Grupos que luchan por los derechos civiles, las políticas migratorias y los derechos laborales presentan nuevas evidencias acerca del impacto devastador de la regla de “no concuerda” (“no match”)
Entregan evidencia al Departamento de Seguridad de la Patria (Homeland Security)
PARA SU DIFUSIÓN INMEDIATA
CONTACTO: (212) 519-7808 ó 549-2666; media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON - La unión de libertades civiles de los Estados Unidos (American Civil Liberties Union, o ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés), el Centro de Políticas sobre Inmigración (Immigration Policy Center, o IPC, por sus siglas en inglés), el Centro Nacional de Leyes de Inmigración (National Immigration Law Center, o NILC, por sus siglas en inglés) y la coalición de Trabajadores Inmigrantes con Bajos Ingresos (Low Wage Immigrant Worker, o LWIW, por sus siglas en inglés) presentaron el día de hoy nuevas evidencias que confirman que si la regla de “no concuerda” (“no match”) que propone el Departamento de Seguridad de la Patria (Department of Homeland Security, o DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) entra en vigor, resultaría en el despido masivo de ciudadanos estadounidenses y demás trabajadores con permiso, además de que tendría un impacto devastador en las empresas y la economía de los Estados Unidos.
La regla, la cual se publicó el 26 de marzo para recibir comentarios del público, haría uso ilegal de la base de datos de la Administración del Seguro Social (Social Security Administration, o SSA, por sus siglas en inglés), a pesar de estar plagada de errores, con fines de hacer cumplir las leyes migratorias, exigiendo que los patrones despidan a los trabajadores que no puedan aclarar cualquier discrepancia existente en su expediente del Seguro Social.
El día de hoy fue el último día en que la DHS aceptaba comentarios acerca de la regla. Una amplia gama de organizaciones, desde aquellas dedicadas a defender los derechos civiles, hasta las del sector empresarial, han entregado sus comentarios para expresar su firme oposición a la regla. Entre estas organizaciones se encuentra la ACLU y la coalición LWIW.
Los comentarios de la coalición LWIW y un nuevo informe del IPC incluyen datos de un nuevo análisis económico que comisionó la Cámara de Comercio de los EE.UU., cuyo autor fue Richard B. Belzer. El Sr. Belzer, quien posee un doctorado en Política Pública de la Universidad de Harvard, es un experto en políticas y prácticas regulatorias de las instancias federales. Durante 10 años se ha desempeñado como economista en la Oficina Presidencial de Administración y Presupuesto (President’s Office of Management and Budget, o OMB, por sus siglas en inglés). El análisis de Belzer muestra sin equívocos que la regla de “no concuerda” que se propone tendría costos económicos significativos que impactarían de manera negativa tanto a los empleadores como a los inmigrantes con permiso de trabajo.
Las declaraciones que aparecen a continuación se pueden atribuir a los siguientes individuos:
Michele Waslin, Analista Principal de Políticas del Centro sobre Políticas de Inmigración:
“Al intentar transformar las cartas de “no concuerda” de la Administración del Seguro Social en un instrumento de las autoridades para hacer cumplir las leyes de inmigración, DHS no impedirá el flujo de inmigrantes indocumentados ni servirá de sustituto de una verdadera reforma migratoria. La nueva regla, sin embargo, provocará que los ciudadanos y residentes legales de los EE.UU. pierdan sus trabajos, resultará en mayores gastos para los empleadores, y representará una carga adicional para la Administración del Seguro Social, cuyo personal de por sí se encuentra agobiado, y que tiene personal y recursos insuficientes. Más de 165,000 trabajadores de los EE.UU. con derecho a trabajar podrían perder sus trabajos debido a su incapacidad para aclarar discrepancias en la SSA. El costo a los empleadores será de al menos mil millones de dólares al año. Aunque el programa de “no concuerda” comenzó como un intento de corregir los archivos de la SSA para que los trabajadores pudieran recibir las prestaciones que se habían ganado, acabará obligando a más trabajadores a quedar sumidos en la economía subterránea de pagos al contado, donde ya no se verán obligados a pagar impuestos a la SSA, y esto afectará a aquellos empeñados trabajadores estadounidenses, que tendrán que aguantar mayores demoras al solicitar sus prestaciones.”
Lucas Guttentag, Director del Proyecto sobre los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de la ACLU:
“El confiarse de la defectuosa base de datos del Seguro Social es una receta para el desastre. El gobierno de Bush castigará a los trabajadores dedicados y legales, denegará empleo a los ciudadanos estadounidenses y provocará la discriminación y las represalias contra trabajadores que pudieran tener el aspecto de ser extranjeros o que traten de hacer valer sus derechos laborales. En lugar de castigar a los trabajadores estadounidenses, quienes serán las víctimas de una base de datos con deficiencias fatales, el gobierno debería abandonar esta regla, a menos que pueda garantizar que ningún trabajador estadounidense perderá su empleo.
