ICE Using Stingrays To Track Down Immigrants Because Of Course It Is

from the high-value-targets-just-means-everyone dept

As information about police use of cell tower spoofers began leaking out, those who had kept the public (including defendants, judges, and even some prosecutors) out of the loop began defending their use of domesticated military technology. They said pay no attention to the possible civil liberties violations. Just think of all the good they're doing. They promised Stingrays would only be used on the worst of the worst, and only when time was of the essence: terrorists, murderers, kidnappers, etc.

But then even more Stingray documents made their way into the public domain. These showed the devices were deployed in bog-standard drug investigations or, worse, used just because agencies had them. This perhaps reached its nadir when a police department fired up its Stingray to hunt down someone who had stolen less than $60 worth of fast food. To make matters worse, the Stingray failed to track down the alleged thief.

Of course, anyone paying attention knew Stingrays would be used for nothing of importance, despite public officials' statements otherwise. The first person to start digging into Stingray use was Daniel Rigmaiden, who was doing time for fraud. Not exactly the sort of crime one would associate with exigent circumstances and possible danger to the public.

And, of course, because it's now the government's foremost priority to toss undocumented immigrants out of the country, Stingrays are being used to accomplish this goal. And, just like the defensive statements made on behalf of IMSI catchers, the federal government has claimed it's only interested in removing the most dangerous of undocumented individuals first. These statements are also false.

Federal officials in Detroit used a secretive tool known as a "Stingray" — which tricks cell phones into revealing their location — to find an undocumented man for deportation.

The cell-site simulator has been used in the past by federal and local law enforcement to find murder suspects, kidnap victims, drug dealers and terrorists — but sometime in March, FBI and ICE officials used it to find a 23-year-old native of El Salvador to deport him.

The alleged criminal act being used as leverage -- both for the Stingray deployment and the use of ICE's "eject" button -- is a long ways from the Parade of Horribles used to justify the acquisition and use of cell tower spoofers.

According to the warrant, Carcamo-Carranza was deported in 2012 and 2015 to El Salvador, but returned to the US.

In Feb. 28, 2016, he was arrested in Shelby Township, Michigan, on suspicion of hit-and-run, but was released by local police before he was detained by ICE agent.

Also of note: ICE used a warrant to pry loose this phone number, serving one to Facebook which gave it access to Carranza's private messages. Just throwing that in there to add a bit more skepticism for the "Going Dark" theory. A phone that might be locked isn't the end of the line for investigators, no matter how loudly law enforcement officials sigh during press conferences while gesturing ineffectively at a pile of seized devices.

As we always knew would happen, Stingray technology would soon shift from its more limited, "higher cause" deployment into just another tool for rote policework.

Filed Under: ice, immigration, privacy, stingrays, tracking, warrants

Tech Companies Continue To Tell Courts To Reject Trump Travel Exec Order

from the speaking-up dept

Earlier this week we noted that 162 tech companies (including us) had signed an amicus brief for the appeal in the 4th Circuit (in Virginia) arguing that President Trump's travel ban executive order was unlawful. The same group of companies (plus one more -- as it looks like Pandora was added to the latest) have filed basically the same amicus brief in the appeal in the 9th Circuit (which is the appeal of the decision in Hawaii that a smaller group had filed an amicus brief on as well). As with last time, people are going to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories over this, but the fact is this is an issue that matters to many, many people who work at these companies, and the companies have committed to speaking out about it.

Filed Under: donald trump, executive order, immigration, tech companies, travel ban

162 Tech Companies Tell Appeals Court That Trump's 2nd Travel Ban Is Illegal

from the speaking-up dept

As you'll recall, back in early February, over 100 tech companies signed onto an amicus brief, arguing that President Trump's initial plan to bar immigration from certain countries was unconstitutional and illegal. A month later, a smaller group of companies signed onto an amicus brief in the district court in Hawaii concerning the revised travel ban (and a few people noted that some of the companies that signed onto the first brief had not signed onto the second one -- wondering if that meant many companies weren't as worried about the revised ban. Except, yesterday an even larger group of tech companies (162 in total) signed onto a new amicus brief for the 4th Circuit court of appeals which is the next appeals court hearing a case on the revised travel ban. And, yes, we at the Copia Institute signed onto this one as well (we also signed onto the first two).

