ACLU: Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-immigrant extremists have repeatedly used “invasion” rhetoric to divide our communities and advance their anti-immigrant agenda. Donald Trump has promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and, at recent campaign rallies, gone so far as to pledge that, if re-elected, he will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to facilitate a draconian mass deportation program. Though Trump made similar promises when in office, we know that his administration would be far more aggressive in its efforts to use this colonial-era law to deport millions. Below, we breakdown what this means for our communities.

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was passed as part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a series of laws passed by a Federalist-led Congress to address fears about an impending war with France. While the other three laws have since expired or been repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains active.

The law has not changed much since it was passed in 1798. Right now, it permits the president to apprehend, restrain, and remove noncitizens during a “declared war” or if the U.S. faces an “invasion or predatory incursion” by another country or foreign government. The law applies to “natives” of another country, which potentially includes people who were born abroad, but who are long-term residents of the U.S. Past presidents have detained or deported noncitizens with legal status and noncitizens raised in the United States. While the government has never sought to use the Act to detain citizens, we have ample reason to fear that Trump would seek to break that norm.

Many fear that a second Trump administration would seek to use this law to justify indefinite detention and remove people from the country swiftly and without judicial review. Historically, people have been subject to removal under the Act without any fundamental due process safeguards, which makes it ripe for civil liberties abuses. For example, the Act’s text does not require that noncitizens receive a hearing prior to detention or removal, and the government has read it to provide limited opportunities for administrative or judicial review.

There is also a real risk that the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its mass deportation agenda will lead to racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding the Alien Enemies Act could embolden law enforcement agents to act on their perceptions of a person’s ancestry or nationality, leading to wrongful arrest, detention, and deportation, including of U.S. citizens.

The Alien Enemies Act Has a Sordid Past

Throughout this country’s history, the Act has been used to target people merely on the basis of their ancestry or nationality. The act was first used during the War of 1812 against British nationals, and later used by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I against nationals of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and other foreign nations. The last time this wartime authority was invoked, during World War II, lead to the incarceration of noncitizens of primarily Japanese descent – the precursor to the internment program targeting Japanese Americans – that marked one of the most shameful moments in American history. In 1988, when Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment, it acknowledged the application of the law lead to fundamental violations of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of individuals of Japanese ancestry, and that the government’s actions were motivated largely by “racial prejudice” and “a failure of political leadership.”

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.

The consequences of allowing this kind of fearmongering to trigger the Act would be staggering. Take, for example, Trump’s claim of an “invasion” of immigrants from Mexico. If courts were to accept that baseless claim, the result could be presidential authority to deport all Mexican nationals — even lawful permanent residents who have lived in this country for decades, raising families that include U.S. citizen children and building their lives in our communities.

The Time for States to Act is Now

The Alien Enemies Act’s history reminds us that presidents can invoke vague and overbroad emergency powers to unfairly and wrongly target people based on political ideology, ancestry, or nationality. Trump’s pledge to invoke this outdated law is a harrowing call to action to ensure our government does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Elected leaders need to be vigilant and speak out now against mass deportations, including the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. While Trump and his surrogates are couching their claims in terms of crime, drugs, and cartels, it is all too clear that their mass deportation agenda extends to millions of our loved ones, neighbors, and co-workers.

That’s why the ACLU is calling on state and local government leaders to create a firewall to ensure that no state and local personnel or resources are tapped by the federal government to enact mass deportations and any other civil liberties violations. At the local level, we will urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families targeted by Trump’s mass deportation drive and other attacks.

The bottom line is that a president cannot unilaterally make good on threats to conduct the largest deportation drive in our nation’s history, or to do so using the Alien Enemies Act and other legal authorities. Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a second Trump administration will find it much harder to identify, arrest, and detain our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. The ACLU – and our more than 4 million members – are prepared to fight alongside states to combat any attacks on people who are immigrants and ensure that mass deportations never take root in our communities.

Published November 1, 2024 at 02:27AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1AQrMz2

ACLU: Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-immigrant extremists have repeatedly used “invasion” rhetoric to divide our communities and advance their anti-immigrant agenda. Donald Trump has promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and, at recent campaign rallies, gone so far as to pledge that, if re-elected, he will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to facilitate a draconian mass deportation program. Though Trump made similar promises when in office, we know that his administration would be far more aggressive in its efforts to use this colonial-era law to deport millions. Below, we breakdown what this means for our communities.

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was passed as part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a series of laws passed by a Federalist-led Congress to address fears about an impending war with France. While the other three laws have since expired or been repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains active.

The law has not changed much since it was passed in 1798. Right now, it permits the president to apprehend, restrain, and remove noncitizens during a “declared war” or if the U.S. faces an “invasion or predatory incursion” by another country or foreign government. The law applies to “natives” of another country, which potentially includes people who were born abroad, but who are long-term residents of the U.S. Past presidents have detained or deported noncitizens with legal status and noncitizens raised in the United States. While the government has never sought to use the Act to detain citizens, we have ample reason to fear that Trump would seek to break that norm.

Many fear that a second Trump administration would seek to use this law to justify indefinite detention and remove people from the country swiftly and without judicial review. Historically, people have been subject to removal under the Act without any fundamental due process safeguards, which makes it ripe for civil liberties abuses. For example, the Act’s text does not require that noncitizens receive a hearing prior to detention or removal, and the government has read it to provide limited opportunities for administrative or judicial review.

There is also a real risk that the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its mass deportation agenda will lead to racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding the Alien Enemies Act could embolden law enforcement agents to act on their perceptions of a person’s ancestry or nationality, leading to wrongful arrest, detention, and deportation, including of U.S. citizens.

The Alien Enemies Act Has a Sordid Past

Throughout this country’s history, the Act has been used to target people merely on the basis of their ancestry or nationality. The act was first used during the War of 1812 against British nationals, and later used by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I against nationals of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and other foreign nations. The last time this wartime authority was invoked, during World War II, lead to the incarceration of noncitizens of primarily Japanese descent – the precursor to the internment program targeting Japanese Americans – that marked one of the most shameful moments in American history. In 1988, when Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment, it acknowledged the application of the law lead to fundamental violations of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of individuals of Japanese ancestry, and that the government’s actions were motivated largely by “racial prejudice” and “a failure of political leadership.”

