ACLU: UN Racial Justice Experts Call on Biden to End the 287(g) Program

UN Racial Justice Experts Call on Biden to End the 287(g) Program

On Tuesday, 18 independent human rights experts who serve on the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a scathing report on the U.S. government’s racial justice record. High on the committee’s list of concerns over U.S. immigration practices is ICE’s 287(g) program — a program so concerning that the committee called on the administration to end it.

The committee, established after the UN racial discrimination treaty went into effect in 1969, monitors whether countries are implementing and complying with racial justice obligations set forth in the treaty. Building on documentation from the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, as well as groups such as Haitian Bridge Alliance and the Black Alliance for Immigrant Justice, members condemned “the persistence of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement officials, including from the Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

UN members condemned “the persistence of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement officials, including from the Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

At a hearing in Geneva earlier this month, committee members pressed Biden administration officials to explain their failure to end racist immigration practices, citing the 287(g) program for “indirectly promot[ing] racial profiling”. Their pointed exchange was unprecedented for the administration. In Congress, no representative has ever pressed Biden officials over the continued pain felt by America’s immigrant communities, to this degree. But that needs to change.

The 287(g) program, which taps more than 700 officers at 142 state and local law enforcement agencies around the country to help ICE identify, detain, and deport immigrants inside the United States, is inextricably tied to racial profiling, a practice that violates the Constitution and human rights law. Being in the business of immigration enforcement leads local law enforcement to target immigrants for minor violations and pretextual arrests, generating book-ins to local custody that can then lead to deportations. Local law enforcement use “foreign-sounding” last names, place of birth, or racial appearance as a reason for stops, investigation, and arrest.

AP Photo/The Knoxville News Sentinel, Saul Young

As the ACLU documented in an April 2022 report, racial profiling has flourished in the places where the 287(g) program is in place. In Davidson County, Tennessee, the arrest rates for Latinx individuals driving without a license more than doubled after it joined the 287(g) program. In one notorious Davidson County case, a pregnant woman charged with driving without a license was shackled to her bed during labor. Available data shows that a high percentage of people arrested by 287(g)-deputized officers were charged with minor traffic violations, suggesting pre-textual arrests and racial profiling — 83 percent, for example, in Gaston County, North Carolina.

One result of this racial profiling by 287(g)-designated state and local officers is race-based federal immigration enforcement. While ICE’s failure to track 287(g)-related arrests undermines our efforts to gain a full picture of the program, we know from news reports, civil rights litigation, and testimonials that the racial profiling practices of state and local law enforcement officers are putting disproportionate numbers of Black and Brown immigrants into the deportation pipeline. By facilitating this racial profiling, the 287(g) program contravenes the stated intentions of the Biden administration to advance racial equity across federal agencies.

As the ACLU documented in an April 2022 report, racial profiling has flourished in the places where the 287(g) program is in place.

This isn’t the first time the UN Committee has called on the U.S. government to end the 287(g) program — it also did so in 2014 during the Obama administration. By then, it was already clear that the decade-old program was a vehicle for racist law enforcement officials to harass immigrants. The program was never about public safety, it was about “a change in demographics,” according to NYU Law School Professor Alina Das. As the program initially grew, FBI and census data showed that 61 percent of new 287(g) partner localities had violent and property crime indices lower than the national average, while 87 percent had experienced a growth in their Latinx population that outpaced the national average. Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell, a leader of the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association who helped broker a deal to increase his state’s participation in the 287(g) program in the late 2000s, acknowledged his goal was to reduce if not eliminate the immigrant population of his county, complaining that “Mexicans” were “breeding like rabbits.”

By the end of the Obama administration — following damning Department of Justice civil rights investigations that spurred reform — only 34 local agencies remained in the program. Yet today, following the Trump administration’s five-fold expansion of it, the Biden administration is overseeing a 287(g) program with more than 140 state and local law enforcement agency partnerships nationwide. Our report found that more than half of participating sheriffs have records of anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric; and at least 65 percent have records of a pattern of racial profiling and other civil rights violations.

It’s time for members of Congress to press the Biden administration — just as the UN Racial Justice Committee has done. The 287(g) program is a racist, broken relic. The Biden administration needs to abandon it.

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/on-the-frontlines-of-the-fight-against-mass-deportation

What you can do:

End ICE's Racist 287(g) Program

Send your message

Published August 31, 2022 at 11:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/aUlJR1Y

ACLU: UN Racial Justice Experts Call on Biden to End the 287(g) Program

UN Racial Justice Experts Call on Biden to End the 287(g) Program

On Tuesday, 18 independent human rights experts who serve on the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a scathing report on the U.S. government’s racial justice record. High on the committee’s list of concerns over U.S. immigration practices is ICE’s 287(g) program — a program so concerning that the committee called on the administration to end it.

The committee, established after the UN racial discrimination treaty went into effect in 1969, monitors whether countries are implementing and complying with racial justice obligations set forth in the treaty. Building on documentation from the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, as well as groups such as Haitian Bridge Alliance and the Black Alliance for Immigrant Justice, members condemned “the persistence of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement officials, including from the Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

UN members condemned “the persistence of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement officials, including from the Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

At a hearing in Geneva earlier this month, committee members pressed Biden administration officials to explain their failure to end racist immigration practices, citing the 287(g) program for “indirectly promot[ing] racial profiling”. Their pointed exchange was unprecedented for the administration. In Congress, no representative has ever pressed Biden officials over the continued pain felt by America’s immigrant communities, to this degree. But that needs to change.

The 287(g) program, which taps more than 700 officers at 142 state and local law enforcement agencies around the country to help ICE identify, detain, and deport immigrants inside the United States, is inextricably tied to racial profiling, a practice that violates the Constitution and human rights law. Being in the business of immigration enforcement leads local law enforcement to target immigrants for minor violations and pretextual arrests, generating book-ins to local custody that can then lead to deportations. Local law enforcement use “foreign-sounding” last names, place of birth, or racial appearance as a reason for stops, investigation, and arrest.

AP Photo/The Knoxville News Sentinel, Saul Young

As the ACLU documented in an April 2022 report, racial profiling has flourished in the places where the 287(g) program is in place. In Davidson County, Tennessee, the arrest rates for Latinx individuals driving without a license more than doubled after it joined the 287(g) program. In one notorious Davidson County case, a pregnant woman charged with driving without a license was shackled to her bed during labor. Available data shows that a high percentage of people arrested by 287(g)-deputized officers were charged with minor traffic violations, suggesting pre-textual arrests and racial profiling — 83 percent, for example, in Gaston County, North Carolina.

