Cambodia: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

Cambodia: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 31, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Thailand: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Thailand

Thailand: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Thailand
Published January 30, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Czech Republic: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Czech Republic

Czech Republic: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Czech Republic
Published January 30, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Malta: Selected Issues

Malta: Selected Issues
Published January 29, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Malta: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Malta

Malta: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Malta
Published January 29, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Oman: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Oman

Oman: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Oman
Published January 29, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Oman: Selected Issues

Oman: Selected Issues
Published January 29, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: What’s Hiding in the Immigration & Border Deal? More Mass Surveillance

What’s Hiding in the Immigration & Border Deal? More Mass Surveillance

Behind closed doors, the White House and Congress continue to negotiate major changes to border and immigration law as part of a larger deal on foreign military assistance. One of the rumored proposals is to expand a program called Family Expedited Removal management, or FERM.

Already, we’ve seen families in this program suffering harm and denied due process. But with the potential for a second Trump administration, the risks of this program are even more severe — including widespread surveillance.

What is FERM?

Operated by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), FERM rushes families seeking asylum through a fast-track deportation process within days of their arrival, preventing them from accessing crucial legal support and jeopardizing their ability to effectively present their asylum claims. Fewer than 3 percent of families are able to obtain a lawyer to help them prepare for their cases. Additionally, newly arrived parents have had to recount horrific details of their trauma and persecution, often in front of their children. ICE has significantly expanded the program since creating it in May, outsourcing work to a subsidiary of Geo Group, a private prison company with a track-record of human rights abuses. Currently, the program applies to around 500 families.

FERM subjects people to intense and continuous GPS surveillance with no justification other than their status as recently arrived migrants. Heads of household are required to wear ankle monitors and adhere to a home curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. These extreme physical surveillance measures not only punish families seeking asylum, but also treat them as public safety threats, without any individualized assessment. For people who have recently endured trauma on their harrowing journey to safety, these measures are particularly demeaning and frightening.

Why is this surveillance harmful for asylum seekers?

People forced to wear ankle monitors report experiencing physical pain, such as cramps and impaired circulation. They describe thoughts of suicide and social isolation, with one person likening it to a “modern day scarlet letter.” The fear of malfunctions or battery failure of a monitor can increase anxiety not only for the person wearing the monitor but also for their entire family. The combination of a home curfew and GPS monitor turns routine family activities — like a midnight run for baby formula or a visit to Urgent care with a child — into frightening risks of separation and deportation.

Tell Congress: Protect families seeking asylum

Sacrificing families and children seeking protection for short-term political points is unacceptable.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

This is all unnecessary. Studies show that notifying individuals of upcoming court appearances through various means, including phone calls, recorded messages, mail, text messages, and emails is highly effective at ensuring people appear in legal proceedings. Moreover, providing access to legal counsel is far more effective; immigrant families with legal representation attend their immigration hearings 99 percent of the time, according to one study.

How would FERM affect other immigrants and Americans?

Bigger picture, Congress needs to consider how FERM normalizes 24-hour suspicionless surveillance. We should all be concerned when the government seeks authority to keep thousands, and potentially millions of people under constant watch without any pretext of criminal investigation. The people currently under the scrutiny of FERM are seeking sanctuary in our nation, often fleeing dictatorships and political persecution, making this surveillance even more perverse.

What would a second Trump administration do with FERM?

As Congress considers codifying and expanding this program, it should weigh the full ramifications. FERM’s electronic monitoring may seem benign, especially in comparison to keeping tens of thousands of people locked up in immigration detention for months or years. But imagine what a second Trump administration would do if Congress hands it authority and capacity to identify and locate immigrants around the clock, as some extremist state politicians are already threatening to do.

In a second Trump presidency, ICE could expand FERM to the over 3 million immigrants with pending cases or deferred removal. It could require them to wear GPS monitors or modify the current SmartLink app for continuous monitoring. They could also use this 24-hour location access to identify, track, and pursue its agenda for mass deportations, even using historical location data to track relationships between immigrants and their family members. If that happened, FERM would drive people further into the shadows instead of fulfilling its purported purpose of facilitating immigrants’ appearance in court and appointments.

FERM under a second Trump administration could also stifle dissent. The previous administration weaponized ICE and Customs and Border Protection to surveil activists and intimidate and attack protestors. We fear that similar, if not worse, actions may occur in a second Trump term. People under 24-hour GPS monitoring by ICE might be afraid to participate in protests and organizing — and this would affect not just them, but also people who live in a mixed-status household. Currently, one in every 15 U.S. residents live in a mixed-status household — that is, with at least one undocumented person.

What should Congress do instead?

We need Congress to pass immigration reform that modernizes our system to meet the challenges of the border. It should ensure families are not left in years of processing limbo, and that American businesses are able to access this labor source. That includes better court processing, ending administrative and legal backlogs, and providing a pathway to legal status for millions of our immigrant neighbors, loved ones, and co-workers.

But these solutions are not even part of the current negotiations. The ACLU is urging all members of Congress to reject any immigration and border deal that grants the anti-immigrant, extremist wish list of former President Trump in exchange for unrelated foreign aid.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 26, 2024 at 09:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tyR7zm0

Republic of North Macedonia: Selected Issues

Republic of North Macedonia: Selected Issues
Published January 26, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Ghana: 2023 Article IV Consultation, First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ghana

Ghana: 2023 Article IV Consultation, First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ghana
Published January 25, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Importance of Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Palestinian Students in Florida

The Importance of Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Palestinian Students in Florida

Like everyone else, college students have a First Amendment right to express their political opinions and advocate for the causes they believe in. Universities have long served as hotbeds for students to exercise these rights, providing opportunities for them to encounter diverse perspectives and broaden their understanding of themselves and the world.

Recent actions by Florida officials violate the First Amendment and pose a threat to these freedoms. In October 2023, Florida State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, together with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered public universities in Florida to deactivate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters. There are more than 200 SJP chapters in the country, and Florida has two. In the order, Chancellor Rodrigues makes unsubstantiated claims that Florida’s SJP chapters have violated the state’s material support for terrorism law. This dangerous and stigmatizing allegation is solely based on constitutionally protected statements published by the National Students for Justice in Palestine, a separate organization with no formal relationship to the Florida SJP chapters.

In response to Florida officials’ attempt to punish these students for something the national group said, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the University of Florida (UF) chapter of SJP. The UF SJP is an independent student-advocacy organization dedicated to organizing and educating its community on the struggle for Palestinian freedom. As its mission statement says, it is “directed at incorporating a diverse membership of people from all faiths and nationalities who believe in the attainability of peace.”

Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

As the lawsuit makes clear, the chancellor’s deactivation order constitutes a clear violation of students’ First Amendment right to free speech and association. UF SJP’s case aims to stop these unconstitutional bans, and to protect students’ right to speak out on matters of urgent concern.

Here’s what you need to know about the case, including how it could impact the future of free speech on campuses throughout the country.

---

Why did Florida officials issue the deactivation order?

Our client UF SJP was not involved in drafting or circulating the National SJP toolkit, and it didn’t use the language suggested in the document. It opted instead to issue its own statement that “the killing of any life is always undignified and heartbreaking,” and stressed that “[v]iolence against all innocent life is unacceptable.” UF SJP concluded: “We hope that no more lives, Israeli or Palestinian, are lost. We pray for those who are suffering.” Later frustrated by what it saw as the University of Florida’s disregard for Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and failure to support Palestinian and Muslim students on campus, the group urged its university to “condemn all violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Palestinian erasure, and anti-Palestinian sentiment.”

Strikingly, the deactivation order does not assert, or even suggest, that UF SJP has violated any law or policy that might justify the chapter’s disbandment.

Essentially, Florida officials are attempting to censor and punish these students for the political advocacy of another group—and even though the other group’s speech is itself protected by the First Amendment.

---

Why is the deactivation order a violation of the student group’s First Amendment rights?

Students and faculty at public colleges and universities have a First Amendment right to express themselves, which includes the freedom to voice dissent against government policies, and to advocate for the movements and causes they believe in. Florida’s deactivation order blatantly violates this right.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized students’ right to free speech, including in times of crisis. In a 1972 case, Healy v. James, for example, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to associate and to speak out on matters of public concern, free from censorship by public university officials. As the Court said , “nowhere is free speech more important than in our leading institutions of higher learning.” And the Court held that a public college could not deny recognition to a local chapter (like UF SJP) because of its relationship with a national group—or based on the views of either group.

---

How does the deactivation order harm the Students for Justice in Palestine?

With the death toll in Gaza exponentially increasing by the day, UF SJP sees the need for advocacy on Palestinian human rights as urgent and continuing — yet the threat of deactivation still looms, limiting the student group’s ability to organize itself and others in support of its advocacy mission.

Since the deactivation order was issued, UF SJP’s funding has been in limbo. The organization’s sole source of funding is from the university’s Student Government, which makes funding available only to registered student groups. Deactivation would mean losing this funding and the UF SJP would not be able to afford to invite speakers to campus, print promotional materials for events and recruitment, or even provide food at events.

On top of funding worries, the group is worried about recruitment, given its reliance on school-controlled communications services. Only registered student organizations can post information on GatorConnect, which is the University of Florida website that students access for information about student organizations and upcoming events.

Florida officials’ accusation that the student group is providing “material support for terrorism” leaves current and potential members fearful of the devastating consequences that this stigmatizing label could have on their lives and advocacy.

---

Why will this case set a precedent for how we think about free speech on campus?

Florida officials’ deactivation directive poses a direct threat to students’ ability to make their voices heard and speak out on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Palestine.

In times of heightened political tension and global crisis, it is crucial for university leaders to safeguard free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. Yet we’re seeing a surge in efforts across the country to punish and silence pro-Palestinian students and professors voicing opposition to Israeli and/or U.S. government policies.

These efforts include—

• In December 2023, Rutgers University suspended its chapters of the Students for Justice in Palestine, saying the university had received complaints claiming that the group was disrupting campus life and making students and staff feel unsafe. The Rutgers’ SJP denied these allegations. The chapter has since been reinstated, but remains on probation until December 2024.
• In Indiana, a tenured professor of political science and Middle Eastern studies was barred from teaching until next fall after incorrectly filling out a room request form for an event organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee.
• The University of Michigan recently canceled student elections on resolutions related to Palestine and Israel, restricted or shut down student email listservs on which students were discussing the international crisis, removed posters expressing support for Palestinians from graduate students’ office windows, and responded with aggressive policing and punitive discipline to a campus protest and sit-in.

---

What happens next?

We hope that the court will see Florida officials’ deactivation order for what it is: A blatant and harmful effort to censor pro-Palestinian speech on campus, in violation of the Constitution. Florida officials’ ban against a student group exercising free speech is both dangerous and wrong. Actions like these could pave the way for further censorship and discrimination within our schools and across the nation. We therefore urge university leaders to remember that they are stewards of democracy and the Constitution and free speech principles require them to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with whom they agree.

For more than 100 years, the ACLU has fought for free speech and association while opposing government censorship in all forms. We believe that students have the right to speak out, and we will always defend that right.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 25, 2024 at 03:49AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/oVG2Rz3

ACLU: The Importance of Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Palestinian Students in Florida

The Importance of Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Palestinian Students in Florida

Like everyone else, college students have a First Amendment right to express their political opinions and advocate for the causes they believe in. Universities have long served as hotbeds for students to exercise these rights, providing opportunities for them to encounter diverse perspectives and broaden their understanding of themselves and the world.

Recent actions by Florida officials violate the First Amendment and pose a threat to these freedoms. In October 2023, Florida State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, together with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered public universities in Florida to deactivate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters. There are more than 200 SJP chapters in the country, and Florida has two. In the order, Chancellor Rodrigues makes unsubstantiated claims that Florida’s SJP chapters have violated the state’s material support for terrorism law. This dangerous and stigmatizing allegation is solely based on constitutionally protected statements published by the National Students for Justice in Palestine, a separate organization with no formal relationship to the Florida SJP chapters.

In response to Florida officials’ attempt to punish these students for something the national group said, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the University of Florida (UF) chapter of SJP. The UF SJP is an independent student-advocacy organization dedicated to organizing and educating its community on the struggle for Palestinian freedom. As its mission statement says, it is “directed at incorporating a diverse membership of people from all faiths and nationalities who believe in the attainability of peace.”

Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

As the lawsuit makes clear, the chancellor’s deactivation order constitutes a clear violation of students’ First Amendment right to free speech and association. UF SJP’s case aims to stop these unconstitutional bans, and to protect students’ right to speak out on matters of urgent concern.