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.

The consequences of allowing this kind of fearmongering to trigger the Act would be staggering. Take, for example, Trump’s claim of an “invasion” of immigrants from Mexico. If courts were to accept that baseless claim, the result could be presidential authority to deport all Mexican nationals — even lawful permanent residents who have lived in this country for decades, raising families that include U.S. citizen children and building their lives in our communities.

The Time for States to Act is Now

The Alien Enemies Act’s history reminds us that presidents can invoke vague and overbroad emergency powers to unfairly and wrongly target people based on political ideology, ancestry, or nationality. Trump’s pledge to invoke this outdated law is a harrowing call to action to ensure our government does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Elected leaders need to be vigilant and speak out now against mass deportations, including the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. While Trump and his surrogates are couching their claims in terms of crime, drugs, and cartels, it is all too clear that their mass deportation agenda extends to millions of our loved ones, neighbors, and co-workers.

That’s why the ACLU is calling on state and local government leaders to create a firewall to ensure that no state and local personnel or resources are tapped by the federal government to enact mass deportations and any other civil liberties violations. At the local level, we will urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families targeted by Trump’s mass deportation drive and other attacks.

The bottom line is that a president cannot unilaterally make good on threats to conduct the largest deportation drive in our nation’s history, or to do so using the Alien Enemies Act and other legal authorities. Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a second Trump administration will find it much harder to identify, arrest, and detain our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. The ACLU – and our more than 4 million members – are prepared to fight alongside states to combat any attacks on people who are immigrants and ensure that mass deportations never take root in our communities.

Published October 31, 2024 at 08:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dws2qQk

ACLU: Three Ways the ACLU is Protecting Our Right Vote

Three Ways the ACLU is Protecting Our Right Vote

Election Day is less than two weeks away. Right now, the race remains tight and, while we may have a clear winner on November 6th, that day could also mark the start of a prolonged period of uncertainty while votes are counted, recounted, contested and certified.

At the ACLU, we know that our country was built on the freedom to vote and elect leaders who govern in our name. Right now, however, certain politicians are spreading lies and putting in place deliberate barriers to voting. We’re dedicated to ensuring that every voter is able to cast a ballot that is both counted and respected.

Our elections have built-in checks for accuracy. Teams of people from both parties work together at every step of the voting, counting, and reporting process to ensure that results are verified before they are officially certified. We take pride in having held reliable elections through times of war, economic depression, and social unrest. Today, the ACLU is in the courts and on the ground to ensure that every voter's voice is heard, every ballot is counted, and the elections are certified accurately.

Georgia Hand-Counting Rule Blocked

Georgia, where early voting began in record numbers this month, is one of seven battleground states likely to determine the presidential race.

In Georgia, the ACLU and its partners successfully argued before the courts to permanently block the Georgia State Election Board’s new rule requiring the hand counting of ballots in the upcoming November election.

We argued that the rule would invite error and cause delays, making it much harder for the state to meet the certification deadline and risking uncounted votes. A state trial court not only blocked this disruptive rule, it also blocked several other unlawful changes to election rules that were recently adopted by the Georgia State Election Board. While the case is on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court denied an attempt to put these rules back in place before the November election. This is a huge victory for Georgia voters who can now turn their focus to casting a ballot in this election.

Election Official in Michigan Promises to Certify Vote

The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against Kalamazoo County Board of Canvasser Robert Froman, who, in a Detroit News article, reportedly indicated that he would refuse to certify the election if it unfolded in the same way as the 2020 election.

The Michigan Constitution and a state statute require canvassers to certify election results within 14 days after the election based solely on the total number of votes reported from each location within their jurisdiction. The law does not allow them to withhold certification.

Vote Your Rights | Voting Rights

This election, our rights are at stake and we must all do our part. I know you're with me — head to aclu.org/vote to start the conversation.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Although he told the ACLU that he didn’t make the statements attributed to him in the Detroit News article, Froman refused to contact the paper and request a retraction. With the paper standing by its story, the ACLU filed suit to ensure election law would be followed. In September, Froman signed a sworn affidavit stating that he will certify the November presidential election results.

In filing this lawsuit, the ACLU was not only seeking to ensure Froman lawfully performed his duties, it was also sending an important warning to election officials throughout the state that the civil rights group and other pro-democracy organizations will take immediate action if it appears voters’ rights will be violated. Froman’s alleged statements were in line with a widely reported anti-democratic trend of election denialism in which local officials in Michigan and throughout the country have threatened to interfere with the election certification process. Concerns about potential refusals to certify election results have also been reported in swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona.

Nebraska Restores Voting Rights to Individuals with Past Felony Convictions

This month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Nebraskans with past felony convictions can vote.

The ACLU and its partners represented individual Nebraskans and Civic Nebraska in challenging a directive issued by Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen that ordered county elections officials to defy state law by refusing to register Nebraskans with past felony convictions. The state’s highest court ordered Evnen and all county officials to comply with state laws and give those with previous felony convictions access to the ballot.

For nearly 20 years, Nebraskans with past felony convictions had been able to register to vote and vote two years after completing all terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. This April, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of state senators ended the two-year waiting period. Today, all Nebraskans can register and vote upon completion of their felony sentence.

As Election Day draws near, we must continue to condemn and challenge efforts to overthrow the will of the people — from threats against election workers to baseless claims used to deny the true winners from taking office and block our freedom to vote. At the ACLU, we will fight any efforts to intimidate or silence voters through legal maneuvers or violent acts. We will expose these lies and demand that every vote be counted and every validated result be certified to protect our freedoms.

Published October 24, 2024 at 02:28AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/zrQUP0B

ACLU: Three Ways the ACLU is Protecting Our Right Vote

Three Ways the ACLU is Protecting Our Right Vote

Election Day is less than two weeks away. Right now, the race remains tight and, while we may have a clear winner on November 6th, that day could also mark the start of a prolonged period of uncertainty while votes are counted, recounted, contested and certified.

At the ACLU, we know that our country was built on the freedom to vote and elect leaders who govern in our name. Right now, however, certain politicians are spreading lies and putting in place deliberate barriers to voting. We’re dedicated to ensuring that every voter is able to cast a ballot that is both counted and respected.

Our elections have built-in checks for accuracy. Teams of people from both parties work together at every step of the voting, counting, and reporting process to ensure that results are verified before they are officially certified. We take pride in having held reliable elections through times of war, economic depression, and social unrest. Today, the ACLU is in the courts and on the ground to ensure that every voter's voice is heard, every ballot is counted, and the elections are certified accurately.

Georgia Hand-Counting Rule Blocked

Georgia, where early voting began in record numbers this month, is one of seven battleground states likely to determine the presidential race.

In Georgia, the ACLU and its partners successfully argued before the courts to permanently block the Georgia State Election Board’s new rule requiring the hand counting of ballots in the upcoming November election.

We argued that the rule would invite error and cause delays, making it much harder for the state to meet the certification deadline and risking uncounted votes. A state trial court not only blocked this disruptive rule, it also blocked several other unlawful changes to election rules that were recently adopted by the Georgia State Election Board. While the case is on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court denied an attempt to put these rules back in place before the November election. This is a huge victory for Georgia voters who can now turn their focus to casting a ballot in this election.

Election Official in Michigan Promises to Certify Vote

The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against Kalamazoo County Board of Canvasser Robert Froman, who, in a Detroit News article, reportedly indicated that he would refuse to certify the election if it unfolded in the same way as the 2020 election.

The Michigan Constitution and a state statute require canvassers to certify election results within 14 days after the election based solely on the total number of votes reported from each location within their jurisdiction. The law does not allow them to withhold certification.

Vote Your Rights | Voting Rights

This election, our rights are at stake and we must all do our part. I know you're with me — head to aclu.org/vote to start the conversation.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Although he told the ACLU that he didn’t make the statements attributed to him in the Detroit News article, Froman refused to contact the paper and request a retraction. With the paper standing by its story, the ACLU filed suit to ensure election law would be followed. In September, Froman signed a sworn affidavit stating that he will certify the November presidential election results.

In filing this lawsuit, the ACLU was not only seeking to ensure Froman lawfully performed his duties, it was also sending an important warning to election officials throughout the state that the civil rights group and other pro-democracy organizations will take immediate action if it appears voters’ rights will be violated. Froman’s alleged statements were in line with a widely reported anti-democratic trend of election denialism in which local officials in Michigan and throughout the country have threatened to interfere with the election certification process. Concerns about potential refusals to certify election results have also been reported in swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona.

Nebraska Restores Voting Rights to Individuals with Past Felony Convictions

This month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Nebraskans with past felony convictions can vote.

The ACLU and its partners represented individual Nebraskans and Civic Nebraska in challenging a directive issued by Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen that ordered county elections officials to defy state law by refusing to register Nebraskans with past felony convictions. The state’s highest court ordered Evnen and all county officials to comply with state laws and give those with previous felony convictions access to the ballot.

For nearly 20 years, Nebraskans with past felony convictions had been able to register to vote and vote two years after completing all terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. This April, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of state senators ended the two-year waiting period. Today, all Nebraskans can register and vote upon completion of their felony sentence.

As Election Day draws near, we must continue to condemn and challenge efforts to overthrow the will of the people — from threats against election workers to baseless claims used to deny the true winners from taking office and block our freedom to vote. At the ACLU, we will fight any efforts to intimidate or silence voters through legal maneuvers or violent acts. We will expose these lies and demand that every vote be counted and every validated result be certified to protect our freedoms.

Published October 23, 2024 at 09:58PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZhzNIdG

ACLU: How Ballot Initiatives Will Shape the Abortion Rights Fight

How Ballot Initiatives Will Shape the Abortion Rights Fight

This year, the presidential race has been all consuming. Less than 20 days before Election Day, practically everyone has something to say about the candidates. The ACLU has also spent time analyzing the policies and actions both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris might take if they win the White House. But, the presidential race isn’t the only important election on the ballot. That’s particularly true when it comes to abortion rights.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the right to abortion access was left up to each state, which allowed states to ban abortion, or allowed existing abortion bans to become law, in places where Roe previously protected our rights. So, while the outcome of the presidential race could have a serious impact on abortion rights nationally, state candidates and ballot initiatives will also have a major influence over abortion access in specific states.

The ACLU is nonpartisan — we don’t tell voters who to vote for — but part of our mandate is to inform voters about electoral issues. Here’s a quick snapshot of what’s at stake for your abortion rights at the ballot box.

Ballot Initiatives Can Still Create a Firewall to Protect Abortion Rights

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion rights have prevailed in every ballot measure that has been put before voters. At the ACLU, we are working to see this trend continue.

Starting in Missouri, we’re working with our partners at Missourians for Constitutional Freedom to pass Amendment 3. If passed, this amendment would end the state's total abortion ban, which is one of the strictest in the country and includes no exceptions for rape or incest. Amendment 3 would ensure decisions about Missourians’ reproductive health care — including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care — can be made by patients and their health care providers without interference from politicians.

In Montana, the ACLU and our allies at Montanans Securing Reproductive Right are working to pass CI-128 to keep the government out of Montanans’ personal lives and secure reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, in the state constitution. In Colorado, Amendment 79, supported by the Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, would also ensure people enrolled in state health insurance plans — like state employees and Medicaid enrollees — have coverage for abortion care just like everyone else. And in Nevada, working with Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, we support Question 6, which would be a first step toward enshrining the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion, in the state’s constitution.

Credit: Lost_in_the_Midwest/ Shutterstock

In Arizona, we’re working with the Abortion Access coalition to establish a fundamental right to abortion and end the state’s dangerous abortion ban through Proposition 139. Back east, in Florida, we’re working with Floridians Protecting Freedom fighting to pass Amendment 4 to stop the state's devastating abortion ban and protect Floridians' freedom to make their own personal medical decisions without government interference.

If these ballot measures pass, nearly 45 million people will feel the impact of having abortion access restored or protected. But we’re not stopping there.

