Tell politicians that immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth

Washington State 05-01-17 May Day March

Call to oppose SB 10: 1-844-803-2258

This week, Pennsylvania lawmakers will proceed to vote on Senate Bill 10 (SB 10). The passing of SB 10 will further endanger the civil liberties of immigrants. Immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth. Many community members, including US citizens, will become hesitant to report emergencies and crimes and to help law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of crimes; this will jeopardize public safety. In addition, SB 10 will drain local resources by diverting them towards a federal responsibility. Congress funded ICE more than $7 billion in fiscal year 2018; do the feds really need help from PA? 

Please take a few minutes to make a call to express opposition for the bill. You can utilize the toll-free number 1-844-803-2258 to connect to your local senator. Once on the line, tell them your name, enter your zip code, and tell your senator: 

“Senate Bill 10 will force local police to act as an extension of the immigration system, which drains already limited local resources and erodes community trust in law enforcement. Please oppose Senate Bill 10 because it will squander valuable resources while jeopardizing public safety. ”

Look up your senator >> http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/

Anti-Sanctuary Policies: When State Law Interferes with Public Safety and Your Civil Liberties

By Amanda Cappelletti, Frankel Legislative Fellow, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Immigrants' rights - ICE officer badge

Immigrants’ rights – ICE officer badge

Currently, the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill to punish municipalities in the Commonwealth that don’t go along with the unconstitutional actions of federal immigration authorities. To achieve this, House Bill 1885 would hold a so-called “sanctuary municipality” open to civil lawsuits for the actions of individual residents. It also withholds all state money from these cities and municipalities, such as funding for drug and alcohol treatment, domestic violence centers, and other essential services that municipalities provide.

Let’s be clear: There is no such thing as a “sanctuary city.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has jurisdiction everywhere in the United States. It is their job to enforce federal immigration law. Local governments have enough to worry about without the added burden of doing the feds’ job for them.

While there are many problems with this bill, one of the most glaring is that it demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about what sanctuary policies are and why we need them. Being in the country without immigration status is a civil offense investigated by ICE. If ICE believes local law enforcement has an undocumented citizen in custody, they issue a detainer request. This asks local law enforcement to hold that person for 48 hours past their initial release date and time.

Sanctuary policies support public safety and policing goals. Witnesses and victims of crime are more likely to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement authorities when they do not have the threat of deportation looming over them. Simply put, sanctuary policies are a way of building trust between law enforcement agents and the communities they serve. When that trust is established, police are better able to pursue all criminals, making the immediate and surrounding communities safer.

Perhaps not as glaring, but certainly more pressing is the fact that HB 1885 blatantly ignores the constitutional consequences of complying with ICE detainers. Detainers are issued by ICE agents, without any authorization or oversight by a judge or other neutral decision makers. They are not supported by probable cause or any actual evidence at all. Without the constitutionally guaranteed safeguard of a warrant, detainers can and do lead to the illegal detention of individuals who have not violated any immigration laws and are not deportable. According to its own records, ICE has erroneously issued more than 800 detainers for U.S. citizens since 2008.

ICE detainers ask local law enforcement agents to blatantly violate civil liberties and act unconstitutionally by holding individuals without probable cause. As a result, numerous civil lawsuits claiming unreasonable search and seizure have been filed against municipalities and cities. Ultimately, federal courts have ruled that ICE detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. One of the leading cases in this matter took place in Pennsylvania. Since Galarza, thirty-three counties have taken steps to ensure its citizens’ constitutional rights are protected, and have policies to NOT honor ICE detainer requests.

HB 1885 is so poorly written that it even includes a fictional legal standard. The bill requires law enforcement to inquire into the immigration status of someone they’ve arrested if they have “reasonable cause” that the person is in the country without authorization. “Reasonable cause” is not a legal standard. Despite three committee votes and one vote on the floor of the state House, no one in the General Assembly has bothered to fix this obvious flaw.

And that provision- carried out in a worst case scenario- could encourage police departments to engage in racial profiling and arrest people for petty offenses (like so-called disorderly conduct) for the sole purpose of checking their immigration status.

HB 1885 will fracture the already fragile trust between law enforcement and communities. It takes away a city or municipality’s much needed state funding, while also leaving it wide open for civil lawsuits from victims of unforeseen crime. If the municipality or city complies with HB 1885, it leaves itself open to violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil lawsuits which stem from that. No matter what way you look at it, HB 1885 hurts the citizens of our Commonwealth.


