Investigating Detention Conditions in Texas: Spreading Know Your Rights Information in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
A diverse coalition of immigrant rights and civil liberties groups met with officials of the earlier this week as the human rights investigators began their fact-finding visits to immigration detention centers in Texas. The IACHR is a regional human rights body, and part of the Organization of American States, of which the United States is a member.
As the IACHR began their visits, members of the staffs of the ACLU of Texas and the ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights spent two days in the Lower Rio Grande Valley presenting Know Your Rights meetings for community organizations and facilitated the distribution of more than 3,000 Know Your Rights door hangers and palm cards.
Representatives of 10 organizations gathered at the Austin offices of the ACLU of Texas calling for a full investigation of conditions at Texas detention facilities as part of the IACHR’s investigation of the treatment of migrants held in detention in the United States. A press conference called by the ACLU of Texas, , and , generated statewide coverage of the IACHR visits with particular interest in the (PDF). Bob Libal, Texas Campaign Coordinator at Grassroots Leadership noted:
The explosive increase in detention through government programs … has created a huge boon for the private prison industry…These facilities are built and operated with minimal oversight, so international human rights bodies like the IACHR can play a crucial role in monitoring the use and conditions within these private prisons.
Jason Cato from the Austin Immigrants’ Right Coalition, a group of immigrants, students, labor, faith, and community groups added:
The increase in federal funding and pressure for local law enforcement to engage in immigration regulation … has compounded the potential for human rights violations like racial profiling and dangerous, inappropriate police tactics. Local police shouldn’t be enforcing the civil provisions of federal immigration law, and the results, in terms of decreased public safety and increased detention, come at great cost to U.S. taxpayers and democratic ideals.
Also among the groups meeting with the IACHR delegation: American Gateways, Catholic Charities, Familias Unidas por la Esperanza, Migrant and Child Welfare National Network, Texas Appleseed, and Texans United for Families.
The community group representatives also expressed the following concerns:
- Hutto remains an unlicensed facility and there will be no external monitoring when the settlement expires.
- Continued expansion of detention facilities, especially by private companies. The question remains as to whether the new administration will proceed with this expansion.
- The present “color code” system for detainees means that when “reds,” with the worst criminal histories, have to be moved within the facility, all other detainees (“oranges” and “blues”) must be in their cells, i.e. rooms, which means that the entire facility is essentially on lockdown.
- Many of the facilities do not have full-time doctors, nurses or psychiatrists on staff raising concerns about the quality and availability of medical care.
In addition to meeting with advocates, the IACHR officials toured several detention facilities in Texas, including the Willacy Detention Center, known as “tent city” due to its construction of windowless Kevlar tents, in Raymondville; the T. Don Hutto family detention center in Taylor where immigrant families are held; and the International Emergency Shelter Unaccompanied Minor Shelter in Los Fresnos. The IACHR will issue a report by the end of 2009 on its findings.
The ACLU of Texas is hopeful that the IACHR’s investigation will shed further light on ways the U.S. government can and should do better in the way it treats immigrants. Lisa Graybill, Legal Director for the ACLU of Texas, and one of the attorneys who litigated against the T. Don Hutto facility to improve conditions for families detained there, noted:
Texas is ground zero for U.S. immigration policies which violate human rights….Given that Hutto is still not licensed by the state, when the court’s oversight of the Hutto settlement expires on August 29, 2009, the need for scrutiny by outside bodies like the IACHR will be even more acute.
Learn more about the ACLU of Texas: , and the ACLU of New Mexico and Regional Center for Border Rights: .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.