ACLU Action





Suggested Solutions

ACLU Action
Jul 27th, 2018

Although many families have indeed been reunited, the United States have yet to provide us with any information that would allow us to verify these reunifications or locate the reunified families. In addition, according to the United States’ own data, dozens of separated children still have not been matched to a parent. Moreover, close to a thousand parents remain separated from their children. This includes nearly 500 parents who were removed from the country, most likely without their children. This also includes parents deemed to not be Class Members, parents who allegedly waived reunification, and parents whose membership in the class the United States have yet to determine. In light of the above, we propose the following steps:

A list of all reunified families, which must include, for each Class Member, the following information: 

  1. The names and A numbers of the parent and child. 
  2. The location where they were reunified. 
  3. The date they were reunified.
  4. Whether, after reunification, the family was detained, released, or deported.
  5. If the family is being detained, the location of detention. 
  6. If the family was released, the time and place of release, and the family’s current location and phone number.

That list contains 40 children with no parental information—no name, A number, or location. The list also contains 12 children for whom the parent’s A number is listed, but no name or location. be ordered to explain in detail, at the July 27 hearing, what efforts they are undertaking to locate and make contact with these parents.   As evidence submitted yesterday makes clear, many of these parents did not realize they were signing away their right to get their children back. For the Class Members on the waiver list who in fact do want to be reunified, the Court should order the United States to reunify the family within 3 days of receiving written notice from the Class Member or class counsel.

There were over 900 potential class members who will not be reunified by today’s deadline. We propose the following deadlines to ensure that these families’ separation ends as soon as possible:

  1. Criminal-custody list on July 30 and every 3 days thereafter. (both age 0-4 and age 5-17 groups)
  2. List of reunification information by Monday, July 30. (age 5-17 group only) 
  3. List of detailed reasons for exclusions on a rolling basis, and completed by Wednesday, August 1. (both age 0-4 and age 5-17 groups) 
  4. Reunification of deported Class Members within 7 days after confirming that the parents are Class Members, that they desire reunification with their children, and that travel documents have been obtained. (both age 0-4 and age 5-17 groups) 

You need to be logged in as a registered user if you want to submit a rating.

ACLU Action
Jun 18th, 2018
Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington: A declaration that Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of EO-1, Sections 1(f), 2(c), and 6(a) of EO-2, Sections 2(a)-(c), (e), and (g)-(h) of EO-3, and the October 2017 Agency Memo implementing EO-4 violate the rights of all members of the Non- Immigrant Visa Class and the Refugee Classes for the reasons set forth above. A declaration that Sections 2(a)-(c), (e), and (g)-(h) of EO-3 and the manner in which they as well as EO-4 will be implemented are in violation of the rights of all members of the Non-Immigrant Visa Class and the Refugee Classes for the reasons set forth above. An injunction that the Orders may not be enforced as against members of the Non-Immigrant Visa Class or the Refugee Classes in connection with their entry or re-entry into the United States; A permanent injunction of the Orders as contrary to the Constitution;

You need to be logged in as a registered user if you want to submit a rating.

ACLU Action
Jun 18th, 2018

Before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:

Declare the separation of Ms. L. and her daughter unlawful;

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin ICE from continuing to separate Ms. L. and her daughter;

Order ICE either to release Ms. L. and her daughter, or to detain them together;

Enjoin defendants from removing Ms. L. from the country until she is reunited with her daughter, in the event that Ms. L. is not granted asylum and permitted to remain in the United States; and

Order all other relief that is just and proper.

You need to be logged in as a registered user if you want to submit a rating.

ACLU Action
May 9th, 2018

The decision issued in Roy v. County of Los Angeles and Gonzalez v. ICE holds the LASD liable for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of thousands of inmates it detained without probable cause of any crime, including some who were held for days after they should have been released. It also holds that the LASD unconstitutionally incarcerated thousands of individuals with low bail amounts who would not even have been booked into jail if it were not for unconstitutional immigration detainers. Based on this decision, members of both classes may be entitled to monetary damages.

The decision issued in Gonzalez v. ICE holds that ICE's practice of issuing detainers based on evidence of a person's foreign place of birth and no other information about a person's citizenship or immigration status violates the Fourth Amendment. It also holds that its practice of issuing detainers without obtaining an administrative warrant violates its own statutory arrest authority. The decision entitles a national class of people currently subject to immigration detainers to relief from their detainers.

You need to be logged in as a registered user if you want to submit a rating.

0 Followed Projects
0 Followed Agencies
0 Followed Officials
2 Created Projects
4 Suggested Solutions