It seems likely that some companies just sat out the Hawaii case because it's in a district court, and amicus briefs aren't always as welcome in district courts, and some lawyers view them as wasteful at that stage. Amicus briefs tend to really only matter in appeals courts (or, of course, the Supreme Court). You can read the full brief here (or below), as it makes the case that even the revised ban doesn't solve the problems of the original ban. It's worth reading carefully. It's good to see all of these companies continue to stand up for what's right, especially when it would be easy to sit back, do nothing, and play nice with the new administration.

And, because I know that some people will insist that the only reason that tech companies have signed onto this is because it gets them cheap labor or some other such criticisms, I can assure you that in many cases, the participation in these amicus briefs is being driven by the employees at these companies, demanding that management stand up and speak out, rather than a top down decision. Many people feel strongly -- as I do -- that being a country that is welcoming to immigrants is an important part of being American. No one's arguing that there shouldn't be background checks and "vetting" and the like -- but the executive order goes way beyond that.

Filed Under: donald trump, immigration, tech companies, travel ban

Tech Companies File Amicus Brief, Still Opposed To New Trump Immigration Order

from the same-problems dept

Last month, we noted that a ton of tech companies -- including us at the Copia Institute -- had signed on to amicus brief opposing the Trump Executive Order on immigration. As you know, the administration came out with a new executive order a few weeks later, trying to get around the multiple courts that had blocked the original order. The new order is just a cosmetic rewriting of the original one with a few small changes that the administration hopes will survive judicial scrutiny. A number of challenges have already been filed to the new order, and in one of them, brought by the state of Hawaii, a bunch of tech companies (again, including the Copia Institute) have now filed an amicus brief opposing the order. In particular, this brief focuses on the harms to the tech industry, including actual examples of harms created by this exec order:

• A U.S. resident employed at a cutting-edge software company fears that he cannot leave the U.S. because he is a national of a Muslim majority country targeted by President Trump’s travel ban. If he attempts to travel outside the country, he could be detained and refused re-entry. After the travel ban went into effect, he canceled plans to bring his mother to the U.S. to visit him, out of concern that she might be detained or turned away. He has not been home for five years. The U.S. company he works for, which employs over 100 people and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, was founded by an immigrant.
• A high-tech, U.S.-based software company devoted significant resources to an event it scheduled in February 2017 where it planned to host owners of small businesses and tech start-ups based overseas. Before these entrepreneurs became business and start-up owners, they were Syrian refugees. After President Trump’s travel ban went into effect on January 27, 2017, the event was abruptly postponed, because the guests were unable to travel to the U.S. on account of their status as Syrian refugees. The U.S.- based software company plans to reschedule the event at a location outside the U.S., so the Syrian refugees and entrepreneurs can safely attend.
• A U.S.-based mobile app and website development company with millions of users worldwide employs U.S. residents who are nationals of the Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Trump’s travel ban. In late January and February 2017, some of these employees had planned to fly outside the U.S. for business or personal reasons. Since the travel ban was announced, these employees canceled their flights for fear they would be detained or not permitted to re-enter the U.S.
• A U.S.-based technology company courted promising job candidates overseas and was prepared to offer them employment when the prospects suddenly withdrew from consideration because they were worried about immigration issues in light of President Trump’s travel ban.
• After the implementation of President Trump’s travel ban, foreign born founders of a U.S.-based technology company began exploring the possibility of moving their company outside of the U.S.—and taking the company’s jobs with them.

President Trump’s new travel ban is no different. It will inflict the same substantial and irreparable harm upon U.S. companies and their employees. And in implementing the promise of a “Muslim ban,” the new travel ban suffers from many of the same defects as the first travel ban. It violates the prohibition against nationality-based discrimination that Congress established through the Immigration and Nationality Act. It exceeds the authority granted to the Executive. It is arbitrary and overbroad in scope. And it impermissibly discriminates on the basis of religion and deprives individuals of Due Process rights, thus violating the U.S. Constitution. In sum, President Trump’s new travel ban has not overcome the constitutional and legal deficiencies that led courts to enjoin his first travel ban. Accordingly, the new travel ban should meet the same fate as the first travel ban— it should be enjoined nationwide.

