food or drink, and eventually released after an ICE agent approved the documents. His hands were bruised and painful from the handcuffs, which, despite his polite requests, were not removed or even adjusted (pp. 18-19).

4. Sheriffs had established a traffic stop to screen Latinos. Cars driven by Caucasians were briefly inspected and then allowed to pass through. The car driven by Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez was held up as officers requested a social security card (p. 21).

As a result of these activities, Arpaio is charged with violating several laws. The most surprising law the ACLU charges Arpaio with violating is Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 USC 1357(g), which authorizes local law enforcement agencies to enter "memoranda of understanding" with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce some portions of immigration law.

The ACLU points out ICE itself has stated that the "'287(g) program is not designed to allow state and local agencies to perform random street operations'" and that "officers may only 'use their authority when dealing with someone who is suspected of a state crime that is more than a traffic offense.'" (Quoting from ICE Fact Sheet, Section 287(g) of the Immigraiton and Nationality Act (September 24, 2007), at http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/factsheet287gprogover.htm). It should be pointed out that the prohibition against random street operations rules out the only possible defense Arpaio might have, which would be to say that his stops are not based on race: random stops are not allowed AND those based on racial profiling allowed. This means that there are no grounds on which officers are allowed to stop and investigate people for immigration violations absent probable cause.

In addition the suit charges Arpaio violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, which invalidates racial profiling; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure; the Arizona privacy article of the Arizona Constitution; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting race discrimination in federally funded programs (since the Sheriff's office receives federal funds).

The suit is asking for judgments confirming their allegations as well as injunctions against further racial profiling and attorney fees as well as "such other relief as the Court deems just and proper" (p. 30).

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

ICE Lawbreaking Costing Taxpayers Big Bucks


Yesterday I was interviewed about my research for the June 23, 2008 Nation article "Thin ICE" by a local NPR show "Crosstalk." (The shows are not archived.) The host, Jim Rondeau, asked how ICE responds to charges that it is detaining and deporting U.S. citizens. There used to be one answer to this question, but since a couple of weeks ago, ICE has two. I want to discuss these in more detail from a factual and legal standpoint.

The early response, which I first heard in the February 2008 testimony of Gary Mead, Assistant Director for Management of Detention and Removal Operations, in the House Judiciary Subcomittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, was that ICE "does not knowingly or willingly" detain or deport US citizens. This also was the line mouthed to me by Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery, an Public Relations Officer, when I interviewed him for the Nation article.

There are several problems with this answer. The first is that it is demonstrably false. In the cases my article documented, including one specific case whose facts I brought to the attention of Alvarez-Montgomery and several other ICE officials, they ignored the evidence I sent them of Rene Saldivar's citizenship and he continued to be held in the Eloy Detention Center. In other words, ICE will have a birth certificate or other documents indicating legal requirements of citizenship are satisfied, and nonetheless hold the citizen in detention. (I'll speculate on why they do this later.)


The pattern of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the ICE predecessor agency, and ICE losing civil cases in which the allegation is unlawful detention of US citizens, or settling these cases, provides historical evidence that the government is indeed knowingly and willfully detaining U.S. citizens. In other words, the legal arm of ICE over the last decade has been shelling out what I estimate to be millions of dollars in restitution for false imprisonment lawsuits filed by residents and citizens over the last several years, while the public relations wing of the operation claims this never happens.

In one case, just brought to my attention by attorney Philip Hwang at the San Francisco office of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, a US citizen was falsely imprisoned for hours at the San Francisco Airport. According to the SF Chronicle, Chima Obi, who was born in Redwood City, California and then raised in Africa, was shackled to a chair and taunted by immigration agents who refused to believe that a woman of African descent could be a doctor and a US citizen. She showed them her passport. That wasn't enough. She showed them her birth certificate, and, she said, that made them only angrier. She and her husband were fearful that they would not be able to settle in the US because the INS would never believe them. She eventually was released and her documentation approved, and the INS paid $50,000 to settle the case.

Between 1995 and 2002, the SF based Lawyers Committee for Civil and Constitutional Rights represented 8 cases of people being unlawfully detained for which the INS paid $675,000 to settle.


Claiming that an ICE agent does "not know" a US passport and birth certificate are authentic because racism makes them stupid is not a defense against false imprisonment, but grounds for additional civil rights charges.

