When Tom Swann and Guillermo Hernandez got engaged in December of last year, they never expected that their wedding would take place in a federal immigration detention center.

But on March 14, 2016, the two were wed at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California, in what became the first wedding of a same-sex couple in immigration detention history.

The history-making wedding – which both men hoped would take place under far different circumstances in a far nicer setting – was the result of misguided policy by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that allows immigration agents to roam courthouses and detain immigrants, regardless of whether individuals are applying for a marriage certificate or appearing in court.

Guillermo, who was arrested for underage trespassing at a casino when he was 20, and had some misdemeanor drug charges on his record, returned to the casino when he turned 21, violating a five-year-ban on entering the casino’s premises, and violating his probation. In January, he appeared for a hearing at the Riverside County Courthouse in Indio.

At his hearing, prosecutors had agreed to offer him a one-year residential drug treatment program instead of jail. As he entered the courthouse, however, Guillermo was detained by ICE and taken into custody.

mytubethumb play
%3Cobject%20classid%3D%22clsid%3AD27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000%22%20codebase%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.macromedia.com%2Fpub%2Fshockwave%2Fcabs%2Fflash%2Fswflash.cab%23version%3D9%2C0%2C47%2C0%22%20height%3D%22390%22%20id%3D%22flashObj%22%20width%3D%22640%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22movie%22%20value%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fc.brightcove.com%2Fservices%2Fviewer%2Ffederated_f9%3FisSlim%3D1%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22bgcolor%22%20value%3D%22%23FFFFFF%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22flashVars%22%20value%3D%22videoId%3D4800944587001%26amp%3BplayerID%3D2893028832001%26amp%3BplayerKey%3DAQ~~%2CAAAACZcC6QE~%2CkYcDWaPjQpc52VjV8N35drchpbVpzU9l%26amp%3Bdomain%3Dembed%26amp%3BdynamicStreaming%3Dtrue%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22base%22%20value%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.brightcove.com%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22seamlesstabbing%22%20value%3D%22false%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22allowFullScreen%22%20value%3D%22true%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22swLiveConnect%22%20value%3D%22true%22%3E%3Cparam%20name%3D%22allowScriptAccess%22%20value%3D%22always%22%3E%3Cembed%20allowfullscreen%3D%22allowfullscreen%22%20allowscriptaccess%3D%22always%22%20base%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.brightcove.com%22%20bgcolor%3D%22%23FFFFFF%22%20flashvars%3D%22videoId%3D4800944587001%26amp%3BplayerID%3D2893028832001%26amp%3BplayerKey%3DAQ~~%2CAAAACZcC6QE~%2CkYcDWaPjQpc52VjV8N35drchpbVpzU9l%26amp%3Bdomain%3Dembed%26amp%3BdynamicStreaming%3Dtrue%22%20height%3D%22390%22%20name%3D%22flashObj%22%20pluginspage%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macromedia.com%2Fshockwave%2Fdownload%2Findex.cgi%3FP1_Prod_Version%3DShockwaveFlash%22%20seamlesstabbing%3D%22false%22%20src%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fc.brightcove.com%2Fservices%2Fviewer%2Ffederated_f9%3FisSlim%3D1%22%20swliveconnect%3D%22true%22%20type%3D%22application%2Fx-shockwave-flash%22%20width%3D%22640%22%3E%3C%2Fembed%3E%3C%2Fobject%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from brightcove.com.

Read more about Tom and Guillermo's wedding day. Video footage courtesy of The Desert Sun

Guillermo, who has lived in the United States since he was seven years old, applied for and was granted protection under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a special program that shields some young immigrants from deportation. But after his brushes with the law, he was denied renewal of his special status.

Now, Guillermo, who was able to secure legal help from Centro Legal de la Raza, is awaiting the outcome of his case. At the ACLU of Southern California, we believe that Guillermo should never have been detained by ICE because the federal agency has repeatedly said it focuses enforcement efforts on immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety. Clearly, Guillermo is not a threat to his community.