Sarita Gupta, Directora de Jobs with Justice, representando a la Coalición deTrabajadores Inmigrantes de Bajos Ingresos:
“Esta regla mal pensada subvertirá los derechos de todos los trabajadores y no hará nada para atender la realidad de unos siete millones de trabajadores vulnerables en los EE.UU. Ya hemos visto que los empleadores, para escudarse de cualquier responsabilidad bajo las leyes migratorias, suponen erróneamente que los trabajadores que aparecen en las cartas de “no concuerda” son indocumentados y simplemente los despiden sin darles la oportunidad de corregir sus expedientes. Otros empleadores con aun menos escrúpulos han utilizado las cartas de “no concuerda” como una herramienta para poder ocultar la contratación y explotación de trabajadores indocumentados, subvirtiendo por lo tanto los derechos de todos los trabajadores.
Puede obtener una copia de los comentarios de la ACLU en:
www.aclu.org/immigrants/workplace/35016leg20080424.html
Puede obtener una copia de los comentarios de la LWIC en:
El resumen ejecutivo del análisis exhaustivo del IPC sobre la regla de “no concuerda” de la SSA se obtiene en:
El análisis de Belzer se obtiene en:
A continuación se presenta una muestra de organizaciones de todo el país que han registrado su oposición a la regla propuesta por el DHS:
Organizaciones nacionales y regionales
ACORN
AFL-CIO
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
Center for Community Change
Change to Win
Fair Immigration Reform Movement
Interfaith Worker Justice
Jobs with Justice
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Employment Law Project
National Immigration Law Center
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
Northwest Federation of Community Organizations
Northwest Workers' Justice Project
South Asian Americans Leading Together
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
Organizaciones estatales y locales
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., CA
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, CA
Chicago Workers' Collaborative, IL
Conexión Américas, TN
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, CA
El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos, NM
El Centro, Inc, KS
Greater Boston Legal Services, MA
Hate Free Zone, WA
Idaho Community Action Network, ID
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, IL
Korean American Resource & Cultural Center, IL
Korean Resource Center, CA
La Fuente, NY
La Raza Centro Legal, CA
Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, CA
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, MA
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, NE
North Carolina Justice Center, NC
Oregon Action, OR
Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition, PA
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network, CA
South Chicago Workers Center, IL
Sweatshop Watch, CA
Washington Community Action Network, WA
Working Hands Legal Clinic, IL
YKASEC - Empowering the Korean American Community, NY
Immigrants' Rights
AFL-CIO v. Chertoff
Immigrants' Rights
AFL-CIO v. Chertoff
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention NationwideACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention Nationwide
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity in at least six states across the country, including in California, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington state. The records, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that private prison corporations, as well as other corporate entities that provide services to build temporary facilities, monitor compliance, and staff facilities submitted proposals for expanded immigration detention in response to ICE’s contract requests. The discovery comes just weeks after the ACLU received its first tranche of FOIA documents revealing that ICE is considering expanding detention in three different facilities in New Jersey. “You cannot have mass deportations without a significant expansion of ICE detention capacity in states across the country and that’s exactly what the incoming Trump administration is preparing to do,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “Rather than permanently shutting down abusive detention facilities, the Biden administration is paving the way for President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his cruel and inhumane mass deportation proposals.” The FOIA documents reveal that GEO Group, Inc., CoreCivic, and the Management & Training Corporation (MTC) submitted contract proposals to Requests for Information (RFI) to expand detention capacity and facilities, several of which have a lengthy history of abusive conditions. The proposals for expanded immigration detention facilities include: Midwest Regional Reception Center in Leavenworth, KS – formerly known as Leavenworth Detention Center – which has a track record of abusive conditions, which led the federal government to end its contract with the facility in 2021. South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX – a facility where children as young as 19 months have died as a result poor medical care. Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, NV – which has been subject to a federal invesitgation for medical negligence, racial discrimination, and verbal abuse of detained people. Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, NM — which has been the site of numerous deaths in recent years, with incidents of neglect, abuse, and lack of medical care. Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, NM – which Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General cited in 2022 due to poor conditions. California City Correctional Center in California City, CA – which was previously used as a California Department of Corrections prison until March 2024. ICE also withheld a number of documents in its FOIA disclosure, obscuring the names of the specific facilities. However, the documents produced indicate that the following detention facilities are likely under consideration by ICE: Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, NM (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the El Paso Field Office) Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, WA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the Seattle Field Office) Golden State Annex in McFarland, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) MTC facility in South Texas, which may include the Willacy County Jail in Raymondville, TX (Proposal by MTC for the Harlingen Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in IL, IN, WI, MI, KT, or KS (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for Chicago Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in South Texas, which may include the Brooks County Detention Center, Falfurrias, TX; Coastal Bend Detention Center, Robstown, TX; or the East Hidalgo Detention Center in LaVilla, TX (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. For the Harlingen Field Office) Other corporate entities, including Kastel Enterprises, LLC., and Active Deployment Systems, which provide services to build temporary facilities, and Sabot Consulting, which provides compliance monitoring and detention staffing services, also submitted responses to ICE’s request. As the ACLU has previously documented, the federal government’s immigration detention system overwhelmingly relies on private prison corporations. Private prison corporations, like the GEO Group, CoreCivic, LaSalle Corrections, and the Management & Training Corporation have pocketed billions from ICE detention contracts over the past two decades. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/multi-state-detention-facility-support-foia-documents-request-for-information -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, ExplainedTrump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
The president-elect has said he intends to end birthright citizenship. We break down why that’s clearly unconstitutional. -
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. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New JerseyACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New Jersey
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity across the state of New Jersey. The records, obtained as a result of a FOIA lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that ICE capacity could increase by approximately 600 beds in at least two facilities in New Jersey. The discovery comes as President-elect Donald Trump continues to double down on his campaign promise to implement the largest mass deportation and detention program in the nation’s history. For months, the ACLU of New Jersey and advocates have raised concerns with the Biden administration’s plans to expand detention in New Jersey, as well as in potentially sixteen other states identified by ICE. “Instead of closing abusive detention facilities once and for all, the Biden administration is simply paving the way for the incoming Trump administration to conduct mass detention and deportation of immigrant communities nationwide,” said Eunice Cho, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “The Biden administration must instead work to close these facilities now.” These facilities under consideration include the Elizabeth Detention Center, located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and owned and operated by CoreCivic, Inc., and the Albert M. “Bo” Robinson Center (ARC) in Trenton, New Jersey, which was formerly owned by the GEO Group, Inc. Both facilities have significant records of poor conditions. Investigations of conditions at ARC exposed abusive conditions including “robbery, sexual assault, [and] menacing of the weak.” Meanwhile, the Elizabeth Detention Center has also come under fire for consistent medical neglect, cramped and unsanitary living quarters, and abusive treatment from guards. The ACLU obtained these documents as a result of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, which sought in part records responsive to a contract solicitation for additional ICE detention space in the Newark, New Jersey area. The solicitation, originally issued on June 26, 2024, sought “comprehensive detention services for adult male and female noncitizens” to “provide for general population, intake, segregated housing, and medical beds at a contractor-owned/contractor-operated detention facility or facilities.” The documents provided by ICE provide a limited glimpse of the detention proposals, as the production appears to include only the environmental impact statement portions of the proposals submitted by CoreCivic, Inc. and GEO Group, Inc. to ICE. It is unclear from the documents whether there are additional New Jersey facilities that responded to ICE’s solicitation, or how much it would cost taxpayers. For example, the GEO Group, Inc. claimed in litigation earlier this year that it has readied the Delaney Hall Facility, located in Newark, New Jersey, to conform with ICE operating requirements. “New Jersey has already taken steps to oppose immigrant detention by phasing out ICE contracts and closing county-run ICE jails. But as federal plans to expand detention in New Jersey continue, the need for protections grows by the day. That’s why it’s imperative that the Biden administration immediately halt any efforts to expand this abusive detention machine,” said ACLU-NJ campaign strategist Ami Kachalia. “We also urge the New Jersey Legislature to quickly pass the Immigrant Trust Act so that New Jersey is not complicit in separating families or depriving our residents of due process.” State officials and members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation have opposed the expansion of ICE detention in the state. Earlier this year, eight Representatives and Senator Cory Booker raised concern regarding the development of additional private ICE detention facilities in the state. Prior to that, the New Jersey state legislature passed AB 5207 in 2021, which prohibited state and local entities and private detention facilities from entering, renewing, or expanding immigration detention contracts. Both CoreCivic, Inc., and GEO Group, Inc. filed suit to stop enforcement of the law, which has been enjoined pending appeal. The ACLU of New Jersey filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 28 community organizations in support of New Jersey's anti-detention law. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/foia-documents-re-nj-ice-detention-rfi