State Supreme Courts Play An Outsize Role in Abortion Rights

While ballot measures are an important part of our strategy, elected officials at all levels of government have a hand in either protecting or restricting abortion access. We’re engaging in key races that will impact this right. State supreme court justices can and often do find that state constitutions protect more rights than the U.S. Constitution, making them a powerful backstop against the attacks of radical, anti-abortion minorities. Even in states that have already passed ballot measures to protect abortion rights, like Michigan and Ohio, state supreme courts have a lot of power to interpret these measures.

With our Voter Education Fund, we’re focused on state supreme court races in Michigan and Montana where we’re raising awareness about the candidates’ abortion rights positions. We also have conducted voter education on reproductive rights in North Carolina’s state supreme court race.

State Legislatures Are Still Key in Protecting Abortion Rights

While some state legislatures have been heavily gerrymandered to prevent laws that actually represent the will of the people, state lawmakers can still be vital in blocking abortion bans from moving forward.

In Michigan, we're working in six state house district races to educate voters on reproductive rights in the legislature and protect the hard-won rights we secured for abortion access in 2022 using ballot measures. Also, in Wisconsin, we’re educating voters on abortion rights in six legislative races. In Montana and Kansas legislatures, our focus is building a larger pro-civil rights minority that can block bans. We and the ACLU Voter Education Fund are also working in important state legislative races in North Carolina and Georgia to educate on candidate positions in those races.

This election, we are working hard to make sure you’re able to protect your rights beyond just the presidential race. Now that you know what’s at stake this cycle, find out how you can get involved by visiting aclu.org/vote. There you’ll be able to find ways to volunteer, conversation guides to share with friends and family, graphics to share on social media and merchandise to get you excited for Election Day. See you at the polls!

Paid Pol. Adv. Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., Anthony Romero Executive Director, 125 Broad St. New York, New York 10004, in coordination with Arizona for Abortion Access, Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, Floridians Protecting Freedom, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, and authorized by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. Registered agent: Anthony Romero.

Paid for by ACLU Voter Education Fund, 212-549-2500, not authorized by a candidate or candidate’s committee.

Published October 17, 2024 at 05:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/BlziF5V

ACLU: How Ballot Initiatives Will Shape the Abortion Rights Fight

How Ballot Initiatives Will Shape the Abortion Rights Fight

This year, the presidential race has been all consuming. Less than 20 days before Election Day, practically everyone has something to say about the candidates. The ACLU has also spent time analyzing the policies and actions both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris might take if they win the White House. But, the presidential race isn’t the only important election on the ballot. That’s particularly true when it comes to abortion rights.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the right to abortion access was left up to each state, which allowed states to ban abortion, or allowed existing abortion bans to become law, in places where Roe previously protected our rights. So, while the outcome of the presidential race could have a serious impact on abortion rights nationally, state candidates and ballot initiatives will also have a major influence over abortion access in specific states.

The ACLU is nonpartisan — we don’t tell voters who to vote for — but part of our mandate is to inform voters about electoral issues. Here’s a quick snapshot of what’s at stake for your abortion rights at the ballot box.

Ballot Initiatives Can Still Create a Firewall to Protect Abortion Rights

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion rights have prevailed in every ballot measure that has been put before voters. At the ACLU, we are working to see this trend continue.

Starting in Missouri, we’re working with our partners at Missourians for Constitutional Freedom to pass Amendment 3. If passed, this amendment would end the state's total abortion ban, which is one of the strictest in the country and includes no exceptions for rape or incest. Amendment 3 would ensure decisions about Missourians’ reproductive health care — including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care — can be made by patients and their health care providers without interference from politicians.

In Montana, the ACLU and our allies at Montanans Securing Reproductive Right are working to pass CI-128 to keep the government out of Montanans’ personal lives and secure reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, in the state constitution. In Colorado, Amendment 79, supported by the Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, would also ensure people enrolled in state health insurance plans — like state employees and Medicaid enrollees — have coverage for abortion care just like everyone else. And in Nevada, working with Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, we support Question 6, which would be a first step toward enshrining the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion, in the state’s constitution.

Credit: Lost_in_the_Midwest/ Shutterstock

In Arizona, we’re working with the Abortion Access coalition to establish a fundamental right to abortion and end the state’s dangerous abortion ban through Proposition 139. Back east, in Florida, we’re working with Floridians Protecting Freedom fighting to pass Amendment 4 to stop the state's devastating abortion ban and protect Floridians' freedom to make their own personal medical decisions without government interference.

If these ballot measures pass, nearly 45 million people will feel the impact of having abortion access restored or protected. But we’re not stopping there.

State Supreme Courts Play An Outsize Role in Abortion Rights

While ballot measures are an important part of our strategy, elected officials at all levels of government have a hand in either protecting or restricting abortion access. We’re engaging in key races that will impact this right. State supreme court justices can and often do find that state constitutions protect more rights than the U.S. Constitution, making them a powerful backstop against the attacks of radical, anti-abortion minorities. Even in states that have already passed ballot measures to protect abortion rights, like Michigan and Ohio, state supreme courts have a lot of power to interpret these measures.

With our Voter Education Fund, we’re focused on state supreme court races in Michigan and Montana where we’re raising awareness about the candidates’ abortion rights positions. We also have conducted voter education on reproductive rights in North Carolina’s state supreme court race.

State Legislatures Are Still Key in Protecting Abortion Rights

While some state legislatures have been heavily gerrymandered to prevent laws that actually represent the will of the people, state lawmakers can still be vital in blocking abortion bans from moving forward.

In Michigan, we're working in six state house district races to educate voters on reproductive rights in the legislature and protect the hard-won rights we secured for abortion access in 2022 using ballot measures. Also, in Wisconsin, we’re educating voters on abortion rights in six legislative races. In Montana and Kansas legislatures, our focus is building a larger pro-civil rights minority that can block bans. We and the ACLU Voter Education Fund are also working in important state legislative races in North Carolina and Georgia to educate on candidate positions in those races.

This election, we are working hard to make sure you’re able to protect your rights beyond just the presidential race. Now that you know what’s at stake this cycle, find out how you can get involved by visiting aclu.org/vote. There you’ll be able to find ways to volunteer, conversation guides to share with friends and family, graphics to share on social media and merchandise to get you excited for Election Day. See you at the polls!

Paid Pol. Adv. Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., Anthony Romero Executive Director, 125 Broad St. New York, New York 10004, in coordination with Arizona for Abortion Access, Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, Floridians Protecting Freedom, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, and authorized by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. Registered agent: Anthony Romero.

Paid for by ACLU Voter Education Fund, 212-549-2500, not authorized by a candidate or candidate’s committee.

Published October 17, 2024 at 09:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/N2YXxeL

ACLU: THE POWER OF PROSECUTORS

THE POWER OF PROSECUTORS

Prosecutors have used their power to pack jails and prisons. And it has taken decades, billions of dollars, and thousands of laws to turn the United States into the largest incarcerator in the world. But did you know that prosecutors also have the power to dismantle this machine — even without changing a single law?

This video series, presented by the ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice and In Defense Of, a project of Brooklyn Defender Services, shows how prosecutors can single-handedly transform the broken American criminal justice system.

Featuring DeRay McKesson (civil rights activist), Nina Morrison (The Innocence Project), Baratunde Thurston (Author and Comedian), Adam Foss (a former prosecutor), Scott Hechinger (Brooklyn Defender Services), John Pfaff (professor and author of Locked In), Josie Duffy-Rice (Fair Punishment Project), and Brandon Buskey (ACLU).

Prosecutors have the power to flood jails and prisons, ruin lives, and deepen racial disparities with the stroke of a pen. But they also have the discretion to do the opposite. This video explores the power of prosecutors to continue to drive mass incarceration — or end it.

Play the video

---

Bail

The U.S.’s wealth-based incarceration system allows those with money to walk free before trial, while those who can’t make bail remain locked up. Guess who decides whether someone will have to pay bail? Believe it or not, the answer is often prosecutors. But they also have the power to recommend freedom.

Play the video

---

Charging

Prosecutors are the gatekeepers of the criminal legal system. They decide whether to prosecute and what to charge. Their harsh and discriminatory practices have fueled a vast expansion of incarceration as the answer to societal ills over the last several decades. This video exposes how basic charging decisions can reduce our reliance on incarceration and lead to healthier communities.

Play the video

---

Plea Bargains

Did you know that more than nine out of 10 cases are resolved by plea bargain? That’s in large measure because the harsh criminal laws, like mandatory minimum sentences, have stripped judges of much of their discretion and have instead given prosecutors all the negotiating power. The result: Overwhelmingly, people plead guilty, even when innocent, out of fear of a negative outcome at trial.

Play the video

Accountability

Almost all prosecutors in America are elected officials. And voters across the United States — in red and in blue states alike — strongly prefer elected prosecutors who are committed to reducing incarceration, ending racial disparities, and being fully transparent. This video explains how voters can hold prosecutors accountable because power concedes nothing without a demand.

Play the video

Published October 8, 2024 at 11:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/z0JG24i

ACLU: THE POWER OF PROSECUTORS

THE POWER OF PROSECUTORS

Prosecutors have used their power to pack jails and prisons. And it has taken decades, billions of dollars, and thousands of laws to turn the United States into the largest incarcerator in the world. But did you know that prosecutors also have the power to dismantle this machine — even without changing a single law?

This video series, presented by the ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice and In Defense Of, a project of Brooklyn Defender Services, shows how prosecutors can single-handedly transform the broken American criminal justice system.

Featuring DeRay McKesson (civil rights activist), Nina Morrison (The Innocence Project), Baratunde Thurston (Author and Comedian), Adam Foss (a former prosecutor), Scott Hechinger (Brooklyn Defender Services), John Pfaff (professor and author of Locked In), Josie Duffy-Rice (Fair Punishment Project), and Brandon Buskey (ACLU).

Prosecutors have the power to flood jails and prisons, ruin lives, and deepen racial disparities with the stroke of a pen. But they also have the discretion to do the opposite. This video explores the power of prosecutors to continue to drive mass incarceration — or end it.

Play the video

---

Bail

The U.S.’s wealth-based incarceration system allows those with money to walk free before trial, while those who can’t make bail remain locked up. Guess who decides whether someone will have to pay bail? Believe it or not, the answer is often prosecutors. But they also have the power to recommend freedom.

Play the video

---

Charging

Prosecutors are the gatekeepers of the criminal legal system. They decide whether to prosecute and what to charge. Their harsh and discriminatory practices have fueled a vast expansion of incarceration as the answer to societal ills over the last several decades. This video exposes how basic charging decisions can reduce our reliance on incarceration and lead to healthier communities.

Play the video

---

Plea Bargains

Did you know that more than nine out of 10 cases are resolved by plea bargain? That’s in large measure because the harsh criminal laws, like mandatory minimum sentences, have stripped judges of much of their discretion and have instead given prosecutors all the negotiating power. The result: Overwhelmingly, people plead guilty, even when innocent, out of fear of a negative outcome at trial.

Play the video

Accountability

Almost all prosecutors in America are elected officials. And voters across the United States — in red and in blue states alike — strongly prefer elected prosecutors who are committed to reducing incarceration, ending racial disparities, and being fully transparent. This video explains how voters can hold prosecutors accountable because power concedes nothing without a demand.

Play the video

Published October 8, 2024 at 07:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/IDiyLJ0

ACLU: Why the Fight for Trans Rights Never Get Easier – or Less Vital

Why the Fight for Trans Rights Never Get Easier – or Less Vital

In the Spring of 1999, young people across the country began to prepare for that singular teenage right of passage: Prom. For Diamond Stylz, this time included not just finding the right dress and corsage, but fighting for her right to attend prom at all. School administrators had told the then 17-year-old Stylz just two days before prom that she could not attend the event wearing a dress, despite living as a woman for years.

“At that time,” Stylz reflects, her teachers were “really adamant about teaching me to be a boy” in deference to the cultural sensationalism that trans individuals were somehow wrong.

Stylz knew she wasn’t wrong — the school was. She made the decision to fight this attempt to discriminate against her right to be who she is. With the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Stylz successfully sued her school, arguing that their actions violated her First Amendment rights.