One result of this racial profiling by 287(g)-designated state and local officers is race-based federal immigration enforcement. While ICE’s failure to track 287(g)-related arrests undermines our efforts to gain a full picture of the program, we know from news reports, civil rights litigation, and testimonials that the racial profiling practices of state and local law enforcement officers are putting disproportionate numbers of Black and Brown immigrants into the deportation pipeline. By facilitating this racial profiling, the 287(g) program contravenes the stated intentions of the Biden administration to advance racial equity across federal agencies.

As the ACLU documented in an April 2022 report, racial profiling has flourished in the places where the 287(g) program is in place.

This isn’t the first time the UN Committee has called on the U.S. government to end the 287(g) program — it also did so in 2014 during the Obama administration. By then, it was already clear that the decade-old program was a vehicle for racist law enforcement officials to harass immigrants. The program was never about public safety, it was about “a change in demographics,” according to NYU Law School Professor Alina Das. As the program initially grew, FBI and census data showed that 61 percent of new 287(g) partner localities had violent and property crime indices lower than the national average, while 87 percent had experienced a growth in their Latinx population that outpaced the national average. Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell, a leader of the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association who helped broker a deal to increase his state’s participation in the 287(g) program in the late 2000s, acknowledged his goal was to reduce if not eliminate the immigrant population of his county, complaining that “Mexicans” were “breeding like rabbits.”

By the end of the Obama administration — following damning Department of Justice civil rights investigations that spurred reform — only 34 local agencies remained in the program. Yet today, following the Trump administration’s five-fold expansion of it, the Biden administration is overseeing a 287(g) program with more than 140 state and local law enforcement agency partnerships nationwide. Our report found that more than half of participating sheriffs have records of anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric; and at least 65 percent have records of a pattern of racial profiling and other civil rights violations.

It’s time for members of Congress to press the Biden administration — just as the UN Racial Justice Committee has done. The 287(g) program is a racist, broken relic. The Biden administration needs to abandon it.

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/on-the-frontlines-of-the-fight-against-mass-deportation

What you can do:

End ICE's Racist 287(g) Program

Send your message

Published August 31, 2022 at 06:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/SwJROyb

ACLU: From High School Activist to Full-Time Advocate

From High School Activist to Full-Time Advocate

Henry Seaton didn’t set out to become an activist. In 2016, as a high school senior in a Nashville suburb, he just wanted to use bathrooms that corresponded with his gender identity. After school administrators restricted him to using the often-locked bathroom in the nurse’s office, Seaton got involved in efforts to protect trans students, including testifying before a Tennessee state legislative committee and starting a petition against bathroom bills that garnered 67,000 signatures.

“The traumas of my life were about to become law and dictate the traumas for thousands of children,” he says. “I had never thought about getting involved before, but I’m glad I did.”

After graduating from high school, Seaton spent a year working as an LGBTQ organizer at the ACLU of Tennessee, primarily fighting anti-trans bathroom bills and acting as a voice for trans youth. Now, with a degree from the University of Denver, he has come back to the Tennessee affiliate to serve as their first-ever trans justice advocate.

Credit: Houston Cofield

Since starting the role in January, he has focused on lobbying legislators about urgent trans issues, including access to school sports and gender-affirming health care. He’s also focused on grassroots efforts, empowering trans communities across the state and educating rotary clubs and children’s organizations. “I’m trying to change the narrative of transness in Tennessee from a negative one to a positive one,” he says.

As the fight for trans justice has shifted from bathroom bills to health care bans, Seaton has seen his own role shift too. At 24, he’s now working to help young people share their own perspectives.

“I see my role now as empowering voices for the future, rather than always being that voice myself,” he says. “The ladder that I climbed to testify is the ladder that I’m trying to build for other young people.”

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published August 31, 2022 at 09:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Hn6YeD7

ACLU: From High School Activist to Full-Time Advocate

From High School Activist to Full-Time Advocate

Henry Seaton didn’t set out to become an activist. In 2016, as a high school senior in a Nashville suburb, he just wanted to use bathrooms that corresponded with his gender identity. After school administrators restricted him to using the often-locked bathroom in the nurse’s office, Seaton got involved in efforts to protect trans students, including testifying before a Tennessee state legislative committee and starting a petition against bathroom bills that garnered 67,000 signatures.

“The traumas of my life were about to become law and dictate the traumas for thousands of children,” he says. “I had never thought about getting involved before, but I’m glad I did.”

After graduating from high school, Seaton spent a year working as an LGBTQ organizer at the ACLU of Tennessee, primarily fighting anti-trans bathroom bills and acting as a voice for trans youth. Now, with a degree from the University of Denver, he has come back to the Tennessee affiliate to serve as their first-ever trans justice advocate.

Credit: Houston Cofield

Since starting the role in January, he has focused on lobbying legislators about urgent trans issues, including access to school sports and gender-affirming health care. He’s also focused on grassroots efforts, empowering trans communities across the state and educating rotary clubs and children’s organizations. “I’m trying to change the narrative of transness in Tennessee from a negative one to a positive one,” he says.

As the fight for trans justice has shifted from bathroom bills to health care bans, Seaton has seen his own role shift too. At 24, he’s now working to help young people share their own perspectives.

“I see my role now as empowering voices for the future, rather than always being that voice myself,” he says. “The ladder that I climbed to testify is the ladder that I’m trying to build for other young people.”

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published August 31, 2022 at 05:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cqjPefa

ACLU: The Sinister and Racist Practice Infecting Death Penalty Juries

The Sinister and Racist Practice Infecting Death Penalty Juries

Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury of their peers. While this is a fundamental right, it is not the case in death penalty trials. Jury selection in death penalty trials is unconstitutionally discriminatory and exclusionary because of a process called “death qualification,” which prosecutors use to exclude jurors.

Here’s how it works: To serve on a death penalty jury, potential jurors must declare to prosecutors that they are willing to impose the death penalty. This assertion makes them — “death qualified.” Death qualification is as sinister as it sounds, and it’s demonstrably racist.

Disproportionate numbers of Black jurors and jurors of faith, especially Catholics, are excluded from death penalty juries. Combined with the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes — or removing jurors without providing a reason — death penalty juries end up being overwhelmingly white, male, and biased in favor of the prosecution and death. We should note that even though the Constitution forbids using peremptory strikes to remove jurors based on their race, prosecutors frequently do so anyway by using various evasive tactics.

We are challenging the exclusionary and racist practice of death qualification on behalf of two clients — Brandon Hill in North Carolina, and Dennis Glover in Florida. A hearing on our motion to bar this practice in Mr. Hill’s case starts tomorrow.

In both cases, experts have conducted studies to learn whether death qualification skewed jury composition in the counties our clients are having their trials. It does.

In Duval County, Florida, where Mr. Glover is being tried, a study of 12 capital cases since 2010 (where 11 out of 12 people on trial were Black) involving more than 800 jurors found Black jurors were twice as likely to be removed as white jurors because of death disqualification.

