DOCSLIB.ORG

REVVING up the DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback Under Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REVVING up the DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback Under Trump REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump Report in Brief By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, and Michelle Mittelstadt REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump Report in Brief By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, and Michelle Mittelstadt May 2018 This Report in Brief presents the key findings of a comprehensive Migration Policy Institute (MPI) study focused on interior immigration enforcement during the Trump administration and in particular the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security agency responsible for interior enforcement. Over the course of six months in 2017, MPI researchers visited 15 jurisdictions in seven states, both in locations fully cooperative with ICE and those limiting their involvement, to assess the differences in enforcement and resulting impacts. The full report provides significant detail on the policies in each of the study sites with regards to cooperation with ICE. It also offers a history of the rise of the interior immigration enforcement system that began in the mid-1990s, and explains how the system currently works and its intersection with state and local law enforcement. The report includes a detailed analysis of trends in arrests at the ICE field office level and detainers lodged and transfers to ICE from local custody for the largest counties in the United States and New York City. To read the full report, visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-machinery. © 2018 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Design and Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI Cover Image: Josh Denmark/DHS No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copy.php. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected]. Suggested citation: Capps, Randy, Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, and Michelle Mittelstadt. 2018. Revving Up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback under Trump, Report in Brief. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 I. The Evolution of the Interior Immigration Enforcement System 2 A. Rising Enforcement in the Bush and Early Obama Administrations ...................................3 B. Narrowing Enforcement in the Late Obama Administration ...............................................3 C. Widening Enforcement in the Trump Administration ............................................................4 II. The First Year of Interior Enforcement under Trump ..................... 5 A. Expanded Priorities Result in More Arrests and Deportations ..........................................6 B. “Sanctuary” Policies Curb Enforcement ...................................................................................7 C. From ‘Collaterals’ to Courthouses: Enforcement Has Expanded and Become Unpredictable ...............................................................................................................................11 D. Expanding Detention, Reducing Discretion after Arrest .....................................................13 III. Responses by States, Localities, Consulates, and Immigrant Communities ..................................................................................... 14 A. Local Criminal Justice Policies that Limit Exposure to Arrest ..........................................14 B. Civil-Society Responses ............................................................................................................15 C. A Heightened Climate of Fear .................................................................................................17 IV. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 18 Works Cited ............................................................................................. 19 About the Authors ................................................................................... 25 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE Introduction A centerpiece of Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency was a promise to strictly enforce the nation’s immigration laws, both at the border and within the country. Changes began within days of the inauguration and are reshaping the system by which removable noncitizens are arrested, detained, and deported—and could do so more dramatically in the years ahead.1 This report in brief summarizes key interior by the Trump administration. findings of a year-long Migration Policy Institute (MPI) study of immigration enforcement in the U.S. Who Was Interviewed? The report’s findings reflect MPI fieldwork across the United States and analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs The research team conducted 122 Enforcement (ICE) administrative data. MPI researchers interviews, including meetings with visited seven of ICE’s 24 Enforcement and Removal ICE leadership in each study site and a Operations (ERO) field offices and 15 local jurisdictions, combination of local police chiefs and/ includingand resulting the fourimpacts, largest the U.S. research cities team(New visitedYork, Los locations Angeles, or sheriffs; state and local government Chicago, and Houston). To assess differences in enforcement officials; former immigration judges; involvement. immigration legal service providers; fully cooperating2 with ICE as well as those limiting their immigrant-serving community-based a Freedom of Information (See Table 1Act for request a list of on study arrests sites during and the organizations; community organizers, policies.) The researchers also analyzed ICE data obtained via advocates, and union leaders; and representatives from Mexican and first 135 days of the Trump3 administration and ICE detainers Central American consular networks. forThe the broad first picture 104 days. that emerges is of a sea change in interior enforcement from the final years of the Obama administration,policy under the when Trump ICE administration immigration activities deems every were unauthorized tightly focused immigrant on criminals, or otherwise recent border deportable crossers, andnoncitizen those with a candidate fresh removal for arrest orders. and removal.In a sharp reversal, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) The broad picture that emerges is of a sea change in interior enforcement from the final years of the Obama administration. Although the numbers deported during the Trump administration to date are well under peak levels set in earlier years, the context has changed dramatically. During the two most recent administrations, enforcement was implicitly or explicitly tied to the goal of broad immigration reform legislation—with heightened enforcement viewed as the necessary predicate to future congressional action. Today there is no such linkage. In fact, it is the opposite. The Trump administration characterizes immigrants, unauthorized and legal alike, as unwelcome and as threats to national security and to American jobs and workers. It has supported legislation that would significantly curtail legal immigration, drastically Revving Up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Push- 1 backThis reportunder Trumpin brief summarizes the principal findings of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) report by Randy. TheCapps, study Muzaf does- farnot Chishti, examine Julia changing Gelatt, enforcement Jessica Bolter, at and the Arielborder G. orRuiz rules Soto, and procedures around legal immigration admissions. (Washington, DC: MPI, 2018), www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-machinery 2 The jurisdictions studied are home to about 28 percent of the U.S. unauthorized. population of 11 million. See MPI Data Hub, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population Profiles,” accessed March 15, 2018, www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/us-immigra- tion-policy-program-data-hub/unauthorized-immigrant-population-profiles 3 The first 135 days ofFreedom the Trump of Informationadministration Act span the period from January 20 – June 3, 2017. The first 104 days span the January 20 - May 4 period. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) selected those periods in providing the data sought by MPI in its (FOIA) request. Revving Up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback under Trump, Report in Brief 1 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE reduced refugee and other humanitarian admissions, and ended various protection programs such populations. The administration’s enforcement narrative is muscular and combative, breeding a climate asof fearDeferred as an Actionenforcement for Childhood tool, a deterrent Arrivals (DACA) to future and migration, Temporary and Protected a wedge betweenStatus (TPS) immigrants for certain and the native-born population. Into appropriateways big and funding small, the for administrationthe massive expansion is pulling of as immigration many levers enforcement as it can to reorient the administration the enforcement system. At the same time, there is growing pushback on many fronts:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • More Headlines from January 31, 2017
    Trump Fires Acting Attorney General After She D... https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/31/headlin... Trump Fires Acting Attorney General After She Defies Muslim Ban Order HEADLINES JAN 31, 2017 President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday night, just hours after she announced the Justice Department would not defend Trump’s executive order banning temporarily all refugees, as well as all citizens, from the seven Muslim-majority nations Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Yates had written a memo saying, "I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." Yates had served in the Justice Department for 27 years. Trump had asked her to serve as acting attorney general until the Senate confirmed Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is a close ally of Trump. On Monday, Connecticut Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal praised Sally Yates for speaking out. Sen. Richard Blumenthal: "I want to salute Sally Yates, who has taken a stand based on moral and legal principle in the highest tradition of the Department of Justice, saying that these orders cannot be defended, that the rule of law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to understand that law, or at least his administration does." TOPICS: Donald Trump More Headlines from January 31, 2017 Hundreds of State Department Officials Sign Memo Condemning Muslim Ban HEADLINES JAN 31, 2017 1 of 8 02/01/2017 07:24 PM Trump Fires Acting Attorney General After She D..