{To be cont.}

image above is from here.

Interpreter's Firsthand Account of Civil Rights Violations in Iowa Raid


The Detention Watch Network just released a first-hand account by an interpreter ICE hired for a raid at the Postville, Iowa meat-packing raid with 900 ICE agents in May. Anyone interested in an eye-witness account to these events should take a look. Here's an excerpt:
...Echoing what I think was the general feeling, one of my fellow interpreters would later exclaim: "When I saw what it was really about, my heart sank..." Then began the saddest procession I have ever witnessed, which the public would never see, because cameras were not allowed past the perimeter of the compound (only a few journalists came to court the following days, notepad in hand). Driven single-file in groups of 10, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles, chains dragging as they shuffled through, the slaughterhouse workers were brought in for arraignment, sat and listened through headsets to the interpreted initial appearance, before marching out again to be bused to different county jails, only to make room for the next row of 10. They appeared to be uniformly no more than 5 ft. tall, mostly illiterate Guatemalan peasants with Mayan last names, some being relatives (various Tajtaj, Xicay, Sajché, Sologüí...), some in tears; others with faces of worry, fear, and embarrassment. They all spoke Spanish, a few rather laboriously. It dawned on me that, aside from their nationality, which was imposed on their people in the 19th century, they too were Native Americans, in shackles. They stood out in stark racial contrast with the rest of us as they started their slow penguin march across the makeshift court. "Sad spectacle" I heard a colleague say, reading my mind. They had all waived their right to be indicted by a grand jury and accepted instead an information or simple charging document by the U.S. Attorney, hoping to be quickly deported since they had families to support back home. But it was not to be. They were criminally charged with "aggravated identity theft" and "Social Security fraud" -charges they did not understand... and, frankly, neither could I. Everyone wondered how it would all play out.
To read the essay in its entirety, go here.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Interview on today's "Crosstalk," 1:05 pm PST

I'm going to be interviewed today on the local NPR station for Ventura County and Santa Barbara, starting at 1:05 PST. It will be streamed at http://www.kclu.org.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

New Interactive Map of Detention Sites


PRESS RELEASE FROM ANDREA BLACK, Coordinator,DETENTION WATCH NETWORK
The Detention Watch Network (DWN) today released the next generation of its interactive map of the U.S. Immigration Detention System. http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/dwnmap

Designed to increase awareness about the hidden and rapidly expanding detention system, the map includes in-depth information about the far-flung network of 350-plus detention centers, private prisons, and local jail facilities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to detain immigrants. “It is incredibly difficult to find someone once they have been detained. Family members, lawyers and friends will now be able to use this map to locate their loved ones. It will also be a critical resource for advocates and provide a strong visual tool to educate the U.S. public and policy makers about this hidden system,” said Andrea Black, Network Coordinator.

As recent media reports and congressional hearings on deaths in detention have highlighted, the U.S. immigration detention system is vast, constantly changing, and shrouded in secrecy with isolated and remote facilities scattered across the country. It is extremely difficult to get even basic information from the government about which facilities are in use, the numbers of people being detained and the locations of individuals swept into the system. “It is heartbreaking to see families struggle to find a loved one in detention, frantic to learn which detention centers are nearby. And it is challenging to advocate for detention reform and hold the government accountable for its capricious policies without a clear understanding of the vast system in place and its proposed expansion.” said DWN member Bob Libal of Grassroots Leadership.

In April 2007, DWN created the first national map of the U.S. immigration detention system. The response was overwhelmingly positive and has proven extremely useful to families searching for detainees as well as reporters and Congressional offices. However, it only scratched the surface of needed information. The new map creates a multi-faceted visual representation of the immigration detention world. In addition to a navigable national map, each detention center has its own page with contact and visitation information as well as links to resources and related media.

The map was created by the Praxis Project (www.thepraxisproject.org) using open-source technology. Research was provided by volunteers throughout the country, including students from Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Florida State University School of Law and Southwest Institute for Research on Women who investigated information about each center through interviews, online research and extensive outreach to facilities. Critical funding was provided by the Sparkplug Foundation and Maverick Lloyd Foundation. The map is a work in progress; DWN will continue to work with volunteers to gather information about this ever-changing system to support affected family, community members, and advocates and educate the media, the public, and policy makers.

DWN is a national coalition of organizations and individuals working to educate the public and policy makers about the U.S. immigration detention and deportation system and advocate for reform so that all who come to our shores receive humane treatment. For more information, visit http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org.

END PRESS RELEASE

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

USA Today Story on Lawsuits against ICE by US Citizens and Legal Residents


The link for this is http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-24-Immigration-raids_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
(June 24, 2008)

Citizens sue after detentions, immigration raids
By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES — Nitin Dhopade, the chief financial officer for Micro Solutions Enterprises, was headed toward the accounting department on the afternoon of Feb. 7 to deliver checks he had just signed. Suddenly, he says, he encountered armed men and women wearing bulletproof vests and uniforms branded with "ICE," which stands for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Dhopade, 47, says he and 30 other administrative workers for the Van Nuys, Calif., company, which recycles used toner and ink cartridges, were marched down a stairwell lined by officers. The workers were ordered against a wall and told not to touch anything or use their cellphones. "There was no way you could leave. You were definitely detained," he says. "None of us were in handcuffs, but there was no way you could say 'I'm leaving.' "

That marked the beginning of a surprise raid that would result in the arrests of 138 suspected illegal immigrants, about one-fifth of MSE's workforce. Also swept up in the same raid were more than 100 U.S. citizens and legal residents, including Dhopade, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India. They say they were illegally detained at the factory for an hour when ICE agents blocked the doors and interrogated them, forbidding them to leave or go to the bathroom without an escort.

Whether their brief detention was a mere inconvenience or a flagrant violation of their constitutional rights is the subject of a growing debate that seems likely to be resolved in federal court. Immigration officials, charged with enforcing the law against the estimated 12 million undocumented foreigners in the USA, are mounting more raids at slaughterhouses, restaurants and factories.

Increasingly, U.S. citizens and legal residents who work alongside illegal immigrants are being detained and interrogated, too. And some, such as Dhopade, are filing claims or lawsuits against the government.

Dhopade says he was a victim of racial profiling by ICE. An ICE agent questioned him about his immigration status and his ability to speak English "because of my skin color," he says. "None of the white folks in the office … that I know of were asked for proof of citizenship. To be asked for proof of citizenship, in this country, it's an insult. This is the United States of America. This country does not require that."

In other immigration raids, citizens and legal, permanent residents have been taken to jail. Jesus Garcia, a former Texas poultry worker, was handcuffed and spent more than 30 hours in ICE custody this year, part of that time in jail. Two co-workers, both citizens, also were arrested. No charges were filed against them.

In April, the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, a public interest law firm here, filed claims for damages on behalf of 114 MSE employees, all citizens or legal permanent residents, also called green-card holders. The claims allege that they were subjected to "false imprisonment" and "detention without justification" and seek $5,000 each in damages from the federal government.

The lawsuits and claims against the government are part of a strategy by immigration lawyers to halt or change workplace raids. Peter Schey, president and executive director of the center, acknowledges that "we're hoping the prospect of thousands of U.S. citizens over time filing claims for damages against the United States government might cause (ICE) to reconsider how these raids are conducted."

"You cannot in this country engage in group detentions of large numbers of people because you think a smaller number within the larger group has done something wrong," Schey says. At the Van Nuys plant, ICE "created a powerful atmosphere of fear and intimidation. People felt like they had been taken hostage."

The rationale for the raids

Julie Myers, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for ICE, says federal law, Supreme Court decisions and search warrants give ICE the authority to enter workplaces to question "all the people inside," including citizens. She declines to discuss the MSE case, citing the ongoing investigation. But she says ICE agents work fast to separate legal workers from suspected illegal ones.

"When we go in, a lot of people are pretending to be U.S. citizens, and then there are some people who are," she says. "Our goal is to make sure we work as quickly and efficiently as we can so that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are free to go."

The stepped-up enforcement protects U.S. workers, she says. "We're trying to create a culture of compliance … so that businesses would start to have incentives to hire only people who are legally entitled to work here."

Workplace arrests by ICE in 2007 were 10 times what they were in 2002. Last year, the agency charged 863 people with criminal violations, such as identity theft, and 4,077 for allegedly being in the country illegally. In 2002, ICE made 25 criminal and 485 immigration-related arrests. Workers arrested on criminal charges face jail time; those accused of being in the country illegally are subject to deportation.

So far this year, ICE has made 850 criminal arrests and detained 2,900 people on immigration violations.

ICE has three primary targets, Myers says: workers who steal the identities of U.S. citizens, such as those who use someone else's Social Security number to gain employment; work sites such as airports and naval bases, which could be particularly vulnerable to terrorist threats; and what Myers calls "egregious employers" — those who knowingly hire illegal workers.

Barbara Coe, chairwoman of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, says raids "are providing the incentive for at least some of these illegal aliens to get out of here before they are deported. I don't think there are enough raids. There should be more." She says she's sorry legal residents are sometimes questioned during raids but believes ICE needs time to determine who is here legally.

So does Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. "It's not the end of the world," he says of citizens who are detained. "These people were briefly inconvenienced. Too bad."

'My heart was racing'

Denise Shippy, nine months pregnant the day of the MSE raid, says it was more than an inconvenience.

She had planned to take off that afternoon for parent-teacher conferences and a doctor's appointment. But Shippy, 30, needed to train a receptionist to fill in for her while she was on maternity leave, so she took her two children to the office with her. The raid occurred as she settled Cassidy, 7, and Ricky, 9, into the mailroom for lunch.

As she left the mailroom, Shippy found the lobby filled with ICE agents, and she, the children and co-workers were herded in there. When Shippy tried to respond to an e-mail, she says, one ICE agent said, "Stop typing."

"My rights were violated," Shippy says. "I am a citizen of this United States. I was born here. I'm not who they're looking for. I wasn't allowed to leave. … I couldn't go anywhere and couldn't do anything. Neither could my children."

Although she was upset, she tried to calm her kids, she says. She needed to use the restroom, but held off because she didn't want an agent to accompany her.

"I didn't want to scare the heck out of my kids," she says. "I was trying to be cool and calm for my children. My heart was racing."

At one point, agents started escorting handcuffed workers — suspected illegal immigrants — from the factory floor out the front door. Her children asked why the workers were handcuffed, what they had done wrong and what would happen to them, she says.

"That was when I started getting angry," she says. "My kids should not have had to watch these things. They saw people being led out in handcuffs. These are people who are recognizable to my children."

Shippy, who gave birth to a boy on Feb. 19, returned to work June 9 and says she still feels justified in filing a claim.

"I'm not some money-hungry person," she says. "This is something I'm pretty passionate about. It shouldn't have happened the way it did."

Debate over the law

As long as ICE has a warrant to enter a workplace, Myers says, agents can conduct what she calls a "survey" to determine the legal status of "anyone within the premises."

She cites a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that said factory surveys during immigration raids don't amount to an unconstitutional detention or seizure of those being questioned, even U.S. citizens.

In its ruling, however, the Supreme Court emphasized that the employees in the factory were not prevented from moving around, continuing to work or leaving. The current raids are different from those the Supreme Court approved, Schey says.

ICE can question workers as long as the interaction is voluntary, "but what they're doing (now) is not that," he says, because workers think they have no choice except to answer questions — which may incriminate those here illegally.

Many workers caught in raids don't know they're not obligated to respond, regardless of their immigration status, says Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California-Davis, law school. ICE "can ask people questions. That doesn't mean people have to respond," he says.

Schey suspects ICE is using search warrants as a pretext to enter workplaces and then arrest as many people as it can to get publicity. "It's in effect a group detention," he says, "not supported by probable cause, … not supported by any law."

Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School, argues that ICE cannot legally detain or arrest anyone without reasonable suspicion that a specific person broke the law. People should not be detained simply because "they work in the same factory as the person" for whom ICE has warrant, he says.

Kris Kobach, who teaches law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, counters that police sometimes have to detain a large group to find the lawbreakers among them. He cites, as an example, police looking for two drug dealers in a house where 10 people live. In such a drug raid, "police will reasonably close the doors to the house and detain everybody," he says.

The factory's owners

No fines or charges have been levied against MSE or its managers.

Brothers Avi and Yoel Wazana, immigrants from Israel, started the company in 1994. Last year, net revenue was $95 million. At MSE's headquarters, a 225,000-square-foot building in Van Nuys, workers clean, disassemble, reassemble and test old printer cartridges. Before the raid, MSE employed about 700 people here.

Myers declined to say what prompted the raid. However, ICE began auditing the company in May 2007, focusing on "I-9 forms," which employers use to document employees' legal status. As part of the I-9 process, employers must inspect at least two documents that show identity and legal status, including U.S. passports, Social Security cards or green cards.

MSE was "in compliance with I-9 requirements," says Schey, who also represents the company. "If some of the documents workers presented were fraudulent," MSE has "no way of determining that."

The next month, the company voluntarily began using a government database to verify the status of new hires, he says. Then the company didn't hear from the government for months, Schey says.

"They expected a letter," he says. "Instead, on Feb. 7, ICE comes in like gangbusters."

About 100 ICE agents raided the factory between 3:30 and 4 p.m., says Nora Preciado, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. Armed with a federal search warrant, they arrested 130 workers from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries on suspicion of being in the country illegally. ICE also had arrest warrants for eight others, who were picked up at their homes or the factory. These eight, identified by ICE during the earlier check of documents, face criminal charges for making false claims of U.S. citizenship or presenting false documents.

Five people arrested in the raids have been deported, ICE says. The others remain, some in detention, some not, while fighting their deportation orders in court.

Avi Wazana did not comment on the cases against his former employees or the methods MSE used to check their immigration status. In an e-mail after the raid, however, he told some of his customers that "MSE … has rejected hundreds (possibly more) of applicants … due to improper documentation."

The ACLU and other legal aid groups sued ICE, saying the detained MSE workers should have been allowed access to attorneys when they reported for interviews after the raid. U.S. District Court Judge George Wu agreed, and ordered ICE to stop interviewing workers. ICE has since allowed lawyers to be present at any interview with MSE workers.

One of the workers interviewed without an attorney present was Maria, a 39-year-old Pacoima resident who worked at MSE for eight years. She asked that her last name not to be used, on the advice of her attorney. "I felt like I had to answer" questions from ICE, she says. "I didn't know about my rights."

Maria was a supervisor in charge of eight line workers. She says she entered the USA illegally 15 years ago from Mexico so she could give her children a better education. One of her three children, a 14-year-old girl, is a U.S. citizen.

Maria says she'll fight to remain in the USA because she doesn't want to be separated from her family, especially her daughter. The girl's father, Maria's longtime partner, is a U.S. citizen and will care for their daughter if Maria is deported.

"She's not going to leave," Maria says of the girl, an eighth-grader. "This is her country."

Jailed 'over a mistake'

ICE's raids foster discrimination, says Domingo Garcia, attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens. "There's a lot of racial profiling. … If you look like a Hispanic, you're detained or arrested."

He says he plans to file a class-action, civil rights lawsuit on behalf of legal workers detained in raids, including Jesus Garcia, 27, a green-card holder from Mount Pleasant, Texas. Domingo Garcia says he will ask the court to prohibit ICE from conducting raids until it changes its policies to prevent racial profiling.

ICE agents went to Jesus Garcia's home on April 16 in conjunction with a raid on a nearby Pilgrim's Pride poultry processing plant, where he worked marinating chicken meat. Garcia, from Mexico, has been a legal permanent resident for a year and a half. When about 10 ICE agents and local sheriff's deputies knocked on his door, they told him he was using the wrong Social Security number, says his wife, Olivia Garcia, a U.S. citizen.

Though Garcia showed the agents his green card, they handcuffed him and jailed him. He was released a day and a half later after agents told him he wasn't the person they wanted, he says. He had spent the night in jail. "He said it was pretty bad," Olivia says. "People were crying and screaming."

Jesus Garcia, who has since left Pilgrim's Pride for another job, says the mishap cost him three days of work. "I worked hard to get my residency," he says. "And to take me to jail just over a mistake?"

Friday, June 20, 2008

Frederick County Sheriff Says Its Okay to Detain US Citizens of Mexican Descent



as long as they are picked up for a traffic violation. (He admits those detained for ICE were largely picked up for traffic violations.)

In other words, get picked up for a fender bender or DUI in Frederick County, Maryland, and instead of being released for time served, which is usually what happens in such cases, if you are of Mexican descent you could find yourself being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement until you prove your US citizenship. (And, as shown in previous posts, sometimes even that isn't enough.)

Antonio Ramirez, a 20 year resident of Frederick County, told the Governor's Commission of Hispanic Affairs on Wednesday that when he walked down the main street in town people call him a "wetback."

"I am a citizen, and I am afraid," he said. "Now I understand what the Jewish people went through. "(Frederick County Sheriff) Jenkins is destroying families and the economy."
And no wonder. Most of the police and sheriff departments turning US citizens over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement claim they are only detaining aliens. Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins responded to Ramirez's charges by saying: "There's no one in that detention center (who hasn't) broken the law."


I had asked the person who told me about this event to post it in a "reply" to the blog, mentioning that people seem to prefer to write me directly rather than posting. Here's what I received:

I think people may be fearful to post to your blog. If you think about it, ICE's system is the perfect tool to silence dissent. Once a person ends up in the immigration system due process is flushed down the toilet.

Below is a link to an article from my local newspaper regarding the meeting I attended the other night.

Here's some background (I will try to be brief) on what is going on in my community. Frederick County, Maryland is maybe 1.5 hours north of Prince William County, Virginia. During the 1990s one of the entrants into the local demolition derby drove a klan car. Even today, it is not uncommon to see confederate flags.

When the current sheriff ran for office in 2006 he ran on an anti-immigrant platform. When he got into the office he started working on obtaining 287(g) authority for his office. He claimed that he "needed" this authority because crime is out of control due to the large influx in of "illegal" immigrants (now synonymous with Latino/Hispanic in my town).

Interestingly, data from the FBI's uniform crime database and the Census doesn't seem to support the Sheriff's assertion. In February 2008 the Frederick County Sheriff's Office signed a Memorandum of Agreement with ICE. There was no public discussion, in fact the director of the county's Human Relations Division sent him a copy of questions, and she left it to his discretion as to whether to respond.

The last time the President of the local NAACP spoke with him about meeting, the Sheriff said what's the point, I don't understand what the objectives are. He also said that we have nothing we shouldn't be worried about profiling or discrimination, because ICE is monitoring how he uses 287(g) authority. Obviously he missed the entire 2007 ICE Halloween Party incident.

Now the Sheriff does have time to meet with the local Republican Club, including minutemen and help save Maryland members. During his presentation he said that 48 people had been detained using 287(g) authority, and mostly for traffic infractions. If his assertion is correct I'd think that most of those detained would have been picked up for committing felonies, or at least misdemeanors.

Our sheriff has asked people in public meetings if they are illegal, and at one meeting with people from the Latino community he said something like I'm a redneck and I wish my county were the way it was 30 years ago.

Your blog is definitely a must read, and I've been telling other friends in the community about it.

My guess is that wherever you are, this is happening where you live, too. If you have any examples of this you'd like to share, feel free to send them my way and I'll post them here. Also, this image of Sheriff Chuck Jenkins is from the Frederick County home page; maybe he needs some more mail on this supporting the writer above.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Documenting ICE Detaining and Deporting US Citizens, Pt. IV, cont.


This continues the documentation of US citizens who have been deported or detained by ICE in the last three years, described in my Nation article "Thin ICE" (pub date June 23, 2008). ICE has no jurisdiction over US citizens.

-A boy with a Vietnamese mother was residing in the US with his mother who was naturalized in the US when he was 14; he has derived citizenship. But the client, then in his early 30s, was placed in the Mira Loma Detention by ICE on release from jail. After one year in detention he signed the deportation order; as his lawyer put it to me, "he traded his citizenship rights for his liberty." He wanted to be released from detention because his own wife was due to give birth and he wanted to be with his family and help support them. His citizenship case was complicated, as many cases of citizenship often are for those who are foreign born. He needed documentation from Vietnam of the conditions of his mother's departure while she was being beaten by his father, and his lawyer also was navigating the custody laws of Vietnam and the United States. His client knew that Vietnam does not issue travel documents for people who enter before 1996 and that ICE would have to release him within 90 days. (Source: private immigration attorney, Los Angeles)

-A man in his thirties was born in the United States, two miles from the Mexican border. His mother obtained a birth certificate for him from a nearby town in Mexico, but he really was born in the United States. Immigration judge issues order terminating deportation proceedings. ICE appeals order. Man remains in detention.