In Wake County, North Carolina, where Mr. Hill is being tried, a study of the last 10 capital trials found similar results — with Black jurors again twice as likely as white jurors to be removed from capital juries because of death qualification and prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes.

The death penalty has a racist history that lives on in prosecutors’ use of death qualification and Black communities’ opposition to the death penalty.

Since the founding of our country, white people could kill, assault, or degrade Black people for any reason. Courts and law enforcement upheld this racial hierarchy and racial violence. If Black people weren’t lynched, the deeply tainted court process served as an avenue for “legal lynchings” — where all-white juries sentenced Black people accused of crimes, often falsely accused – to death. Death qualification to exclude Black jurors is a legacy of this shameful history.

In the United States, Black people are as underrepresented on capital juries as they are overrepresented on death row. More than a third of people on the Florida death row are Black, more than half the people on the North Carolina death row are Black, and Black people are disproportionately represented on the remaining death rows across our nation as well as federal death row.

It’s an endless cycle of discrimination: Exclude skeptical Black jurors, disproportionately condemn Black people to death with whitewashed juries, prompt distrust in a racist system, and repeat.

Juries are meant to represent the community’s conscience. But in capital trials — where the stakes couldn’t be higher — our courts exclude entire demographic groups and entire viewpoints. Not only does this violate the rights of Black jurors and jurors of faith to serve, it violates the rights of accused people to have fair trials, like our clients Mr. Hill and Mr. Glover. They have the right to a fair, representative jury — not a jury that is unconstitutionally engineered to impose death.

A hearing on Mr. Hill’s motion is scheduled for August 31 – September 1 at the Wake County, North Carolina Justice Center.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 30, 2022 at 07:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/e8v5dUC

ACLU: The Sinister and Racist Practice Infecting Death Penalty Juries

The Sinister and Racist Practice Infecting Death Penalty Juries

Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury of their peers. While this is a fundamental right, it is not the case in death penalty trials. Jury selection in death penalty trials is unconstitutionally discriminatory and exclusionary because of a process called “death qualification,” which prosecutors use to exclude jurors.

Here’s how it works: To serve on a death penalty jury, potential jurors must declare to prosecutors that they are willing to impose the death penalty. This assertion makes them — “death qualified.” Death qualification is as sinister as it sounds, and it’s demonstrably racist.

Disproportionate numbers of Black jurors and jurors of faith, especially Catholics, are excluded from death penalty juries. Combined with the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes — or removing jurors without providing a reason — death penalty juries end up being overwhelmingly white, male, and biased in favor of the prosecution and death. We should note that even though the Constitution forbids using peremptory strikes to remove jurors based on their race, prosecutors frequently do so anyway by using various evasive tactics.

We are challenging the exclusionary and racist practice of death qualification on behalf of two clients — Brandon Hill in North Carolina, and Dennis Glover in Florida. A hearing on our motion to bar this practice in Mr. Hill’s case starts today.

In both cases, experts have conducted studies to learn whether death qualification skewed jury composition in the counties our clients are having their trials. It does.

In Duval County, Florida, where Mr. Glover is being tried, a study of 12 capital cases since 2010 (where 11 out of 12 people on trial were Black) involving more than 800 jurors found Black jurors were twice as likely to be removed as white jurors because of death disqualification.

In Wake County, North Carolina, where Mr. Hill is being tried, a study of the last 10 capital trials found similar results — with Black jurors again twice as likely as white jurors to be removed from capital juries because of death qualification and prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes.

The death penalty has a racist history that lives on in prosecutors’ use of death qualification and Black communities’ opposition to the death penalty.

Since the founding of our country, white people could kill, assault, or degrade Black people for any reason. Courts and law enforcement upheld this racial hierarchy and racial violence. If Black people weren’t lynched, the deeply tainted court process served as an avenue for “legal lynchings” — where all-white juries sentenced Black people accused of crimes, often falsely accused – to death. Death qualification to exclude Black jurors is a legacy of this shameful history.

In the United States, Black people are as underrepresented on capital juries as they are overrepresented on death row. More than a third of people on the Florida death row are Black, more than half the people on the North Carolina death row are Black, and Black people are disproportionately represented on the remaining death rows across our nation as well as federal death row.

It’s an endless cycle of discrimination: Exclude skeptical Black jurors, disproportionately condemn Black people to death with whitewashed juries, prompt distrust in a racist system, and repeat.

Juries are meant to represent the community’s conscience. But in capital trials — where the stakes couldn’t be higher — our courts exclude entire demographic groups and entire viewpoints. Not only does this violate the rights of Black jurors and jurors of faith to serve, it violates the rights of accused people to have fair trials, like our clients Mr. Hill and Mr. Glover. They have the right to a fair, representative jury — not a jury that is unconstitutionally engineered to impose death.

A hearing on Mr. Hill’s motion is scheduled for August 31 – September 1 at the Wake County, North Carolina Justice Center.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 31, 2022 at 12:21AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/16scZmH

Chile: Request for an Arrangement Under the Flexible Credit Line and Cancellation of the Arrangement Under the Short-term Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement and Statement by the Executive Director for Chile

Chile: Request for an Arrangement Under the Flexible Credit Line and Cancellation of the Arrangement Under the Short-term Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement and Statement by the Executive Director for Chile
Published August 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: One Year Later, the US Must Evacuate the Kabul Drone Strike Survivors

One Year Later, the US Must Evacuate the Kabul Drone Strike Survivors

One year ago, my phone rang in California at what I knew was 2:00 a.m. in Afghanistan. It was the country director of Nutrition & Education International, the non-profit food aid organization I founded 18 years ago and lead as president. “Dr. Kwon, Zemari is no longer with us,” he told me. “Zemari has died with his children due to a drone strike.” In my immediate shock, this news hardly made any sense at all.

Zemari was one of the first six people NEI ever hired. He grew up poor, like many Afghans, and started with us in 2006 as a handyman. He never attended school for formal training, but was extraordinarily smart, a gifted electrical engineer, and he became a key leader in our small organization. NEI’s concept was simple: If we could go to poor villages in Afghanistan with high mortality rates among women and children, and teach farmers how to cultivate protein-rich soybeans and consume them at home, they could help save their malnourished families. By 2019, we had successfully built a national infrastructure for sustainable soy value-chain development in Afghanistan. None of this would have been possible without Zemari.

After I got off the phone, I couldn’t stop thinking about how a good person, working to make his country a better place, could die like this, at the hands of my own government. I could still hear Zemari’s laugh so distinctly. He loved to tell jokes, and we laughed so much together. For over a decade, he and I spent countless hours traveling together, eating meals together, and talking about our families, our work, the world, and life. We were so close that my wife and I considered him our Afghan son.