Moreover, once detained he should have been eligible for release on bond for that very same reason.

Yet Guillermo remains locked up in an immigration jail because federal immigration officials failed to follow their own rules. And Tom – a Navy veteran, who is blind and suffers from AIDS – has been left without the much-needed support and companionship of his husband.

ACLU SoCal is working to help Guillermo obtain bond and is seeking public support via a petition asking for his release.

This is not the first time the ACLU has raised serious concerns about ICE’s practice of trolling for detainees at courthouses.

In 2013, we sent a letter to ICE asking the agency stop conducting enforcement actions outside courthouses in Kern County and throughout California because such practices actually undermine public safety by discouraging immigrants from testifying in court, or even reporting crimes fearing that any contact with the legal system may result in deportation proceedings.

ICE responded in a letter and promised to stop such enforcement tactics around the Kern County Superior Court.

Then in March 2014, after increased pressure to stop the practice altogether, ICE told the Los Angeles Times that the agency “routinely evaluates its operational procedures to ensure its resources are being used effectively and efficiently, “ and had recently provided updated guidance related to enforcement actions at or in close proximity to courthouses but refused to disclose any details.

Unfortunately, it seems that two years later, little has changed in ICE’s approach to  enforcement actions around courthouses and immigrants such as Guillermo are still being targeted simply because they complied with their legal obligations and went to court.

ICE should keep its word and follow its own guidelines. But, until ICE reforms the way it operates, people like Guillermo will continue to be picked up, funneled into deportation and separated from their loved ones.

Luis Nolasco is community engagement and policy advocate at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow Luis on Twitter.

Take Action: Urge ICE to #FreeGuillermo and reunite him with husband

Date

Friday, April 1, 2016 - 10:15am

Featured image

TAKE ACTION: Urge U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to #FreeGuillermo and reunite him with husband.

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights LGBTQ Rights

Show related content

Author:
Luis Nolasco

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

By Jeremiah Tramble

In 2014, I transferred from Venice High to Central High in Mar Vista Gardens. At the time, I thought I had finally found a school where I felt safe, valued and supported. For the first time, I had a teacher who motivated me to get the most out of my education.

But that changed five months into my senior year when I was abruptly pulled out of class and searched for weapons and contraband even though I had not done anything wrong.

The day started off like any other. I arrived at school and started working on my U.S. government and economics homework. Something, however, felt odd. I noticed the principal was in my classroom observing students, and it was clear that she was watching me closely. After a few minutes, the principal looked at our class roster and selected a “random” selection of student names, beginning with me.

We were told to grab our personal belongings and follow the principal and another administrator to a separate room.

Once in the room, the principal told us that if we have any contraband, we “might as well give it up now,” and then started to search through our bags. The other administrator told me to take off my sweater and waved the metal detector over my body. When the wand didn’t detect anything, he told me to take off my shoes so he could search them again with the wand. They didn’t find anything on me or any of my classmates.

The incident left me feeling hurt, confused and discriminated against. As the only African-American student in the class, I felt as if school officials targeted me because I was different. It was even worse because I came to this school because it was safe and because I wanted to stop being treated like a suspect all the time. I didn’t understand why they needed to search us, when we’ve never had a crime or weapon on campus.

The administrators said they would keep coming back to search us because it was the Los Angeles Unified School District’s policy.

Before I was searched, I was doing well in school and was on track to graduate. But after the incident I was deeply shaken. Despite having followed the rules and worked hard to do well, I found myself subject to searches and treated like a criminal at school. I felt discouraged, dehumanized, and not valued.

After that incident, I grew angry and my desire to learn decreased. I found that I couldn’t concentrate because I was extremely uncomfortable, knowing I could be searched at any moment.  The only way to make it stop was to stay out of school.  I wanted to attend school but I didn’t want to feel like a criminal.

