LAS CRUCES, NM—Today, the Doña Ana County Board of County Commissioners voted and passed a resolution establishing the county as a “Safe Community for All Residents.” The resolution joins Doña Ana County with countless communities across the nation, including major urban centers, which have passed similar resolutions stating that routine enforcement of federal immigration law is not the job of county employees.

“We applaud the Commissioners for recognizing that local efforts to enforce immigration law undermine public safety for all of us by making our neighbors fearful of county employees, including first responders,” stated Vicki Gaubeca, Director of the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights (RCBR). “It’s also about fairness in our community, as local police too often resort to profiling to enforce immigration law, a practice that is ineffective, unconstitutional and un-American.” 

In the last year, RCBR staff provided 79 know your rights presentations reaching over 1,500 residents throughout Doña Ana County and southern NM. 
“We can’t have a situation where a victim of domestic violence is afraid to get help because they think the police might ask about their immigration status,” said Brian Erickson, Policy Advocate with the RCBR. “We spend a lot of time out in the community, and this really is a serious worry for a lot of people. This new policy makes us all safer by ensuring that no one is ever afraid to call the police when they or someone else is a victim of a crime.”

Under the resolution, county employees will be prohibited from using county resources or funds to inquire into the immigration status of an individual, condition services based on one’s status, or collaborate with federal officials to investigate immigration status unless otherwise required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision.
 

###

WASHINGTON--The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and National Immigration Law Center today sued the federal government to challenge its policies denying a fair deportation process to mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States seeking safety.

The groups filed the case on behalf of mothers and children locked up at an isolated detention center in Artesia, New Mexico — hours from the nearest major metropolitan area. The complaint charges the Obama administration with enacting a new strong-arm policy to ensure rapid deportations by holding these mothers and their children to a nearly insurmountable and erroneous standard to prove their asylum claims, and by placing countless hurdles in front of them.
“Many of these women and children are fleeing systematic murder and unspeakable violence in their home countries,” said ACLU-NM Regional Center for Border Rights Director Vicki Gaubeca. “We cannot in good conscience allow the government to railroad them through the deportation process without giving them a fair opportunity to seek asylum.”
According to the complaint, the Obama administration is violating long-established constitutional and statutory law by enacting policies that have:

·         Categorically prejudged asylum cases with a "detain-and-deport" policy, regardless of individual circumstances.

·         Drastically restricted communication with the outside world for the women and children held at the remote detention center, including communication with attorneys. If women got to make phone calls at all, they were cut off after three minutes when consulting with their attorneys.  This makes it impossible to prepare for a hearing or get legal help.

·         Given virtually no notice to detainees of critically important interviews used to determine the outcome of asylum requests. Mothers have no time to prepare, are rushed through their interviews, are cut off by officials throughout the process, and are forced to answer traumatic questions, including detailing instances of rape, while their children are listening.

·         Led to the intimidation and coercion of the women and children by immigration officers, including being screamed at for wanting to see a lawyer.

“In America, every person is entitled to basic due process under the law,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “In Artesia, our government is stripping these fundamental protections wholesale from mothers who want nothing more than a chance to protect their children from violence and atrocity. We are better than this. We must hold fast to our core American values of fairness and protection of the vulnerable.”
 
The plaintiffs include:

·         A Honduran mother who fled repeated death threats in her home country to seek asylum in the United States with her two young children. The children's father was killed by a violent gang that then sent the mother and her children continuous death threats. When she went to the police they told her that they could not do anything to help her. It is common knowledge where she lived that the police are afraid of the gang and will do nothing to stop it.

·         A mother who fled El Salvador with her two children because of threats by the gang that controls the area where they lived. The gang stalked her 12-year-old child every time he left the house and threatened kidnapping. She fears that if the family returns to El Salvador, the gang will kill her son. Some police officers are known to be corrupt and influenced by gangs. The mother says she knows of people who have been killed by gang members after reporting them to police.

·         A mother who fled El Salvador with her 10-month old son after rival gangs threatened to kill her and her baby. One gang tried to force the mother to become an informant on the activities of another gang, and when she refused, told her she had 48 hours to leave or be killed.

The lawsuit, M.S.P.C. v. Johnson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Co-counsel in this case includes the law firms of Jenner & Block, and Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP; and the ACLU of New Mexico, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and ACLU of the Nation's Capital.
 
The complaint is available at: https://www.aclu-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Filed-Complaint.pdf

###

BLOOMFIELD, NM—Yesterday afternoon, District Court Judge James Parker ruled that the granite monument featuring the Ten Commandments installed on the lawn of Bloomfield City Hall violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and must be removed by the city by September 10, 2014. The lawsuit was filed in 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico on behalf of two Bloomfield residents who objected to the monument, believing it to be an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion.

 
“This decision is a victory for the First Amendment’s protections against government endorsed religion,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “We firmly support the right of individuals, religious groups, and community associations to publicly display religious monuments, but the government should not be in the business of picking which sets of religious beliefs belong at city hall. We hope that the Ten Commandments monument will find a new home on private property in the city where people can continue to enjoy it.”
 
In its decision, the court concluded:
 
“…The Ten Commandments monument is government speech regulated by the Establishment Clause because the Ten Commandments monument is a permanent object located on government property and it is not part of a designated public forum open to all on equal terms…In view of the circumstances surrounding the context, history, and purpose of the Ten Commandments monument, it is clear that the City of Bloomfield has violated the Establishment Clause because its conduct in authorizing the continued display of the monument on City property had the primary or principal effect of endorsing religion.”
 
The religious monument was first installed on government property in July, 2011 and dedicated on July 4th with a religious themed ceremony. Former city councilor Kevin Mauzy, who originally proposed the 2007 city ordinance that allowed for the Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on the city hall lawn, presided over the dedication ceremony.
 
“Bloomfield residents come from many different religious traditions, and the government should never discriminate amongst them by lifting up one above the other,” said ACLU of New Mexico Legal Director Alexandra Freedman Smith. “Not only does this monument run afoul of the First Amendment, but it sends an exclusionary message to members of the community who do not subscribe to the particular set of religious beliefs inscribed there. The government belongs to us all, and it should not marginalize community members because of their faith.”
 
A copy of the court’s decision can be read here: Felix District Court Opinion
 
Read the legal complaint here: Felix v. Bloomfield