“There was so much empowerment [in the decision to fight back],” Stylz explains. But also a lot of shame that Stylz says she “didn’t need to own” at just 17. After working through her shame, and anger, today she’s allowed her experience to inform her work as a trans rights advocate.

Stories like Stylz’ still resonate nearly three decades later because the right for trans individuals to live authentically is still under attack. Right now, politicians across the country have proposed — and in some states passed — anti-trans laws that attempt to restrict access to gender-affirming care, deny people their right to self expression, bar young people from playing sports and much more. These powerful politicians use their public platforms to spread anti-trans rhetoric that is discriminatory, often false and, most alarmingly, that endangers trans lives.

As the alleged “war on woke” attempts to manipulate trans rights into flashpoints in the larger political discourse, the truth remains unchanged: Attacks on trans rights is an attack on people — their lives, their rights and their freedom to be. These partisan attempts to police bodies so they might adhere to one person’s belief system is not just wrong, it's unlawful.

The ACLU and our partners have spent more than 100 years defending our First Amendment right to live authentically and our 14th Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional discrimination. Our work has not changed despite new attacks based on decade’s old prejudice. But this fight isn’t won just in the courthouse or Congress, it’s won — and led — by the trans community.

Trans individuals, like Stylz, who risk their health to take a stand for their rights have won freedoms for their community for more than 40 years. Most notably, Marsha P. Johnson, the Black trans woman and activist who led the Stonewall uprising in New York City in 1969, helped to establish a nationwide movement for trans rights that fought police brutality. In particular, trans women of color, like Stylz and Johnson, or Imara Jones or Sylvia Riviera, face an outsized risk in their efforts to live authentically, battling both gender and racial discrimination, while fighting for their rights.

In addition to race, age can also exacerbate anti-trans discrimination. New research from the ACLU has found that trans and nonbinary teens report devastating interruptions in medically-necessary health care when politicians attempt to ban gender-affirming care. Groups like the Trans Youth Emergency Project, part of the Campaign for Southern Equality, work to help young people access the resources they need to live authentically no matter what laws exist in their state. For some, this could mean acquiring a chest binder to help heal gender dysphoria. For others, the Project helps young people living in states that have banned or restricted gender-affirming care to travel to find a provider or healthcare center that can support them.

The Trans Youth Emergency Project is but one way that the trans community has built its own safety net. While for Lizette and Jose Trujillo, whose son Daniel is trans, building safety within their own home has been vital to Daniel’s ability to thrive. The family lives in Arizona, which has advanced a series of anti-LGBTQ bills in recent years. Lizette and Jose believe that parents should have the right to consent to and access medically necessary care for their child, including gender affirming medical care.

Daniel Trujillo (seated center) along with his parents, Lizette (standing, white t-shirt) and Jose (standing, black shirt) and the rest of his family.

“It was my responsibility to do whatever I needed to do to make the world safer for Daniel,” Lizette explains. “My child should have the right to access medical care that is private, medically necessary, and improves his quality of life without government intervention.”

The Trujillo family joins trans individuals across the country who are fighting for their freedom to be. The ACLU recently spotlighted their stories as a part of our ongoing efforts to showcase how, since people existed, the right to live authentically has been both vital and vulnerable. In addition to supporting trans individuals as they tell their stories, this December the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, and our legal partners will argue before the Supreme Court for the right to gender-affirming care for trans minors in Tennessee. The case, US v. Skrmetti, is the first challenge to a ban on gender-affirming care to reach the Supreme Court.

Play the video

“The well-being of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own precedent both recent and long-standing,” explains Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.

Strangio, who is leading the litigation, explains what has been true since Stylz’ First Amendment challenge in 1999 and since the Stonewall uprising in 1969, which is that trans individuals “will not find safety or justice in the courts alone. Our national culture still encounters trans people as a question to be answered or a problem to be solved.”

The trans experience is not defined solely by the people who seek to erase them, but by the ongoing fight for freedom and moments of true liberation. Twenty-four years after Stylz fought for the right to wear a dress to prom, Lizette and Jose watched their trans son Daniel don a suit and bowtie to attend the first trans prom, organized by trans teens for trans teens.

For Daniel and Stylz, and so many trans teens, prom is but one battle in the never ending fight for their rights. A battle we must all wage.

We must make “this world a safe place for us all and a free place for us all,” Stylz says. “Pursuing liberty and happiness is at the cornerstone of our Constitution. If you're not a part of that. You are part of the problem.”

Published October 8, 2024 at 02:02AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JOPjkIa

ACLU: Why the Fight for Trans Rights Never Get Easier – or Less Vital

Why the Fight for Trans Rights Never Get Easier – or Less Vital

In the Spring of 1999, young people across the country began to prepare for that singular teenage right of passage: Prom. For Diamond Stylz, this time included not just finding the right dress and corsage, but fighting for her right to attend prom at all. School administrators had told the then 17-year-old Stylz just two days before prom that she could not attend the event wearing a dress, despite living as a woman for years.

“At that time,” Stylz reflects, her teachers were “really adamant about teaching me to be a boy” in deference to the cultural sensationalism that trans individuals were somehow wrong.

Stylz knew she wasn’t wrong — the school was. She made the decision to fight this attempt to discriminate against her right to be who she is. With the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Stylz successfully sued her school, arguing that their actions violated her First Amendment rights.

“There was so much empowerment [in the decision to fight back],” Stylz explains. But also a lot of shame that Stylz says she “didn’t need to own” at just 17. After working through her shame, and anger, today she’s allowed her experience to inform her work as a trans rights advocate.

Stories like Stylz’ still resonate nearly three decades later because the right for trans individuals to live authentically is still under attack. Right now, politicians across the country have proposed — and in some states passed — anti-trans laws that attempt to restrict access to gender-affirming care, deny people their right to self expression, bar young people from playing sports and much more. These powerful politicians use their public platforms to spread anti-trans rhetoric that is discriminatory, often false and, most alarmingly, that endangers trans lives.

As the alleged “war on woke” attempts to manipulate trans rights into flashpoints in the larger political discourse, the truth remains unchanged: Attacks on trans rights is an attack on people — their lives, their rights and their freedom to be. These partisan attempts to police bodies so they might adhere to one person’s belief system is not just wrong, it's unlawful.

The ACLU and our partners have spent more than 100 years defending our First Amendment right to live authentically and our 14th Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional discrimination. Our work has not changed despite new attacks based on decade’s old prejudice. But this fight isn’t won just in the courthouse or Congress, it’s won — and led — by the trans community.

Trans individuals, like Stylz, who risk their health to take a stand for their rights have won freedoms for their community for more than 40 years. Most notably, Marsha P. Johnson, the Black trans woman and activist who led the Stonewall uprising in New York City in 1969, helped to establish a nationwide movement for trans rights that fought police brutality. In particular, trans women of color, like Stylz and Johnson, or Imara Jones or Sylvia Riviera, face an outsized risk in their efforts to live authentically, battling both gender and racial discrimination, while fighting for their rights.

In addition to race, age can also exacerbate anti-trans discrimination. New research from the ACLU has found that trans and nonbinary teens report devastating interruptions in medically-necessary health care when politicians attempt to ban gender-affirming care. Groups like the Trans Youth Emergency Project, part of the Campaign for Southern Equality, work to help young people access the resources they need to live authentically no matter what laws exist in their state. For some, this could mean acquiring a chest binder to help heal gender dysphoria. For others, the Project helps young people living in states that have banned or restricted gender-affirming care to travel to find a provider or healthcare center that can support them.

The Trans Youth Emergency Project is but one way that the trans community has built its own safety net. While for Lizette and Jose Trujillo, whose son Daniel is trans, building safety within their own home has been vital to Daniel’s ability to thrive. The family lives in Arizona, which has advanced a series of anti-LGBTQ bills in recent years. Lizette and Jose believe that parents should have the right to consent to and access medically necessary care for their child, including gender affirming medical care.

Daniel Trujillo (seated center) along with his parents, Lizette (standing, white t-shirt) and Jose (standing, black shirt) and the rest of his family.

“It was my responsibility to do whatever I needed to do to make the world safer for Daniel,” Lizette explains. “My child should have the right to access medical care that is private, medically necessary, and improves his quality of life without government intervention.”

The Trujillo family joins trans individuals across the country who are fighting for their freedom to be. The ACLU recently spotlighted their stories as a part of our ongoing efforts to showcase how, since people existed, the right to live authentically has been both vital and vulnerable. In addition to supporting trans individuals as they tell their stories, this December the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, and our legal partners will argue before the Supreme Court for the right to gender-affirming care for trans minors in Tennessee. The case, US v. Skrmetti, is the first challenge to a ban on gender-affirming care to reach the Supreme Court.

Play the video

“The well-being of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own precedent both recent and long-standing,” explains Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.

Strangio, who is leading the litigation, explains what has been true since Stylz’ First Amendment challenge in 1999 and since the Stonewall uprising in 1969, which is that trans individuals “will not find safety or justice in the courts alone. Our national culture still encounters trans people as a question to be answered or a problem to be solved.”

The trans experience is not defined solely by the people who seek to erase them, but by the ongoing fight for freedom and moments of true liberation. Twenty-four years after Stylz fought for the right to wear a dress to prom, Lizette and Jose watched their trans son Daniel don a suit and bowtie to attend the first trans prom, organized by trans teens for trans teens.

For Daniel and Stylz, and so many trans teens, prom is but one battle in the never ending fight for their rights. A battle we must all wage.

We must make “this world a safe place for us all and a free place for us all,” Stylz says. “Pursuing liberty and happiness is at the cornerstone of our Constitution. If you're not a part of that. You are part of the problem.”

Published October 7, 2024 at 09:32PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/pK5g8zC

ACLU: Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate

Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate

For more than two years, the immigration debate has revolved around one issue: “the border.”

Despite the fact that issues related to the border are vast and complex, the entire U.S. immigration system – flaws and all – has been boiled down to grainy images of barbed wire atop a border wall and videos of families and others seeking safety waiting for a chance to make their asylum claims.

Our current election cycle has only magnified and intensified the problem. At the ACLU, we examined three ways the media is shaping unfair narratives about the immigration system:

---

ONE: Millions of dollars have been funneled into political ads based on fearmongering about the border

Candidates across the political spectrum have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last year doing everything in their power to distill the immigration debate down to the lowest common denominator—making people afraid of what’s happening at the southern border—facts and truth be damned.

We evaluated the entire $247 million spend on immigration ads and found that:

1. More than a third of the 745 ads included depictions of Border Patrol agents, soldiers or the military, which contribute to the false idea of a militarized “battle zone” at the border.
2. Around 20 percent of the ads referred to migrants as “illegals” or “aliens,” with around seven percent choosing harsher words like “trafficker,” “rapist,” or “murderer.”
3. Around 10 percent of the 745 ads referenced migrants as invaders or the influx of migrants as an invasion.

---

TWO: Media often pairs immigration news with chaotic images from the border, regardless of the connection

Mainstream media willingly or unwittingly plays into this obsession with the border by accompanying any media reporting on immigration, no matter how tenuous or absent the connection, with scenes from our southern border. As Media Matter chronicles in a recent piece, multiple mainstream media companies when discussing President Joe Biden’s new program, Keep Families Together, which allows the spouses of U.S. citizens a path to legalization, didn’t show images of the American families that would actually be helped by the policy, but instead showed images and videos of cars and people lined up at the border.

---

THREE: The news cycle is hyper-focused on the border, often overlooking other immigration stories

Mainstream media organizations often ignore larger immigration stories in favor of hyper-focusing on the border. We saw this most prominently during the September 10th presidential debate. Although ABC’s David Muir did fact check atrocious false claims made about community members in Springfield, Ohio, this was a surprising shift in efforts to hold candidates accountable for falsehoods, and Muir still used his one question about immigration as a smoke screen to only discuss border security.

While border security is but one part of our immigration system, the larger parts are too often ignored by the media. While the U.S. continues to receive new migrants, millions of immigrants already here have become our friends, family members, and integral contributors to our communities and economy. In fact, earlier this year, three separate nonpartisan research groups released studies making the case that immigration played a significant role in preventing a recession last year. Unfortunately, these stories are nowhere to be seen on the nightly news.