This amicus brief is at the district court level, so it's still quite early in the process -- and there are other legal challenges in other courts. This will still take a while to sort itself out, but we're proud to stand alongside others in the industry in speaking up for why these immigration executive orders are illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention bad for innovation and the economy.

Update: Oh, and just an hour or so after I posted this, the judge has granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the executive order from going into effect...

Filed Under: donald trump, hawaii, immigration, tech companies
Companies: copia institute

Rep. Sensenbrenner Thinks We Can Pay For The Border Wall With More Asset Forfeiture

from the GIVE-UNTIL-IT-HURTS-Act dept

President Trump appears to have thrown his support behind asset forfeiture, even as the issue has begun reaching critical mass in the mainstream media. (It's been thoroughly covered by more libertarian publications like Reason for years.) In addition to not being able to "see anything wrong with it," Trump jokingly suggested he'd ruin the careers of politicians mounting reform efforts.

His recent executive orders appear to back this "gloves off" approach to criminal justice. In addition to singling out immigrants as troublemakers, the orders ask law enforcement officials to take a look around and see if they're being constrained by any state or federal laws. Presumably, any recent forfeiture reform legislation would fall under this heading as it prevents law enforcement agencies from acting in the way they've become accustomed: seize first, convict later... if at all.

With Jeff Sessions in place as attorney general, asset forfeiture appears to be headed for the wrong kind of renaissance. Sessions is a firm believer in the general rightness of taking aways citizens' property and due process simultaneously because, as he sees it, the process only affects people who've "done nothing but deal dope their whole lives."

Now, there's this: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is offering up another bill with a clumsily reverse-engineered acronym -- one that could further pervert the incentives of asset forfeiture. (via Watchdog.org)

Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Build Up Illegal Line Defenses With Assets Lawfully Lifted (BUILD WALL) Act of 2017 in the House of Representatives.

[...]

This legislation would require the U.S. Attorney General to provide a detailed report on the amount of annual profits brought into the United States by Mexican drug cartels, as well as a study of how the Department of Justice can increase assets seized from such cartels.

Additionally, the BUILD WALL Act would use money forfeited from drug traffickers to fund increased border security on the U.S./ Mexican border. This defense could include a wall, another type of physical barrier, and/or a technology-supported solution. The use of this funding would ease the financial burdens on taxpayers and help build stronger relations between the United States and Mexico while fighting back against drug trafficking in both countries.

While Sensenbrenner's statements mention Mexican drug cartels, the reality is that the billions the cartels make from drug sales are safely back in Mexico and (mostly) out of reach of US law enforcement. That leaves everyone on this side of the border, who can now be viewed as unwilling donors to the cause. If Trump's ever going to be able to, uh, BUILD WALL, he's going to need several billion more dollars than was stated in his original estimate. That's where Mr. and Mrs. Interstate Traveler come into play. A few hundred dollars here and there, and eventually it adds up to real wall-building money.

This means the federal government would be looking to take a larger share of any revenue generated from asset forfeiture in partnerships with local law enforcement. This may not make the local boys happy, but considering many of them use these partnerships to route around local forfeiture restrictions, they can't complain too much about the slightly-smaller cut of the proceeds, when the alternative might be nothing at all.

Lawmakers who support DJT's Folly are casting about in hopes of landing a few billion in wall funding. Mexico has only extended a middle finger in response to the Wall Plan, so it's up to us Americans to make a billionaire's dreams come true. If that means having our cash, cars, and houses seized without accompanying criminal allegations, much less convictions, so be it. The security of our nation depends on our unwilling sacrifice. This wall must be built to ensure our nation is only susceptible to the thieves already in our midst.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, build wall, civil asset forfeiture, donald trump, immigration, jim sensenbrenner

The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot

from the fake-news dept

We've already made our views clear on the horrible nature of the Trump administration's ban on travelers who were born in seven predominantly Muslim countries. The administration has been trying to defend the program, but its talking points are (once again) falling apart. For example, the idea that this only "inconvenienced" a tiny percentage of people and was only temporary — government lawyers have now revealed that over 100,000 visas were permanently revoked. Permanently.