Here’s what you need to know about the case, including how it could impact the future of free speech on campuses throughout the country.

---

Why did Florida officials issue the deactivation order?

Our client UF SJP was not involved in drafting or circulating the National SJP toolkit, and it didn’t use the language suggested in the document. It opted instead to issue its own statement that “the killing of any life is always undignified and heartbreaking,” and stressed that “[v]iolence against all innocent life is unacceptable.” UF SJP concluded: “We hope that no more lives, Israeli or Palestinian, are lost. We pray for those who are suffering.” Later frustrated by what it saw as the University of Florida’s disregard for Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and failure to support Palestinian and Muslim students on campus, the group urged its university to “condemn all violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Palestinian erasure, and anti-Palestinian sentiment.”

Strikingly, the deactivation order does not assert, or even suggest, that UF SJP has violated any law or policy that might justify the chapter’s disbandment.

Essentially, Florida officials are attempting to censor and punish these students for the political advocacy of another group—and even though the other group’s speech is itself protected by the First Amendment.

---

Why is the deactivation order a violation of the student group’s First Amendment rights?

Students and faculty at public colleges and universities have a First Amendment right to express themselves, which includes the freedom to voice dissent against government policies, and to advocate for the movements and causes they believe in. Florida’s deactivation order blatantly violates this right.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized students’ right to free speech, including in times of crisis. In a 1972 case, Healy v. James, for example, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to associate and to speak out on matters of public concern, free from censorship by public university officials. As the Court said , “nowhere is free speech more important than in our leading institutions of higher learning.” And the Court held that a public college could not deny recognition to a local chapter (like UF SJP) because of its relationship with a national group—or based on the views of either group.

---

How does the deactivation order harm the Students for Justice in Palestine?

With the death toll in Gaza exponentially increasing by the day, UF SJP sees the need for advocacy on Palestinian human rights as urgent and continuing — yet the threat of deactivation still looms, limiting the student group’s ability to organize itself and others in support of its advocacy mission.

Since the deactivation order was issued, UF SJP’s funding has been in limbo. The organization’s sole source of funding is from the university’s Student Government, which makes funding available only to registered student groups. Deactivation would mean losing this funding and the UF SJP would not be able to afford to invite speakers to campus, print promotional materials for events and recruitment, or even provide food at events.

On top of funding worries, the group is worried about recruitment, given its reliance on school-controlled communications services. Only registered student organizations can post information on GatorConnect, which is the University of Florida website that students access for information about student organizations and upcoming events.

Florida officials’ accusation that the student group is providing “material support for terrorism” leaves current and potential members fearful of the devastating consequences that this stigmatizing label could have on their lives and advocacy.

---

Why will this case set a precedent for how we think about free speech on campus?

Florida officials’ deactivation directive poses a direct threat to students’ ability to make their voices heard and speak out on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Palestine.

In times of heightened political tension and global crisis, it is crucial for university leaders to safeguard free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. Yet we’re seeing a surge in efforts across the country to punish and silence pro-Palestinian students and professors voicing opposition to Israeli and/or U.S. government policies.

These efforts include—

• In December 2023, Rutgers University suspended its chapters of the Students for Justice in Palestine, saying the university had received complaints claiming that the group was disrupting campus life and making students and staff feel unsafe. The Rutgers’ SJP denied these allegations. The chapter has since been reinstated, but remains on probation until December 2024.
• In Indiana, a tenured professor of political science and Middle Eastern studies was barred from teaching until next fall after incorrectly filling out a room request form for an event organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee.
• The University of Michigan recently canceled student elections on resolutions related to Palestine and Israel, restricted or shut down student email listservs on which students were discussing the international crisis, removed posters expressing support for Palestinians from graduate students’ office windows, and responded with aggressive policing and punitive discipline to a campus protest and sit-in.

---

What happens next?

We hope that the court will see Florida officials’ deactivation order for what it is: A blatant and harmful effort to censor pro-Palestinian speech on campus, in violation of the Constitution. Florida officials’ ban against a student group exercising free speech is both dangerous and wrong. Actions like these could pave the way for further censorship and discrimination within our schools and across the nation. We therefore urge university leaders to remember that they are stewards of democracy and the Constitution and free speech principles require them to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with whom they agree.

For more than 100 years, the ACLU has fought for free speech and association while opposing government censorship in all forms. We believe that students have the right to speak out, and we will always defend that right.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 24, 2024 at 10:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/BwOxuLR

Greece: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Greece

Greece: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Greece
Published January 24, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Antigua and Barbuda: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

Antigua and Barbuda: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 23, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Pakistan: First Review Under the Stand-by Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Applicability of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and for Rephasing of Access-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Pakistan

Pakistan: First Review Under the Stand-by Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Applicability of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and for Rephasing of Access-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Pakistan
Published January 19, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Australia: Selected Issues

Australia: Selected Issues
Published January 18, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Australia: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Australia

Australia: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Australia
Published January 18, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

The Gambia: Selected Issues

The Gambia: Selected Issues
Published January 18, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

The Gambia: 2023 Article IV Consultation and Request for an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Gambia

The Gambia: 2023 Article IV Consultation and Request for an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Gambia
Published January 18, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Kenya: Selected Issues

Kenya: Selected Issues
Published January 17, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Unaccountable Police Units Are Wrong for Safety

Unaccountable Police Units Are Wrong for Safety

Last week, the National Policing Institute, in cooperation with the Department of Justice division on Community Oriented Policing Services, issued guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies on specialized units. NPI’s first recommendation is for law enforcement agencies to question whether they should create specialized units, and there’s an easy answer: no.

Specialized units vary but, as relevant here, they are sub-divisions of police departments tasked with enforcement related to specific conditions in an aggressive manner. The NPI guidance begins with a recognition that specialized units “are often subject to relatively limited supervision and afforded immense discretion when carrying out their duties.” This combination can lead to “tragic consequences.”

Indeed, the guidance was animated in part by the killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis by officers from the Scorpion Unit — a specialized unit comprised of officers focused on crimes related to theft, gangs, and drugs. The Scorpion Unit stopped Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, for a traffic infraction. They then pepper sprayed him and shot him with a stun gun despite his offering no apparent resistance. After yelling for help, Nichols ran toward his mother’s house. It wasn’t far from there that the officers — who had gone after him — beat him for several minutes while he was on the ground. He died days later from blunt force trauma to the head. Nichols’s family got the Scorpion Unit disbanded, with help from civil rights lawyer Ben Crump.

The Scorpion Unit was no aberration. In introductory remarks to its guidelines, NPI mentions the CRASH scandal in Los Angeles in the 1990s, during which a specialized unit tasked with addressing gang activity was found to be engaged in criminal conduct. The unit had repeatedly used excessive and at times lethal force without provocation. Another high-profile example is from New York City in 1999, when a specialized unit of the NYPD killed Amadou Diallo, a 23-year-old Black man. The unit — tasked with addressing gun violence — shot Diallo 41 times when he reached for his pocket to provide identification.

State and Local Governments Must Take Responsibility for Police Violence

It shouldn’t take a federal investigation to address violent and harmful practices.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Disbanding these units does not necessarily end the misconduct. In response to community outcry over the Diallo killing, the NYPD dismantled the responsible unit and created a new one — the Anti-Crime Unit — that supposedly had better training and oversight. The ACU went on to be a primary driver of unlawful stops in the early 2000s and, more recently, was found disproportionately responsible for shootings. Following the George Floyd protests in 2020, the ACU was disbanded only to be reconstituted in 2023 — again, with allegedly better training and oversight. Just a few months after the new rollout, however, a federal monitor found ACU to be unlawfully stopping Black and Latine people.

How, then, should police departments and communities decide whether forming a specialized unit is worth the risk? NPI recommends that law enforcement should consider a series of critical questions before deciding to create or continue a specialized unit. That’s the right starting point. And it’s also good that NPI’s list of key considerations includes whether the affected community prefers non-law enforcement alternatives. Yet this question is only meaningful if communities are given real alternatives, and they rarely are.

Asking communities to choose between a specialized unit or nothing is a false choice, and alternatives might not be viable without additional investments. Police departments often have a heavily resourced infrastructure with round-the-clock staffing. As NPI points out, this sometimes makes police a default candidate for addressing problems they are not suited to solve. While creating alternatives might require more time and money, we must build solutions that reduce mismatched reliance on police. Otherwise, we’re not actually improving safety in the long run.

Notably, determining community preferences should be a thoughtful and deliberate process that reflects an understanding that communities are not monolithic. We emphasize the need to seek input from people who have experienced police misconduct through forums police do not attend, which NPI also recommends. People who have been subjected to unfair policing — directly or as witnesses — have important insight into its manifestations and harms, and this insight is critical to designing effective solutions. Police attendance at forums soliciting input from this population might undermine participation, given mistrust and fear that result from oppressive policing.

We’re skeptical of specialized units because of their history of violence and abuse — a problem that has shown to persist despite improvements in training and oversight. Their vast discretion and the realistic limits of internal accountability mechanisms inures specialized units with too much power, which has proven too much risk to impacted communities. NPI’s guidelines offer important suggestions for limiting the harms caused by specialized units, and these recommendations should be followed if specialized units are to continue. If we want to keep people safe from both crime and police violence, though, we need to build something better.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 17, 2024 at 09:56PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fQ6t70d

ACLU: Unaccountable Police Units Are Wrong for Safety

Unaccountable Police Units Are Wrong for Safety

Last week, the National Policing Institute, in cooperation with the Department of Justice division on Community Oriented Policing Services, issued guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies on specialized units. NPI’s first recommendation is for law enforcement agencies to question whether they should create specialized units, and there’s an easy answer: no.

Specialized units vary but, as relevant here, they are sub-divisions of police departments tasked with enforcement related to specific conditions in an aggressive manner. The NPI guidance begins with a recognition that specialized units “are often subject to relatively limited supervision and afforded immense discretion when carrying out their duties.” This combination can lead to “tragic consequences.”

Indeed, the guidance was animated in part by the killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis by officers from the Scorpion Unit — a specialized unit comprised of officers focused on crimes related to theft, gangs, and drugs. The Scorpion Unit stopped Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, for a traffic infraction. They then pepper sprayed him and shot him with a stun gun despite his offering no apparent resistance. After yelling for help, Nichols ran toward his mother’s house. It wasn’t far from there that the officers — who had gone after him — beat him for several minutes while he was on the ground. He died days later from blunt force trauma to the head. Nichols’s family got the Scorpion Unit disbanded, with help from civil rights lawyer Ben Crump.

The Scorpion Unit was no aberration. In introductory remarks to its guidelines, NPI mentions the CRASH scandal in Los Angeles in the 1990s, during which a specialized unit tasked with addressing gang activity was found to be engaged in criminal conduct. The unit had repeatedly used excessive and at times lethal force without provocation. Another high-profile example is from New York City in 1999, when a specialized unit of the NYPD killed Amadou Diallo, a 23-year-old Black man. The unit — tasked with addressing gun violence — shot Diallo 41 times when he reached for his pocket to provide identification.

State and Local Governments Must Take Responsibility for Police Violence

It shouldn’t take a federal investigation to address violent and harmful practices.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Disbanding these units does not necessarily end the misconduct. In response to community outcry over the Diallo killing, the NYPD dismantled the responsible unit and created a new one — the Anti-Crime Unit — that supposedly had better training and oversight. The ACU went on to be a primary driver of unlawful stops in the early 2000s and, more recently, was found disproportionately responsible for shootings. Following the George Floyd protests in 2020, the ACU was disbanded only to be reconstituted in 2023 — again, with allegedly better training and oversight. Just a few months after the new rollout, however, a federal monitor found ACU to be unlawfully stopping Black and Latine people.

How, then, should police departments and communities decide whether forming a specialized unit is worth the risk? NPI recommends that law enforcement should consider a series of critical questions before deciding to create or continue a specialized unit. That’s the right starting point. And it’s also good that NPI’s list of key considerations includes whether the affected community prefers non-law enforcement alternatives. Yet this question is only meaningful if communities are given real alternatives, and they rarely are.

Asking communities to choose between a specialized unit or nothing is a false choice, and alternatives might not be viable without additional investments. Police departments often have a heavily resourced infrastructure with round-the-clock staffing. As NPI points out, this sometimes makes police a default candidate for addressing problems they are not suited to solve. While creating alternatives might require more time and money, we must build solutions that reduce mismatched reliance on police. Otherwise, we’re not actually improving safety in the long run.