Today, even as voters are bombarded from all sides with chaotic images from the border, misleading ads with scary videos and deceptive messages and a media landscape that is seemingly obsessed with the border their views remain nuanced, a majority of Americans still see immigration as a good thing for the country. That aligns with recent polling from the ACLU that shows that what American voters actually want is to hear about balanced and humane approaches to immigration that both manage challenges at the border and include a pathway to citizenship for our longtime neighbors.

https://infogram.com/1p5eee7e6yy2dybp01vm6xrdv1b33lp9q0w?live

https://infogram.com/1p9zvjx13p1enxf716w5lqmj1zu355jl7l3?live

For six months, the ACLU has met with actors on both sides of the political spectrum to make the case that voters are hungry for their leaders to talk about real solutions and that appealing to the lowest possible denominator will only exacerbate the problem. Imagine where public opinion might be today if instead of hundreds of millions of dollars spent to make people afraid of immigrants, we had seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent uplifting the stories of the six immigrant workers who lost their lives while working to repair our bridges in Baltimore? Or of all the small businesses employing thousands of workers opened by immigrants? Or of the immigrants taking on essential care in nursing homes, daycares, and hospitals?

The ACLU has consistently advocated for common-sense solutions that will help modernize our immigration system without sacrificing our nation’s laws and moral obligation to protect people seeking a better life. That includes policies that would improve processing at ports of entry and hire more personnel to reduce the immigration case backlog. It also means passing solutions that will protect our immigrant neighbors who have built businesses and families in the U.S., such as by providing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other longtime residents. Above all, we need politicians to show some political courage and willingness to lead based on their values rather than through fearmongering.

Published October 8, 2024 at 12:58AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ysPHMWj

ACLU: Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate

Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate

For more than two years, the immigration debate has revolved around one issue: “the border.”

Despite the fact that issues related to the border are vast and complex, the entire U.S. immigration system – flaws and all – has been boiled down to grainy images of barbed wire atop a border wall and videos of families and others seeking safety waiting for a chance to make their asylum claims.

Our current election cycle has only magnified and intensified the problem. At the ACLU, we examined three ways the media is shaping unfair narratives about the immigration system:

---

ONE: Millions of dollars have been funneled into political ads based on fearmongering about the border

Candidates across the political spectrum have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last year doing everything in their power to distill the immigration debate down to the lowest common denominator—making people afraid of what’s happening at the southern border—facts and truth be damned.

We evaluated the entire $247 million spend on immigration ads and found that:

1. More than a third of the 745 ads included depictions of Border Patrol agents, soldiers or the military, which contribute to the false idea of a militarized “battle zone” at the border.
2. Around 20 percent of the ads referred to migrants as “illegals” or “aliens,” with around seven percent choosing harsher words like “trafficker,” “rapist,” or “murderer.”
3. Around 10 percent of the 745 ads referenced migrants as invaders or the influx of migrants as an invasion.

---

TWO: Media often pairs immigration news with chaotic images from the border, regardless of the connection

Mainstream media willingly or unwittingly plays into this obsession with the border by accompanying any media reporting on immigration, no matter how tenuous or absent the connection, with scenes from our southern border. As Media Matter chronicles in a recent piece, multiple mainstream media companies when discussing President Joe Biden’s new program, Keep Families Together, which allows the spouses of U.S. citizens a path to legalization, didn’t show images of the American families that would actually be helped by the policy, but instead showed images and videos of cars and people lined up at the border.

---

THREE: The news cycle is hyper-focused on the border, often overlooking other immigration stories

Mainstream media organizations often ignore larger immigration stories in favor of hyper-focusing on the border. We saw this most prominently during the September 10th presidential debate. Although ABC’s David Muir did fact check atrocious false claims made about community members in Springfield, Ohio, this was a surprising shift in efforts to hold candidates accountable for falsehoods, and Muir still used his one question about immigration as a smoke screen to only discuss border security.

While border security is but one part of our immigration system, the larger parts are too often ignored by the media. While the U.S. continues to receive new migrants, millions of immigrants already here have become our friends, family members, and integral contributors to our communities and economy. In fact, earlier this year, three separate nonpartisan research groups released studies making the case that immigration played a significant role in preventing a recession last year. Unfortunately, these stories are nowhere to be seen on the nightly news.

Today, even as voters are bombarded from all sides with chaotic images from the border, misleading ads with scary videos and deceptive messages and a media landscape that is seemingly obsessed with the border their views remain nuanced, a majority of Americans still see immigration as a good thing for the country. That aligns with recent polling from the ACLU that shows that what American voters actually want is to hear about balanced and humane approaches to immigration that both manage challenges at the border and include a pathway to citizenship for our longtime neighbors.

https://infogram.com/1p5eee7e6yy2dybp01vm6xrdv1b33lp9q0w?live

https://infogram.com/1p9zvjx13p1enxf716w5lqmj1zu355jl7l3?live

For six months, the ACLU has met with actors on both sides of the political spectrum to make the case that voters are hungry for their leaders to talk about real solutions and that appealing to the lowest possible denominator will only exacerbate the problem. Imagine where public opinion might be today if instead of hundreds of millions of dollars spent to make people afraid of immigrants, we had seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent uplifting the stories of the six immigrant workers who lost their lives while working to repair our bridges in Baltimore? Or of all the small businesses employing thousands of workers opened by immigrants? Or of the immigrants taking on essential care in nursing homes, daycares, and hospitals?

The ACLU has consistently advocated for common-sense solutions that will help modernize our immigration system without sacrificing our nation’s laws and moral obligation to protect people seeking a better life. That includes policies that would improve processing at ports of entry and hire more personnel to reduce the immigration case backlog. It also means passing solutions that will protect our immigrant neighbors who have built businesses and families in the U.S., such as by providing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other longtime residents. Above all, we need politicians to show some political courage and willingness to lead based on their values rather than through fearmongering.

Published October 7, 2024 at 08:28PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8kQI4GT