But the story that's gotten a lot more attention is how Trump aide Kellyanne Conway went on TV last night and tried to back up another talking point: that this is no different than what President Obama did with Iraqi visas. That's not true, but we'll get to that. Even if it were true, Conway seemed to literally make up a terrorist attack that didn't happen, calling it the "Bowling Green Massacre."

Of course, there was no such massacre. This has resulted in lots and lots of social media mocking about the "massacre" that didn't exist. Some of the mocking is actually quite funny. And, of course, you might want to go donate to the Bowling Green Massacre Fund to support the victims.

Conway, of course, has said that she merely misspoke and had meant to say "Bowling Green terrorists" and then further pointed to a 2013 article about the two arrested Iraqis, claiming that it was a sign that "dozens" of terrorists could live in the US as refugees.

Even ignoring the ridiculous massacre claim, and accepting the idea that she just meant to say "terrorists", absolutely everything about this story fails to make her point unless you actively distort it. Let's dig in:

• The two Iraqis were "terrorists" set to carry out a bombing plot. Nope. It turns out that the two guys arrested were involved yet another of the FBI's "own plots." If you're new to this, for years we've covered how the FBI (rather than actually taking on criminal activity) has been inventing its own fake terrorist plots, and then using undercover agents and informants to bully dupes into "joining" the non-existent, FBI-created, FBI-financed, FBI-supplied "plots." We've written about examples of this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (so don't go in the comments and ask why this story is on Techdirt...)

  And the "Bowling Green Terrorists" story is the same exact thing all over again:

  From that fall through the following spring, the FBI informant invited Alwan to participate in 10 operations to send weapons or money to Iraq.

• There was no bombing plot against Americans. The FBI's "own plot" here didn't even involve attacks on America. It was just about sending (non-existent) money and weapons to Iraq:

  ...throughout their interactions with undercover FBI agents in 2010 and 2011, Alwan and Hammadi never discussed plans to attack anyone or cause destruction on U.S. soil. And while they were found guilty of attempting to provide material support to al Queda militants back in Iraq, the men never indicated that they were personally in contact with any militants, attempted to procure weapons for such individuals, or attempted to provide any of their own money to such individuals. Rather, they showed up when and where the FBI informant told them to and helped physically load decoy supplies into whatever they were allegedly being shipped from.

• There was never any support for the claim that they were part of a larger cell of terrorist refugees: Again, this was a tiny "plot" manufactured by the FBI to send weapons and money to Iraq, not to attack the US. And while Conway has been blowing up Twitter by claiming this ABC story proves that other refugee "terrorists" were here, that article is from 2013, and not a single other person has been arrested, no other terrorist plots associated with refugees (real or fake) have been found or (more importantly) taken place.

  Hell, even former DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller pointed out that the ABC story "is garbage":

• Conway claimed that the media didn't report on the Bowling Green situation... but her proof that it happened is pointing to an article from ABC. Enough said on that.

• What Obama did in response to that was different: This has been a key talking point for those supporting the ban. They claim that no one complained about Obama "ban" for six months on people from Iraq in response to the Bowling Green "terrorists." Except that's simply false. As has been carefully reported in a ton of places, what President Obama did in 2011 was entirely different. There was no ban. There was no stoppage. A single type of visa just had more stringent vetting put in place that briefly slowed the throughput of applications. If you want the most thorough explanation I've seen for just how different the two situations are, read the analysis at Foreign Policy Magazine.

• Even if President Obama had done the same thing, people should still be upset: Because banning all people from a certain country or set of countries without a specific reason or threat, and (in the process) wreaking havoc on the lives of tons of people, including permanent residents and American citizens, deserves to be condemned as simply cruel.

In summary, Kellyanne Conway is using a non-existent "Bowling Green Massacre" to defend an inhumane policy, based on falsely arguing that two refugees, who were ensnared in a plot created by the FBI to send fake money and fake weapons back to Iraq (and not to attack America), were the tip of the iceberg of a bunch of refugee terrorists (who didn't actually exist) planning to attack America (which never happened) and because of that fake plot, fake massacre and fake terrorists, President Obama similarly banned people from Iraq -- which was something he didn't do. Is that about the sum of it?

Filed Under: bowling green massacre, bowling green terrorists, fbi, humanity, immigration, kellyanne conway, lies, own plots, president obama, president trump, visas

The Massive Overreaction To Uber's Response To JFK Protests

from the calm-down-people dept

Okay, let's start this out by admitting that there are plenty of reasons that people really dislike Uber, and I know that some people have a kneejerk hatred for the company. For a variety of reasons, in some people's minds, Uber represents the very worst of Silicon Valley. While I do think that the company has had some issues -- especially around privacy -- many of the complaints around Uber have been greatly exaggerated or distorted. But none have been quite as ridiculously distorted and exaggerated as the online reaction Saturday night to Uber's decision to drop its infamous "surge pricing" at JFK due to protests there. That resulted in a "#DeleteUber" hashtag going viral and being passed around by many, many people -- including many of my friends who I normally agree with on most things.

The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me and seemed quite ridiculously unfair to Uber (and, sure, some will argue that the company deserves whatever shit it gets, but to me it lessens people's credibility when they throw a fit over something where it appears they took things entirely out of context). So here's the background. As you are, by now, no doubt aware, on Saturday night there were protests all around the US, mainly at major airports, concerning people who were arriving from overseas at those airports, and being barred (or worse, sent back on other flights) in response to President Trump's new executive order concerning individuals born in seven particular countries. As part of this, the NY Taxi Workers Association announced a one-hour work stoppage to protest the executive order:

That afternoon, entirely separate from this, Uber announced that it had turned off surge pricing at JFK:

This resulted in many people assuming that this was Uber "breaking the strike" and basically undermining the protest message made by the NYC taxi drivers. And with many people already predisposed to dislike Uber, a meme was born. This was complicated even further by the fact that Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, is on one of Donald Trump's "economic councils." Some argued that it meant that he was supportive of Trump and all of Trump's plans, even as Kalanick made it clear that he didn't support the plan and planned to use his access to tell Trump why the plan was bad. But, it didn't matter. Tons and tons of people started tweeting that Uber was evil for supporting Trump and "breaking the strike."

But this makes no sense. The more I looked at it, the more I realized that no matter what Uber did, some people would have likely twisted it into being a way to bash Uber. Here were the options:

• Leave surge pricing in place: People would still argue that Uber "broke the strike" and, even worse, they'd argue that the "greedy" company was "profiteering" off of it by charging much higher rates. Dropping surge pricing actually decreases the supply of drivers, decreases the profit for the company and actually doesn't help Uber very much, because it means longer waits and fewer riders and drivers.
• Stop offering service to/from JFK: People would argue that this was Uber actively working to stop people from getting to the protests, especially since there was a period of time when the police were blocking the AirTrain, which is JFK's main connection to the NYC subway system.
• Stay silent: If only that were possible. My twitter feed over the weekend was full of reporters from major publications tweeting out over and over again their demands from basically every tech company to put out a statement or do something. And, indeed, Uber's CEO had sent out an email making it pretty clear that he didn't support the executive order at all, and that they were actively looking to help Uber drivers who were impacted by all of this.

I brought this point up with some on Twitter, and their response was that even if it was well intentioned, it didn't matter, because the impact was to "undermine" the work stoppage. That's also silly. Of all things, my undergrad degree is actually in labor relations, and that included multiple semesters of labor history and studying all sorts of things related to work stoppages and the like. When the point of a work stoppage is to push for better wages, then obviously, scabs or breaking a strike, is reasonably problematic to that strategy. But that's not what the NYC taxicab drivers were doing. They weren't making Donald Trump's life any harder (I'm reasonably assuming, he wasn't waiting for a cab from Terminal 4). What they were doing was a symbolic protest to make it widely know that they don't approve. And they accomplished that mission. Uber's decision had no impact on it (and, arguably, drew more attention to the protest).

So, sure, if you don't like Uber for this, that, or the other thing, feel free to continue to dislike Uber for those reasons. But if you deleted your Uber app because you thought it somehow "broke the strike," you massively overreacted and got sucked in by a meme that involved taking things out of context and misrepresenting reality.

Admittedly, there was one thing that Uber could have done, and didn't -- which was the strategy that its main competitor Lyft did take: announcing plans to donate $1 million to the ACLU (over the course of four years) directly in response to the executive order. This is actually a really great move by Lyft, and kudos to them. Kalanick later announced a $3 million "legal" fund to help Uber drivers, but that's not quite the same thing. Directly donating to organizations that will fight the executive order is a great thing and Lyft deserves lots of kudos for it -- but it's still a bit silly to argue that every company had to take that step to not be the target of a massive negative campaign.

