Great article. One thing I would have liked Mr. Lovell to address is the ACLU's positions that are unpopular with the left, something many post-election donors didn't realize. After Parkland, the ACLU issued a statement saying that, without proof of dangerousness, they'd oppose any laws that targeted non-violent felons, the mentally ill, non-citizens, and drug users, those donors flooded Twitter with promises to cancel their memberships. (I can only imagine the backlash when they find out what the ACLU thinks about "hate speech"...)
Even though I don't agree with the ACLU on gun control, I'd hate to see the organization cave to the pressure of a partisan membership. We need a voice that offers a robust defense of even unpopular liberties, not the liberal equivalent of a conservative cult.
13
If Ms. L and S are coming from the Congo, why do they travel overland from some undisclosed location in South or Central America, picking up Spanish along the way? The Congo is in Africa, which is a different continent from the Americas. How did they get from Africa across the Atlantic Ocean and the entire continental US to San Diego? I wish Mr. Lovell could explain this geographical oddity (p. 47 in the printed edition.)
12
I have to question the geography. Mr. Lovell explains that Ms. L and S fled the Democratic Republic of Congo and made an essentially overland journey (“they slept outside most nights or sometimes on the floors of empty buildings” as they followed “their route north towards the United States.” (p. 47) Eventually, they “presented themselves at the crossing in San Diego,” having “picked up [Spanish] along the way” (Also p. 47) and entered the US. This suggests a land route from South or Central America to North America through Mexico.
But the Congo is located on the continent of Africa, not in the Americas. A northward overland trip from it would lead Ms. L and S to Europe, not to the United States, AFTER crossing the Sahara Desert and Mediterranean Sea, neither of which Mr. Lovell names.
In addition, reaching the United States from Africa requires a plane ticket (who bought it? The nuns?). It requires the traveler to cross the Atlantic Ocean (unmentioned). Furthermore, why did Ms. L and S go to the US west coast, not the closer and cheaper east coast (Boston, New York, Washington, Atlanta and Miami)? If they flew the other way, surely Mr. Lovell should say that they crossed the Indian and Pacific Oceans? Finally, where did they “pick up” Spanish? Or did they fly from the Congo to South or Central America, and if so, why not mention this critical detail?I will be grateful for an answer to this geographical puzzle. Thank you.
6
A great article. I've been an avid supporter of the ACLU for decades, carry its card in my wallet.
What I cannot understand is why so many so-called conservatives hate the ACLU and consider it a liberal, Democratic organization that should be destroyed for the sake of our democracy. I can only point to Fox News and its friends, which - although must be defended as free speech under the 1st amendment - has become the mouthpiece of a small cadre of persons dedicated to destroying our democracy.
The ACLU really does defend our Constitution, and it uses legal means to do it, not violence, no senseless rallies littered with slogans, and no speakers with bullying, insulting, megaphone, confused voices.
If you are a true patriot, you need to support the ACLU with your checkbook, and pay more attention to what its working team is doing to defend our democracy.
10
"Can the A.C.L.U. Become the N.R.A. for the Left?"
They don't need to be for the Left or for the Right what they need to do is to be the defender and champion of the Constitution which someone should tell them includes 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
4
The A.C.L.U. might rival the NRA with regard to support from the public, but it is no match for the NRA's fund raising ability. This is not due to any lack of enthusiasm among the A.C.L.U. base, but merely because it has no major industry backing them like the gun manufacturers. This source of financing is the real power of the NRA, and the A.C.L.U. simply has nothing to compare to it. It's sad but true.
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
6
Am I the only person who read this piece who wants to know the name of the immigration judge who ruled to have Ms. L. removed from the US? The inhumanity takes my breath away.
10
The ACLU filed an amicus brief on the side of Citizens' United in the Supreme Court case. Every American needs to know this before they give a penny to the ACLU. The ACLU believes that corporations should have Constitutional rights. That's wrong! Corporations should only have the statutory rights that the people determine they should have. The ACLU is seriously compromised by its profoundly mistaken position on this issue, and its supporters need to know about this: NY Times, do your job!
Constitutional rights are for human beings ONLY. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/48
4
The Obama administration was separating children from their parents at the border too. Didn't the ACLU care about that, or is its interest only in using this policy as a club with which to beat Republicans?
Arrogant government bureaucrats are found in administrations of both parties. The arrogance of office is not partisan.
6
The answer to the title question is "no" since, unlike the NRA, the ACLU won't be taking money from Russia to support candidates who want to further guns and take people's rights away.
2
A.C.L.U. is not a left wing organization!
5
Does anyone share my spinal shivers over the assumption that the ACLU being the “NRA of the Left” is a positive step? Is stooping to the level of pure evil a good thing? I know it’s not, and the Times should know better too.
1
ACLU volunteers were canvassing on the sidewalk in Philadelphia the other day. I was happy to tell them I've been a "card-carrying" supporter since the days of Illinois Nazis.
3
I have been an ACLU member since the Reagan administration (he scared the hell out of me) . now I have to look back at those times as better than today.
4
Thanks to Romero for rejecting Ira Glassner's criticism of the ACLU's evolving political focus. Glassner said such a change will cause "catastrophic damage to the organization's future." The opposite is truer, that an organization that doesn't change in changing times is more likely to experience catastrophic damage".
6
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Used to be a card-carrying member of the NRA, too. I've let the second lapse. But when I was a member, I got a bumper sticker which is still on my truck. Indeed, it neither weathers nor shows any signs of decay. And it can't be removed except with chemicals. The ACLU also sends me bumper stickers. I routinely put them on the back window of my truck, next to the NRA sticker. And within weeks, or a heavy rain storm, the ACLU sticker is faded, peeling and indecipherable. And that, in my mind, is one of the big differences between the 2 organizations and their relative success.
3
Ironically, by its support of the right-wing position on Citizens United, giving this position intellectual respectability, the ACLU played a major role in the election of both President Trump and the Republican Congress.
8
As someone who firmly believes that the law is the only thing standing in the way of a tyrannical and oligarchical takeover, I celebrate the ACLU and all similar organizations. David Cole came to our ACLU symposium about a year and a half ago at which time cases were presented and I bought his book. I think it is important and I am glad that the material is highlighted in this piece.
3
The ACLU may be theoretically non-partisan, but the list of ideas the officer said that he would have pursued if Trump had not taken over ( abolishing capital punishment, restoring abortion funding) sounded suspiciously like a Democratic wish-list.
7
That may be because reality and decency seem to have a rather liberal bias.
8
My initial response to the title of this article was a snide, "Well, if they haven't succeeded by now, they never will."
By the end of the article, I was very moved, impressed at their incremental strategy for change, and now want to sign up and donate to them.
I have always been sympathetic to the ACLU's mission, and probably have read the Constitution more times this year than any Congressperson.
The Republicans' both Constitutional and legal violations are rampant, and they must be challenged. I had no idea the anti-Trumpists of the world were turning to the ACLU for help in record numbers.
They're very smart to be digitally organized with a local presence all over the U.S. Both the Koch Brothers and the NRA use the same strategy -- they get volunteers to go out and knock on doors and talk to people face-to-face, and track local voter response to all issues by computer, so they know who to target.
The Koch Brothers, having become rich on oil, are now defeating local movements for electric bus and train transportation--knocking on doors and telling locals, falsely, that their taxes will skyrocket. When the fact is electric transportation lessens the Koch's revenue stream.
The N.R.A. uses the same local tactics, wrapping themselves in the robe of the 2nd Amendment and taking no reponsibility for the highest gun death rate in the world.
I appreciate the ACLU's newfound invigoration, and do hope,
voters do their part to turn the rancid tide of House Trump.
11
Excellent article, but why ask "Can the ACLU be the NRA for the left?" It's the wrong question. As the article described in inspiring detail, the ACLU is engaged in a daily fight on behalf of rights guaranteed for all Americans. These should not be framed as liberal vs. conservative debates. Donations should be coming in from all ends of the political spectrum. With heartfelt gratitude from a card carrying member, and another check being dropped in the mail.
11
With all due respect, the article is not urging the ACLU to adopt NRA policies. My reading is that the NRA has discovered very effective ways of arousing its base, and influencing Congress. Perhaps the ACLU can use some of them. After all, a sword can be wielded by good guys as well as bad guys.
6
Yeah, taking Russian money is a great way to influence Congress.
I never thought it urged adopting NRA policies. If you read my comment, you'll see what I objected to was framing its actions "for the left." That sword you mention should be used for the right as well as the left.
I love ACLU. It goes off the rails once in awhile, but mostly protects us. When State of NC charged me with an unconstitutional "crime" which violated my right to freedom of speech, convicting me in a politically-motivated kangaroo court,
ACLU had ruling overturned on appeal, and I was exonerated. This unconstitutional state law, designed to shield candidates for public office from exposure of wrongdoing, was abolished, thanks to ACLU.