The day after the strike, our country director visited the scene. It was gruesome, he told me; he could still see pieces of human flesh. In addition to Zemari, the strike killed all three of his sons and six members of his extended family. His two brothers and sister-in-law lost four children under the age of seven, while Zemari’s step-daughter lost her own daughter, a sweet little girl who was barely two years old. The 10th victim was Zemari’s nephew, Naser, a breadwinner for his branch of the family, who was only in Kabul at all to pick up a U.S. Special Immigrant Visa, for which he was eligible because he risked his life working with the U.S. military. He had hoped this visa would help get him and his family to safety.

Zemari

Credit: Nutrition & Education International

The Pentagon originally claimed the strike was “successful” and “righteous,” because it allegedly killed ISIS operatives, but NEI’s own investigation and those of prominent American media outlets quickly dispelled that falsehood. With our country director’s help, I located the people that Zemari spoke to that day while going about his work—people at the police station, the refugee camp, the bank. All of them said he was his usual optimistic and joyful self. We reviewed the security camera footage, and hours later, we saw a video of Zemari doing exactly what the guard had said: Packing up and loading large bottles of water into his car trunk to bring home for his family— not explosives as claimed by the Pentagon. Weeks later, the head of U.S. Central Command, called the strike a “tragic mistake” and confirmed innocent civilians were indeed killed in the attack.

Knowing that he was killed by my government over water bottles left me devastated. Then and there, I promised Zemari I would take care of his family and achieve justice. I saw this as my moral responsibility in return for his dedication and loyalty to NEI, to his country, and to his family. NEI has been paying the daily living and education expenses of Zemari’s wife and daughter for the past year to be sure they are cared for.

It’s still unbelievable to me how many people were irreparably harmed and how many families’ lives were shattered because of this wrongful strike. A legal team led by the ACLU represents approximately 144 surviving family members and NEI employees. Within months, we documented for the U.S. government the security risks they were facing, and since then, we have beseeched the government to coordinate their safe evacuation to the United States.

Sadly, today, only 11 of the 144 people the government promised to help are in the United States. Thankfully, 110 more have been safely evacuated, currently in third countries awaiting immigration processing, But, shamefully, 32 others — including Zemari’s wife and his daughter — are still in Afghanistan. Without even a timeline for evacuation, those still stuck are losing hope and trust in the U.S. government’s promises.

Most of the survivors were already at risk when the Afghan government fell. Like Naser, many of Zemari’s family members and NEI colleagues previously worked for the Afghan or U.S. governments in Afghanistan. But any hope they had of maintaining a low profile was lost with this strike. The U.S. government’s false ISIS allegations forced many of Zemari’s grieving family and NEI colleagues to publicly proclaim their innocence, painting targets on their back.

Zemari

Credit: Nutrition & Education International

My country director cried during one of our calls, telling me that after the drone strike, he prayed that if he was killed, it would be when he was alone so at least his daughters would be spared. What kind of prayer is that? To kill me when I am alone and not with my family members?

Zemari was a proud father who spoke constantly about building a better future for his seven children. Nothing can bring him, his three sons, or his six nieces and nephews back, but the U.S. government can and must help the innocent people whose lives they destroyed by bringing them to safety and helping them rebuild their lives. On the one-year anniversary of the strike, I’m hoping my government will finally keep its promise and quickly evacuate all the survivors and their families.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 29, 2022 at 09:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Y6uavhP

ACLU: One Year Later, the US Must Evacuate the Kabul Drone Strike Survivors

One Year Later, the US Must Evacuate the Kabul Drone Strike Survivors

One year ago, my phone rang in California at what I knew was 2:00 a.m. in Afghanistan. It was the country director of Nutrition & Education International, the non-profit food aid organization I founded 18 years ago and lead as president. “Dr. Kwon, Zemari is no longer with us,” he told me. “Zemari has died with his children due to a drone strike.” In my immediate shock, this news hardly made any sense at all.

Zemari was one of the first six people NEI ever hired. He grew up poor, like many Afghans, and started with us in 2006 as a handyman. He never attended school for formal training, but was extraordinarily smart, a gifted electrical engineer, and he became a key leader in our small organization. NEI’s concept was simple: If we could go to poor villages in Afghanistan with high mortality rates among women and children, and teach farmers how to cultivate protein-rich soybeans and consume them at home, they could help save their malnourished families. By 2019, we had successfully built a national infrastructure for sustainable soy value-chain development in Afghanistan. None of this would have been possible without Zemari.

After I got off the phone, I couldn’t stop thinking about how a good person, working to make his country a better place, could die like this, at the hands of my own government. I could still hear Zemari’s laugh so distinctly. He loved to tell jokes, and we laughed so much together. For over a decade, he and I spent countless hours traveling together, eating meals together, and talking about our families, our work, the world, and life. We were so close that my wife and I considered him our Afghan son.

The day after the strike, our country director visited the scene. It was gruesome, he told me; he could still see pieces of human flesh. In addition to Zemari, the strike killed all three of his sons and six members of his extended family. His two brothers and sister-in-law lost four children under the age of seven, while Zemari’s step-daughter lost her own daughter, a sweet little girl who was barely two years old. The 10th victim was Zemari’s nephew, Naser, a breadwinner for his branch of the family, who was only in Kabul at all to pick up a U.S. Special Immigrant Visa, for which he was eligible because he risked his life working with the U.S. military. He had hoped this visa would help get him and his family to safety.

Zemari

Credit: Nutrition & Education International

The Pentagon originally claimed the strike was “successful” and “righteous,” because it allegedly killed ISIS operatives, but NEI’s own investigation and those of prominent American media outlets quickly dispelled that falsehood. With our country director’s help, I located the people that Zemari spoke to that day while going about his work—people at the police station, the refugee camp, the bank. All of them said he was his usual optimistic and joyful self. We reviewed the security camera footage, and hours later, we saw a video of Zemari doing exactly what the guard had said: Packing up and loading large bottles of water into his car trunk to bring home for his family— not explosives as claimed by the Pentagon. Weeks later, the head of U.S. Central Command, called the strike a “tragic mistake” and confirmed innocent civilians were indeed killed in the attack.

Knowing that he was killed by my government over water bottles left me devastated. Then and there, I promised Zemari I would take care of his family and achieve justice. I saw this as my moral responsibility in return for his dedication and loyalty to NEI, to his country, and to his family. NEI has been paying the daily living and education expenses of Zemari’s wife and daughter for the past year to be sure they are cared for.

It’s still unbelievable to me how many people were irreparably harmed and how many families’ lives were shattered because of this wrongful strike. A legal team led by the ACLU represents approximately 144 surviving family members and NEI employees. Within months, we documented for the U.S. government the security risks they were facing, and since then, we have beseeched the government to coordinate their safe evacuation to the United States.

Sadly, today, only 11 of the 144 people the government promised to help are in the United States. Thankfully, 110 more have been safely evacuated, currently in third countries awaiting immigration processing, But, shamefully, 32 others — including Zemari’s wife and his daughter — are still in Afghanistan. Without even a timeline for evacuation, those still stuck are losing hope and trust in the U.S. government’s promises.

Most of the survivors were already at risk when the Afghan government fell. Like Naser, many of Zemari’s family members and NEI colleagues previously worked for the Afghan or U.S. governments in Afghanistan. But any hope they had of maintaining a low profile was lost with this strike. The U.S. government’s false ISIS allegations forced many of Zemari’s grieving family and NEI colleagues to publicly proclaim their innocence, painting targets on their back.

Zemari

Credit: Nutrition & Education International

My country director cried during one of our calls, telling me that after the drone strike, he prayed that if he was killed, it would be when he was alone so at least his daughters would be spared. What kind of prayer is that? To kill me when I am alone and not with my family members?

Zemari was a proud father who spoke constantly about building a better future for his seven children. Nothing can bring him, his three sons, or his six nieces and nephews back, but the U.S. government can and must help the innocent people whose lives they destroyed by bringing them to safety and helping them rebuild their lives. On the one-year anniversary of the strike, I’m hoping my government will finally keep its promise and quickly evacuate all the survivors and their families.

Dr. Steven Kwon is the founder and president of Nutrition & Education International

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 29, 2022 at 04:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jCJ7QoE

Tonga: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tonga

Tonga: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tonga
Published August 26, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Analysis of Systemic Liquidity

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Analysis of Systemic Liquidity
Published August 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Stress Tests, Credit Concentration, and Interest Rate Risks

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Stress Tests, Credit Concentration, and Interest Rate Risks
Published August 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Financial Safety Net and Crisis Preparedness

West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Financial Safety Net and Crisis Preparedness
Published August 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Ask an Expert: How to Connect With Hesitant Voters

Ask an Expert: How to Connect With Hesitant Voters

With the election just around the corner, we are chatting with some of our great volunteers about what issues are most important to them, and how they motivate voters to cast their ballots. We hope these conversations inspire you to vote for your values and join us in this once-in-a-generation battle to protect our nation.

https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/vote-your-values-fight-for-rights/

This week we talked with Connie Jeung Mills, a California-based arts activist and team volunteer with the ACLU People Power text team. People Power is the ACLU’s platform for grassroots action. Our volunteer teams help mobilize and organize communities all across the country in defense of our civil liberties by making calls, sending texts, and connecting with prospective voters about the issues that matter most to them.

ACLU: What motivated you to get involved with the ACLU as a volunteer?

CJM: I’ve known about the ACLU since I was a kid and they’ve always done great work. I’ve worked with other voting rights organizations in the past, so I was very inspired to work with an organization that cared about the same issues important to me.

Activist Connie Jeung-Mills persuading people to vote in her community.

ACLU: What experiences have informed your activism?

CJM: I’ve voted my entire life, and my family has been involved in activism since I was young. An important part of my activism is the artwork I do. I remember watching television and seeing political activists at the D.C. Courthouse during the Trump administration holding signs with messages that were so powerful. And after that moment, a light bulb went off in my head, it was just the impetus for me to use my art and passion for activism to fight back.

ACLU: How do you explain to people why voting is important, and persuade them to take part in upcoming elections?

CJM: I find the best way to motivate people is to find out what motivates them. What issues motivate them to want to do something to help their community. And then I try to connect the dots between their passion for that issue and voting by explaining how the electoral process has a direct impact on their lives. Because when they’re voting, they’re voting for people that are going to represent them in government to bring about the change that they seek.

Being an activist and voter is not just one action for an election, it’s a lifelong effort.

ACLU: Sometimes people feel like their vote doesn’t matter, and are really discouraged by the current state of politics. What would you like to say to people who might opt not to vote because they feel powerless?

CJM: I would tell them that I understand how they feel. But especially right now, they can’t give up and change doesn’t come overnight. Although things seem tough right now, as we saw with the Supreme Court recently, too much is at stake in our country. Being an activist and voter is not just one action for an election, it’s a lifelong effort.

ACLU: Do you have any other advice for people who want to encourage people to get to the polls? What else do you want people to know about your experience?

CJM: The biggest piece of advice I could give people when talking to their friends and family about voting this November is it takes one person at a time and to always be authentic. People can tell when you talk to them if you are really listening to what they are saying to you. Also, I’m so happy to be volunteering for the ACLU. The ACLU stands up for me and I want to help them, help other people, not just me.

Interested in working with people like Julia to defend our rights? Find out more about how to get involved here.

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/midterm-elections-how-these-offices-impact-your-rights

What you can do:

Vote Your Values, Fight for Your Rights

Take the pledge

Published August 26, 2022 at 01:25AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/HzJvlRm

ACLU: Ask an Expert: How to Connect With Hesitant Voters

Ask an Expert: How to Connect With Hesitant Voters

With the election just around the corner, we are chatting with some of our great volunteers about what issues are most important to them, and how they motivate voters to cast their ballots. We hope these conversations inspire you to vote for your values and join us in this once-in-a-generation battle to protect our nation.

https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/vote-your-values-fight-for-rights/

This week we talked with Connie Jeung Mills, a California-based arts activist and team volunteer with the ACLU People Power text team. People Power is the ACLU’s platform for grassroots action. Our volunteer teams help mobilize and organize communities all across the country in defense of our civil liberties by making calls, sending texts, and connecting with prospective voters about the issues that matter most to them.

ACLU: What motivated you to get involved with the ACLU as a volunteer?

CJM: I’ve known about the ACLU since I was a kid and they’ve always done great work. I’ve worked with other voting rights organizations in the past, so I was very inspired to work with an organization that cared about the same issues important to me.

Activist Connie Jeung-Mills persuading people to vote in her community.

ACLU: What experiences have informed your activism?

CJM: I’ve voted my entire life, and my family has been involved in activism since I was young. An important part of my activism is the artwork I do. I remember watching television and seeing political activists at the D.C. Courthouse during the Trump administration holding signs with messages that were so powerful. And after that moment, a light bulb went off in my head, it was just the impetus for me to use my art and passion for activism to fight back.

ACLU: How do you explain to people why voting is important, and persuade them to take part in upcoming elections?

CJM: I find the best way to motivate people is to find out what motivates them. What issues motivate them to want to do something to help their community. And then I try to connect the dots between their passion for that issue and voting by explaining how the electoral process has a direct impact on their lives. Because when they’re voting, they’re voting for people that are going to represent them in government to bring about the change that they seek.

Being an activist and voter is not just one action for an election, it’s a lifelong effort.

ACLU: Sometimes people feel like their vote doesn’t matter, and are really discouraged by the current state of politics. What would you like to say to people who might opt not to vote because they feel powerless?

CJM: I would tell them that I understand how they feel. But especially right now, they can’t give up and change doesn’t come overnight. Although things seem tough right now, as we saw with the Supreme Court recently, too much is at stake in our country. Being an activist and voter is not just one action for an election, it’s a lifelong effort.

ACLU: Do you have any other advice for people who want to encourage people to get to the polls? What else do you want people to know about your experience?

CJM: The biggest piece of advice I could give people when talking to their friends and family about voting this November is it takes one person at a time and to always be authentic. People can tell when you talk to them if you are really listening to what they are saying to you. Also, I’m so happy to be volunteering for the ACLU. The ACLU stands up for me and I want to help them, help other people, not just me.

Interested in working with people like Julia to defend our rights? Find out more about how to get involved here.

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/midterm-elections-how-these-offices-impact-your-rights

What you can do:

Vote Your Values, Fight for Your Rights

Take the pledge

Published August 25, 2022 at 08:55PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/u1O8RPG

Republic of Latvia: Selected Issues

Republic of Latvia: Selected Issues
Published August 23, 2022 at 10:30PM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Latvia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report

Republic of Latvia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published August 23, 2022 at 10:30PM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Arizona's New Law Banning People from Recording Police Violates our First Amendment Rights

Arizona's New Law Banning People from Recording Police Violates our First Amendment Rights

It is disturbingly easy to find examples of law enforcement wielding brutal violence against people while claiming to protect or safeguard. Black and Brown communities in particular have long-experienced disproportionate targeting and violence at the hands of law enforcement, and this violence is too frequently lethal. Whether people are exercising their constitutional rights to protest, driving, experiencing a mental health crisis, or even sleeping — there are far too many instances of law enforcement encounters causing harm.

Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to a month in jail, for people to record videos within eight feet of police activity.

One of the best tools available to hold law enforcement accountable is a video camera —in other words, the right to record. The First Amendment protects our right to record police engaged in official duties. Every federal circuit to consider the right to record — seven out of 13 circuits — has held that this right clearly exists, and most have specified that it applies to law enforcement. In recent years, there have been numerous, tragic deaths at the hands of police that were recorded by civilian bystanders, and that footage has been critical to pushing back on unchecked police brutality. But now, this essential right is under attack.

Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to a month in jail, for people to record videos within eight feet of police activity. Specifically, it prohibits people from recording police if they are within eight feet of an area where the person “knows or should reasonably know” law enforcement activity is happening. This law is a blatant attempt to gut First Amendment protections for recording police. That is why we are suing Arizona to challenge this unconstitutional law, and urging the court to immediately prevent it from going into effect.

The ACLU is suing Arizona to challenge this unconstitutional law, and urging the court to immediately prevent it from going into effect.

Unsurprisingly, members of law enforcement commonly attempt to interfere with recordings of their conduct or harass those who have recorded them in violation of the constitutional right to record. The Arizona law, too, has been framed as “preventing violence and misunderstandings, preventing the destruction of evidence and preventing police officers from harm,” but it makes shockingly little effort to hide its true purpose — preventing people from exercising their constitutional right to record. Under this law:

• Standing within eight feet of “law enforcement activity” and holding up a cell phone without making a video recording would be perfectly legal.
• Only “video recordings” are targeted — not writing on a notepad, texting, or setting up a painting easel within eight feet of an officer.
• “Law enforcement activity” is defined extremely broadly — including simply “enforcing the law.” In essence, this boils the restriction down to recording “within eight feet of a police officer.”
• An officer can “create the crime”: Legally recording an officer outside of the eight-foot distance would turn into a crime if the officer moved closer to the person recording and got within eight feet of them.

The law also contains toothless exceptions to the eight-foot distance requirement for recording within a private and indoor place, a vehicle, or when you are the subject of the police interaction. However, each of these “exceptions” falls away as soon as a “law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering in the law enforcement activity” or, in the case of individuals indoors, that it is “not safe to be in the area.” In other words, each exception problematically maintains the power of any officer to shut down the recording based on a subjective determination in the moment of what “interferes” with their “law enforcement activity.” To make matters worse, “interference” is not defined at all.

This law is a violation of a vital constitutional right and will severely thwart attempts to build police accountability. It must be struck down before it creates irreparable community harm.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 24, 2022 at 01:22AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kayqeJX

ACLU: Arizona's New Law Banning People from Recording Police Violates our First Amendment Rights

Arizona's New Law Banning People from Recording Police Violates our First Amendment Rights

It is disturbingly easy to find examples of law enforcement wielding brutal violence against people while claiming to protect or safeguard. Black and Brown communities in particular have long-experienced disproportionate targeting and violence at the hands of law enforcement, and this violence is too frequently lethal. Whether people are exercising their constitutional rights to protest, driving, experiencing a mental health crisis, or even sleeping — there are far too many instances of law enforcement encounters causing harm.

Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to a month in jail, for people to record videos within eight feet of police activity.

One of the best tools available to hold law enforcement accountable is a video camera —in other words, the right to record. The First Amendment protects our right to record police engaged in official duties. Every federal circuit to consider the right to record — seven out of 13 circuits — has held that this right clearly exists, and most have specified that it applies to law enforcement. In recent years, there have been numerous, tragic deaths at the hands of police that were recorded by civilian bystanders, and that footage has been critical to pushing back on unchecked police brutality. But now, this essential right is under attack.

Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to a month in jail, for people to record videos within eight feet of police activity. Specifically, it prohibits people from recording police if they are within eight feet of an area where the person “knows or should reasonably know” law enforcement activity is happening. This law is a blatant attempt to gut First Amendment protections for recording police. That is why we are suing Arizona to challenge this unconstitutional law, and urging the court to immediately prevent it from going into effect.

The ACLU is suing Arizona to challenge this unconstitutional law, and urging the court to immediately prevent it from going into effect.

Unsurprisingly, members of law enforcement commonly attempt to interfere with recordings of their conduct or harass those who have recorded them in violation of the constitutional right to record. The Arizona law, too, has been framed as “preventing violence and misunderstandings, preventing the destruction of evidence and preventing police officers from harm,” but it makes shockingly little effort to hide its true purpose — preventing people from exercising their constitutional right to record. Under this law:

• Standing within eight feet of “law enforcement activity” and holding up a cell phone without making a video recording would be perfectly legal.
• Only “video recordings” are targeted — not writing on a notepad, texting, or setting up a painting easel within eight feet of an officer.
• “Law enforcement activity” is defined extremely broadly — including simply “enforcing the law.” In essence, this boils the restriction down to recording “within eight feet of a police officer.”
• An officer can “create the crime”: Legally recording an officer outside of the eight-foot distance would turn into a crime if the officer moved closer to the person recording and got within eight feet of them.