Filed Under: immigration, jfk, protests, ride hailing, ride sharing, strike breaking, strikes, surge pricing
Companies: lyft, uber

Our Humanity

from the this-is-not-a-game dept

Over the last few months, we've had a very, very small, but still vocal group of folks in our comments who have gotten angry every time we've been critical of Donald Trump -- even when we were making nearly identical complaints about him as we did about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That group of people probably won't like this post very much, though I do hope they'll read it with open minds. We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.

But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you. Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920 -- most of them escaping religious persecution elsewhere. My great grandmother had to hide in the bottom of a boat to escape from where she lived. Many came through Ellis Island, and were welcomed into America. My grandfathers built up businesses here. One fought bravely against Nazis (literally) in World War II for the US in Europe and North Africa, and came back to the US and built a company that (among other things) was a huge supplier for the Boy Scouts of America. While they may have struggled at times, my family came to America and was embraced by America, thrived in America and has always loved America. My wife is an immigrant. Her family moved here when she was young to give her and her siblings a better life. And that's what they found. America embraced them and they embraced America back. They're all US citizens.

All weekend long, I've been reading all sorts of accounts about President Trump's executive order. Some of it has been thoughtful. Some of it has been hysterical. Some of it has been painful. Some of it has been ridiculous.

But it all comes back to one thing: this is about our humanity.

The "excuses" that some have been spewing for the executive order make no sense. They say this is about "safety," yet there is no evidence that the people being kept out were a risk to our safety. As many have noted, not a single terrorist attack has come from people from those countries. They say this is about "extreme vetting" but ignore that refugees already go through a ridiculously long and thorough "extreme vetting" process that can take years. They say that this is just an "inconvenience" to a "small group" of people, ignoring that they are basically upending the lives of entire families -- families including those with permanent resident status, who have been valuable, contributing members to our country for years and years and years.

This is madness.

They say that this is necessary to protect us at home, but even ignoring everything above, it's hard to see how this doesn't make us less safe. How can anyone read this essay by Kirk Johnson and not realize how much harm we're doing. Johnson has devoted a big part of his life to helping Iraqis who literally put their lives at risk to help Americans, and then were ignored by America. Read what he's written and ask yourself what foreigner will sign up to help America again in the future?

They say this is about "the rule of law," but then explain why Customs and Border Patrol are literally ignoring court orders and refusing to even speak to members of Congress? They say this is about stopping threats at home, but that doesn't explain at all why the White House failed to have the relevant experts review the executive order before it was put in place, or why multiple national security experts have noted this will clearly make us less safe. And, of course, nothing explains why the White House directly overruled Homeland Security saying this wouldn't apply to permanent residents (and then required DHS to later come out and try to clarify).

Again, this goes back to a story about basic humanity. And our country massively failing.

I know there are lots of people speculating on a variety of things around all of this. There are explanations that this is part of a "shock doctrine" move to sow chaos and confusion and deligitimize organizations before the really bad policy is put into place. And perhaps that's true. It's certainly something to watch for. But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a "does this make sense" or "does this make the world a better place" metric -- and not on a "does this help my team" scale -- it must be stated that the executive order Donald Trump signed late last week, that was put into effect over the weekend is not just a disaster. It hasn't just created a constitutional crisis with parts of the executive branch ignoring the judiciary. It's not just a policy that is impacting millions of lives.

It's simply inhumane.

This is about humanity, and anyone who has any sense of humanity has a responsibility to speak up about it and to say that this is not right. If you get angry about this post, and think you need to insult us and attack me or this site, I would only recommend that you first take stock of your life, and think about what message you are sending out into the world when you do so.

Filed Under: civil liberties, decency, donald trump, humanity, immigration, refugees, safety, security

DOJ Blows Redaction Effort; Exposes Immigration Judges Accused Of Misconduct

from the REFRESH-TO-REMOVE-REDACTION dept

Some more inadvertent transparency has resulted from a FOIA lawsuit. Two years ago, the DOJ released a bunch of heavily-redacted documents containing complaints about immigration judges to the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the American Immigration Council. Withheld at the time -- or so the DOJ thought -- were the names of the judges named in the complaints.