The next day, I decided not to attend Central High.   I was worried that there were plans to conduct another search that day. Out of respect for my teacher who goes by the name Vitaly, I didn’t want to attend class filled with anger, fear and anxiety. The experience kept me out of school for a month. Luckily, my mom and Vitaly stepped in and encourage me to return to school. I came back during the last two weeks to complete the two classes I needed to graduate.

Looking back now, I wish I had known that the administrators weren’t allowed to ask me to take off my clothes. I wish I had known that the administration can’t target students for searches based on their race. I wish I had known that students have constitutional rights, even in school, and that searches like the one I went through violate those rights.

But at least I know my rights now and can assert them when I feel they are being violated. Fortunately, my teacher, Vitaly held a “Know Your Rights” training workshop, and now I know how to conduct myself in the future, if there is another search.

I am a student, not a suspect.

Jeremiah Tramble is a graduate of Central High in Los Angeles.

 

Date

Thursday, March 31, 2016 - 2:30pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Education Equity

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

By Becca Cramer

Bills sponsored by the ACLU of California* would help move us forward.

Every year, the ACLU of California sponsors several bills in the California Legislature. What does it mean to sponsor a bill? In most cases, it means we have collaborated with other advocacy groups and the legislative author in drafting the bill and providing our input on the text. We also may lobby legislators, testify in support of the bill, seek support from other groups, work with opposition to address their concerns, draft fact sheets and sample support letters, and provide communications and media support.

ACLU supporters are involved in the process, too, by responding to our action alerts and participating in our annual Conference & Lobby Day.

Sign up for email action alerts to let your legislator know that you want them to support ACLU of California-sponsored bills.

This Year’s Sponsored Bills

We sponsor bills on a wide range of topics that impact Californians’ civil liberties and civil rights. Here are the 10 bills we are sponsoring this year:

Criminal justice

SB 443 (Mitchell) – No More Policing for Profit: SB 443 is an important bill that upholds and protects the American principles of fairness and due process in California. For years, law enforcement agencies in the state have taken advantage of a loophole that lets them take innocent people’s cash and property, and then keep a portion of the loot through civil asset forfeiture laws. Created during the heyday of the war on drugs, asset forfeiture laws were meant to take booty away from drug “kingpins” but have been perverted into an ongoing attack on Californians who can’t afford to fight the government in court, a burden that falls disproportionately on low-income people of color. SB 443 reins in the abuse by preventing cops from permanently taking someone’s money or property if the person hasn’t been convicted of a crime.

It’s simple: if there’s no conviction, then cops can’t keep people’s things.

SB 881 (Hertzberg) – No More Suspended Licenses Because You Can’t Afford to Pay a Ticket: A ticket in California for a traffic infraction, such as a broken tail light, expired tags, or fare evasion, can ultimately lead to a suspended driver’s license if someone does not pay or make a court appearance—an overly harsh punishment that does not fit the offense and undermines the person’s ability to hold a job and make amends.  Courts can already impose other sanctions instead, without unnecessarily pushing people further into a cycle of poverty.  SB 881 ensures that courts and counties do not suspend driver’s licenses as a means of collecting court-ordered debt for non-safety traffic offenses.

SB 1134 (Leno) – Creating a Fair Standard to Prove Your Innocence: California has an overly burdensome process that makes it practically impossible for someone to prove their innocence and be freed if they are wrongfully convicted of a crime. Current law requires that anyone who is wrongfully convicted affirmatively and conclusively prove their innocence or remain wrongfully incarcerated if new evidence is uncovered—even if the new evidence shows their conviction would likely never happen now. This poses an unreasonable challenge for innocent Californians: you either have conclusive DNA evidence or identification of the actual perpetrator… or you stay locked up for a crime you didn’t commit.  SB 1134 changes state law to instead require that someone who is wrongfully convicted show that if the new evidence were presented at a new trial, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would be different. In doing so, California would be joining other states who have taken similar steps to bring a little bit of justice back to our criminal justice system.