Amanda Cappelletti is the 2016–17 Frankel Legislative Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. She is also a fourth-year law student and a candidate for a master’s in public health at Temple University.

S. 3100 Is BAD For Pennsylvania

On Tuesday, July 5, the ACLU of Pennsylvania sent letters to Senators Pat Toomey and Bob Casey asking them to oppose proposed anti-immigrant legislation.

READ THE LETTERS

S. 3100 would punish 32 Pennsylvania counties for upholding constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s own senator, Patrick Toomey, is the sponsor of the bill.

Senator Toomey has derided Philadelphia for policies that keep local law enforcement officials out of the deportation business. But deportation is a job that should be left to the federal government. When local police and sheriffs take on immigration enforcement duties, trust and cooperation with immigrants is eroded, undermining public safety.

While Philadelphia may make for a convenient target of criticism, at least 32 Pennsylvania counties — like hundreds of other counties across the U.S. — rightly require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get a warrant like any other law enforcement agency if they want to detain individuals, for deportation purposes. S. 3100 would require local police to share information about immigrants in their jails, even if ICE does not have a warrant for their arrest.

As punishment for noncompliance, S. 3100 would take over $62 million in federal funding away from these Pennsylvania counties, funds that pay for low-income housing, disaster recovery, public works and economic development. This is bad for Pennsylvania.

Take action on behalf of Pennsylvania and let your senators know that this bill is no good.

Does Santa Claus visit immigration detention facilities?

By Molly Tack-Hooper, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Santa-Claus-Sad-icon

This holiday season, there are 41 children incarcerated at Berks County Residential Center, an immigration detention center in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Some of these little detainees are toddlers. The youngest is just one year old. This year they’ll find out whether Santa can make it past security at a federal detention center.

Many of these children came to the United States with their mothers seeking refuge from the horrific violence that they suffered in Central America, and have already passed a “credible fear” determination, meaning there is a good chance that they will be granted asylum, giving them legal status to stay in the U.S.

In past years, the Department of Homeland Security typically would have released these families to stay with relatives in the United States as their immigration cases proceeded. Releasing asylum-seekers makes sense; Toy Drive families seeking asylum don’t need to be put in jail. Rarely do these women and children pose a threat to anyone, and they have every incentive to show up for court to pursue their asylum claims.

But now, instead of releasing these families as they await their asylum hearings, DHS chooses to imprison all of them, shipping them off to one of the newly created federal family detention centers around the country—the Berks Center in Pennsylvania, another facility in Karnes, Texas, and a brand new, larger facility in Dilley, Texas.

The Obama administration adopted this policy of categorically denying release to all asylum-seekers from Central America as “an aggressive deterrence strategy” after an increase this past summer in the number of Central American mothers and children coming to the United States. The idea is that keeping these mothers and children locked up for the duration of their immigration proceedings—no matter how unnecessary, no matter how unfair, no matter how traumatizing—will deter other Central American families from seeking refuge in the United States, reducing the overall number of Central American asylum-seekers. In other words, the 41 children at Berks are pawns.

The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday challenging DHS’s “no-release” deterrence policy as a violation of federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process, both of which prohibit the blanket detention of asylum-seekers for deterrence purposes.

But for the 41 children currently detained at Berks County Residential Center, litigation is far too slow a fix when Christmas is just days away. The children who are old enough to write have written letters to Santa, hopeful that he can bring them a little bit of Christmas joy behind bars.

Rather than leave matters to Santa, I reached out to Carol Anne Donohoe, an immigrants’ rights advocate who represents many of the families detained at the Berks Center, who connected me with the Center’s Recreation Supervisor, Sandy Schlessman, to help Sandy organize a toy drive for the 41 children at Berks. The Berks Toy Drive registry contains a range of age-appropriate gifts approved by the detention center and reflect what many of the children at Berks asked for in their letters to Santa. There is also a toy drive for the children detained at Karnes, Texas, organized by a local church in partnership with Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Word has already spread around the Berks Center that Santa is coming, and the children are very excited, so please give generously to help brighten their holiday season. At ACLU offices in New York, California, Washington, DC, Texas, and here in Pennsylvania, we’ll be doing our part this December—and all the rest of the year—to ensure that the Berks Center and other federal family detention centers don’t have to become regular stops on Santa’s route.

Molly-Tack-HooperMolly Tack-Hooper started at the ACLU of Pennsylvania as a volunteer legal fellow in 2010-2011 and returned in 2013 as a staff attorney focusing on civil liberties issues arising in Central Pennsylvania and on immigrants’ rights.

A New Dawn for Immigrants?

By Molly Tack-Hooper, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Pennsylvania

(Obama Intends to Regularize Status of Millions Illegal Immigrants in America. credit: http://thespeaker.co/)

(credit: http://thespeaker.co/)

Last week, President Obama rolled out significant changes to his administration’s immigration enforcement program with a televised announcement and a series of Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) memos detailing the changes. Since then, immigrants’ rights advocates have been poring over the memos trying to determine whether they foretell a new dawn for immigration enforcement or more of the same misguided and destructive immigration enforcement practices that for years have torn apart families at an alarming rate.

Not all of the announcements were good. The President announced that he will continue to pour resources into policing the southern border by further bulking up the largest law enforcement agency in the country—Customs and Border Protection—which has an appalling track record of violence without accountability.

But the new policies do contain much to celebrate, like executive actions that could temporarily shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation by expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and offering new relief from deportation for certain immigrant parents with children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Among other positive changes, President Obama announced policies ending the controversial Secure Communities (“S-COMM”) program and constraining immigration authorities’ much-criticized use of ICE detainers. S-COMM is dead, to be replaced by something called the Priority Enforcement Program (“PEP”). It remains to be seen, however, just how much the problems that plagued S-COMM will persist under PEP.

Havoc Wreaked by S-COMM and Detainers
Secure Communities was, at its core, a program of collaboration between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement agencies that used local resources to identify people subject to deportation. Under Secure Communities, every time anyone was arrested and booked by a police agency, their fingerprints were run through DHS’s immigration database. The lynchpin of S-COMM was the ICE detainer (or “immigration hold”), a request from ICE to a local law enforcement agency to imprison someone in custody past the time when they would otherwise be released from the criminal justice system in order to give ICE extra time to investigate the person’s immigration status. Although Secure Communities was intended to focus immigration enforcement resources on people with serious criminal convictions, in reality, S-COMM ensnared non-citizens from all backgrounds, fueling the mass deportation of valuable members of society and ripping apart families. Deportations reached record highs on President Obama’s watch.

The ACLU’s Detainer Litigation and Advocacy
The ACLU has long had concerns about the myriad civil liberties problems posed by S-COMM and ICE detainers. In March 2014, I testified at a Philadelphia City Council hearing that ICE detainers are often issued without any legal basis, can lead to racial profiling, and undermine trust in the police, threatening everyone’s safety.

In Pennsylvania, the kind of routine collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers engendered by S-COMM led to the illegal 3-day imprisonment in Lehigh County Prison of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen born in New Jersey, on an immigration detainer. After he was arrested on criminal charges (of which he was later acquitted), local police racially profiled him as being an undocumented immigrant and notified ICE of his arrest. ICE then issued a detainer to give itself more time to investigate Mr. Galarza’s immigration status. So when Mr. Galarza posted bail, instead of being released and reunited with his family, he was held for 3 more days, without any explanation or any opportunity to demonstrate his U.S. citizenship.

The ACLU and ACLU of Pennsylvania sued, and on March 4, 2014, won a huge victory when the Third Circuit became the first federal Court of Appeals to rule that local agencies do not have to comply with ICE detainer requests, and can be held liable for their role in causing an unlawful detention when there is no constitutionally valid basis for the detainer. In light of that ruling, in April 2014, Lehigh County paid Mr. Galarza $95,000 to settle his case and agreed to adopt a policy of no longer honoring ICE detainers without a court order.

Shortly after the Galarza ruling, Mayor Nutter issued an executive order directing Philadelphia facilities not to honor any ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant. In August 2014, the ACLU-PA, working with PICC, Juntos, New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia, and NDLON, wrote to county officials all over the commonwealth to alert them to the court ruling in Galarza and urge them to adopt local policies of declining ICE detainer requests that are not accompanied by a judicial warrant. At last count, 40% of the counties in Pennsylvania reported that their facilities will no longer honor ICE detainer requests without a court order.