-Man in his early 20s, born in Mexico, living with his mother in San Bernadino, California. His mother, a naturalized citizen, from whom client derives citizenship, decides to do a favor for the neighbor and drive the neighbor's grandson, a Mexican citizen, across the border. "Mom convinced him: let's help the neighbor's grandkid." The mother asks her son to come with her "for moral support." They get caught. He serves two years in prison for alien smuggling. On release he is put into deportation proceedings. Attorney intervenes and client is released from Mira Loma Detention Center after being held for two months. (Source: private immigration attorney, Los Angeles.)

Are these cases "borderline," confusing? Or is the border itself the source of confusion?
The image above is of Nogales. Can you tell which side is Mexico and which the US?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Documenting ICE Kidnapping and False Imprisonment of US Citizens, Pt. III, cont.


To supplement the reporting on ICE kidnapping and falsely imprisoning US citizens in my Nation article "Thin ICE" (pub date June 23, 2008) I have been providing additional profiles of these cases as well as the sources for the article's statistics and other facts.

This post continues that documentation:

The 2008 ACLU lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and the Los Angeles County Sheriff on behalf of Peter Guzman, a US citizen born in Los Angeles and "deported" to Mexico by ICEhere. ICE calls it deportation, but the law says that when Guzman told ICE he was born in the US, ICE was supposed to accept his word on this, or prove otherwise. I believe that the government's racial prejudices are not an excuse and that what appears as a case of confusion is simply kidnapping and false imprisonment based on racial profiling.

The February 13, 2008 Congressional hearings in which Department of Homeland Security repeatedly obfuscates, much to the consternation of the Democrats, is available streaming and is a case study in the problems of an Executive branch run amok. The written testimony is available as well. It's here. You might write Congressman Zoe Lofgren, who has been ahead of the curve on the problem of ICE abuses, as well as your representatives and Senators, and let them know how you feel about ICE forcibly removing US citizens from our country.

The estimate of US citizens who were detained for at least one month or deported is based on several sources. The most important is the actual caseload of the Florence Immigration and Refugee Rights Project in southern Arizona. 10% of detainees from around the country are held in their service area. (I write about people to whom FIRRP provided legal advice from Minnesota to California.)

The supervising attorney, Kara Hartzler, told me that they were seeing between 5 to 10 cases a week of people claiming US citizenship, of which between one-third to one-half were recognized as legitimate by an immigration judge. The rest is math: take the total number of these cases and multiply by 10. At the low end of the range, 5 x 224 weeks (the number of weeks between January 2004 and April 2008) = 1120, multiplied by .33 (1/3 successful) is 370 for FIRRP alone. At the high end for the FIRRP estimate, 10 x 224 = 2240; if half (.5) are valid claims, that that would be 1120 cases for FIRRP.

In other words, the range for FIRRP's estimate of its own caseload of US citizens detained or deported by ICE (through coerced "voluntary" agreements signed to avoid more incarceration during ICE appeals of immigration judges' orders terminating deportation) is 370 to 1120. Multiply this by 10, and, if this caseload is representative - the numbers are large enough that there's no reason to quibble with this statistically - indicates that between 2004 and April, 2008 ICE has detained or deported between 3700 and 11,200 US citizens.

This figure is slightly higher than the 3,500 to 10,000 range I used in the article because I wanted to use the ICE denominator of 1 million deportations from 2004-2007, a round number that shows the range I'm estimating is less than 1% of ICE deportations and detentions. The reason to think the FIRRP estimate might be too conservative is what Robert told me of his detention experiences, and his encounter with a large number of US citizens in a situation similar to his own, leading him to say that ICE was "just throwing us out for nothing."

I also verified the high frequency of these deportations by interviewing over a dozen immigration attorneys from across the country, who affirmed their own personal representation of clients who were US citizens in deportation proceedings. It was too easy for just one person doing this research with no other support to find these cases on an ad hoc basis.

As I mentioned in the article, I used the list of pro bono attorneys the Department of Justice is required to make available (and which is a joke, because many of the numbers are disconnected or incorrect: one was for a florist!). Among the working numbers, I called 15 immigration attorneys and 7 returned my calls to report 1-4 cases of US citizens they had successfully represented who had been held by ICE for 1 month to, in the case of Robert, 5 years. The link to that list is here.

TO BE CONTINUED... (Photo is Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, Chair, House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.)