SB 1389 (Glazer) – Preventing False Confessions and Wrongful Convictions: It might be hard to believe, but false confessions extracted while someone is being questioned by police are the second most frequent cause of wrongful convictions. With more than 1,730 exonerations nationwide since 1989, we can’t and shouldn’t ignore these glaring flaws in our criminal justice system, which can unjustly send someone to prison and ruin their lives. To help prevent such tragic outcomes, SB 1389 would require that police videotape interrogations of anyone suspected of homicide and thus improve criminal investigation techniques, document false confessions when they occur, reduce the likelihood of wrongful conviction, and make the promise of fairness and justice more of a reality in California.

Education

SB 322 (Leno) – Giving Every Student Equal Access to Education: Some charter schools in California have implemented admissions and disciplinary policies that raise questions and concerns about how and whether students are given equal access to education. SB 322 limits admissions procedures that exclude students based on academic achievement and ensure constitutional protections for suspension and expulsion proceedings.

Immigrants’ rights

AB 813 (Gonzalez) – A Fair Day in Court for All: Because of a ruling in the California Supreme Court, people in danger of being deported for old convictions have no way to go to court to challenge those convictions, even if the convictions are legally invalid. AB 813 gives immigrants access to courts so that they can challenge legally invalid convictions when they are no longer in custody, giving many people a shot at a fair shake. This would prevent unnecessary deportations that could unfairly tear some California families apart.

AB 2792 (Bonta) – California’s TRUTH Act: The federal government has a long track record of misleading the public about its efforts to entangle local law enforcement in deportations – with devastating consequences for immigrant communities, which are deeply rooted in our state’s social fabric. The TRUTH Act would bring to light ICE’s practices and allow communities to craft policies for local needs. With more transparency and accountability, California can make sure local communities have a voice – and guard against painful abuses.

Police practices

SB 1286 (Leno) – Lifting the Veil of Secrecy on Police Misconduct and Use of Force: SB 1286 is a commonsense bill that would restore police transparency in California and improve accountability and trust in the men and women tasked with serving and protecting us. Police wield far more power than most other public employees. They are authorized to detain, arrest, and even to kill in the discharge of their duties.  As a result, the taxpaying public has a greater need to know how they use that power -- a greater need for transparency and accountability than with other employees. Yet current law keeps the public from knowing the truth when officers, for example, kill someone or are accused of using their authority to commit sexual assault. By lifting the veil of police secrecy, SB 1286 would empower communities to hold police accountable, which is an important first step in addressing the ever-lingering suspicions that arise when decisions are made behind closed doors and never revealed to the public or to the victims and their families.

Reproductive justice

SB 23 (Mitchell) – Repealing a Racist, Sexist, Classist Policy: For more than 20 years, California has maintained a failed policy of denying financial support to babies born while their families are receiving CalWORKs basic needs grants for older siblings. This unfair policy is known as the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) rule. Intended to coerce poor women, particularly women of color, into having fewer children, the MFG rule endangers the health and wellbeing of babies born into poverty while simultaneously pushing their families deeper into poverty. At a time when one in five California children live in poverty, we should be doing everything in our power to make sure parents are not punished for their family planning decisions and that they and their children are instead able to lead safe, healthy and successful lives. SB 23 would get California one step closer to that.

Voting rights

AB 2466 (Weber & Mitchell) – Building a More Inclusive Democracy: Since slavery was abolished, felony disenfranchisement laws, which strip individuals of their vote because of a criminal conviction, have been used to breakdown potential African-American political power. In California, the voting rights of people with a criminal conviction are shrouded by confusion. This confusion threatens the integrity of California's elections and results in the unfair exclusion of eligible voters, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color, from our democracy. AB 2466 clarifies existing California law on voter eligibility, guarantees a more inclusive and participatory electorate, and is a step toward ending the shameful legacy of Jim Crow in our state.

Becca Cramer is legislative coordinator for the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy & Policy.

*The ACLU of California is a collaboration of the three ACLU affiliates in the state: ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California and ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.

Date

Thursday, March 24, 2016 - 10:15am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform Police Practices

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS