Thread: Immigrants' Rights Groups Sue DHS for Removal Program

National Immigration Law Center

Immigrants' Rights Organizations Sue Dept. of Homeland Security for Public Accountability about Deportation Program That Sidesteps Legal Process for Immigrants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wed., November 12, 2008

MEDIA CONTACTS
Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic: Jayashri Srikantiah, 650-724-2442
National Immigration Law Center: Linton Joaquin, 213-674-2909
ACLU of Southern California: Gordon Smith, 213-977-5247
National Lawyers Guild-SF: Carlos Villarreal, 415-377-6961


SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- Today a coalition of immigrants' rights organizations asked a federal judge to compel the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to disclose information about a program under which it removes non-U.S. citizens from the United States without hearings before immigration judges. The program, called "stipulated removal," has resulted in the removal of over 96,000 noncitizens since its inception.

The Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic, together with the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the ACLU of Southern California (ACLUSC) and the National Lawyers Guild of San Francisco (NLGSF), filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to gain access to agency records about stipulated removal from DHS and its subagencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The lawsuit also seeks access to records from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and its Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Stipulated removal allows DOJ and DHS to remove a noncitizen, even one with valid defenses against deportation, as long as the noncitizen signs an order. DHS appears to target for stipulated removal noncitizens who are in immigration detention, and does not allow the noncitizen to appear before a judge prior to being deported. Advocates have expressed concerns that immigrants signing these orders do not realize they are giving up their rights to challenge their deportation.

In the lawsuit, NLGSF et al. v. U.S. DHS, the plaintiffs note that news reports, congressional testimony, and agency press releases reveal that the DHS and DOJ have broadly implemented stipulated removal on a nationwide basis for at least 12 years. However, DHS and DOJ have failed to produce records that reflect the full scope of stipulated removal's implementation, and the select information DHS and DOJ have divulged to date provides a "strong indication that other documents have been improperly withheld."

"DHS is running a federal program that has resulted in the deportation of almost 100,000 people without legal hearings, and yet the public knows very little about the program," said Jayashri Srikantiah, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School. "Stipulated removal raises serious due process concerns because immigrant detainees may not know that they are signing away their rights, and no judge ever speaks to the detainee to ensure that they understand the process."

The lawsuit comes after two FOIA requests in December 2005 and February 2008 yielded only minimal information. According to data that was released under those FOIA requests by the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, that office entered 96,241 stipulated removal orders between October 1999 and June 2008.

Karen Tumlin, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, observes: "DHS has revealed close to nothing about a program that impacts thousands of immigrants' due process rights. The stipulated removal program gives detained immigrants an impossible choice: sign away your rights or stay in detention."

"Immigrant detainees may be refugees or have U.S. citizen family members," said Ahilan Arulanantham, an ACLU of Southern California staff attorney. "The public should know whether DHS is pressuring these detainees to give up their right to a hearing."

"Stipulated removal appears to target the most vulnerable parts of the immigrant population," observed Carlos Villarreal, Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild - San Francisco Bay Area. "Immigrant detainees often lack the money to pay for lawyers and bond money to get out of detention."

Jennifer Lee Koh, Cooley Godward Kronish Fellow with Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic, said: "Before DHS further expands its implementation of stipulated removal, the public should know whether the program satisfies basic due process requirements. Immigrant detainees should know exactly what they are giving up when they sign a stipulated order."

Students in the Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic participated in drafting the FOIA requests and the complaint filed today.

"Backgrounder: Stipulated Removal" (pdf) (11/12/08) available at nilc site.
http://www.nilc.org/

http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/removp ... sds154.htm

Why and how can these groups keep going after dhs and others when they don't give a damn about American citizens rights! This country is totally backwards!

If they would simply obey our laws in the first place we wouldn't have to be spending so much money to make them leave. What about the rights of US taxpayers?

Obviously the financial crisis is not severe enough to stop these anti-American legal groups from trying to prevent DHS from protecting us. This lawsuit is a big load of BS.

"The stipulated removal program gives detained immigrants an impossible choice: sign away your rights or stay in detention."

Nothing is "impossible" about it, same thing happens to Americans every day who have to choose between jail or "signing away their house" to make bail.

Its too bad the DHS can't sue all of these hate groups back like ACLU and Laraza from preventing and interfering with their jobs and federal law! Sue em into bankruptcy and shut em down!

Karen Tumlin, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, observes: "DHS has revealed close to nothing about a program that impacts thousands of immigrants' due process rights. The stipulated removal program gives detained immigrants an impossible choice: sign away your rights or stay in detention."

They entered this country illegally! The only rights they are "signing away' would be the right to stand before an immigration judges who is going to issue a deportation order against the illegal anyway. Why would you expect the 'choices' to get any better when someone entered this country illegally.

You cannot turn a stone into a diamond!( I don't think..LOL)

Amazing as I thought this administration with its enforcement had finally done something right. But if these allegations are true, and I am not saying they are, this gang has again done another astounding circumvention of the justice system. Reminds me of the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, etc.

Well they should be removed. Why should they get a right to be heard before an immigration judge? They entered the country ILLEGALLY. What other country ON EARTH has a better policy toward illegal immigrants than America? NONE! Most nations treat illegal immigrants like criminal garbage. When are these pro-illegal idiots going to realize that our country has a RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES against invasion in any form? And IMO illegal immigration is an INVASION.

Originally Posted by butterbean

Well they should be removed. Why should they get a right to be heard before an immigration judge? They entered the country ILLEGALLY. What other country ON EARTH has a better policy toward illegal immigrants than America? NONE! Most nations treat illegal immigrants like criminal garbage. When are these pro-illegal idiots going to realize that our country has a RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES against invasion in any form? And IMO illegal immigration is an INVASION.

AMEN BB!

Well they should be removed. Why should they get a right to be heard before an immigration judge? They entered the country ILLEGALLY. What other country ON EARTH has a better policy toward illegal immigrants than America? NONE! Most nations treat illegal immigrants like criminal garbage. When are these pro-illegal idiots going to realize that our country has a RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES against invasion in any form? And IMO illegal immigration is an INVASION.

Al Jazeera reported on Nov. 6 that Egypt admitted to shooting at least six illegal migrants from Africa trying to cross the border into Israel late Tuesday night.

Egyptian security guards saw the six men from Sudan and Eritrea trying to cross the border fence Tuesday, warned them to come down, and then proceeded to shoot them when the migrants refused to listen.

In the past year alone, Egypt has killed approximately 25 migrants from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and other African countrying trying to sneak into Israel illegally.

Israel asked Egypt to enforce border security after it became clear that illegal immigration was up and causing tremendous drug-related problems.

Of the six men shot Tuesday one was brought to a hospital. He is in serious condition. The other five were less seriously injured.

Many migrants from Africa try to cross the border into Israel because they are poorly treated and discriminated against in Egypt.

Of course, the high amount of illegal immigration also causes tremendous security concerns for Israel: if Africans can enter the Jewish nation-state illegally, so can Islamic extremists from Egypt. Furthermore, Africans too are receptive to extremism. Especially migrants from Sudan and Eritrea may be suspected of holding extremist beliefs.

-PoliGazette

Email to Friend | Add a comment | Print This Post