By Dale Ho, Director, Voting Rights Project, ACLU
 

Last month, we challenged the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census — essentially a door-to-door federal inquiry of the citizenship status of every member of every household in the country. On Thursday, we received welcome news from a federal judge that the lawsuit can continue. The judge’s decision, in part, was based on an explosive set of documents we obtained from the government. These documents reveal that the Trump administration’s public explanation as to why it needs this information is a sham to conceal its discriminatory, anti-immigrant agenda, and they also prove that a prominent member of President Trump’s cabinet lied under sworn oath to Congress. 

Some background: Every 10 years, the federal government conducts a census to count all people in the United States. Everyone is counted without exception — adults and children, citizens and non-citizens alike. This total population count is used to allocate funding for various federal programs and to apportion representation in Congress, the Electoral College, and within state legislatures. 

Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that it will include a citizenship question in the census questionnaire being sent to every household in America for the first time in 70 years. The White House persists, despite unanimous opposition from experts warning that such a question will intimidate immigrants and deter participation in the census in communities of color, costing these communities critical resources and political representation. 

Documents uncovered in our case have revealed that attacking immigrant communities is, in fact, the administration’s goal, spearheaded by two of President Trump’s most prominent anti-immigrant ideologues, and that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross lied to Congress in an attempt to cover up this fact.

The Official Story

Here’s the official story, according to the Trump administration, of how a citizenship question came to be added to the census, in three parts.

First, on December 12, 2017, Arthur Gary, a Trump appointee in the Department of Justice, wrote a letter to the acting head of the Census Bureau, Ron Jarmin, requesting that a question on citizenship be included in the 2020 Decennial Census. The ostensible reason was that such information “is critical to the Department’s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting.”

The Census Bureau is part of the Department of Commerce, which leads to the second step in the story. On March 22, 2018, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross testified before Congress under oath that this December 2017 request was the beginning of the process for considering the inclusion of a question on citizenship in the Decennial Census, stating that “[t]he Department of Justice, as you know, initiated the request.”

Watch Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Testify before Congress

Third, on March 26, 2018, Secretary Ross issued a memo directing the Census Bureau to include a question on citizenship on the Census. In the memo, he reiterated the story that his decision was a response to the Justice Department’s December 2017 request, emphasizing that the process was initiated “[f]ollowing the receipt of the DOJ request.”

But that isn’t how things played out in the real world.

The Real Story

The reality, as revealed by documents we’ve obtained through our litigation against the Trump administration, is very different from the official version of events, and it suggests that Secretary Ross deliberately misled Congress about his decision-making process. In fact, discussions of citizenship and the census occurred many months before the December 2017 letter from the Justice Department — and for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting communities of color from voting discrimination.

First, on March 10, 2017 — nine months before the Justice Department request — a member of Secretary Ross’ staff sent him an email forwarding an article critical of the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the census. In the email, the employee quoted a Census Bureau webpage making clear that “all people (citizens and noncitizens)…are to be included in the apportionment counts.” The staffer noted that “neither the 2000 nor the 2010 Census asked about citizenship.”

Next, about one month later, on April 5, 2017, Secretary Ross’s executive assistant emailed Secretary Ross’s wife to set up a call on behalf of Steve Bannon, who “asked that the Secretary talk to someone about the Census.” The “someone” went unnamed in the email (but stay tuned).

Less than one month after his Bannon-initiated conversation with an unnamed person about the Census, Secretary Ross was already exasperated that a citizenship question had not yet been added to the census. On May 2, 2017, Secretary Ross wrote an email to an aide stating that he was “mystified why nothing have [sic] been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship question.” [Emphasis mine]

The aide responded with an email that amounts to a smoking gun. He reassured Ross that they “will get that in place” and explained the plan: They would plant a request with the Justice Department: “We need to work with Justice to get them to request that citizenship be added…” [Emphasis mine]

Two months later, Secretary Ross received an email, solving the mystery of whom Steve Bannon sent to talk to Ross about the census. It was none other than the Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has long pushed an anti-immigrant agenda.

On July 14, 2017, Kobach sent an email to Ross “following up on our telephone discussion from a few months ago… we talked about the fact the US census does not currently ask respondents about their citizenship.”

A week later, on July 21, 2017, Kobach forwarded the email to Commerce official Wendy Teramoto, confirming that he and Ross “had spoken briefly on the phone about this issue, at the direction of Steve Bannon, a few months earlier.”

Teramoto responded by setting up a meeting between Kobach and Ross for later that week:

By August 8, Ross was growing impatient and indicated in an email to an aide that he was prepared to call Attorney General Jeff Sessions directly:

The following day, the aide assured Ross that a memo on the citizenship question was coming his way:

A month later, the pressure appeared to have paid off. On September 18, a Justice Department aide wrote to Commerce official Wendy Teramoto stating that “we can do whatever you all need us to do…. The AG is eager to assist.” [Emphasis mine] Ross and Sessions then met.