The law also contains toothless exceptions to the eight-foot distance requirement for recording within a private and indoor place, a vehicle, or when you are the subject of the police interaction. However, each of these “exceptions” falls away as soon as a “law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering in the law enforcement activity” or, in the case of individuals indoors, that it is “not safe to be in the area.” In other words, each exception problematically maintains the power of any officer to shut down the recording based on a subjective determination in the moment of what “interferes” with their “law enforcement activity.” To make matters worse, “interference” is not defined at all.

This law is a violation of a vital constitutional right and will severely thwart attempts to build police accountability. It must be struck down before it creates irreparable community harm.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 23, 2022 at 08:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6HmP0ad

Panama: Second Review Under the Arrangement Under the Precautionary and Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Panama

Panama: Second Review Under the Arrangement Under the Precautionary and Liquidity Line-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Panama
Published August 22, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Native Families' Right to Stay Together is at Stake at the Supreme Court

Native Families' Right to Stay Together is at Stake at the Supreme Court

Since European settlers arrived on the shores of what is now known as the United States, federal and state governments, intent on seizing Indian lands, have sought to undermine and threaten the existence of tribes through the forced separation and assimilation of Native children. By severing Native children from their families, tribes, and culture, colonizers believed they could stamp out Indigeneity and erase tribal people altogether. As with any nation, the future ceases to exist if children are prevented from carrying on the languages, traditions, and knowledge passed down from each generation to the next.

This tool of assimilation and genocide has been wielded against tribal nations and Native children repeatedly throughout history, and it is happening again now.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (IWCA) — a law that aims to protect Native children from forced removal from their families, tribes, and culture and preserve tribal sovereignty — is currently under attack and at risk of being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress passed ICWA in 1978 to address the nationwide crisis of state child welfare agencies tearing Native children from their families and placing them in non-Native homes, in an attempt to force Native children to assimilate and adopt white cultural norms. Before ICWA, public and private agencies were removing 25 to 35 percent of Native American/Alaska Native children from their homes, and 85 percent of those children were placed in non-Native households.

The tools of assimilation and genocide have been wielded against tribal nations and Native children repeatedly throughout history, and it is happening again now.

Overwhelming evidence has found that being removed from homes and disconnected from culture, tradition, and identity profoundly harms Native children. The Indian Child Welfare Act requires state courts to make active efforts to keep Native families together and to prioritize the placement of Native children within their families and within tribal communities — where their cultural identities will be understood and celebrated.

This November, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brackeen v. Haaland, a case that challenges the constitutionality of ICWA. If the Supreme Court rules ICWA unconstitutional, it could have devastating consequences for Native children, families and tribes while simultaneously putting the existence of tribes in jeopardy. That’s why the ACLU and the ACLUs of Northern California, Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of ICWA.

ICWA aims to address the forced separation of Native children and families and represents a small step toward acknowledging the centuries of genocidal violence that underpin this case. Beginning in the early 1800s, the architects of the Federal Indian Boarding School Program designed the program to erase the Indigenous identities of Native people. The government snatched children as young as four years old from their families and sent them to militarized boarding school institutions designed to destroy their Native identities and culture, often hundreds of miles away from their tribal homelands.

Any markers of their Indigeneity — language, clothing, traditional hairstyles, and even their names — were prohibited in these institutions. Indian boarding schools were not simply places where Native youth were stripped of their culture: many children died at these schools from outright neglect, malnutrition, untreated illness, and as a result of physical violence carried out against them.

The National ACLU and several ACLU affiliates filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA.)

While boarding schools were largely shuttered by the mid-1900s, the philosophy lived on: Native children were better off living with white families, even at the expense of their mental, physical, and spiritual wellbeing.

In 1958, the Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Indian Adoption Project. The project’s explicit goal was to assimilate Native children into white culture through adoption and the intentional destruction of Indigenous family units and tribal communities. During this era and continuing today, practices rooted in ethnocentric stereotypes operating under the guise of “child protection” resulted in the baseless separation of thousands of Native children from their families and homelands.

It is incomprehensibly heinous that — in order to build the country we all live in today — federal and state governments targeted Native children, robbing those children, their families, their communities, and their tribal nations of everything it meant to be Indigenous.

Brackeen v. Haaland is the largest threat to Native children, families, and tribes before the Supreme Court in our lifetimes. If ICWA is overturned, states would once again be allowed to tear Native children from their families, tribes, and culture while simultaneously threatening tribes’ very existence. The legal arguments made by the plaintiffs challenging ICWA in Brackeen undermine key tenets of federal Indian law, and threaten many other laws upholding tribal sovereignty.

Tribal sovereignty is the right of tribes — 574 currently recognized by the federal government — to make and be governed by their own laws. This sovereignty is inherent, as Native Nations existed long before the creation of the United States. Hundreds of treaties have guaranteed tribal nations the right to self-govern. Through these treaties, Native Nations gave up their right to millions of acres of land that would become the United States in exchange for promises to tribes, including the guarantee that lands “reserved” for tribes would be governed by the tribes in perpetuity. The outcome of Brackeen v. Haaland could put centuries-long legal precedent upholding tribal sovereignty — including tribes’ right and ability to preserve their unique cultural identities, raise their own children and govern themselves — in jeopardy.

Native families have a right to stay together, to care for their children, and to preserve tribal culture by ensuring access to their cultural identity, language, and heritage. The Supreme Court must protect this right and uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 19, 2022 at 01:45AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MgYCfqz

ACLU: Native Families' Right to Stay Together is at Stake at the Supreme Court

Native Families' Right to Stay Together is at Stake at the Supreme Court

Since European settlers arrived on the shores of what is now known as the United States, federal and state governments, intent on seizing Indian lands, have sought to undermine and threaten the existence of tribes through the forced separation and assimilation of Native children. By severing Native children from their families, tribes, and culture, colonizers believed they could stamp out Indigeneity and erase tribal people altogether. As with any nation, the future ceases to exist if children are prevented from carrying on the languages, traditions, and knowledge passed down from each generation to the next.

This tool of assimilation and genocide has been wielded against tribal nations and Native children repeatedly throughout history, and it is happening again now.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (IWCA) — a law that aims to protect Native children from forced removal from their families, tribes, and culture and preserve tribal sovereignty — is currently under attack and at risk of being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress passed ICWA in 1978 to address the nationwide crisis of state child welfare agencies tearing Native children from their families and placing them in non-Native homes, in an attempt to force Native children to assimilate and adopt white cultural norms. Before ICWA, public and private agencies were removing 25 to 35 percent of Native American/Alaska Native children from their homes, and 85 percent of those children were placed in non-Native households.

The tools of assimilation and genocide have been wielded against tribal nations and Native children repeatedly throughout history, and it is happening again now.

Overwhelming evidence has found that being removed from homes and disconnected from culture, tradition, and identity profoundly harms Native children. The Indian Child Welfare Act requires state courts to make active efforts to keep Native families together and to prioritize the placement of Native children within their families and within tribal communities — where their cultural identities will be understood and celebrated.