    [Show full text]
  • CPM Client City of Richmond Files Lawsuit Against President Trump's "Sanctuary Jurisdictions" Executive Order
    CPM Client City of Richmond Files Lawsuit Against President Trump's "Sanctuary Jurisdictions" Executive Order � 2017 Attorneys Joseph W. Cotchett The City of Richmond has filed a lawsuit today in the Federal District Court in San Francisco against President Donald Trump, Attorney Practice Areas General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, Municipal & Public Entity Litigation seeking to have declared unconstitutional an Executive Order issued by President Trump concerning “Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” The lawsuit alleges that Executive Order 13768, issued on January 25, 2017, is an unconstitutional action by the President as it provides unfettered discretion to the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take away all federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” which they believe do not follow federal immigration law. The suit alleges that the President does not have authority under the Constitution or any Congressional act to restrict federal funds based on such an Executive Order. The Executive Order does not define “sanctuary jurisdictions” and while there are many cities that have been referred to as “sanctuary cities,” there is no definition of either term. Under the vague and far-reaching language of the Executive Order, Richmond could lose federal funds without having violated any federal immigration policy. Richmond’s Mayor, Tom Butt, stated on behalf of the City Council: “Over 25 years ago, the Richmond City Council enacted an ordinance as a result of immigration raids by federal officers by setting forth a procedure for Richmond police to respond to requests for information by federal immigration authorities. We are confident that the policies we have put in place to promote a community policing culture comply with all federal laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Tax Cuts Could Start with Executive Action
    RobertRobert W. W. Wood Wood THETHE TAX TAX LAWYER LAWYER TAXES 2/27/2017 Trump Tax Cuts Could Start With Executive Action U.S. President Donald Trump flanked by business leaders holds a executive order establishing regulatory reform officers and task forces in US agencies in the Oval Office of the White House on February 24, 2017 in Washington, DC. Earlier in the day, Trump stated he would cut 75 percent of regulations. (Photo by Olivier Douliery – Pool/Getty Images) So far, President Trump has moved boldly—or rashly, depending on your perspective—with many executive actions, including: Proclamation 9570: National Day of Patriotic Devotion Executive Order 13765: Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal A Memorandum that was a type of Regulatory Freeze memo Pending Review Presidential Memorandum: Withdrawal of the United States From the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement Presidential Memorandum: Mexico City Policy, reinstituting and expanding a policy President Obama had rescinded restricting the use of foreign aid money to support family planning organizations that promote abortion. Presidential Memorandum: a federal Hiring Freeze Presidential Memorandum to bring back consideration of the Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Presidential Memorandum to reconsider Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline Presidential Memorandum to review Construction of American Pipelines Executive Order 13766 Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects Presidential Memorandum Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing Proclamation 9571: National School Choice Week, 2017 Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, the “build the wall” executive order.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Enforcement
    IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT This is an excerpt from Inside the Numbers: How Immigration Shapes Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities, a report published by Asian Americans Advancing Justice—AAJC and Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Los Angeles in June 2019. The report is available for download: https:// advancingjustice-aajc.org/inside-the-numbers-report-2019 ISSUE BRIEF: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: ARRESTS, DETENTION, AND DEPORTATION Within five days of taking office, President Trump issued several executive orders that made sweeping changes to our immigration enforcement system. Through these major policy shifts, the administration has rapidly increased arrests, detention, and deportations of immigrants in the interior of the United States, and severely curtailed the due process rights of immigrants along the southern border. The federal government has the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, meaning that immigration officials may decide whether to arrest, detain, and deport an immigrant. Previous Republican and Democratic administrations adhered to priorities that focused enforcement on certain individuals. For example, the Obama administration issued immigration enforcement priorities that shielded around 87% of the undocumented immigrant population from