7
No way. ACLU largest donor historically was big tobacco. ACLU is not a progressive organization. Like libertarian-ism on gay rights - some issues overlap.
They will merely drain money and resources (like NY
Times stories) from real progressive change which means real democracy which means the majority will sacrifice the rights of the powerful to feed, house, provide health care and education to the majority of the population.
This is not how the ACLU sees the world.
2
I so wish you had come up with a better title for this article. Why is fighting for family reunification considered "left?" I thought the family was the basic unit of our country. I'm sure there are some members of the NRA who are deeply disturbed by this cruel, inhuman policy of family destruction and child abuse. That they cannot see beyond their single issue is incredibly sad. But to make this a Manichean choice is simply wrong.
I am a member of the ACLU because it protects all of us from government overreach, not just liberals. I have no issue with the article, just its title; it's just inflammatory and does not advance the cause of unity the country will need to survive this mad man's reign.
3
God I hate that tittle! The NRA is all about making sure guns are on the street and the deaths that result are of no interest to that organization. The ACLU is all about defending people’s rights and making their lives better! I get the idea that the NRA is relentless, ruthless and disturbingly competent but I don’t want the ACLU TO BECOME THE NRA.
The article is uplifting and depressing. The ACLU is there working hard but the cases it handles are infuriating, depressing and a window into how easy it is for a country that was once thought of as a shinning light, not perfect, but a shining light of freedom and democracy is now seen in a very different light even by those who wish the best for us. Our political leaders don’t get it and those that do don’t care. The GOP enables it and enthusiastically supports it. Dems cave and shiver and apologize. It’s hard to be optimistic.
2
Somewhere I still have my 1974, 1975, and 1976 ACLU membership cards. I haven't been a member since as the organization has gone totally off the rails. The politicalization of any organization dedicated to justice and freedom is disgusting to me.
5
the NRA morphed from a gun safety membership organization into a lobby for firearms manufacturers. The only product the ACLU promotes is justice and that is definitely not a product Big Corpa or organized crime supports.
3
The ACLU does important work, but it is hobbled by its defense of Nazis. Our Constitution is a work of genius. It is not a suicide pact. Extremes beget extremes, and the ACLU's extreme view of free speech disqualifies it.
1
With all due respect, when the ACLU "defended the Nazis", they were defending due process, and the right of any citizen to free speech, not the Nazi political concepts. What should be the alternative? Arresting anyone speaking in a way that offends someone else? We would all be in prison. I would personally like to arrest our President for his many lies and insults broadcast daily in his public speeches, and shut him up, but he - like me in writing this - is protected by the first amendment.
1
the real irony is that the Supreme Court is an inherently undemocratic institution whose members are chosen for life. Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg both have had very broad views of their own authority.
At best the court's authority should be wielded carefully because there is no restraint. At various times people have learned this the hard way. The disapproval of Trump should be shown in the ballot box. Government by judges (as the ACLU advocates) is a recipe for disaster.
I fully agree with Richard G. If the Supreme Court were free to rule anything that affects our lives that the Court could dream up, we would be in trouble. However, that's not how it works. (1) It can only rule on cases that are brought before it through a lower court, and an appeal by the loser of a case, and (2) the idea behind life-time appointments, and guaranteed salary is to guard against deciding cases based on one's expectation of future income through a case plaintiff or defendant. (3) While the President appoints, the Senate must "advise and consent". (4) there is no stated mechanism for impeaching a justice.
That is supposed to protect justices against a runaway Senate or Congress. How would you improve on that system? I don't know. Our government is run by humans, and none of us are perfect, with perfect motives. The worst tyrants often appear to be wonderful, religious, patriotic, family men before their election. Like Trump.
3
THE ACLU Can become a rapid response team for social injustice. But it cannot become the "NRA" for social justice, the primary reason being that the NRA has no compunction about making dangerous threats that it has the power to fulfill if people challenge them too much. To my knowledge, the ACLU does not include a heavily armed contingent that is will threaten those who disagree with it. However, as is the case universally, social problems require political solutions. Until the NRA realizes that the only way the gun problem can be resolved is politically (NOT by terrorizing people and forcing their priorities on legislators), no resolution can be achieved. Though the NRA is in a lot of hot water, since it was discovered that it accepted money from Russia illegally to contribute to the Trump campaign. The acceptance of illicit contributions by the Trump campaign may indicate that the NRA is not the only organization with major legal headaches. Probably these alleged serious violation of campaign finance law are already being investigated by Mueller. Another interesting question is whether the state where the donations were accepted has laws forbidding such campaign contributions. If that is the case, the state's Attorney General can bring action too, which has the advantage tot he public of Trump's being unable to pardon himself for violations of state laws. Only for federal laws. So if any contributions were accepted in New York, they could be dangerous for Trump.
5
I don't mind ACLU efforts but stop this nutty comparison of it to NRA already, even if it is for clickbait effect.
Remember how some called Occupy Wall Street the Tea Party for the Left? See what it got us! It actually complicated President Obama's efforts in growing the middle and allowing the Grand Obstruction Party to obstruct further. The end result is to give rise to Trump.
ACLU is ACLU, NRA is NRA, GOP is GOP and Trump is Trump, don't make the world worse than it is already
5
The ACLU I idolized back in the 1970's would, of course, have been involved heavily with the immigration cases for legal asylum seekers today. However, they would also have been defending Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley and agitating against the hate speech/safe place movement arising today and fighting for due process for college students accused of sexual misconduct.
It is a shame when the press of popular events draws an organization away from its roots and into a side on the political spectrum. It happened with the NRA, a once respectable gun safety group who are now a touchstone for the left/right divide. One can only hope that the ACLU can draw back from this abyss and take up a pro-Constitution stance instead of an anti-Trump one. While there are many points of similarity between the two, they are not identical.
8
With all due respect, defending Yiannopoulos's right to speak at Berkeley should be defended. I cannot defend the right of students smashing windows or knocking on skulls to prevent his speech - they should be arrested and tried for violence. Of course, Milo stirs up a fight whenever he speaks in public - and that is precisely why he urges destructive populist ideas. If the Berkeley administration really wants to deal with Milo's ideas, they should organize a British-style debate on campus, and show their students - and the public - how truth can be discovered through a rational debate regulated to stay within a stated topic. If our finest universities cannot figure out how to defend our heritage of Western civilization, we are truly doomed, and deserve that fate.
1
The article is sad. And the comments sadder. Much as an epidemiologist would build the story of a plague outward from the index case the author built his story of a political menace around the case of L and her daughter S. That political menace is Trump, his base, and the GOP. And they are a clear and present danger to the Constitution. They are a plague
"...an asylum officer conducted what ICE calls a “credible-fear screening” and determined that Ms. L.’s story met the “credibility threshold,” which would normally mean she could enter the country legally and live with her daughter in a shelter while she awaited a full asylum hearing."
Instead she and her daughter were separated, incarcerated and she was ordered deported before a 'judge' without the presence of a lawyer representing her and her child. I too would like to know more of L's history and the qualifications of the 'judge'. But even without this it is fairly obvious that this woman was denied due process . What she got was a mockery. And that is what the ACLU is all about. Is it political. Yes it's political. The Constitution is political.
10
I agree that Trump and the GOP are a plague. Your story about Mrs. L saddens me, sounds very much like an injustice. But .. what did you expect the ACLU to do about it? The ACLU is not a government agency, a tax-supported organization charged with protecting the rights of asylum seekers - or anyone else for that matter. It depends on its donors for financial support, keeps them informed about what it is tackling, and what needs to be done. There's always too many injustices from them to tackle, especially under this administration, way more than the ACLU's staff can handle. What exactly was this "mockery"?
I don't get the comparison to the NRA. Trump is doing more of the kinds of things the ACLU is supposed to oppose. They're doing they're job, real world work on a case by case basis. NRA seems much more political, primarily political, and monotone increasingly unhinged.
6
Thinking people must support the ACLU. They have the means to battle Trump and his family.
I proudly carry the ACLU card and you should also.
10
I want to thank the people at the New York Times who responsibly did the work necessary to bring these details and history to the people of these disunited states and to the ACLU for their work on behalf of our shared constitution.
13
Only reasonable to declare war on Trump since Trump has declared war on America.
7
The NRA is based on the 2nd Amendment which the Supreme Court has upheld. Cannot find anything in the United States Constitution that even suggests the Federal government which overseas immigration issues cannot detain any one who enters the country illegally.
Nor does the ACLU ever note that when an American citizen who is a parent breaks the law and is arrested/detained their American born child is separated from them. Using children to gain sympathy when someone breaks the law really concerns me because its an easy diversion and raises the question, why have laws if you wont enforce them?
Those entering the country at the Mexican border have been TOLD in their media for over a year what will happen if they choose to enter illegally.
It's those who have asked for asylum at proper entrance site who I believe deserve to be kept together if their are children, yet detained, until it can be proven the child is their family member.
5
With all due respect, the Constitution does not - and cannot - contain all of the law and treaties which our Congress has debated and approved since 1789. Most of that legal work has also been tested by cases brought before the Supreme Court. In particular, regarding certain rights of non-citizen asylum seekers, please read this web page, which I easily found through a Google search: https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/. This treaty has not been pasted into our Constitution, but it is settled law under the Constitution, and has been respected by every administration, except this one.
I have given money to the ACLU in the past. Once you give, you will find them to be aggressive fund raisers who seem to treat their supporters like the enemy. Giving to them opens a floodgate of aggressive communications. They never forget you or let you go.
1
Well, that's our democracy at work. The same thing would happen if you sent a little money to the NRA, any wildlife group, ARP, etc. It's odd, but when you pay your federal taxes, our government does not fill your mail box with more sales pitches. If I follow your reasoning, we should never send money to any private cause - just send it to the federal treasury instead.
1
Presently, yes the ACLU is a hedge against the radical assault of civil liberties under the Trump administration. Let's not forget that at some point the ACLU will defend some group that the left finds abhorrent because that's what their mission is, equal civil rights for ALL. With the NRA analogy, I disagree. The NRA is no longer concerned with gun rights as much as a far right wing political agenda. The NRA of my youth, ran Boy Scout rifle safety classes, now we're stuck with Wayne LaPierre and his brand of political indoctrination. I can't imagine this happening to ACLU. The membership might rebel sometimes ( think Skokie) but eventually realize the overwhelming mission supersedes whether or not we agree with what the plaintiff thinks.
7
The Constitution and our rights as a free people don’t defend themselves. We tried that and it ended with Reagan and Scalia who thought he could devine original intent. The ACLU performs a valuable service of making the Contitution work for all citizens, not just the ones who can afford private representation. The Constitution works best when we allow the 9th, 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to work in the modern world, regardless of what Scalia thought about original intent.
13
The NRA was once a legitimate organization whose goal was to promote the safe use of firearms and the traditional pleasures of hunting, and to support an enjoyment of the outdoors. It slowly became engulfed in politics, hijacked by right-wing ideologues with militia mentalities, and entranced by power politics.
The ACLU, and other so-called rights groups like the SPLC, have simply succumbed to the same playbook that compromised the NRA--activist members dedicated to seizing control of a legitimate apparatus and turning it into a political interest group that totally compromises the original mission of the organization.
Sadly, this process has deprived the nation of the benefits of the original NRA, and is now depriving the nation of the much more significant civic benefits of an ACLU before its mission was subverted and compromised. Even more sadly the New York Times seems to think this is okay, or even laudable. But then the Times is also a national institution that has been deeply compromised in the service of ideology, so maybe the paper's position makes sense, or is at least consistent.
12
I'm curious - but can you cite an example of how the NYTimes "has been deeply compromised in the service of ideology"? Which ideology? Or just how the ACLU's mission was "subverted and compromised"?
1
THE ACLU is representing illegal aliens who's goal is at odds with the goals of US citizens who have to foot the bill with their hard earned tax dollars,. Who's side are they on? Criminals breaking our laws or us?
14
Anyone, including the worst killers, is entitled to legal representation in a court of law. That's our Constitution and Bill of Rights at work. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? What is the value of freedom from a tyrannical government?
1
Can the ACLU become as overtly political as the NRA? Since it stopped its unabashed support of free speech when "abused" by Republicans, I'd say they are well on their way. And the country is worse off for it.
9
The ACLU is dedicated to defending all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the first amendment. Are you a member? Why not join and read for yourself what it is doing?
1
On November 9, 2016 I joined the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center and still contribute.
I felt they were going to very busy for the next few years and could use the money.
18
I've never been so proud to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU. God bless them for the work they are doing to help the most vulnerable in our society. The ACLU embodies the spirit of America at its best.
18
I joined the day after the election. And I'm spreading this around to my friends to see if they'll join. Good work.
12
Just more proof the ACLU is nothing more than a Democrat Party interest group...a name change may also be in order...maybe Mexican Civil Liberties Union.
14
Really? We are not being invaded by immigrants and asylum seekers, WE are those people! Don't be silly and believe the scare mongers. I am as white as one can get, but I am human and I feel the pain of these harsh and illegal detentions and work with some of these people daily. They are mild mannered and grateful and work hard! We are a good and generous country. We can handle these scared people who are without a country and without economic well being. I am not religious, but for the grace of god, it could be me!
4
I think a better title for this article might have been "Can the ACLU become the NRA for normal people?"
2
I have been an ACLU member since 1971 when there was another dangerous POTUS.
#RESIST!
15
Can the A.C.L.U. impeach this Presidunce? It would be nice.
4
Resist The Liar (haiku quartet) "An Emmy, Grammy, - Oscar, Tony for lawyers - at ACLU"; "If Trump makes you mad - join the ACLU; fight - human rights abuse"; "The ACLU's - David fights Trump's Goliath - for our civil rights"; "From the NRA - playbook ACLU learns - threats are serious"
1
Yes. Reunite the children with their parents, and deport them back to their native countries immediately....with this reminder:
The United States is a sovereign country with defined borders and immigration laws that apply to all non-citizens. You are NOT an exception.
Defending the supposed ‘rights’ of illegal immigrants in opposition to the best interests and rights of American citizens in our own country is treasonous. We’re moderate liberals, but guess whom we won’t be voting for come November....
13
Under the law asylum seekers are not illegal. Wash & repeat.
20
Time to make another donation.
10
I find this to be a fascinating, detailed account. It is also clearly written to appeal viscerally to readers' emotions, positioning Ms. L's harrowing journey and separation from her young daughter as the centerpiece around which the rest of the story evolves.
BUT....I have a problem with the fact that we are given NO details of her backstory which would be the basis of her claim for asylum. We are told she "was fleeing for her life"......OK, but WHY? Civil war, lawless gov't., domestic abuse??? I am well aware of the serious issues in many African countries, having had my own U.S. Passport and visa confiscated and held for ransom on a business trip several years ago to Nigeria. For such a long, detailed story, I find it alarming that none of this is explained.
ALSO: Why travel halfway across the world to the U.S.? A single woman with a young child, speaking a relatively rare dialect in the western world, speaking no English, having apparently no relatives, friends, or even contacts in the U.S., WHY not apply for asylum in many countries they had to traverse??? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not judgement. But I am PO'd that the author in no way addressed this decision that is at the heart of the entire piece.
Finally, why no explanation (this must now be on public record) of why the judge "after questioning her.....without a lawyer" denied her petition? No lawyer? Language issues? NO explanation here.
NYT: Provide ALL the info!
23
Hmmm, I did not miss an explanation of why she had come here to be necessary. Are you or I to be the judge of whether it is a ligitimate excuse or not? She did get approval initially.
I do think your second point is valid. Why go so far? Perhaps they were American nuns who paid her way....NYT could have made that clearer.
And yes! These people are NOT provided with lawyers. They must pay for their own....or a pro-bono lawyer must appear. Shocking isn't it! They are not citizens and therefore not entitled to a defense.
2
God bless the ACLU!
10
Proud to be a card-carrying, donating, member of the ACLU!
9
They sent me a request to join and donate money. I refused to do so until they admitted that defending the "poor Nazis"'s "rights" in a Jewish suburb was a horrible idea. Nazis don't believe in rights.
For me the ACLU means civil liberties for ALL, not just select groups or a select few. Yes, I get annoyed with some of the ACLU's actions, but the big picture always overrides annoyance.
"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Deuteronomy 16:18-19 (KJV)
2
Calling the ACLU the "NRA of the Left" is a grotesque insult to the ACLU.
The NRA was a group for sport hunting enthusiasts that got taken over by a bunch of right wing, gun toting conspiracy theorists who have created a fantasy world where the government is coming for their guns and families. They push a version of the Second Amendment that would be unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution. And they now use their political clout to push laws to force others to tolerate guns virtually everywhere--in churches, schools and workplaces. They seek to punish politicians who even consider any kind of reasonable weapons regulation, including those relating to safety. And mounting evidence is showing that Russian money was funneled to them to help in their support of ultra right wing political candidates.
On the other hand, the ACLU tries to force courts to uphold our Constitution and our rights when it believes our government is violating them.
They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
13
The left endlessly inflames subjects that are already deeply painful, like how to handle the tragically large caravan of people continually streaming across our southern border.
The notion that there is a perfect way to handle this crisis that does not involve bad optics ever, nor bad feelings, except by declaring de facto open borders, is absurd. Yet by 3:1 Americans favor stronger not weaker borders, which entails some mechanism of enforcement beyond catch-and-release.
The left ever argues against civil order, whether it be on city streets, in the classroom, or at the border. What all these areas have in common is:
A) there is a strong humanitarian case to be made that more order would actually save far more lives, reduce human misery and needless suffering, by merely stopping chaos; and B) there is an overwhelmingly easy vector to virtue-signal by which anyone who raises A in polite society can be quickly shouted down (racist, xenophobe, hater, etc...)
The quiet quotidian bourgeois virtue of civil order is the most neglected (and sometimes, one suspects, resented) value for today's left. Conservatives need to make a much stronger humanitarian, compassionate argument for said than they do.
Instead the left loves an octave register that keeps things merely emotive and not rational (as does Trump), never solving problems but making symbols of POC, objects but not subjects, in the sense that they unconsciously seek suffering via chaos.
Their hysterics amplify pain.
7
We, the people, are willing to keep fighting.
We want new future citizens like Ms L and her daughter, S.
They are worth fighting for.
Our rights are worth fighting for.
5
Joan, I'm puzzled by your position; "We want new future citizens like Ms L and her daughter, S." Really? She speaks no English, doesn't appear to have any education, and has no work skills. So why should we be excited about welcoming people like that into our country?
3
And I suppose your ancestors who first arrived here spoke fluent English, were both well-educated and highly skilled workers.
Follow the money.. See the ACLU gets a vast majority of its funding from "organizations" and a select few wealthy donors.. As they move father left, public pressure will begin to erode that investment. The NRA is funded in large part by we the people.. So again, we see the strange bed fellows of large corporations and large organizations running the behind the scenes efforts of the left..
Soon the ACLU will have the same credibility as the southern poverty law center.. Zero
1
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/13/593255356/how-americas-gun-industry-is-ti...
Today's National Rifle Association is essentially a de facto trade association masquerading as a shooting sports foundation.
3
I'm a moderate who used to think the ACLU was as bad as the NRA, for opposite reasons. (I also thought labor unions had far too much power.)
No longer. Times constantly change, and an ideologue who goes through his or her adult life with unchanging views is a fool, no matter how high the IQ.
I just hope EACH of us doesn't have to lose a loved one before we get effective gun control. And if we do, I hope there aren't pockets of armed insurrection as a result of cowardly congresses letting the problem fester for decades.
3
I joined the ACLU the day after I was at JFK Int'l. airport protesting Trump's first travel ban.
Stephen from Oklahoma: True that the ACLU has turned to advocating for "social" justice. I differ from your dissent in that I see this as plain old justice, the pillars upon which our Founding Fathers and now our ACLU Humans tirelessly work to uphold. It's not an unchanged agenda, but if the focus has changed of late (that which is in the news, because the ACLU does so much more), it is only because our country has so dramatically changed since November of 2016. And Stephen from Oklahoma, without being rude or contentious, may I ask you what's wrong with a "progressive" anything? Don't you agree that forward is the best way?
Daily, Trump's America is deconstructing the human rights, the environment, international relations, in public and higher education, women's rights, healthcare, elections ... this is the beginning of a laundry list.
PLEASE join the ACLU.
10
Sure, you can nit pick the ACLU's choice of cases to pursue, but if you look at ALL of them and realize that the DO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE, where else can we go, if we want to step up to the plate and try to steer this mess of a country back to the core values embraced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that have become a beacon (somewhat dim, at the moment) for the whole world? Give to the ACLU, good candidates for office, and VOTE and get everyone you know to VOTE.
10
Previous administrations held “accompanied” children caught at the border in custody with their parents while sending unaccompanied children to Office of Refugee Resettlement centers. But In 2015, the District Court for the Central District of Court ruled accompanied children had to be released with their parents or sent to ORR centers along with unaccompanied children.
To avoid separating families, the Obama administration started “Catch and Release.” It released parents and their children with notifications to appear at future hearings. Pr4edictably, this caused a huge surge in the number of “family units” crossing the border illegally. In May 2018, the Trump administration reacted by ending Catch and Release. It began detaining all adult illegal border crossers, but complied with the court order by sending all children to ORR centers.
Last week, the District Court for the Southern District of California ordered the administration to stop separating children from their parents. The administration opted to comply with the most recent court order. On Friday, it filed a legal notice with the Southern District Court stating that “the government will not separate families but detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings when they are apprehended at or between ports of entry.”
This ends the family separation crisis, which was cause by the Central District Court order, not the Trump administration “Zero Tolerance Policy.”
8
I have an automatic donation to the ACLU set up. I shudder to think where we would be without them.
5
Thank you to the ACLU.
I feel like The Right has zero empathy for humans unless it is their rich friends. The recent activity of separating families at the border is an example of this lack of human empathy. If people say it is all about security go check the FBI list for 2018 for the top 100 cities with the most crime. You will find the Southern Border towns, which are heavily Hispanic, don't make the top 60 in that list. It is about racism. Racism in a much broader since than just skin color.
I cannot fight in the courts but hopefully my monthly donation to the ACLU helps. I CAN go door to door for progressive candidates and I am doing that in Kentucky's 6th district.
So, I feel like I am fighting on two fronts. In the courts with the ACLU and on the ground supporting progressive candidates.
Thank you to every ACLU staff member and supporter. You give me hope.
10
Absolutely.
American humans are "taxpayers " to Republicans.
No Republican "taxpayer" wants one single cent of his "hard earned tax dollars" to go towards alleviating the hardship of a fellow human being, in spite of loudly declaring he's "Christian".
And no American Republican can bear the thought of someone else having more than he himself does.
These are conclusions I've reached from reading articles and comments and listening to Republicans on TV.
It seems to me that people used to say that Americans were generous. From what I've seen since their last "president" was "elected", this is untrue. Meanness seems more the norm.
4
“What is different,” he went on, “is we’re now looking at down-ballot races and thinking in terms of how we frame civil rights and civil liberties in each election. If you asked the Democratic National Committee to look at our 2018 plan, they would scratch their heads in confusion. They would say, Why are you wasting money on states or races that are not in play?" This is what disappointments me the most about my party - the dense, almost deliberate ignorance despite decades of losses at every level of government - that the party leaders display when they make stupid comments like that. This is why we need the Progressives to keep pushing the comfy centrists off their butts and recognize we're in a fight for democracy right now more so than we have bee in decades.
2
Regardless of the skill, principles and constitutional knowledge of these good people, you lose one more justice on the Supreme Court and you could easily lose Brown. What good does civil rights do when the majority voting block rolls back everything after Plessy v. Ferguson?
1
Short answer: No. The NRA' success is rooted in the foundation of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. These are the rights the are basis for the formation of our government.
The ACLU is rooted in the culture of entitlement, victimhood, equality of outcome, and exception to the law. These are not rights and only made available from the government at the taxpayer expense.
On that basis alone the ACLU will never achieve the success of the NRA.
1
The Second Amendment is incoherent and therefore says nothing about people's rights. The first clause supposedly supports the second clause but actually does not. The best we can do about it is ignore it.
Thank you, ACLU, for all your efforts to support asylum seekers and their children. I support you financially because it's the right thing to do.
5
If you are able, help out the organization that is providing housing and case management for this family and others. https://medium.com/@melanieschikore/congolese-mother-and-daughter-reunit...
1
I used to support the ACLU financially, but have not in several years. They consistently defend all of our constitutional rights except for the second amendment. Cherry picking which rights deserve a vigorous defense makes them hypocrites.
6
This is an excellent feature. Very interesting that the ACLU strategy is modeled after the NRA. Smart people in place at the ACLU. Very informative.
5
Thank you for this article. I don't know why I waited this long to become a monthly donor. I'm glad so many others didn't wait.
4
The article states that ACLU members in the Philadelphia area - roughly 11,000 people - made up about a quarter of primary voters there. Other sources (like this one: http://www.phillyelectionresults.com/default.html) indicate that about 170,000 people voted in the 2018 primary. Does this represent a dramatic increase in voter turnout, or am I missing some other concept?
My support for the ACLU dried up when it ceased to be a non-partisan advocate for civil rights as expressed in the Bill of Rights, and became a partisan fundraiser/organizer for specific issues related to “identity politics” that often bore little relationship to the Bill of Rights. Sadly, the ACLU has become little more than another Southern Poverty Law Center, something itself bordering on a rabid “hate group.”
10
I applaud the ACLU and hope they will also support this case:
Access to Literacy’ Is Not a Constitutional Right, Judge in Detroit Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/education/detroit-public-schools-educ...
I look forward to renewing my membership.
18
The ACLU is no longer committed to civil liberties as laid out in the key Amendments but has become an advocacy group devoted to "social justice," that is, a progressivist agenda. Not civil rights but radical equality as understood by identity politics is now its mission. It is a thoroughly partisan entity. Floyd Abrams would be rolling in his grave if he were alive today.
8
Civil rights, as just one component of human rights, are an appropriate mechanism for achieving legal equality. However, what we've learned is that improving civil and political rights has not necessarily improved the livelihood of many people in this country; equality in and of itself does not ensure economic or social justice.
If you believe that human rights are universal and indivisible, then everyone has precisely the same human rights, regardless of ability, race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or class. Whether abuses are committed by armies, racists, politicians, corporations, polluters, or street thugs. Thus, many community leaders believe that the cycle of violence can be broken by human rights education.
The human rights approach aimd to break down the barriers of identity-based politics because we are all human. I don't call that partisan.
Such a conceptualization allows us (and the ACLU) to move beyond civil and political rights and identity politics to a more comprehensive framework.
Human rights constitute a unifying force. By including social justice and human rights issues, the ACLU isn't abandoning, but rather moving beyond limited categories such as civil rights, political rights, and identity politics to a more universal and multifaceted conceptualization.
This period of global reorganization presents us with a unique chance to include, rather than exclude, defined not by our multiple oppressions, but by our humanity.
22
The problem with "human rights" (as opposed to "civil rights" (rights enumerated under law but also embodied in particular national traditions like the anglo-saxon one) is that (1) many of those rights as expressed by the UN declaration are contradictory and false (for example, liberty and equality); (2) some of them are imaginary, such as the right to universal health care (though that might be a common good) or equality of outcome); (3) it is impossible to base a specific national political order on the abstractly universalist notion of "human rights"; yet (4) it is impossible or undesirable to aim for a democratic world state, the entire human race in one political apparatus.
Corrections: (1) may be contradictory beyond a certain point, such as liberty and equality.
Sorry for the bad editing.
What an incredible story, thank you for publishing this piece. There must always be hope for those who care and work for change and equity in our society.
16
Minnesota is a caucus state. During the GWB administration I went to the republican caucus to introduce a resolution. That resolution: "The republican party unequivocally supports the Bill of Rights and those who protect and defend the first ten amendments to the constitution."
Someone in the back of the room shouted, "The ACLU is a bunch of commies." That began and end all discussion of the resolution, and the vote was called.
One brave soul and I voted yes. Everyone else abstained.
If you need a reason to join the ACLU, this might be it.
I've been a member since college -- 40ish years ago. No, I don't agree with every ACLU position. So what? I don't agree 100% of the time with anyone or any organization. But, I agree with the ACLU's goals. Its values are mine. What more is needed?
40
I don't even agree with myself 100% of the time! :)
1
Making my donation to the ACLU. It is long overdue.
Thank you, thank you. We know you work weekends, late nights and beyond limits for what is decent, right and just.
26
I am haunted by images of the pre-Civil War slave markets. Not since then have Americans tolerated the callous separation of parents from their children, and allowed them to be scattered across the country like so many less than human commodities.
It’s no wonder that we are outraged by what ICE has done and is continuing to do to immigrant families. Make America great again? This is not my America, it is becoming a brutal police state, and if the A.C.L.U. can be instrumental in stopping these horrible crimes we will be forever in their debt.
42
This is already resolved. Trump has recalibrated and reversed the policy 2 weeks ago. But go ahead and sue anyway. And keep harping on an on ad nausea.
How is the US anyway the first country of refuge for someone from the Congo? Genuine asylum seekers would apply for asylum in the first safe haven country. This is an obvious case of country shopping. Ms L's case was adjudicated and the judge determined that her claim was without merit and ruled that she would be deported. But the case of course will be appealed. Seems that the ACLU does not respect a ruling unless it is in their favor.
If only interest groups fought so hard for Americans as they do for foreign nationals who break the law or else do not accept the ruling of an immigration judge.
17
You may not have read the entire article. A judge agreed that Ms. L had made a plausible case for asylum. Of equal importance, she arrived at a legal border crossing for asylum seekers, committing no crime. Who are you to judge the appropriate country of asylum for her? God?
5
Maybe the US should lay off the marketing as the "greatest" and "best" place on earth if they truly believe elsewhere is better? We've been saying it for so long that not only did we start to believe it, but everyone else does, too ...
1
Immigration is only one issue on their docket. They do fight for Americans - digital privacy, housing, employment among other things. https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles
1
Partisanship discredits it as a defender of civil liberties.
14
"Partisanship discredits it as a defender of civil liberties."
No!
The ACLU is not endorsing candidates, they're doing research on the candidates' own track records on issues that matter to American citizens.
Then they're putting that information into the hands of voters.
A candidate's own track record on Human Rights, and Voter Rights, and Women's Rights, etc. causes them to lose votes, and then lose elections...
that would be called a fair election.
So, the American Civil Liberties Union, acting on behalf of US citizens, is promoting fair elections.
The only way to argue against that, is to argue for UN-fair elections!
50
Agreed, there is no partisanship here, particularly when Republican voters are being courted in regard to issues important to them as was made very clear in the piece.
@math science woman—
Actually, I don’t think that’s true.
Only a few days after DJT’S election I received from the ACLU what could only be construed as a totally partisan fund-raising letter asking for money for support of opposition to ANYTHING that president-elect Trump MIGHT do.
It was a totally partisan, totally unreasoning, and totally opportunistic FUNDRAISING letter dedicating to bankrolling a rigidly Progressive agenda without waiting to see what Trump and his ilk would do—totally out of step with past ACLU practices.
If you care only to support “just another PAC”—which is what the ACLU has become—well, more power to you. Just don’t delude yourself into thinking that the ACLU is still the principled organization that it one was.
Impressive. Just signed up to give monthly donations.
21
I find it interesting that everyday, the department of children's services in NY and other cities in the US removes children for the same reasons yet nobody screams about it. What a misguided sense of judgement we seem to have. How come the ACLU is not trying to banish that practice.
12
I would just point out that the mother and daughter in this lawsuit were separated for no discernible reason. Department of Children's Services is removing children when the parents are unwilling or unable to provide a safe, stable home life for their children. They're protecting the child from the parent, and then when they do, by law, they have to try and find a relative or family friend to take the child.
The magazine's recent piece on mothers battling opioid addiction discusses this quite a bit.
23
parents that lose custody of their kids
are assumed to be guilty,
and the child welfare agencies
have a lot of power,
and they use that power to write the "truth"
in the form that fits their actions,
so challenging child welfare agencies
is a losing prospect,
so local lawyers won't take them on,
and neither will the ACLU
1
I think I understand the spirit of you comment.
Children's services is separating children from parents every day, in situations where there are, or could be, other options, but removing the child is the easiest pathway, and so the caseworkers take that route.
Caseworkers will always defend their actions, in taking children away from parents, so it's pointless for bio-parents to challenge them, and once a child is in foster care, foster parents face the same thing, challenging children's services is pointless.
That should change, but without outside help, it never will.
The initial separation from bio-parents, if that relationship is at all functional, hurts children, and this is easily shown in research,...
however, then an ugly truth about child abuse comes into play, because some children never disclose, so they enter and exit foster care, and there is no record of the truly horrific abuse that they have suffered.
Knowing that children can't always speak about what's happened/happening to them, makes the choice to remove a child difficult.
Knowing that the number of children that never disclose is large, makes research on foster care outcomes difficult.
One place that I believe foster-bio-grand-extended-family parents do all agree, is that children's services has too much power to remove/move children, with no due process, and no transparency, which we afford criminals, but not children and parents.
That seems like a situation where the ACLU could help.
In the Trump era we are all ACLU's supporters now. No room for nuance and nit picking social issues any more. The ship has hit the iceberg.
25
As an old-fashioned ACLU liberal, I am dismayed by recent developments on the ACLU's First Am. stand: 1. its entry into partisan politics, 2. its abandonment of 1st Am. liberty as a cornerstone liberty, 3. its imposition of a balancing test to assess “competing values” when choosing whether to defend free-speech cases in court.
An internal memo -- not even mentioned by the fawning author of the Times piece -- states this balancing test clearly: “Speech that denigrates [marginalized] groups,” the memo reads, “can inflict serious harms.” Accordingly, “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values” constitutes a reason not to defend it.
Imposing a content test on speech is the wrong approach, even if we are offended by the speaker's words.
25
I salute you for being one of the current (or past?) members of the ACLU who has figured out what it has become.
3
I strongly disagree, especially as the ACLU has limited resources.
You might find instructive Adam Liptak's analysis on June 30th about the weaponization of the First Amendment by the right. This is exactly what the ACLU is worried about, and conflicted about as well. It is not an easy analysis that has an easy one-size-fits-all solution. This is not a "content test." For example, the ACLU has never argued, as far as I know, that speech inciting a riot is protected speech. Had the marchers in Skokie, Illinois decided to carry with them torches and burning crosses would the organization have argued for their right to do so. I'm not as sure as you might be that the answer would have been clear. The organizations's nuanced stance seems to recognize that free speech has become an issue far more complex than anything the Framers envisioned.
The fact that the ACLU wins so many of its cases is evidence that it knows the Constitution better than most of its opponents. If you feel that being patriotic or “American”is about our Constitution, the ACLU is your kind of organization. If you feel that the Constitution is cool only when it favors your opinions or desires (as with the Bible), you aren’t particularly patriotic or true to this country and it’s promises. Please: read the Constitution. Some fine ideas in there. Meanwhile, since that isn’t often popular around here, I’ll send regular checks to the ACLU.
82
I am very glad to see so many people joining the ACLU. However, if we all survive Trump's presidency, please don't drop back out. The ACLU has been working for years to try to stop the government from detaining many immigrants for months (even years) without a hearing. Trump has made matters even worse, but the inhumanity is not new. Also, our government now has vast surveillance powers which do NOT make us safer and will still exist even if the Democrats get back into power. As the epigram says, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
64
Agreed. Their campaigns had Hillary won ... ending the death penalty, ending solitary confinement, ending mass incarceration and racial profiling ... what a world we could have had!
1
The REASON I am now a newly minted ACLU member. Keep up the good work!
36
In my wildest dreams I never thought the United States would be a nation in need of UN human rights investigators.
63
The American People are getting to see how American Corporations operate in Countries around the World.
This is how they treat people around the World that get in their way.
It is not pretty and as you can see they are very lawless in getting what they want.
15
Yes, we ALL agree that families should stay together. We just disagree where they should live. Illegal immigrants should live in their OWN countries. If its violent there (more than in Chicago?), then hire more police. Don't try to cross our border to live here - it aint allowed! If people don't like the family separation REQUIRED by our laws, then they should protest CONGRESS to change the laws. Or just deport them without a hearing. Due Process does not apply to illegals crossing the border except at Checkpoints. Please try to report FACTS ant not EMOTION.
25
This is a country built and sustained throughout history by immigrants. It DOES and SHOULD happen here. Another thing: You are wrong about due process. Thanks to NYT for continuing your thorough, factual reporting. We're getting enough lies from Trump and his cohorts, as well as those who seek to further the administration's lies. Truth. Truth. Truth. Immigrants -- from Irish, Italian, German to Somali, Mexican, Salvadoran, and on and on -- are welcome here. Love the media and the Constitution, Forever.
15
"Ms. L. entered legally at the port of entry at San Diego."
"Ms. L. entered legally at the port of entry at San Diego."
"Ms. L. entered legally at the port of entry at San Diego."
There are laws that clearly spell out that crossing a border to seek asylum is legal!
The mom and daughter in this story entered the US legally.
The legality of the situation is not in question, because the mom and daughter entered legally, yet the mom was treated like a criminal, and she and her daughter had to endure months of forced separation.
The only outrage here should be at the illegal actions taken against this mom and daughter.
18
The violence and gun violence in St. Louis & Memphis exceeds that of Chicago and in FACT it's the SOUTH that leads the nation in violent crime and virtually every category of crime -- and that's because, in the SOUTH, everybody's got a gun.
I will never forget that the ACLU appealed and won the right for neo-Nazis to march in Charlottesville. The city had initially denied the permit. The ACLU bears some responsibility for the actions that occurred that weekend. Which group of "fine people" will it support next?
11
I'm hoping this article is a sign the ACLU is narrowing its priorities as some people have less power to advocate for their rights. The Nazi-loving groups and their leaders including the trust-fund guy--aren't suffering all that much in the U.S. They have access to good educations, good jobs, and great privilege, so supporting them to march, wave guns, wreak havoc and spew hatred--costing local municipalities huge funds to keep the public safe--deserves to be low on the list or left off altogether.
2
Apparently you're one of the right-wing "Americans" who regard the United States Constitution as the founding document of a sports team -- people who believe that such things as freedom of speech should only apply to speech that you agree with.
2
Fundamental rights do not pick political sides. If they can be censured, why not you ? The expression of ideas has no right or wrong.. Only opinions..
4
Share this article, with thanks to its author -- and all those at ACLU who deserve wide support.
10
Let's face it - the ACLU is a political organization. It has less to do with civil liberties than pushing the very leftist agenda of the liberal fringe. Such a change from 10 years ago.
20
That's, of course, why they fought for the neo-Nazis to march in Charlottesville per the comment above from Lynn in D.C. Of course, all human rights organizations are "leftist" or even people interested in human rights. Non "leftist" have no interest in human rights.
13
Not so. The ACLU defends constitutional rights whoever they are endangered. If there is a preponderance of progressives in the ACLU it is because progressives care about the Constitution. It's the only thing that makes this country worth defending.
27
What of the 300-400 men who have been accused of sexual assault and dismissed from college campuses across the country, many losing their scholarships, based on accusation alone, denied due process under campus kangaroo courts?
Has the ACLU been out there loudly defending said men's due process rights?
What about the a priori presumption that Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia, and that no tactic of surveillance or of Mueller's is not justified?
Where is the ACLU when a political opponent is convicted before trial? (Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley have had to pick up the slack...)
Is the ACLU vociferous in condemning the current shutdown of free speech on college campuses?
For the most part they have been AWOL, if not local chapters actively making the opposing argument.
Your view of the Constitution is extremely blinkered.
I am one of those lawyerd working in a state Attorney General’s office on cases involving our disputes with the Trump administration. I am writing simply to echo the fine points made by this article and to thank the ACLU for its good work.
26
Wow! Just wow!
What an incredible article. And it couldn't come at a more important time. I wish everyone would read this. And then donate to the ACLU. These people are like the Eliot Ness' of our time. Fighting the good fight, and, for all the right reasons.
They are like the light in the Statue of Liberty. Saying, "All is not lost friends! All is not lost!"
Unlike some, I agree 100% with their expansion into the election arena. I think this new approach of using "information campaigns" to inform voters in key civil rights issue elections is very smart. As far I understand it, the goal of the ACLU is to maintain existing civil rights and fight for ones that need to be established, for everyone.
By not getting involved in elections, they resign themselves to being in a permanent clean-up mode of operation. Waiting for some elected official to deny or infringe on someone's rights, before getting involved. And I don't this "wait until the damage is done" approach is going to win the day. The more pro-active the ACLU is upfront, the less work they'll have to do on the backside. And, I also believe that a lot of voters would appreciate some perspective on election issues that aren't completely driven by political divisiveness. In other words, facts. People might actually take to those if given a chance.
The ACLU knows the NRA model works best. They simply need to apply it to their goals. And, it seems, that's exactly what they're doing.
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT! WE NEED YOU!
110
This is why I donate to the ACLU. This organization truly fight for our rights as human beings. I can see that my hard earned money is going towards the greater good...and I would recommend you all to do the same
53
The ACLU is now fighting for the rights of non-citizens. At some point will they be filing lawsuits across the Americas, forcing governments to provide for their citizens?
24
"We hold these truth to be self evident... that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
I wasn't aware that they meant to say "All Americans."
16
Actually they are fighting for the rule of law in this country. They are fighting for the soul of this country.
41
The ACLU isn't for the America's as you put it, since our laws can't be imposed on say, South America. The people that the ACLU is fighting for are children, the truly innocent parties. People don't abandon their natural homes to flee from South America, through Mexico, to ask for asylum, which by the way, isn't illegal. let's not confuse the issue's.
11
Trump is a president who calls journalists "enemies of the people" and complains about due process slowing down his efforts to pack his detention camps. He wants the ability to sue news outlets for giving him anything less than fawning coverage, and says the country should deport people who protest police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. He "joked" in a speech of police officers that they should beat up suspects more. He repeatedly expressed his support for using torture, and praise dictators like Putin, Xi, Kim, and Duterte.
If the American Civil Liberties Union did not take this bully and wannabe dictator to court while we still have some remnants of an independent judiciary, then what would the organization even stand for? More Americans and American institutions should follow the ACLU's example.
99
Until we stand up to the current guy we are going nowhere but down. He is tearing down our institutions and values daily. If he is just a reflection of our country, we have a lot of work to do. It starts at home. Confront those who spread lies. Do not stand silent while our freedom is taken from us. Hold a sign, register people to vote, drive people to the polls. If we don't fight for our rights, who will? Go ACLU!
5
Please note that the ACLU is changing its definition of "freedom of speech" and will no longer defend those whose speech the ACLU disagrees with.
26
Citation?
16
Is that the ACLU's attempt at an apology for its actions in Charlottesville? Sorry, no dice.
2
Here's a quick citation, can provide more if you like: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/31/how-the-resurgence-of-white...
The ACLU is as solely concerned about individual freedom as prescribed in the Constitution,.. as Karl Marx was a capitalist.
10
" Never before have we witnessed such bottomless bad faith and unbridled immoral opportunism." At 76 I am enraged at the callous cruelty imposed on these families and I am joining the ACLU to help however I am able. Christian Republicans indeed! How can you , members of my UMC Bible Studies justify the severe pain in the glove of Love as children severely wince ?Jesus Christ pleads for us to RESIST! and love one another FIGHT! for truth and justice. "Come unto Me" He pleads. I see you all sniffing, noses in the air, Christian Hypocrites, as you smile with your income ledgers increasing. Shame,Shame, SHAME!
66
Well said--
10
In the end we will not remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. MLK. Thank you to the ACLU and their supporters.
68
Conditioning a German Shepard to sic is the easy part, it’s getting them not to go after everything after that that’s the hard part. As wonderful a dog as they are, sometimes it’s hard not to feel as if they don’t enjoy it too much. Having their own celebrity and paparazzi following certainly doesn’t hurt either.
2
The public usually votes for minority civil rights reluctantly; witness the endless slow walking of black and gay rights by popular vote. The courts have been the single way to force the issue by using facts, science, justice and law, things which the public is not always interested in. One can also win this fight by delay and litigation effectively delays Trump's ability to roll our rights back. I gave money to the ACLU when he was elected and stopped. I will send money again after reading this article. Litigate, vote, strike, donate, delay. Checks and Balances are a wonderful thing Mr. Trump. Welcome to democracy Mr. President!
21
The members of the ACLU, and those who donate to the ACLU, have discharged their duties to support democracy and the Rule of Law, both under relentless attack under Trump, in this country.
The rest of us need to think about doing more than just wait to vote in November 2018, because the future is not promised us.
47
There never was a Trump administration family separation policy.
In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that neither accompanied nor unaccompanied children apprehended at the border can be held in custody. This is why Custom and Border Protection separated migrant children from their parents at Border Patrol Processing centers and released them to Office of Refugee Resettlement centers, which are not detention centers.
In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Central District Court ruling did not give migrant parents the right to release.
Early last week, as the article points out, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ordered the Custom and Border Protection to stop separating children from their parents and reunite those already sent to the ORR centers with their parents.
Last Friday, the Trump administration filed a legal notice with the Southern District Court stating that “the government will not separate families but detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings when they are apprehended at or between ports of entry.”
This ends the family separation crisis. The Trump administration will hold migrant families in custody together until they are deported together or granted asylum together.
14
For heaven's sake, William. What in the world do you think you are doing? You should be ashamed of yourself. Your comment is just prevarication and misinformation. Mr. Sessions and Mr. Kelly themselves have said this was the official White House policy and have said the purpose was punitive and to discourage future arrivals. And the crisis is not over. The White House has not even begun to return the stolen children to their families. Moreover, there are loopholes in the present White House proposal that permit them to not return the stolen children.
William Case wrote:
"There never was a Trump administration family separation policy.
...
Last Friday, the Trump administration filed a legal notice with the Southern District Court stating that “the government will not separate families but detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings when they are apprehended at or between ports of entry.”
This ends the family separation crisis. The Trump administration will hold migrant families in custody together until they are deported together or granted asylum together."
25
An how long will that decision take? And what about the parents and children that have already been separated?
The White House's "Zero Tolerance Policy" applies to the prosecution of all adults arrested for crossing the border illegally. You can read the Justice Department memo that initiated the policy at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/956841/download
It makes no mention of children or the separation of families. It is true that some Trump administration officials when question edsaid knowing they would be separated from their children should served as a deterrent, but Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District of Central California issued the order that caused migrant children to be separated from their parents. Separating children from parents was not a Trump administration policy.
The ACLU may not be popular with everyone, but at this time they are doing what Congress is failing to do, a check and balance on trump and this White House. These separated kids certainly need a strong voice in there corner, to help get them reunited with there parent(s). Who knew one of America's toughest fights would be from within, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, to be exact. We will prevail!
68
I'm glad the ACLU is filing all of these lawsuits. But perhaps they would not have been necessary had the ACLU not supported Citizens United and similar cases brought to destroy campaign finance reforms and unleash the brutal power of money in our democracy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/
4
I believe most Americans welcome immigrants. Legal immigrants, that is. The problem that I have, along with many Americans, is with illegal aliens, foreigners who have entered or are staying in this country illegally.
The US has immigration laws that allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws and procedures are in this country illegally (i.e., lawbreakers) and should be detained and deported. It is this way with every other country in the world.
The US cannot afford to support its own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the millions of people from other countries who would like to come to the US. That is why there are laws limiting the numbers of immigrants allowed into this country each year.
The cruelty lies not in detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is teaching foreigners how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc.
If the Democratic Party makes open borders a plank in its 2018 and 2020 platforms it is doomed.
24
Trump cares little about those who do not support him, regardless of how they are identified, using your words: "the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al." You and other "US taxpayers" may want to rethink the corporate tax give-away that will cost us ~ 1.5-2 billion over the next decade.
No one is promoting "open borders".
16
Individuals requesting asylum are given a hearing and investigated whether or not their claims are true.
1
Indeed. This is the rule of law, both domestically and internationally.
What? Only 170 lawsuits against Trump for this?
9
I live on a limited budget, but the ACLU gets $10 a month from me because their work is so important protecting our freedoms. These folks defend all those who don't have the means to protect themselves, so it is up to us, those who have a dollar or two to spare, to step up. Reagan said: "Government is the problem." Strangely, he was prescient. We have to fight the government to preserve our rights as a people. Thank you, ACLU. I am proud to be a card-carrying member.
134
I just started a $10/mo. contribution as well. We must protect civil rights for ALL, not just American citizens.
15
To all who feel a sense of hopelessness, please do not despair. A socially conscience society will ultimately provide the voice for the voiceless and courage to those who are frightened. Onward!
29
The ACLU has guts - always has. It is no accident that it, along with Planned Parenthood, were the two organizations that most of us looked to after the 2016 election.
It is worth noting that Ira Glasser, the former ACLU Executive Director who is critical of the "political" campaigns that Anthony Romero is conducting, has been critical of every move that Anthony has made over the last 15 years, so the sniping lacks credibility.
27
God bless the ACLU. This atheist donates to them regularly.
188
I know you’re doing good and well because my Trumpy family hates you more than ever.
127
Excellent reporting on the people on the frontlines fighting for justice, civil rights, and our very democracy. What is key for those who do care are these words - “Donald Trump backed down. We made the president back down. The litigation worked. The public outcry worked. Now we have to keep up the pressure. That’s what we do now.”
90
Democratic Republic of Congo? And this was the first "safe" country they got to? Astounding.
It's a good question that demands an answer.
25
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, no one will answer that question.
16
There are a number of countries the state department knows have a lot of visa overstays and there is increased scrutiny for their visa applications.
Just appearing at the border and claiming asylum when you're from one of those countries would raise eyebrows. I wonder if that is a factor in this case.
10
Huh. Interesting that you think that the statement, “I know nothing about this refugee’s decision-making process!” is an effective criticism of said refugee.
6
“en banc arguments in the Fourth Circuit” are DEFinately cool.
2
ACLU derives it's power from the law and the constitution. Traitors in the republican congress have destroyed the constitution by refusal to enforce the checks and balances required to protect it. There is no more constitution. The constitution is dead.
Now, there is only the court system hit and miss depending on which judge is in place in court at a particular time and location.
The American system of government has been destroyed by Republicans. We are now a fascist country controlled by corporations and obscenely wealthy oligarchs, buying whatever government policies they want to put in place.
Long live the United Corporations of America.
68
“It seems to me you have two choices in this life, you can be a fatalistic spectator, or you can engage and produce hope. If those are the two choices, there is really only one choice.”
There are two choices really, and wisdom is to choose which one is right at a given time.
3
A fatalistic spectator is not wise, just self-absorbed.
5
The government tried to get the "stolen children" suit dismissed. The judge rejected that and, moreover, declared that the detainment--a new policy initiated by this White House--was a violation of due process. The White House issued an executive order which claimed to stop ripping children from their families but it has loopholes that essentially permit the White House to continue ripping children from their families. In the meantime, the 2,000+ stolen children who range in age from babies to teenagers are still all by themselves somewhere in America between New Mexico and New York City. Any court ruling must include aggressive monitoring. Otherwise, this dishonest racist White House will not do what it has been instructed to do or what it has promised to do.
The bipartisan resistance needs every possible ally. The Trump Republicans and the servile House Republicans have told us in no uncertain terms that they are willing to do absolutely anything at all, and so we should believe them. Never before have we witnessed such bottomless bad faith and unbridled immoral opportunism. Our nation and its vital democratic institutions are at risk. My goodness. This White House has still done nothing to protect us from ongoing and future Russian interference in our elections. Join and donate to every group that is fighting the good fight, and standing up and speaking out. Including the ACLU.
121
Some of the centers where children are sent are using powerful drugs to control them and hitting them if they resist. They are also keeping back taxpayer dollars intended to feed the children and serving them substandard non-nutritional food, letting them go hungry. Migration is a complex story needing enlightened and humane answers that also educate Americans.
“Reporter Covering Immigration Warns Government Is ‘Ill Equipped’ To Reunite Families"
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/opinion/sunday/cages-are-cruel-the-de...
The Billion-Dollar Business of Operating Shelters for Migrant Children
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/migrant-shelters-border-crossing.html
“There’s a Better, Cheaper Way to Handle Immigration”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/children-detention-trump-exec...
Trump evidently believes that because the Constitution mentions an Executive that this is the only portion of the document he needs to transact from. He does not read, and he does not care to listen to others. He is a true enemy of the people and as a traitor and psychopath must be opposed by every true American as a would be tyrant.
138
Excellent and well detailed article, but I am struck by one sentence that really stuck out: '' The one thing he felt certain of was that; it will be easier for Trump to hurt the people he promised to hurt than to help the people he promised to help.”
Whenever the government initiates a policy, (which could be a dictate/executive order by the President) then the onus falls on the A.C.L.U. (and other non profits) to present a challenge in the courts, which (in some cases) can drag on for years until they get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
The government spends the taxpayer's dollars with the 1000's of lawyers they have at their disposal and works on government time (9 to 5 weekdays) The end result could be in their favor and there are no guarantees, as well as no refunds to the organizations suing or the plaintiffs that might lose. (everything in a lot of instances)
There has to be some mechanism, for not only recourse, but setting up a system that future dictates ( or whims) by the President cannot effect so many so easily. ( at such high costs)
Especially, when the President has publicly acknowledged that they WANT to hurt people, businesses, countries and the like.
102
The NRA is remarkably effective, it's true, but the article leaves out a key component of the method it uses to motivate people: lies. They told voters that Obama wanted to take away their guns. This is a tried true method to boost gun sales. Case in point: When Trump won the election, gun sales did not increase as when Obama won. Time Magazine headline: Remington Files for Bankruptcy Amid a 'Trump Slump' in Gun Sales.
56
The cry that Hillary is coming for the guns was also effective.
There was conspiracy theories that "Jade Helm" was an exercise that also cried that Obama was coming for guns.
The NRA is successful in boosting tin foil sales for the conspiracy theorists.
15
Right on, Ken. This is excellent reporting by Mr. Lovell, but I think he sort of glosses over the NRA's modus operandi. The lies you mention serve a broader doomsday narrative: secret forces are trying to install a totalitarian regime, but they can't do that unless they disarm the populace. That's why the NRA thrives on conspiracy theories and paranoia. Trump is fighting a "deep state." Mass shootings are elaborately staged "false flags." Jade Helm 15 was a government plot to establish martial law. Black Lives Matter presages a coming race war. (Which is ironic because the catalyst for BLM is the same state-sponsored violence NRA types supposedly fear.) When these ideas gain currency, gun-sales and membership spike. It's not an exaggeration to say the NRA operates more like a cult than a traditional advocacy organization.
Future generations will read about the Trump administration terrorizing and torturing small children and they will ask their parents and grandparents what if anything they did to stop it. All of us need to think carefully about what our answer will be.
198
Future generations will not read about anything negative an American president did. Unless they are the kind of people who read authors like David Talbot, Jeffrey St. Clair, Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, etc. Just look at the "history" books they use in high schools. And I have only seen those used in New York.
4
This also happened during the Obama administration. Where was the ACLU then?
20
I didn't know there was an Obama policy to separate and jail children of asylum seekers when the parent applied legally at the border checkpoint. Can you name some cases of this happening ?
34
"This also happened during the Obama administration" Ah yes, a blanket statement with no description of what "this" is. Well "this" is certainly not considering every family crossing the border as criminal and therefore invoking a trumpian policy of separating families. I'd suggest that you read https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-... But why do I think that you'd consider the fact check false news?
52
President Obama never separated children from their parents.
This is the Trump administration's heartless, cruel "Zero Tolerance" policy.
Trump, Sessions and Stephen Miller own this.
76
How about refugees apply for asylum BEFORE they enter the US?
23
Uhh, because it's impossible to apply for asylum before entry into the states. I know, fake news. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/can-you-request-asylu...
12
To M from Seattle: What about having to escape a country you don’t understand? So comfortable saying they should apply for asylum before leaving from the comfort of your country. Sometimes there’s no time. You feel a mafia gang is about to get you or your family, and you run for your life. No wonder there’s a provision that one can apply for asylum when they arrive at the border.
Our descendants will ask where did we stand on this - hope you have a good answer for them that won’t embarrass you like the parents of my best friend in Germany who are extremely embarrassed about what their countrymen did to my ancestors.
9
Pray tell, how would they do that when their home/city is under attack or they're fleeing in some sort of immediate crisis?
9
It's not a war on Trump. It's a war for the survival of decency in this country.
282
Amen to that!
26
As an ACLU member, and as an American, I applaud what they are doing.
But as Trump continues to fill the Federal courts with right wing extremists with lifetime tenure, I wonder how some of these suits will fair.
In the near future, suits filed by the ACLU will more typically be heard by Trump appointees, and in many cases this will mean a less willing, and a less persuadable, ear. The Right has spent tens of millions to re-shape the Courts, and for them this is a good thing.
As the light of democracy flickers, it's not hard to see the day when it dies a thousand deaths in the courtrooms packed by right wing extremists hearing cases such as these, brought by the ACLU.
As reason and fairness is replaced by rigid ideology, our nation will edge closer to the authoritarian dystopia many of us fear.
55
This may be where the local affiliates come in. Is there anything in the ACLU's charter preventing the national organization or its affiliates from seeking redress under state constitutions? I don't know the answer to that question but it seems to me that civil liberties are civil liberties whether addressed in the Bill of Rights or state documents.
5
“As reason and fairness is replaced by rigid ideology, our nation will edge closer to the authoritarian dystopia many of us fear.”—Space needle
Sadly, the surrender of the ACLU’s “reason and fairness” to a “rigid [progressive] ideology” is the very reason that I left the ACLU, and that may also be its downfall.
I’m a Life Member of the NRA, but I have become increasingly disenchanted with its “take no prisoners” attitude, and while I haven’t resigned my membership—why should I, it’s long since paid off?—I no longer contribute anything extra.
A more recent member of the ACLU, I HAVE left fully that organization as I didn’t have as much invested in them. Perhaps other members of the ACLU will see it for what it has become, and “jump ship” as well. One can only hope.
4
If the ACLU can be characterized as supporting either the Left or Right instead of defending individuals Constitutional civil liberties without deference to any political ideology, than the ACLU has lost it's way and no longer practices the ideals upon which it was founded.
Very sad. As someone who still deeply believes in the primary reason for ACLU's existence, that "I might disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I can no longer count on the ACLU to be that unequivocal defender of our rights, and in fact - their partisan existence now serves to actually diminish and extinguish the rights of anyone that doesn't adhere to their politicized agenda.
27
This is a long read, but profound in its being equally inspiring and deeply practical. For those of us around in the 70s, we remember "the golden age of activism." This article clearly establishes an important truth: Don't get lost in the noise. We are here to be conscious, intelligent, ACTIVE citizens. If like me you have spent the months since our last elections alternately being outraged and wondering if we had been invaded by The Borg (the Star Trek kind), take heart. Our Democracy is doing what it was designed to do: fight like hell for the inherent equality of everyone.
19
I understand many commenters expressing disagreement with some ACLU positions; I disagree with some, too.
However, who else can we turn to in these times who will be our voice to try to preserve our legal and Constitutional rights? And I mean preserving those rights for all of our citizens and, where applicable, immigrants? Certainly I believe we work within the political system to promote our positions and candidates, but I am most concerned about erosion of our Constitutional system.
If SOME of our citizens can be detained and searched based only on their color, or surname, how long before it extends to the rest of us?
I had not been a "card-carrying_ member of the ACLU before our current president. Oh the night the first travel ban against Muslims was imposed, my husband and I separately (without the other's knowledge) went online to join and sign up for our monthly contributions. Until I feel more confident that our Constitutional system is secure, I'll keep sending my contribution every month.
40