Two months later, DOJ still had not sent an official request, prompting Ross to write to an aide: “We are out of time. Please set up a call with…Justice. We must have this resolved.”

The following month, in December 2017, the Justice Department finally sent its request to the Commerce Department, which supposedly “initiated” the process of considering the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Together, all of these documents reveal that the fix was in. To recap:

  • In April 2017, Kris Kobach, at the direction of Steven Bannon, pitched the idea of the citizenship question to Ross.
  • In May 2017, Ross was already “mystified” that a citizenship question had not yet been added to the census, and an aide responded by reassuring him that they will “get that in place” as well as explaining the plan to plant the request with the Justice Department: “We need to work with Justice to get them to request that citizenship be added.” [Emphasis mine]
  • In September 2017, the Justice Department assured Commerce “we can do whatever you all need,” leading to a meeting between Sessions and Ross on the issue.

All of this took place months before the Justice Department requested that the Census Bureau add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census — which appears to be nothing more than a cover-up for the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. And Secretary Ross appears to have personally participated in that cover-up when he misled Congress by testifying on March 22, 2018, that “[t]he Department of Justice, as you know, initiated the request.” 

But thanks to the documents uncovered through our litigation, Secretary Ross has been forced to admit that the Trump Administration’s official narrative for how citizenship became part of the Census was false. In a June memo, he now admits that he started the process of adding the question “[s]oon after my appointment as Secretary of Commerce,” essentially admitting that he misled Congress.

The Court’s Ruling

In denying the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman pointed to the documents that we obtained, noting that they cast serious doubt on the administration’s version of events. In fact, as Judge Furman found, they suggested that “that the sequence of events was exactly opposite”:

Based in part on this evidence, Judge Furman concluded that it is plausible that the Trump administration was motivated by discrimination against immigrants of color:

Our case will now proceed, with the trial likely in late October or early November — right before the midterm elections.

We’re not tired of winning. See you in court, again, President Trump.

* This case is being brought by the ACLU, NYCLU and the law firm Arnold & Porter, on behalf of the New York Immigration Coalition, Make the Road NY, CASA, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Date

Friday, July 27, 2018 - 6:00pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Imported from National NID

69223

Menu parent dynamic listing

926

Imported from National VID

114680

Style

Standard with sidebar
By Stacy Sullivan, Deputy Director of Editorial and Strategic Communications, ACLU
 

The Trump administration claimed in court filings Thursday evening that it had met the court-ordered July 26 deadline to reunite the children it wrongfully separated from their parents. 

It did no such thing. 

In fact, what the government did was reunite upwards of 1,500 children it deemed eligible for reunification and whose parents it could find. Hundreds of children were not reunited for a variety of reasons. Some 463 parents were deported without their children — and the government isn’t even trying to reunite them — and the administration said it doesn’t know the identities of the parents of 40 children.

What’s worse, until last Friday, the government did not provide the ACLU with lists of the most vulnerable families in our class --- the ones who are at risk of imminent deportation. The lack of notification is particularly egregious because the Trump administration has said that it plans to immediately deport all of the parents who have final deportation orders once they are reunified, even though evidence suggests that many of those parents may have mistakenly given up their asylum claims. We and our allies are now working to get these families connected with lawyers, so that they can make decisions based on sound advice, rather than misleading or confusing information from immigration officers. 

In addition, the government provided lists claiming that 206 parents waived their right to be reunified with their children by either signing waivers or providing oral consent. The majority of these parents are now subject to immediate deportation. But on Tuesday, we filed a slew of affidavits showing that many of these parents desperately want their children back and did not realize they had relinquished their right to reunification. 

In some cases, the parents said the forms were not explained to them and that they felt pressured to sign. Some were not provided translation in their native languages and had no idea what they had signed. One said he was told that signing the form was the only way to prevent his daughter from being sent back to Guatemala.

Because of the confusion, the ACLU has asked the court to block any deportations for seven days after we are notified of reunification so that we can make sure families have the opportunity to meet with lawyers, are fully apprised of their options, and can make the decision that is best for them.

In our filing Thursday evening, we also asked the government to:

  • Provide all information possible on parents who were deported without their children so we can begin tracking them down. We want to make sure that all of them can be reunited with their children or make an informed decision to leave their children in the United States. If any of them were improperly deported, we believe they should be brought back to the United States.
  • Explain in detail what efforts are being undertaken to locate and make contact with the parents the government can’t find. That there are 40 children with no parental information is profoundly disturbing, and we want to know how this could have happened and what is being done to locate them.
  • Provide a detailed list of the reasons parents were deemed ineligible for reunification with their children. The government has alleged that some of them have criminal histories and a variety of other factors, but it has not provided specific information about the crime. While we agree that some crimes may make a parent unfit to be reunited with his or her child, clearly not all crimes do, so we need the details.

We will be back in court in San Diego on Friday afternoon. Rest assured: We expect this will be one of many more appearances before all of the families the government wrongfully separated are reunited.

Date

Friday, July 27, 2018 - 10:30am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Imported from National NID

69216

Menu parent dynamic listing

926

Imported from National VID

114672

Style

Standard with sidebar
By Jacob Snow, Technology & Civil Liberties Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
 

Amazon’s face surveillance technology is the target of growing opposition nationwide, and today, there are 28 more causes for concern. In a test the ACLU recently conducted of the facial recognition tool, called “Rekognition,” the software incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress, identifying them as other people who have been arrested for a crime. 

The members of Congress who were falsely matched with the mugshot database we used in the test include Republicans and Democrats, men and women, and legislators of all ages, from all across the country.


Our test used Amazon Rekognition to compare images of members of Congress with a database of mugshots. The results included 28 incorrect matches.

The false matches were disproportionately of people of color, including six members of the Congressional Black Caucus, among them civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). These results demonstrate why Congress should join the ACLU in calling for a moratorium on law enforcement use of face surveillance.

To conduct our test, we used the exact same facial recognition system that Amazon offers to the public, which anyone could use to scan for matches between images of faces. And running the entire test cost us $12.33 — less than a large pizza.

Tell Amazon to get out of the surveillance business

Using Rekognition, we built a face database and search tool using 25,000 publicly available arrest photos. Then we searched that database against public photos of every current member of the House and Senate. We used the default match settings that Amazon sets for Rekognition.


Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) was falsely identified by Amazon Rekognition as someone who had been arrested for a crime. 

In a recent letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed concern about the “profound negative unintended consequences” face surveillance could have for Black people, undocumented immigrants, and protesters. Our results validate this concern: Nearly 40 percent of Rekognition’s false matches in our test were of people of color, even though they make up only 20 percent of Congress.


People of color were disproportionately falsely matched in our test.

If law enforcement is using Amazon Rekognition, it’s not hard to imagine a police officer getting a “match” indicating that a person has a previous concealed-weapon arrest, biasing the officer before an encounter even begins. Or an individual getting a knock on the door from law enforcement, and being questioned or having their home searched, based on a false identification.

An identification — whether accurate or not — could cost people their freedom or even their lives. People of color are already disproportionately harmed by police practices, and it’s easy to see how Rekognition could exacerbate that. A recent incident in San Francisco provides a disturbing illustration of that risk. Police stopped a car, handcuffed an elderly Black woman and forced her to kneel at gunpoint — all because an automatic license plate reader improperly identified her car as a stolen vehicle.

Matching people against arrest photos is not a hypothetical exercise. Amazon is aggressively marketing its face surveillance technology to police, boasting that its service can identify up to 100 faces in a single image, track people in real time through surveillance cameras, and scan footage from body cameras. A sheriff’s department in Oregon has already started using Amazon Rekognition to compare people’s faces against a mugshot database, without any public debate.

Face surveillance also threatens to chill First Amendment-protected activity like engaging in protest or practicing religion, and it can be used to subject immigrants to further abuse from the government.

These dangers are why Amazon employees, shareholders, a coalition of nearly 70 civil rights groups, over 400 members of the academic community, and more than 150,000 members of the public have already spoken up to demand that Amazon stop providing face surveillance to the government.

Congress must take these threats seriously, hit the brakes, and enact a moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition. This technology shouldn’t be used until the harms are fully considered and all necessary steps are taken to prevent them from harming vulnerable communities.

List of Members of Congress Falsely Matched With Arrest Photos

Senate

  • John Isakson (R-Georgia)
  • Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts)
  • Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)

House

  • Sanford Bishop (D-Georgia)
  • George Butterfield (D-North Carolina)
  • Lacy Clay (D-Missouri)
  • Mark DeSaulnier (D-California)
  • Adriano Espaillat (D-New York)
  • Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona)
  • Thomas Garrett (R-Virginia)
  • Greg Gianforte (R-Montana)
  • Jimmy Gomez (D-California)
  • Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona)
  • Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois)
  • Steve Knight (R-California)
  • Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey)
  • John Lewis (D-Georgia)
  • Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey)
  • David Loebsack (D-Iowa)
  • David McKinley (R-West Virginia)
  • John Moolenaar (R-Michigan)
  • Tom Reed (R-New York)
  • Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)
  • Norma Torres (D-California)
  • Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
  • Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio)
  • Steve Womack (R-Arkansas)
  • Lee Zeldin (R-New York)

Date

Thursday, July 26, 2018 - 8:00am

Featured image

Congress

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Share Image

Congress

Show related content

Imported from National NID

69186

Menu parent dynamic listing

926

Imported from National VID

114925

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Nevada RSS