But that's all history now. Even though the DOJ and the American Immigration Council are still litigating over the legality of redacting the judges' names, those arguments have been rendered irrelevant. As Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast reports, additional research work by an immigration lawyer has uncovered the judges' supposedly redacted names.

A few days before Inauguration Day, meanwhile, an immigration attorney named Bryan Johnson was combing through that document trove in search of any tidbits that could help him. Johnson, of the Long Island, New York, law firm Amoachi & Johnson PLLC, represents children who come to the United States without legal authorization, fleeing drug violence in Central America. For these clients, who seek refugee status from some of the most violent parts of the world, deportation can be a death sentence.

Johnson told The Daily Beast that as he was going through those documents, he switched from one document-viewing software program to another, in hopes of making it easier to scroll through.

But when he made the switch, something happened that he hadn’t expected: The redactions vanished.

Johnson discovered that all of the redactions -- which included the personal information of immigrants seeking residency -- weren't truly redacted. They were only hidden. Considering the wealth of personal info in the documents, Johnson hasn't posted unredacted copies of the FOIA'ed complaints. Instead, he's linked as many of the complaints to the now-named judges as possible.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review -- from where the redaction failure stems -- claims Johnson's information is incorrect. While he does possess documents that aren't actually redacted, a spokesperson claims his key matching judges to complaints is inaccurate. But that's as far as the comment goes. No examples of specific inaccuracy have been cited and the EOIR seems content to make it appear as though all of Johnson's work is inherently faulty.

Even if the key is off, the complaints contained in the documents are ugly. Judges who hold people's future in their hands seem to treat the very secretive courts as their fiefdoms.

In complaint number 468, ICE chief counsel advised ACIJ Larry Dean that an IJ (immigration judge) was systematically depriving detained immigrants of procedural due process rights–specifically, the IJ was observed to have been ordering immigrants removed and then subsequently using that removal order to deny immigrants’ right to a bond determination.

And more:

One complainant alleges that an immigration judge gave special leniency to the clients of another immigration attorney. In some complaints, immigrants allege that judges laughed at them, mocked them, and didn’t take seriously their pleas for asylum.

[...]

Documents showed multiple allegations of that judge rudely yelling at DHS attorneys.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has released its own statement, highlighting the effed-up conditions of their particularly unusual workplace. In addition to being understaffed and having a backlog of a half-million cases to work through, the system used to handle complaints about judges is completely opaque -- even to the judges being disciplined.

Most people, lawyers included, fail to understand that the position of Immigration Judges is a legal anomaly. The law under which we serve describes us as attorneys appointed to serve as judges. We are called judges and held to standards of conduct that apply to judges, yet IJs are considered attorneys by the U.S. Department of Justice. This classification means we are subjected to the orders of supervisors, and like any employee, are at risk of discipline for failure to follow the instructions of our supervisors. Immigration Judges are viewed by DOJ as low level employees...

What is even worse is the star chamber manner in which Immigration Judge discipline is meted out. Not infrequently, Immigration Judges have been investigated and discipline proposed without even advising the Judge that a complaint has been filed, let alone asking the Judge to provide his or her side of the story.

Understandably, these judges aren't happy that complaints have been linked to their mistakenly-unredacted names. This has led to talk of a possible lawsuit against the DOJ for doing an inadequate job of protecting the judges' privacy.

On the other hand, government agencies are well-known for doing everything they can to ensure the public knows as little as possible about misconduct or illegal activity committed by government employees. No matter how egregious the violation, the names are withheld for as long as possible -- in some cases indefinitely. Meanwhile, the merest accusation of illegal activity committed by a taxpayer tends to result in the release of that person's name in full -- along with any background info that can be dredged up. If these judges are worried about their reputations as the result of unsubstantiated allegations… well, hey, welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

But underlying all of this is an error that undoes months of litigation and thousands of taxpayer dollars. The government -- at least until recently -- has been arguing this information should be withheld. Right or wrong, the information hasn't been, but constituents are still on the hook for the costs of this particularly futile legal battle.

Filed Under: doj, immigration, immigration judges, judges, privacy, redactions