The End of S-COMM and Routine Detainers
Last week, the President acknowledged the many failings of S-COMM and the problematic use of detainers and discontinued Secure Communities:

“[S-COMM] has become a symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws. Governors, mayors, and state and local law enforcement officials around the country have increasingly refused to cooperate with the program, and many have issued executive orders or signed laws prohibiting such cooperation. A number of federal courts have rejected the authority of state and local law enforcement agencies to detain immigrants pursuant to federal detainers issued under the current Secure Communities program.”

Under the new executive action, S-COMM will be replaced by the “Priority Enforcement Program” (or “PEP”). S-COMM and PEP have some features in common. Importantly, fingerprint-sharing of all arrestees with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes will continue under PEP—without any limitations. And DHS can still ask local law enforcement agencies and jails for notification when a non-citizen is scheduled to be released from local custody. But when it comes to actually issuing detainers and taking non-citizens into federal custody for immigration proceedings, PEP appears to constrain federal agents in ways that S-COMM did not.

According to DHS, under PEP, ICE will seek to transfer from local custody into immigration detention only certain “priority” non-citizens, including anyone believed by ICE to pose a threat to national security, as well as people engaged in terrorism or gang activity or convicted of certain crimes (any non-immigration-related felonies or a significant misdemeanor or 3 or more non-immigration-related misdemeanors). Further, under PEP, ICE is only permitted to issue detainers asking for a local agency to detain someone for ICE in “special circumstances” and only if the person is subject to a final order of removal or ICE has “other sufficient probable cause” to believe that the person is deportable.

DHS has yet to clarify the exact contours of ICE’s marching orders under these new policies; the policy memos are susceptible to several interpretations. And only time will tell how PEP is actually implemented. But the President’s acknowledgement that our immigration system badly needs fixing and that S-COMM was a failure—and his efforts to try to fix what he can—are welcome signs of change.

Molly-Tack-Hooper Molly Tack-Hooper started at the ACLU of Pennsylvania as a volunteer legal fellow in 2010-2011 and returned in 2013 as a staff attorney focusing on civil liberties issues arising in Central Pennsylvania and on immigrants’ rights.

Immigrants in the Shadows: Warehousing Noncitizens in Our Nation’s For-Profit Prison System

By Scott Kelly, Columbia Law School Social Justice Fellow, ACLU of Pennsylvania

CAR

By definition, a “for-profit” corporation has only one goal: to make money for its shareholders. For Coca-Cola, that means selling cans of soda. For ExxonMobil, that means drilling oil wells.

And for The GEO Group, Inc., that means putting immigrants behind bars.

You heard that right: The same way Coca-Cola profits when someone buys a two-liter, GEO Group makes money when an immigrant is thrown into prison—often for no other crime than crossing the border in search of a better life.

You see, GEO Group is one of three private companies that run the 13 federal prisons for nonviolent immigrant criminals, called “Criminal Alien Requirement” (CAR) prisons. And one of GEO Group’s CAR prisons—a 1,495-bed low security facility called Moshannon Valley Correctional Center—is located right here in Philipsburg, PA.

That’s why the report that the ACLU and its Texas affiliate released today is a must-read. Representing the culmination of four years of investigation, Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped In Our Shadow Private Prison System describes the rampant prisoner abuse and lack of accountability at five CAR prisons in Texas—including two operated by GEO Group.

The report catalogues in grim detail what happens when the profit motive collides with our penal system: prisoners languish in overcrowded, chronically understaffed facilities, while GEO Group and its ilk rake in billions in annual revenue and millions in executive payouts.

And the problem is only getting worse: dating back to 2009, more people have entered the federal prison system for immigration offenses than for violent, weapons, and property offenses combined.

Here are some of the most startling findings from the report:

    • Excessive Use of Isolation

      The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) routinely negotiates contracts with private prison companies that incentivize excessive use of isolation cells (called “the SHU”). For example, the contracts for the two CAR prisons in Texas operated by GEO Group—Big Spring and Reeves—contain clauses requiring that these overcrowded prisons set aside 10% of their bed space as isolation cells. To compare: confining 10% of the prisoners in CAR facilities to isolation represents almost twice the rate of isolation in facilities run by the BOP itself, even though the majority of the BOP-run prisons are higher-security.