deportation. In contrast, the Trump administration has explicitly abandoned all forms of prosecutorial discretion and has directed federal agencies to employ “all lawful means” to deport “all removable” noncitizens. As a result, the enforcement agencies Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection Since 2017, we have (CBP) have enacted a dragnet enforcement approach, escalating raids and arrests witnessed a drastic across the country, and striking fear into immigrant communities.159 increase in targeted enforcement against Since 2017, we have witnessed a drastic increase in targeted enforcement long-time community against long-time community members, including many long-term residents and refugees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Surprisingly Contentious History of Executive Orders | Huffpost  
    4/2/2020 The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders | HuffPost Ben Feuer, Contributor Chairman, California Appellate Law Group The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders Cries of “unprecedented” executive action on both sides are more histrionic than historical. 02/02/2017 04:59 am ET | Updated Feb 03, 2017 Despite howls that Presidents Trump and Obama both issued “unprecedented” executive orders, presidents have embraced executive actions to enact controversial policies since the dawn of the Republic. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-surprisingly-contentious-history-of-executive-orders_b_58914580e4b04c35d583546e 1/8 4/2/2020 The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders | HuffPost NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES Recently, USA Today savaged President Trump’s executive orders since taking office, from encouraging Keystone XL approval to altering immigration policy, as an “unprecedented blizzard.” In 2014, the Washington Post raked President Obama for his Deferred Action immigration directives, more commonly called DACA and DAPA, deeming them “unprecedented” and “sweeping,” while Ted Cruz published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lashing Obama’s “imperial” executive order hiking the minimum wage for federal contractors as one with “no precedent.” A 2009 piece in Mother Jones lamented a President George W. Bush executive order allowing former-presidents and their families to block the release of presidential records as — you guessed it — “unprecedented.” With all the talk of precedent, you might think executive orders historically did little more than set the White House lawn watering schedule. But the reality is that presidents have long employed executive actions to accomplish strikingly controversial objectives without congressional approval.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ironic Privacy Act
    Washington University Law Review Volume 96 Issue 6 Trust and Privacy in the Digital Age 2019 The Ironic Privacy Act Margaret Hu Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University; Washington and Lee University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Immigration Law Commons, National Security Law Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Margaret Hu, The Ironic Privacy Act, 96 WASH. U. L. REV. 1267 (2019). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol96/iss6/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IRONIC PRIVACY ACT MARGARET HU* ABSTRACT This Article contends that the Privacy Act of 1974, a law intended to engender trust in government records, can be implemented in a way that inverts its intent. Specifically, pursuant to the Privacy Act’s reporting requirements, in September 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified the public that record systems would be modified to encompass the collection of social media data. The notification justified the collection of social media data as a part of national security screening and immigration vetting procedures. However, the collection will encompass social media data on both citizens and noncitizens, and was not explicitly authorized by Congress. Social media surveillance programs by federal agencies are largely unregulated and the announcement of social media data collection pursuant to the reporting requirements of the Privacy Act deserves careful legal attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Reorganization-Oriented Abolitionism Won't Meaningfully Change Ice
    NOTES SEPARATING THE HANDS: WHY REORGANIZATION-ORIENTED ABOLITIONISM WON'T MEANINGFULLY CHANGE ICE CASEY L. CHALBECK* ªUnder this president, who's now letting us do our job and taking the hand- cuffs off the men and women of the Border Patrol and ICE, arrests are up.º ± Thomas Homan, Former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director.1 ªAny essential functions carried out by ICE that do not violate funda- mental due process and human rights can be executed with greater transparency, public accountability, and adherence to domestic and international law by other Federal agencies.º ± Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act. 2 * Casey L. Chalbeck, J.D. Candidate, 2020, Georgetown University Law Center. I would like to thank the participants of the Administrative Law and Public Administration Seminar, including Kerissa Barron, Ian Bruckner, Matthew Caplan, Gary DePalo, Isaac Hoenig, Alexandra Keck, Mitchell Mengden, Kate Rheaume, Danielle Robinette, Louis Rosenbaum, Julia Siegenberg, and Parnia Zahedi for their helpful comments during the drafting stages of this Note. I owe additional thanks to the editors of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal for their outstanding work. This project bene®ted from Annamaria Morales-Kimball's intensive and thoughtful engagement, which made every part better. Two people merit special acknowledgment. This piece ± and so much more ± would not have been possible without Professor Eloise Pasachoff's careful feedback, constructive criticism, guidance, and mentorship; I am grateful to be her student. And, ®nally, I am most grateful to Sam Grayck for her commitment to in- tellectual production, willingness to interrogate that which we hold obvious, brilliant ideas, inspiring work ethic, and steadfast support.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctuary: K-12 School Districts in Agricultural Communities
    SANCTUARY: K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES I. INTRODUCTION Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (hereinafter “Executive Order”) was issued in January of 2017.1 It charged non-compliant sanctuary jurisdictions with shielding illegal immigrants from removal from the United States, and declared them ineligible to receive federal funding.2 Primary and secondary (hereinafter “K-12”) schools in agricultural communities have a particular interest in both adopting sanctuary resolutions and implementing policies that run counter to mandates like that of the Executive Order for one main reason: they have a federal duty to not hinder access to education for any child, regardless of the child’s immigration status, or that of the child’s parents.3 Populations in agricultural communities are comprised of high numbers of immigrant farmworkers, only half of whom are estimated to be authorized to work in the United States.4 Of these workers, many are parents of school-aged children.5 Given the federal duty to not impede access to education for any child, the Executive Order put K-12 schools in a difficult situation; complying with its mandates would have caused them to potentially violate the constitutional rights of their students, while not complying with the mandates might have subjected them to the loss of federal funding.6 This comment was initiated some eight months after the Executive Order was issued and well after the Executive Order’s enforcement had been 1 Exec. Order No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (the Executive Order has been permanently enjoined, and that ruling has been appealed.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Update Town Hall
    Chesapeake Town Hall Tuesday, April 18, 2017 Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott Third District of Virginia The Federal Budget Federal Revenue and Outlays As a percentage of gross domestic product 35% Actual Extended Baseline Projection 30% 25% 20% 15% Average Revenue (1967-2016) Average Outlays (1967-2016) Outlays Revenues 10% 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 Source: Congressional Budget Office -$1,600 -$1,400 -$1,200 -$1,000 -$800 -$600 -$400 -$200 $200 $400 to Deficit over 10 years 10 over to Deficit Trillion $3.9 AddedDeal Cliff 2013 Fiscal Recent Contributor to Long Contributor Recent $0 1992 1993 CBO Baseline Pre-Deal 1994 *Compares CBO’sAugust 2012 Baselinewith CBO’sJanuary 2017 Baseline. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Congressional Budget Office 2002 2003 2004 2005 CBO Baseline withDeficit Deal* 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 - 2011 2012 Debt: term 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Obama Inherited Deficit v. Trump Inherited Deficit Projected deficit in billions of dollars on date of Inauguration 1,400 1,200 1,186 1,000 800 600 400 559 200 0 2009 2017 Source: Congressional Budget Office Breaking Down the Federal Budget Fiscal Year 2016 Spending and Revenues By Category Source: Congressional Budget Office President Trump’s FY18 budget proposal Percent change in agency budgets from 2017 budget -31% Environmental Protection Agency -29% State Department -21% Agriculture Department -21% Labor Department -18% Department of Health and Human Services -16% Commerce Department -14% Education Department -13% Department of Housing and Urban Development -13% Transportation Department -12% Interior Department -6% Energy Department -5% Small Business Administration -4% Treasury Department -4% Justice Department -1% NASA Department of Veterans Affairs 6% Department of Homeland Security 7% Defense Department 9% Sources: “America First: A budget blueprint to make America great again,” Office of Management and Budget, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Revving up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback Under Trump, Report in Brief
    REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump Report in Brief By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, and Michelle Mittelstadt REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump Report in Brief By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, and Michelle Mittelstadt May 2018 This Report in Brief presents the key findings of a comprehensive Migration Policy Institute (MPI) study focused on interior immigration enforcement during the Trump administration and in particular the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security agency responsible for interior enforcement. Over the course of six months in 2017, MPI researchers visited 15 jurisdictions in seven states, both in locations fully cooperative with ICE and those limiting their involvement, to assess the differences in enforcement and resulting impacts. The full report provides significant detail on the policies in each of the study sites with regards to cooperation with ICE. It also offers a history of the rise of the interior immigration enforcement system that began in the mid-1990s, and explains how the system currently works and its intersection with state and local law enforcement. The report includes a detailed analysis of trends in arrests at the ICE field office level and detainers lodged and transfers to ICE from local custody for the largest counties in the United States and New York City. To read the full report, visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-machinery. © 2018 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Design and Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI Cover Image: Josh Denmark/DHS No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Maryland
    Case 8:17-cv-02942-RWT Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ) CASA DE MARYLAND ) 8151 15th Ave. ) Hyattsville, MD 20783 ) ) THE COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT ) RIGHTS (CHIRLA) ) 2533 West 3rd Street ) Los Angeles, CA 90057 ) ) FAIR IMMIGRATION MOVEMENT (FIRM) ) 1536 U Street NW ) Washington, DC 20009 ) ) ONE AMERICA ) 1225 S. Weller Street, Suite 430 ) Seattle, WA 98144 ) ) PROMISE ARIZONA ) 701 S 1st Street, ) Phoenix, Arizona 85004 ) Case Number 17-02942 ) MAKE THE ROAD PENNSYLVANIA ) REDACTED COPY 501 Washington St, 1st Floor ) Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 ) ) MICHIGAN UNITED ) 4405 Wesson ) Detroit, Michigan 48210 ) ) ARKANSAS UNITED COMMUNITY ) COALITION ) PO Box 9296 ) Fayetteville, AR 72703 ) ) JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC. ) 169 Grand Avenue ) New Haven, Connecticut 06513, ) ) ) ) ) Case 8:17-cv-02942-RWT Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 61 ANGEL AGUILUZ, ESTEFANY RODRGIUEZ, ) HEYMI ELVIR MALDONADO, NATHALY ) URIBE ROBLEDO, ELISEO MAGES, JESUS ) EUSEBIO PEREZ, JOSUE AGUILUZ, MISSAEL ) GARCIA, JOSE AGUILUZ, MARICRUZ ) ABARCA, ANNABELLE MARTINES HERRA, ) MARIA JOSELINE CUELLAR BALDELOMAR, ) BRENDA MORENO MARTINEZ, LUIS ) AGUILAR, ) ) J. M. O., a minor child, ) ) ADRIANA GONZALES MAGOS, next of friend ) to J.M.O. ) ) A.M., a minor child, and ) ) ISABEL CRISTINA AGUILAR ARCE, next of ) friend to A. M.1 ) ) ) v. ) ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY ) 3801 Nebraska Ave. NW ) Washington, DC 20016 ) ) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ) SERVICES ) 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW ) Washington, DC 20008 ) ) U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ) ENFORCEMENT ) 500 12th St. SW ) Washington, DC 20536 ) ) U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ) 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF File 2021.01.19 Joint Letter to POTUS
    January 19, 2021 The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr. President-Elect Office of the President-Elect 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear President-Elect Biden, We write to you today as elected officials representing communities that have placed limitations on coordination between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, often known as sanctuary jurisdictions. Our communities have prioritized protecting immigrants and refugees from the constant barrage of attacks leveled by President Trump and his administration over the last four years. We congratulate you on your historic victory in the 2020 Presidential Election. Your resounding 1 victory -- with the largest vote percentage obtained against an incumbent President since 1932 ​ -- ​ clearly provides you with a mandate to repudiate the policies of hate and division that have been promulgated by the current administration over the last four years. Today we are urging you to use your executive authority to immediately repeal, end, or replace many of the policies that the Trump administration has instituted to punish and demonize immigrant and refugee communities. These policies have not made our jurisdictions safer, nor resulted in a just or equitable immigration system, and have harmed the safety and cohesion of our communities. We are also urging you to take steps to repair the damage done to families, our communities, and the reputation of our nation by the inhumane acts of the Trump Administration. Most heinously, the Trump Administration’s policy of family separation has resulted in the callous separation of hundreds of children from their parents. As of October 2020, at least 545 children 2 have still not been reunited with their families .​ The immediate reunification of these families must ​ be a top priority of your administration.
    [Show full text]