"Elena," mother of three U.S. citizen children, told of how she repeatedly invoked her right to remain silent about her immigration status and how as a result, was threatened with the same fate as a woman, who earlier this year, had her arm broken by MCSO officers trying to get her thumbprint on an official form. She told the commission about her brother-in-law, who was deported from the Florence detention center the weekend before she was arrested and that her husband was detained in Florence only one month earlier. In order to pay the $5,000 immigration bond to secure her husband's release, Elena and her children couldn't buy food. The same week she was arrested, the detention centers had a flu outbreak and the local ICE office stopped transfers to the facilities in Florence and Eloy. Elena looked at Commissioner Felipe González and said, “God was looking out for me. He sent the flu to the detention center so they couldn't send me there. So my children wouldn't have to suffer again.”
During another interview, "Samuel," a business owner who has lived in Phoenix for 20 years, called the interrogation by Maricopa County sheriff's deputies, “el martillo de abuso” or the “hammer of abuse”— referring to the repeated, insistent demands by deputies to answer questions about his immigration status. Samuel refused to answer, repeatedly asking to speak to his attorney. Once his attorney was on the phone, ICE agents asked her to talk Samuel into answering their questions—she refused their request.
Finally, "Marco" told the story of how he and his friends, all raised in Phoenix since early childhood, were arrested and issued immigration detainers after being pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Similar to the previous cases, ICE officers interrogated all of them, taking turns threatening, harassing and intimidating them. Marco and his friends repeatedly asked to speak to an attorney and refused to answer questions about their immigration status. Eventually, ICE officers discovered that Marco had been detained in Eloy a year earlier and was in ongoing removal proceedings. They released him. Marco told the commission, “Do you know why I didn't tell them? I didn't want to leave my friends alone in there.”
There is much to be said about the anti-immigrant political climate in Arizona and the effect of discriminatory police practices on immigrant communities in the state. In fact, each of the persons interviewed by the commission stated that they no longer have confidence in local police—and justifiably so. There is also much to say about the due process violations raised during the Arizona meetings, but what has stuck with me above all else is the bravery and resilience of each person for asserting their rights, their willingness to share their personal stories and horrific experiences and for standing up for themselves, their families and communities in the face of abusive authority.
Listening to each of them during the meeting with the IACHR was a powerful reminder of what is at the core of the immigrants' rights movement— perseverance in protecting and preserving human rights and dignity.
Learn more about the ACLU of Arizona's work at .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.