      This isolation quota encourages the excessive—and often arbitrary or malicious—use of the SHU. At Big Spring, staff frequently placed prisoners in isolation for months at a time while they carried out never-ending “investigations” into disciplinary infractions. A recent wrongful death suit filed against the Reeves CAR prison even alleged that the facility had a policy of using the SHU to punish prisoners who repeatedly asked for medical attention or filed grievances. The lawsuit pointed to this policy as responsible for the death of a prisoner named Reyes Garcia Rangel, who committed suicide after being confined to the SHU and denied his psychotropic medications.

    • Limited Access to Rehabilitative Programming

      CAR prisons are not contractually required to provide the programming, drug treatment, and work opportunities offered in most federal prisons, in spite of the fact that studies overwhelmingly show the efficacy of such programs. As a result, prisoners housed in these facilities often face years of boredom and idleness—years that could have been spent bettering their lives and preparing for life after release.

      BOP justifies this policy by reasoning that rehabilitating people who face deportation wastes resources. Not only is this thinking callous but it’s also deeply flawed: many prisoners in CAR facilities may have a legal right to stay in the country, including valid claims for asylum and derivative citizenship. And assuming that deported immigrants won’t try to enter the country again ignores the strong pulls of economics and family that brought many people to America in the first place.

    • Inadequacy of Medical Care

      The report documents the widespread failure of CAR prisons in Texas to meet the medical needs of prisoners. A lack of oversight and accountability has combined with cost-cutting pressures to create a perfect breeding ground for medical negligence. In one extreme example detailed in the report, the prison staff at Reeves placed an epileptic prisoner in the SHU because the facility didn’t have an infirmary. The man, Jesus Manuel Galindo, pleaded continually with guards to adjust his medication but reported in letters to family that the “medical care here is no good and I’m scared.” Tragically, the day after Mr. Galindo wrote those words, he went into a seizure and perished unattended in his cell.

      In a series of internal documents, BOP officials even acknowledged the systemic inadequacy of medical care at Reeves, writing that the “[l]ack of healthcare has greatly impacted inmate health and wellbeing” and that the private prison had mismanaged the treatment of HIV patients. Similarly, prisoners at Big Spring complained of the chronic understaffing of medical personnel. Aware of many of these problems, BOP officials nonetheless chose to renew the contracts of all CAR facilities in 2010, because the Bureau didn’t want to lose “credibility as a solid customer” of the private prison industry.

    • Lack of Accountability and Transparency

      CAR prisons aren’t subject to the oversight and transparency that applies to other federal prisons. For example, under the Freedom of Information Act, federal agencies like BOP must disclose their records to the public upon request. But CAR prisons are exempt from FOIA, meaning that the most basic details about how these facilities operate are often unknown. The BOP even fights to shield the information it has on CAR prisons from the public, citing FOIA Exemption 4, which permits withholding the “trade secrets” of private companies.

      Nor do many BOP policies—called “program statements”—apply to CAR prisons, including those related to important issues like the filing of grievances and attorney visits. This leaves companies like GEO Group to set their own policies—the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. It’s unsurprising that prison officials turn around and use this discretion to further restrict access to their facilities—for example, by prohibiting NGOs from touring their prisons or conducting interviews.

Read the full report and you’ll understand why the practice of contracting out prisoners to for-profit companies must stop. The ACLU is also calling for an end to the criminalization of immigration, which has served only to line the pockets of the for-profit prison industry at the expense of taxpayer dollars and the dignity of immigrants. Short of ending these practices, the federal government should at the very least subject CAR prisons to greater transparency and oversight.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania is investigating the CAR prison here in our own state: GEO Group’s Moshannon Valley Correctional Center. As detailed in the Texas report, GEO Group has a record of abuse and mismanagement at both of the CAR prisons it operates in Texas. We ask that anyone with information about the conditions and practices at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center please contact us to share your stories. Only with your help can we shed light on another one of our nation’s shadow prisons.

Email us at info@aclupa.org or call 877-PHL-ACLU (877-745-2258) if you live in the eastern half of the state or 877-PGH-ACLU (877-744-2258) if you live in the western half of the state.

Scott KellyScott Kelly joined the ACLU in February of 2014. He is a recent honors graduate of Columbia Law School, where he received the Milton B. Conford Book Prize for the best essay on jurisprudence.