This November, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brackeen v. Haaland, a case that challenges the constitutionality of ICWA. If the Supreme Court rules ICWA unconstitutional, it could have devastating consequences for Native children, families and tribes while simultaneously putting the existence of tribes in jeopardy. That’s why the ACLU and the ACLUs of Northern California, Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of ICWA.

ICWA aims to address the forced separation of Native children and families and represents a small step toward acknowledging the centuries of genocidal violence that underpin this case. Beginning in the early 1800s, the architects of the Federal Indian Boarding School Program designed the program to erase the Indigenous identities of Native people. The government snatched children as young as four years old from their families and sent them to militarized boarding school institutions designed to destroy their Native identities and culture, often hundreds of miles away from their tribal homelands.

Any markers of their Indigeneity — language, clothing, traditional hairstyles, and even their names — were prohibited in these institutions. Indian boarding schools were not simply places where Native youth were stripped of their culture: many children died at these schools from outright neglect, malnutrition, untreated illness, and as a result of physical violence carried out against them.

The National ACLU and several ACLU affiliates filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA.)

While boarding schools were largely shuttered by the mid-1900s, the philosophy lived on: Native children were better off living with white families, even at the expense of their mental, physical, and spiritual wellbeing.

In 1958, the Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Indian Adoption Project. The project’s explicit goal was to assimilate Native children into white culture through adoption and the intentional destruction of Indigenous family units and tribal communities. During this era and continuing today, practices rooted in ethnocentric stereotypes operating under the guise of “child protection” resulted in the baseless separation of thousands of Native children from their families and homelands.

It is incomprehensibly heinous that — in order to build the country we all live in today — federal and state governments targeted Native children, robbing those children, their families, their communities, and their tribal nations of everything it meant to be Indigenous.

Brackeen v. Haaland is the largest threat to Native children, families, and tribes before the Supreme Court in our lifetimes. If ICWA is overturned, states would once again be allowed to tear Native children from their families, tribes, and culture while simultaneously threatening tribes’ very existence. The legal arguments made by the plaintiffs challenging ICWA in Brackeen undermine key tenets of federal Indian law, and threaten many other laws upholding tribal sovereignty.

Tribal sovereignty is the right of tribes — 574 currently recognized by the federal government — to make and be governed by their own laws. This sovereignty is inherent, as Native Nations existed long before the creation of the United States. Hundreds of treaties have guaranteed tribal nations the right to self-govern. Through these treaties, Native Nations gave up their right to millions of acres of land that would become the United States in exchange for promises to tribes, including the guarantee that lands “reserved” for tribes would be governed by the tribes in perpetuity. The outcome of Brackeen v. Haaland could put centuries-long legal precedent upholding tribal sovereignty — including tribes’ right and ability to preserve their unique cultural identities, raise their own children and govern themselves — in jeopardy.

Native families have a right to stay together, to care for their children, and to preserve tribal culture by ensuring access to their cultural identity, language, and heritage. The Supreme Court must protect this right and uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 18, 2022 at 09:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/c6oq70j

ACLU: Ask the Experts: How to Inspire People to Vote for Their Values

Ask the Experts: How to Inspire People to Vote for Their Values

With the election just around the corner, we are chatting with some of our great volunteers about what issues are most important to them, and how they motivate voters to cast their ballots. We hope these conversations inspire you to vote for your values and join us in this once-in-a-generation battle to protect our nation.

Our first conversation is with Julia Lundy, a Maryland-based team leader with the ACLU People Power text team. People Power is the ACLU’s platform for grassroots action. Our volunteer teams help mobilize and organize communities all across the country in defense of our civil liberties by making calls, sending texts, and connecting with prospective voters about the issues that matter most to them.

 

A smiling Julia Lundy.

ACLU: What motivated you to get involved with the ACLU as a volunteer?

JL: I was very disappointed in the direction the country was heading in after the election of Donald J. Trump, the Muslim ban, and the selection of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Jeff Sessions had said in the past that people with disabilities like me should not be in mainstream classrooms, which I was when I was growing up. There were just so many violations of law and decorum that really scared me.

ACLU: What experiences have informed your activism?

JL: As a person with disabilities, I was not able to vote on my own. For a while I was voting, but somebody had to fill up the ballot for me. And when I finally got the opportunity to go in there and vote on my own, it just felt like another level of freedom, because I was able to say what I wanted to say with no interference. This experience really motivated me to help vulnerable people and populations who can’t speak for themselves.

As a person with disabilities, I was not able to vote on my own. Somebody had to fill up the ballot for me. And when I finally got the opportunity to vote on my own, it felt like another level of freedom.

ACLU: How do you explain to people why voting is important, and persuade them to take part in upcoming elections?

JL: I always try to explain the impact a particular election will have on someone’s life. It’s also important to get across to a potential voter why their vote at this moment is so necessary. It’s not always clear how consequential something is until you think through it a little bit and you have to explain it to someone else. That’s pretty much the strategy I use to try to get people more on board when texting volunteers, and I find that it works pretty well.

ACLU: What has surprised you over the years in your activism?

JL: It’s surprised me how much through texting volunteers I am able to inspire people. And also, the level of what people are willing to do for what they believe in. In the beginning, it was very shocking. Some of the responses I got when texting supporters could be mean. But at the same time, I have found that there has been such an outpouring of support. And I’ve also learned over time not to jump to conclusions on a civil rights issue because there are angles that I haven’t even thought about. So, I’ve learned to ask more questions and try to get to the bottom of something before jumping to any kind of judgment. I found that all of this also has been extremely useful in my day-to-day life.

I always try to explain the impact a particular election will have on someone’s life. It’s also important to get across to a potential voter why their vote at this moment is so necessary.

ACLU: Why is the right to vote so important to you?

JL: I think being able to speak for yourself, and stand with people who have the same values as you, to get together and make the changes that we need to see, is empowering. Every vote counts. It’s amazing how a few votes can sway a whole election or how a bunch of votes can make a point. For example, look at the Kansas ballot initiative on abortion access. People came out and voted for their rights. You can’t make the change unless you give it a shot.

ACLU: Why did you decide to share your story? What else do you want people to know about your experience?

JL: Sometimes things can be difficult, like the moment we are going through as a country right now. But if you work hard at it, you can come to a solution as long as you all work together. I love working with the team of volunteers we have at the ACLU, and I love knowing that there’s that so many dedicated people that work around the clock to make the good work the ACLU does happen.

Interested in working with people like Julia to defend our rights? Find out more about how to get involved here.

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/midterm-elections-how-these-offices-impact-your-rights

What you can do:

Vote Your Values, Fight for Your Rights

Take the pledge

Published August 18, 2022 at 12:42AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jkFqwmN