FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 7, 2011

EL PASO, TX – Nicolás, 57, lived and worked for several years in the United States, where he emigrated to make a better life for his family. This year, he made the decision to return to Mexico to reunite with his family, but Border Patrol agents apprehended him in the “Los Paisanos” bus station, a private transportation company in El Paso, Texas. His bus was destined for Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, when border patrol agents boarded the bus and began asking passengers for “their papers.”

Even though Nicolás told the officials that he was on the way back to Mexico, the agents removed him from the bus and placed him in deportation proceedings. The agents also confiscated four boxes and a suitcase that held Nicolás’s clothing, personal belongings, and trade tools he had purchased over the years. Two days later, he was able to recuperate the boxes with the help of the Centro de Derechos Humanos del Migrante, A.C. (CDHM) and the Humane Repatriation Program. However, the suitcase is still unaccounted for and no one has taken responsibility for its disappearance.

“Unfortunately Nicolás’s experience is not unique; thousands of individuals who have been apprehended by immigration officials in the United States lose personal belongings when detained,” notes Lizeth Martinez, lawyer of CDHM in Ciudad Juarez. “These are hardworking, honest individuals who are being deported without their government-issued identifications, cash or bank debit cards, which makes it harder for them to find steady work in Mexico or even to pay for food and shelter while they figure out how to put their lives back together.”

Not having identification also makes it difficult for these individuals to prove their identity at interior checkpoints when attempting to return to their original hometowns in different parts of Mexico, creating a great deal of uncertainty and making them vulnerable to exploitation by local authorities or criminal elements while on their voyage.

A Survey on Migration on the Northern Mexican Border, conducted by the Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), showed that the failure to return personal belongings to deported persons increased by 400 percent between 2007 and 2010, from 6,650 to 34,820 individuals. In the last four months, CDHM has restored personal belongings to 37 individuals were deported to Ciudad Juarez.

Border Patrol agents issue a 30-day notice to detainees prior to the destruction of seized property. But if immigration officials hold an individual in a long-term detention facility or detainees face charges of illegal entry or illegal reentry, they may be unable to respond within 30 days and their personal property is destroyed. Also if the person has not been adequately informed about the 30-day limit, attempts to regain his or her possessions even one day late, results in lost belongings.

Nicolás’s experience is also a disturbing example of Customs and Border Patrol’s questionable practice of boarding buses and trains in the interior of the United States and demanding “papers” from passengers. A recent report published by the New York Civil Liberties Union and other NY immigrant advocacy groups showed that between 2006 and 2009, most of the 2,743 people apprehended by CPB during sweeps of public transportation in New York bus and train stations were of Latino/Hispanic descent or people of color[1].

“Border Patrol agents in the United States should not be asking for papers from bus passengers who are traveling within the United States and much less asking for these papers from individuals who are leaving the country,” notes Vicki B. Gaubeca, director of the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights. “The NYCLU report illustrates how border patrol agents may use racial profiling when asking passengers for their documents. This practice needs to stop.”

“In addition, Border Patrol has the responsibility to return personal belongings to individuals prior to their deportation,” added Ms. Gaubeca. “Not returning an individual’s belongings contradicts the American core values of justice and due process.”

###

Contact:

Vicki Gaubeca, Tel. (575) 527 0664 or (575) 373-5789.

Director, Regional Center for Border Rights.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.

On November 15,

Panelists: Jennifer Podkul from the Women's Refugee Commission, Tania Chozet from the ACLU of New Mexico, and Danielle Alvarado from No More Deaths.

advocacy organization representatives and congressional staffers gathered in a small room in the Canon House Office Building for a congressional briefing on No More Deaths’ “Culture of Cruelty” report.  As we have reported previously (here and here), No More Deaths conducted interviews with nearly 13,000 migrants and documented 30,000 incidents of abuse and mistreatment by the U.S. Border Patrol in short-term detention over the course of three years. At the briefing, Danielle Alvarado from No More Deaths, Jennifer Podkul of the Women’s Refugee Commission, and Tania Chozet from the ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights each spoke about their experiences working with migrants near the border and their frustration surrounding the Border Patrol’s flat out denial of the report’s findings.

While the report presents a multitude of alarming statistics about the situation on our southwestern border (for example: “out of 433 incidents in which emergency medical treatment or medication were needed, only 59 (14%) received it before being deported – the other 86% were deported without receiving needed medical care”), yesterday’s briefing focused on the actions that members of Congress can take to alleviate the situation.

Despite the report’s disturbing findings, the Border Patrol has been unwilling to meet with No More Deaths locally.  This is not an isolated incident–Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has a reputation for being unresponsive to both civil society and congressional information requests.  The only existing oversight mechanism–the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (CRCL)–is understaffed, does not have the authority to issue penalties or make binding recommendations, and is not independent enough to truly hold the agency accountable.  Consequently, no one is asking questions about questionable Border Patrol policies.

In contrast, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has introduced access policies to allow advocacy groups to visit their detention facilities and conduct independent monitoring.  This program allows ICE to benefit from the expertise and advice of the advocacy community as well as fosters dialogue about ICE policies.  This model could provide similar accountability for Border Patrol policies and facilities.

The panelists emphasized that they are not asking that the laws go unenforced, just that they be carried out in a humane way.  This kind of abuse and mistreatment is inexcusable, particularly in the United States of America.  Moreover, though these policies are conducted under the guise of national security, human rights abuses do not make us safer.  Congress can do a number of things to hold the Border Patrol accountable for their actions including adding oversight and reporting conditions in budget bills and calling for oversight hearings.  Our members of Congress need to start asking the tough questions and requiring the executive agencies to take responsibility for the abuses occurring on their watch.

This blog post originally appeared on the website of Standing on the Side of Love, a Unitarian Universalist public advocacy campaign that seeks to harness love’s power to stop oppression.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Want to do something about Border Patrol abuse?  Sign the petition.  Call the White House and ask the administration to launch an investigation.  Contact your members of Congress and ask them to call for an oversight hearing.  Make your voice heard!

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

When I checked the news on last night before I went to bed my jaw dropped.

“Whoa!”

The 2011 voting results were in, and they spelled major victories for civil libertarians across the nation. Here are the highlights:

1) Mississippi “Personhood” Amendment defeated

On Tuesday Mississippi voters soundly rejected a amendment to the state constitution that would define a fertilized egg as a person with all the rights thereof. This is of course a fantastically absurd, really bad, terrible idea. For many reasons.

By this definition, certain forms of birth control could be considered murder. For instance, the Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents pregnancy by keeping fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. So under the so-called “personhood” amendment should women with IUDs be charged as serial killers? What about fertility doctors who implant several fertilized eggs and then destroy all but the most viable?

Bottom line: anti-choice extremists have no business forcing their own religious world view on the rest of the population. Women have the right to make private reproductive heathcare choices in consultation with their doctor. That’s why Mississipians voted down this ballot measure by an overwhelming 16 point margin.

2) Russell Pierce, architect of SB 1070, recalled in Arizona

I’ll preface this with a reminder that the ACLU does not endorse or oppose political candidates. We do, however, weigh in on the policy issues they are responsible for. Russell Pearce, Senate Majority leader in Arizona, is best known as the architect of the unfair, discriminatory “Show me your papers” law passed in Arizona last year. This law would require law enforcement officials in Arizona to investigate the immigration status of anyone they “suspected” of being in the country without the proper documents. Essentially, the law is a mandate for state-sponsored racial profiling.

Yesterday, Arizona voters recalled Senator Pearce, replacing him with another Republican with a more mainstream stance on immigration issues. This recall move was widely seen as a referendum on last year’s unconstitutional immigration law.

Bottom line: state and local law enforcement should not be responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. It hurts our communities, destroys trust in law enforcement and leads to racial profiling of people who look or sound “foreign.” Arizona voters sent a strong message yesterday, repudiating anti-immigrant scapegoating.

3) Same day voter registration stays in Maine

In a bald-faced move to suppress certain groups of voters, the Maine Legislature passed a law in the last legislative session that eliminated election day voter registration. Their excuse for passing this vote-suppressing law will be familiar to New Mexicans–voter fraud! Rampant, pervasive voter fraud!