Notably, determining community preferences should be a thoughtful and deliberate process that reflects an understanding that communities are not monolithic. We emphasize the need to seek input from people who have experienced police misconduct through forums police do not attend, which NPI also recommends. People who have been subjected to unfair policing — directly or as witnesses — have important insight into its manifestations and harms, and this insight is critical to designing effective solutions. Police attendance at forums soliciting input from this population might undermine participation, given mistrust and fear that result from oppressive policing.

We’re skeptical of specialized units because of their history of violence and abuse — a problem that has shown to persist despite improvements in training and oversight. Their vast discretion and the realistic limits of internal accountability mechanisms inures specialized units with too much power, which has proven too much risk to impacted communities. NPI’s guidelines offer important suggestions for limiting the harms caused by specialized units, and these recommendations should be followed if specialized units are to continue. If we want to keep people safe from both crime and police violence, though, we need to build something better.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 17, 2024 at 04:26PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2HdQtSK

Republic of Mozambique: Third Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Requests for Modification of the Monetary Policy Consultation Clause, Waiver of Nonobservance of Quantitative Performance Criterion, Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Mozambique

Republic of Mozambique: Third Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Requests for Modification of the Monetary Policy Consultation Clause, Waiver of Nonobservance of Quantitative Performance Criterion, Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Mozambique
Published January 16, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Cabo Verde: Third Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Request for an Arrangement Under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cabo Verde

Cabo Verde: Third Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Request for an Arrangement Under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cabo Verde
Published January 16, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Government Agencies Shouldn't Be Allowed to Destroy Their Paper Trail of Medical Abuse and Neglect

Government Agencies Shouldn't Be Allowed to Destroy Their Paper Trail of Medical Abuse and Neglect

Last year, Anadith Reyes Alvarez, a medically vulnerable 8-year-old girl, died in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention after contract medical staff failed to review her medical records or consult with a physician and refused her emergency medical transport and care. As a court monitor concluded, Anadith’s death was a “preventable tragedy” pointing to an “urgent need” to improve “CBP medical oversight.” Sadly, this kind of medical abuse and neglect is not an anomaly in CBP facilities. Last month, CBP employees blew the whistle, indicating that CBP’s contract oversight office has long been aware of serious violations in the provision of medical care at CBP detention facilities, including significant understaffing, and providing medical services without appropriate medical licenses.

In the midst of these disturbing developments, CBP has requested permission from the National Archives and Records Administration to destroy “medical case files of persons in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection” after 20 years.

The medical records slated for destruction by CBP have long-term value for legal, research, historical, and accountability purposes. That’s why the ACLU and 72 organizations, including the American Immigration Council and the Texas Civil Rights Project, as well as 171 academic scholars, filed a regulatory comment today to challenge CBP’s proposed destruction of these records.

The medical records in question are often the primary evidence of medical care (or lack thereof) received by people in CBP custody, and are key to government accountability efforts to address systemic medical neglect in CBP detention. These records are also critical to legal claims by individuals or their surviving family members — including people who may still have live legal challenges long after the incidents occurred, such as people with disabilities or those who were minors when the abuse or neglect occurred.

These medical records are also of significant historical importance: Historians have frequently turned to the National Archives for primary sources regarding the treatment of immigrants, including the use of health-based criteria as a basis for entry or exclusion, and access to medical care by migrants at the border. Scholars have also examined records from government agencies that provided medical care to immigrants, including the U.S. Public Health Service — a precursor to CBP’s current medical care providers.

Destruction of CBP’s medical records would eliminate an important primary source developed during CBP’s nascent period as an agency — from its establishment in 2003, to a time marked by policies of family separation, and the use of Title 42, a purported public health measure to expel millions of immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CBP’s plans to destroy medical records will only serve to obscure its tragic record of medical neglect and inhibit efforts to hold the agency accountable. Each day, CBP holds approximately 15,000 migrants in short-term detention facilities while processing them at the border. CBP policy maintains that people should not be detained for longer than 72 hours in these facilities, often small, frigid holding cells commonly referred to as hieleras (“freezers” in Spanish). CBP, however, regularly detains people for as long as 10 days, and in many cases, for over 30 days. Government oversight agencies and advocates have detailed numerous incidents of negligent medical care to people in CBP custody, including denial of care to people with broken bones, a damaged testicle due to injury by a Border Patrol officer, and a ruptured appendix.

An ACLU investigation also highlighted multiple cases of medical neglect in CBP detention, including the denial of care to a pregnant person, which preceded a stillbirth; and withholding of prescription medication for a child detained after undergoing spinal surgery resulting from a car accident. At least five people died in CBP custody in FY 2021 after having a medical emergency.

CBP’s treatment of migrants in its custody needs more transparency and documentation — not less. Like former challenges to the destruction of documents related to immigration detention, government agencies should not be allowed to destroy the paper trail of their incompetence and wrongdoing.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 12, 2024 at 05:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/CiAm6Zh

Albania: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report

Albania: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published January 12, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Congo: Fourth Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Requests for Modification of Performance Criteria, Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Debt Sustainability Analysis; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director

Republic of Congo: Fourth Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, Requests for Modification of Performance Criteria, Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Debt Sustainability Analysis; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director
Published January 12, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Jordan: Request for an Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Cancellation of the Current Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan

Jordan: Request for an Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Cancellation of the Current Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan
Published January 11, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Language Access is a Civil Right, For Both Children and Adults

Language Access is a Civil Right, For Both Children and Adults

For deaf people, language deprivation during early childhood represents the most significant threat to the exercise of their civil rights and liberties.

Not having adequate exposure to a language early in life has profound, lifelong consequences. Deaf students nationally graduate from high school and college at lower rates. They are among the many youth with disabilities who are disproportionately funneled into the criminal legal system. Long term negative outcomes span educational and employment contexts, and are especially bleak for deaf and hard of hearing children who also share marginalized racial identities, such as those who are Black.

Play the video

In the ACLU’s ongoing work to affirm the civil rights of Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, and Hard of Hearing people in prison and on supervision, including their right to access effective communication, many of our clients share one common trait: they experienced the permanent, detrimental effects of language deprivation in their early years.

Nearly all of our clients in these cases were among the 96 percent of deaf children born to hearing parents who did not know sign language. These parents love their children, but struggle to provide them with full access to language, signed or spoken.

Despite improvements in early intervention approaches, newborn hearing screenings, and advances in hearing technology, current research shows that deaf children often do not develop age-expected spoken language skills when they are only provided with spoken language. When kids don’t have full access to language, especially during the crucial years for early childhood development, they develop language deprivation syndrome — a neurodevelopmental disorder with negative and long-lasting effects on the deaf child’s language, cognitive, and socioemotional development.

Deaf education in the United States has historically been framed as a false dichotomy between bilingual Deaf schools where deaf children learn both American Sign Language (ASL) and English (spoken and/or written), and “mainstreamed” schools using an auditory-oral approach where deaf children only learn English (i.e., withholding ASL and other visual cues like lipreading).

The families of deaf children have, for generations, shared similar experiences: an overwhelming barrage of information, frequently biased towards the auditory-oral approach — giving their child auditory input while completely excluding signed language. Too often this is incorrectly presented as the most effective approach. But clear evidence demonstrates that deaf and hard of hearing children, even those with hearing parents, can effectively learn a sign language, and that doing so supports subsequent learning of spoken language.

---

The ACLU seeks to support parents in ensuring meaningful access to the language acquisition tools that work for their child. Accordingly, we support:

• Education plans for deaf and hard of hearing children that meet the specific needs of the child.
• Education plans that include access to the full range of evidence-based instructional approaches and tools that can be used in various combinations to support language development and communication, including ASL-English bilingual education, Protactile, tactile signing systems, Cued Speech, augmentative and alternative communication, and auditory-oral education.
• Education plans that are accompanied by empirical evidence listing all possible outcomes, being clear which options will reliably lead to complete acquisition of at least one language, and which will not.
• Choice — and meaningful access to those choices — with the goal of successfully acquiring a language.

The ACLU considers the evidence-based “gold standard” approach to be providing access to a natural signed language during early infancy, in addition to support for learning English and other heritage languages desired by the family. Doing so positively impacts their language, cognition, socialization, and learning.

---

We do not support:

• The explicit withholding of access to sign language during early childhood, given the heightened risk of language deprivation that comes with such approaches.
• The false idea that learning sign language might harm a child’s ability to learn to speak and should be prohibited in the household.

In recent years, evidence-based grassroots legislative efforts to aid parents of deaf children in tracking their child’s language development during the first five years have made significant gains.

LEAD-K is a bill that has been passed in more than 20 states — some with the ACLU’s support. It empowers parents with balanced information about the languages, communication modes, and instructional approaches available to their deaf children. It also empowers states to track children’s progress with reliable data, identify when children are not getting sufficient support, and provide appropriate interventions as needed.

At the same time, we recognize a long history of choices being made for people with disabilities instead of by people with disabilities. Those choices can be rooted in eugenics, the medicalization of disability, or a parent’s desire to share their language with their child.

One argument often used to defend the choice to withhold ASL is that it should be the parents’ choice. The ACLU recognizes that sometimes arguments about parents’ right to choose can be weaponized in ways that endanger children — such as outing transgender students. Parents who choose only “listening and spoken language” options for their deaf or hard of hearing children choose that option because they want their child to function easily in society. But the science shows that exposing these children to only this form of communication can make it much harder for them to learn any language.

Arguments around parental choice can be used to deprive a child of a fully accessible language, despite risks of permanent cognitive and socioemotional harm, in hopes that the child will “overcome” their hearing disability. To that end, we encourage parents to learn about evidence-based language acquisition approaches and to be mindful of the legacies of ableism and audism when making choices for their children.

All students have the right to an equal and accessible education. We do not support the restriction of educational opportunities for deaf children, including the closure of schools for the deaf, which can be the best environment for some deaf children to learn in and support their language acquisition. The question of which setting is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is an individualized question, and the U.S. Department of Education confirms that the LRE is not automatically the provision of mainstream schools for deaf children. The primary goal of deaf education is to ensure deaf children can learn language, and learning language is easiest in immersive social environments with other language users.

We recognize that mainstream schools can often be under-resourced, lacking the full continuum of language supports that deaf schools can provide. The ACLU strongly supports increased resources for deaf children to acquire a signed language and for deaf adults to access services in their primary language.

At the ACLU, we’ve seen firsthand the adverse impacts of language deprivation. Access to language — through LEAD-K and through the availability of all educational methodologies as options individualized for each child — is a fundamental stepping stone to vindicating the civil rights and civil liberties of deaf and hard of hearing people and enabling the next generation of deaf children to become full, participating members of our democracy.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 10, 2024 at 10:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/h4nxMjT

ACLU: Language Access is a Civil Right, For Both Children and Adults

Language Access is a Civil Right, For Both Children and Adults

For deaf people, language deprivation during early childhood represents the most significant threat to the exercise of their civil rights and liberties.

Not having adequate exposure to a language early in life has profound, lifelong consequences. Deaf students nationally graduate from high school and college at lower rates. They are among the many youth with disabilities who are disproportionately funneled into the criminal legal system. Long term negative outcomes span educational and employment contexts, and are especially bleak for deaf and hard of hearing children who also share marginalized racial identities, such as those who are Black.

Play the video

In the ACLU’s ongoing work to affirm the civil rights of Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, and Hard of Hearing people in prison and on supervision, including their right to access effective communication, many of our clients share one common trait: they experienced the permanent, detrimental effects of language deprivation in their early years.

Nearly all of our clients in these cases were among the 96 percent of deaf children born to hearing parents who did not know sign language. These parents love their children, but struggle to provide them with full access to language, signed or spoken.

Despite improvements in early intervention approaches, newborn hearing screenings, and advances in hearing technology, current research shows that deaf children often do not develop age-expected spoken language skills when they are only provided with spoken language. When kids don’t have full access to language, especially during the crucial years for early childhood development, they develop language deprivation syndrome — a neurodevelopmental disorder with negative and long-lasting effects on the deaf child’s language, cognitive, and socioemotional development.

Deaf education in the United States has historically been framed as a false dichotomy between bilingual Deaf schools where deaf children learn both American Sign Language (ASL) and English (spoken and/or written), and “mainstreamed” schools using an auditory-oral approach where deaf children only learn English (i.e., withholding ASL and other visual cues like lipreading).

The families of deaf children have, for generations, shared similar experiences: an overwhelming barrage of information, frequently biased towards the auditory-oral approach — giving their child auditory input while completely excluding signed language. Too often this is incorrectly presented as the most effective approach. But clear evidence demonstrates that deaf and hard of hearing children, even those with hearing parents, can effectively learn a sign language, and that doing so supports subsequent learning of spoken language.

---

The ACLU seeks to support parents in ensuring meaningful access to the language acquisition tools that work for their child. Accordingly, we support:

• Education plans for deaf and hard of hearing children that meet the specific needs of the child.
• Education plans that include access to the full range of evidence-based instructional approaches and tools that can be used in various combinations to support language development and communication, including ASL-English bilingual education, Protactile, tactile signing systems, Cued Speech, augmentative and alternative communication, and auditory-oral education.
• Education plans that are accompanied by empirical evidence listing all possible outcomes, being clear which options will reliably lead to complete acquisition of at least one language, and which will not.
• Choice — and meaningful access to those choices — with the goal of successfully acquiring a language.

The ACLU considers the evidence-based “gold standard” approach to be providing access to a natural signed language during early infancy, in addition to support for learning English and other heritage languages desired by the family. Doing so positively impacts their language, cognition, socialization, and learning.

---

We do not support:

• The explicit withholding of access to sign language during early childhood, given the heightened risk of language deprivation that comes with such approaches.
• The false idea that learning sign language might harm a child’s ability to learn to speak and should be prohibited in the household.

In recent years, evidence-based grassroots legislative efforts to aid parents of deaf children in tracking their child’s language development during the first five years have made significant gains.

LEAD-K is a bill that has been passed in more than 20 states — some with the ACLU’s support. It empowers parents with balanced information about the languages, communication modes, and instructional approaches available to their deaf children. It also empowers states to track children’s progress with reliable data, identify when children are not getting sufficient support, and provide appropriate interventions as needed.

At the same time, we recognize a long history of choices being made for people with disabilities instead of by people with disabilities. Those choices can be rooted in eugenics, the medicalization of disability, or a parent’s desire to share their language with their child.

One argument often used to defend the choice to withhold ASL is that it should be the parents’ choice. The ACLU recognizes that sometimes arguments about parents’ right to choose can be weaponized in ways that endanger children — such as outing transgender students. Parents who choose only “listening and spoken language” options for their deaf or hard of hearing children choose that option because they want their child to function easily in society. But the science shows that exposing these children to only this form of communication can make it much harder for them to learn any language.

Arguments around parental choice can be used to deprive a child of a fully accessible language, despite risks of permanent cognitive and socioemotional harm, in hopes that the child will “overcome” their hearing disability. To that end, we encourage parents to learn about evidence-based language acquisition approaches and to be mindful of the legacies of ableism and audism when making choices for their children.

All students have the right to an equal and accessible education. We do not support the restriction of educational opportunities for deaf children, including the closure of schools for the deaf, which can be the best environment for some deaf children to learn in and support their language acquisition. The question of which setting is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is an individualized question, and the U.S. Department of Education confirms that the LRE is not automatically the provision of mainstream schools for deaf children. The primary goal of deaf education is to ensure deaf children can learn language, and learning language is easiest in immersive social environments with other language users.

We recognize that mainstream schools can often be under-resourced, lacking the full continuum of language supports that deaf schools can provide. The ACLU strongly supports increased resources for deaf children to acquire a signed language and for deaf adults to access services in their primary language.

At the ACLU, we’ve seen firsthand the adverse impacts of language deprivation. Access to language — through LEAD-K and through the availability of all educational methodologies as options individualized for each child — is a fundamental stepping stone to vindicating the civil rights and civil liberties of deaf and hard of hearing people and enabling the next generation of deaf children to become full, participating members of our democracy.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published January 10, 2024 at 05:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZVe2UzA

Suriname: Fourth Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Requests for Extension of the Arrangement, Augmentation of Access, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Suriname

Suriname: Fourth Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Requests for Extension of the Arrangement, Augmentation of Access, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Suriname
Published January 08, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Supreme Court Must Allow U.S. Citizens to Challenge Placement on No Fly List

The Supreme Court Must Allow U.S. Citizens to Challenge Placement on No Fly List

In case after case, we’ve seen the government remove people from the No Fly List and prevent their legal challenges from being heard. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to ensure Americans wrongly placed on this list are actually given their day in court. Today, the Supreme Court will hear FBI v. Fikre, a case that will determine whether a U.S. citizen can continue to challenge his placement on the No Fly List, after the government removed him from it and sought to end his case.

FBI v. Fikre

The ACLU and partners filed an amicus brief in support of Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen who alleges that he was wrongly placed on the No Fly List.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

To understand what’s at stake, it helps to know how the No Fly List program functions. Since 2003, the U.S. government has operated a No Fly List that indefinitely bars U.S. citizens and residents from flying to, from, or over the United States. Using vague criteria and a low evidentiary standard, the government exercises virtually unfettered discretion and secrecy in making its No Fly List decisions. Claiming national security, the government says it can keep its reasons and evidence for putting people on the list — or taking them off it — entirely or almost entirely secret. We know that Americans on the No Fly List are disproportionately Muslim and those of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian heritage.

In 2014, in a case filed by ACLU clients, a district court found that the administrative process the government provides to challenge placement on the No Fly List violated due process and required the government to change it. But the process the government then put in place is little better — it still does not provide people with the government’s reasons and evidence for placing them on the list or a fair process to challenge error.

Mr. Yonas Fikre, the respondent in the Supreme Court case, discovered he was on the No Fly List in 2010 and subsequently filed a lawsuit to challenge his placement. Although Mr. Fikre completed the government’s redress process, he was still not given any reasons for his placement on the No Fly List. Six years later, after he filed a federal court challenge, the government removed Mr. Fikre from the list and argued his case could not go forward because it was moot. It also told him that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information.” But this is not good enough.

In the friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the ACLU, ACLU of Oregon, and Goodwin Procter in support of Mr. Fikre, we identified 40 U.S. citizens and residents who challenged their placement in court and found that the government kept secret the full reasons — or any reason — for placing each of them on the list. We found that the government has repeatedly acted to prevent judicial review by taking people off the list at strategic points in litigation. As a result, a government statement that a plaintiff like Mr. Fikre will not be relisted “based on currently available information” provides no assurance that the government will not wrongly put him back on the list in the future. And as we argued to the Supreme Court, because the government has not made it absolutely clear that its allegedly wrongful behavior will not recur, Mr. Fikre’s court challenge is not moot and the courts should hear and decide his case.

Mr. Fikre’s experience is not an isolated one. We and others have repeatedly documented that placement on the No Fly List has devastating consequences for people’s personal and professional lives — and the government has used the list as a tool of coercion. For example, in 2018, Ahmad Chebli, a Michigan-based father of two, was pressured by FBI agents to become an informant in his own community. When he refused, the FBI agents falsely accused him of being affiliated with a terrorist group, and made threats of investigation, arrest, and immigration consequences for his family. Despite terrible anxiety and stress as a result, Mr. Chebli still refused to become an informant. He sent his wife and children to Lebanon for safety and later joined them — hoping that his government would back off. But when he tried to return home to Michigan, he learned that it had instead put him on the No Fly list.

I Refused to Become an FBI Informant, and the Government Put Me on the No Fly List

With the help of the ACLU, I’m bringing a lawsuit to challenge the government’s actions.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

For two years Mr. Chebli tried to use the government’s redress process to seek removal from the list — but that process was a black box of secrecy and unfairness. The government only took him off the list in 2021, 10 days after we sued on his behalf. Unfortunately, this experience is not unusual for Americans placed on the list. Many spend years seeking information about how to be removed, without even learning why the government put them on the list in the first place.

At its core, both the No Fly List and the government’s watchlisting program perpetuates unfairness, secrecy, and discriminatory profiling. The categories of people who are watchlisted seem ever-expanding, never constricting — which is exactly what happens when you have a vague, overbroad system of government surveillance and sanction based on suspicion and without due process. Mr. Fikre, and those like him, should have their day in court. We hope the Supreme Court agrees.

If you are an American citizen or lawful permanent resident concerned that you’re on the No Fly List, please fill out this form.

What you can do:

End discriminatory profiling by the government

Send your message

Published January 8, 2024 at 11:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mohsDFx

ACLU: The Supreme Court Must Allow U.S. Citizens to Challenge Placement on No Fly List

The Supreme Court Must Allow U.S. Citizens to Challenge Placement on No Fly List

In case after case, we’ve seen the government remove people from the No Fly List and prevent their legal challenges from being heard. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to ensure Americans wrongly placed on this list are actually given their day in court. Today, the Supreme Court will hear FBI v. Fikre, a case that will determine whether a U.S. citizen can continue to challenge his placement on the No Fly List, after the government removed him from it and sought to end his case.

FBI v. Fikre

The ACLU and partners filed an amicus brief in support of Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen who alleges that he was wrongly placed on the No Fly List.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

To understand what’s at stake, it helps to know how the No Fly List program functions. Since 2003, the U.S. government has operated a No Fly List that indefinitely bars U.S. citizens and residents from flying to, from, or over the United States. Using vague criteria and a low evidentiary standard, the government exercises virtually unfettered discretion and secrecy in making its No Fly List decisions. Claiming national security, the government says it can keep its reasons and evidence for putting people on the list — or taking them off it — entirely or almost entirely secret. We know that Americans on the No Fly List are disproportionately Muslim and those of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian heritage.

In 2014, in a case filed by ACLU clients, a district court found that the administrative process the government provides to challenge placement on the No Fly List violated due process and required the government to change it. But the process the government then put in place is little better — it still does not provide people with the government’s reasons and evidence for placing them on the list or a fair process to challenge error.

Mr. Yonas Fikre, the respondent in the Supreme Court case, discovered he was on the No Fly List in 2010 and subsequently filed a lawsuit to challenge his placement. Although Mr. Fikre completed the government’s redress process, he was still not given any reasons for his placement on the No Fly List. Six years later, after he filed a federal court challenge, the government removed Mr. Fikre from the list and argued his case could not go forward because it was moot. It also told him that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information.” But this is not good enough.

In the friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the ACLU, ACLU of Oregon, and Goodwin Procter in support of Mr. Fikre, we identified 40 U.S. citizens and residents who challenged their placement in court and found that the government kept secret the full reasons — or any reason — for placing each of them on the list. We found that the government has repeatedly acted to prevent judicial review by taking people off the list at strategic points in litigation. As a result, a government statement that a plaintiff like Mr. Fikre will not be relisted “based on currently available information” provides no assurance that the government will not wrongly put him back on the list in the future. And as we argued to the Supreme Court, because the government has not made it absolutely clear that its allegedly wrongful behavior will not recur, Mr. Fikre’s court challenge is not moot and the courts should hear and decide his case.

Mr. Fikre’s experience is not an isolated one. We and others have repeatedly documented that placement on the No Fly List has devastating consequences for people’s personal and professional lives — and the government has used the list as a tool of coercion. For example, in 2018, Ahmad Chebli, a Michigan-based father of two, was pressured by FBI agents to become an informant in his own community. When he refused, the FBI agents falsely accused him of being affiliated with a terrorist group, and made threats of investigation, arrest, and immigration consequences for his family. Despite terrible anxiety and stress as a result, Mr. Chebli still refused to become an informant. He sent his wife and children to Lebanon for safety and later joined them — hoping that his government would back off. But when he tried to return home to Michigan, he learned that it had instead put him on the No Fly list.

I Refused to Become an FBI Informant, and the Government Put Me on the No Fly List

With the help of the ACLU, I’m bringing a lawsuit to challenge the government’s actions.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

For two years Mr. Chebli tried to use the government’s redress process to seek removal from the list — but that process was a black box of secrecy and unfairness. The government only took him off the list in 2021, 10 days after we sued on his behalf. Unfortunately, this experience is not unusual for Americans placed on the list. Many spend years seeking information about how to be removed, without even learning why the government put them on the list in the first place.

At its core, both the No Fly List and the government’s watchlisting program perpetuates unfairness, secrecy, and discriminatory profiling. The categories of people who are watchlisted seem ever-expanding, never constricting — which is exactly what happens when you have a vague, overbroad system of government surveillance and sanction based on suspicion and without due process. Mr. Fikre, and those like him, should have their day in court. We hope the Supreme Court agrees.

If you are an American citizen or lawful permanent resident concerned that you’re on the No Fly List, please fill out this form.

What you can do:

End discriminatory profiling by the government

Send your message

Published January 8, 2024 at 06:10PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3lfFvCu