In Maine, like New Mexico, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Yesterday, Maine voters saw through the legislature’s political move and overwhelmingly rejected the new law with 59 percent of the vote.

Bottom line: Our leaders shouldn’t play politics with the foundation of our democracy, our elections system.

Bottom line-bottom line?

When civil libertarians organize together and stand up for the Constitution, there is no limit to what we can overcome–and ACLU members played a big role. The ACLU of Mississippi was part of the coalition that helped defeat the “personhood”amendment, the ACLU of Maine actively organized to overturn the voter-suppressing repeal of election day registration, and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit blocking key parts of the “Show me your papers law.”

So keep standing up for liberty with the ACLU. It’s hard work, but days like yesterday remind us what we’re fighting for.

Tania Chozet, Policy Advocate

We recently reached the two-year anniversary of the Obama administration’s announcement that it would reform our country’s immigration detention system, moving from our current penal-based system of detention to a more humane system that is tailored to individuals who have only violated civil codes of immigration law. Tonight, PBS’s Frontline will debut “Lost in Detention,” an investigative documentary that will examine the progress of these reform efforts and where they still fall short.

Immigration advocacy groups have sized up the reform efforts thus far in comprehensive reports and blogs. They show that, although there has been some progress at the policy level, the detention conditions on the ground have not improved.  Also, recent FOIA requests by the ACLU and the Houston Chronicle confirm that, internally, ICE is aware of the continued, severe problems in its detention system, despite publicly touting its reforms.

In all of this analysis of how far the Obama administration’s efforts have or haven’t come, immigration advocates should recognize that there have been some productive results in our collaborative efforts.

For example, two years ago, the Obama administration began ramping up Secure Communities, an immigration enforcement program that is ostensibly intended to identify serious criminals who are in the country illegally. In response, advocates went to work on exposing the program’s many problems , not the least of which is that the program compromises community policing models and undermines the public’s trust in local police by discouraging witnesses and victims from reporting crimes for fear that they will be deported. In addition, advocates noted that, despite the stated mission of the program, half of the people deported under Secure Communities have no criminal background. Immigrant advocates collaborated to develop successful campaigns urging states to withdraw from Secure Communities, ultimately convincing governors, mayors and chiefs of police to denounce the program publicly.

These efforts exposed the program’s many shortcomings in the public and the media. Eventually, the Obama administration took notice.

In “Lost in Detention,” Cecilia Muñoz, a top Obama official, acknowledges that the administration has heard the calls for reform, and has reacted to them. Although the administration has not suspended Secure Communities, there is some hope in that the administration announced changes to the program, including the use of prosecutorial discretion to reduce the deportation of immigrants without criminal histories. The administration also recently announced that it would review 300,000 cases currently in deportation proceedings. 

These are not the best solutions, but they do represent progress.

Similarly, in the area of detention reform, advocates have had to expend herculean efforts and, while improvements have been far from overwhelming, there have been some wins. In 2009, a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU triggered a review of the system. The Obama administration took an honest look at its immigration detention system in a report it issued in October 2009. From that report followed announcements by the Department of Homeland Security about plans to reform the immigration detention system to one that is more suited for civil detention.  Two years later, the system is still a far cry from one that is suited to civil detention. According to a recent report by Human Rights First, even if all of the planned reforms were implemented, only 14 percent of the immigrants detained would benefit. Nonetheless, that same report acknowledges some improvements.

Tonight, as we watch “Lost in Detention,” it will be easier to count the ways in which the system has not changed. I’m probably not giving out any spoilers in saying that the show reveals that the many of the reforms are “smoke and mirrors” rather than real change.  It might be tempting to feel as if our efforts to win real immigration detention reform were in vain. Yet, change at a trickle is still progress, and the administration, though hard of hearing, is listening. Immigration advocates should watch “Lost in Detention” with this in mind. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “[c]hange does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom.”

Vicki Gaubeca, Regional Center for Border Rights Director

I am sitting in the basement of a church in rural New Mexico, fifty miles from the US-Mexico border. The woman across from me is wiping her tears with a handkerchief. Her two young sons sit next to her, staring at the floor.

“I don’t know if I will ever see him again and I don’t know if I can pick up and move our kids to a country I know nothing about and would be afraid of living in,” she says. “You know, I did not ask him for his papers before I fell in love with him.”

Her husband, who has never been in trouble with the law and has lived in the U.S. since he was a child, was deported after a local police officer reported him to border patrol.  The officer had pulled them over for a cracked windshield.

Americans need a reality check on the “border security first” rhetoric that stands in the way of any real progress on immigration reform. The reality of many U.S.-Mexico border communities is not what politicians are telling us.

The U.S.-Mexico border region has been my home for almost 20 years.  My family and I have personally witnessed the buildup of federal border enforcement resources, leading to a dramatic  increase in racial profiling, traumatic family separations and civil rights violations.

In the last decade, the number of Border Patrol agents monitoring the US-Mexico border has doubled to almost 10 agents per mile. If they distributed themselves equally, the agents could literally see each other across the desert plains of the border lands. And this number ignores all the other federal agents–ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, the National Guard, and thousands of police and sheriff’s deputies—who occupy the area.

Nor does it include the near 700 miles of border fencing, the helicopters, the airplanes, the boats, the unmanned aerial vehicles (“drones”), the cameras and sensors, the blimps, and the all-terrain vehicles deployed at the border.  Where once Border Patrol agents rarely appeared, now their presence is inescapable.

More problematically, these agents aren’t constrained to operations along the border line. Instead, they are dispersed northward and into the most populated areas of the state, stopping and harassing people, especially those of Hispanic descent who are just traveling to their places of work. Many of these residents are not only U.S. citizens, but their families have lived in this region for generations.

Border residents regularly pass through Border Patrol checkpoints, where agents not only demand proof of  citizenship but also press them to explain “where are you going” and “where are you coming from?” Cameras and backscatter devices scan their vehicles and canine search teams circle their  cars. The border is now a “Constitution-lite” zone.  It is a place where we seem to have no protections from police searches and no right to expect  privacy. Exercising the right to remain silent invokes suspicion and is treated as an obstruction of justice.

Next to the woman and her sons sits a young man who describes his plans to move to “some small town” in Mexico in order to be with his recently deported wife.  He is a U.S. citizen and speaks  no Spanish.

Another young woman, also a U.S. citizen, shares that she has two younger brothers and a younger sister. Both of her parents were recently deported as a result of a community raid. Barely 18, she is solely responsible for taking care of her siblings.

All three of these American families are now struggling to make ends meet. But so many Americans, despite our own immigrant roots and core values of fairness, would write these tragedies off with “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”

Americans who live in border communities are predominantly families of mixed statuses, many of us are U.S. citizens, but many are long-time legal permanent residents and many are family members who are trying, sometimes desperately, to get “documents” in the face of an incredibly broken and dysfunctional immigration system. Most importantly, we are families. We are part of an intercultural community, proud of our Spanglish and indigenous roots. We are businesses, schools and churches. We believe in the promise of the United States: economic security, individual liberties and equal opportunity.

The rhetoric of “border security first” feeds into a system that not only generates suffering for border communities, but defies logic. We’ve seen that no amount of border enforcement can staunch the flow of immigration, and it does nothing to prevent individuals from overstaying tourist visas.

But there is a way out of this insanity. We would have to be creative, persistent and smart. We would start by admitting that a law-enforcement only model is folly. We will have to look at our immigration system and truly reform it in a just and fair manner that preserves family unity and better addresses the labor demands of the country without exploiting workers in the U.S. or abroad.

We will have to look at our trade policy and see how this has contributed to the problem. And we will have to be more creative about our drug policy and acknowledge that our 40-year drug war has only made the problem worse for us and for our neighboring countries.

I know this is a tall order, but Americans have faced larger challenges. At the very least, we should ensure that whatever law enforcement systems we have in place include proper accountability and oversight; reinforcing the human and civil rights of border communities.

Vicki Gaubeca is the director for the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights in Las Cruces, NM.