ICE Accidentally Released the Identities of 6,252 Immigrants Who Sought Protection in the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement accidentally posted the names, birthdates, nationalities and detention locations of more than 6,000 immigrants who claimed to be fleeing torture and persecution to its website on Monday.

The unprecedented data dump could expose the immigrants — all of whom are currently in ICE custody — to retaliation from the very individuals, gangs and governments they fled, attorneys for people who have sought protection in the U.S. said. The personal information of people seeking asylum and other protections is supposed to be kept confidential; a federal regulation generally forbids its disclosurewithout sign-off by top officials in the Department of Homeland Security.

The agency is investigating the incident and will notify the affected immigrants about the disclosure of their information. The agency has said it will not deport immigrants whose information it mistakenly posted until it is determined whether the disclosure affects their cases.

The government will notify people who downloaded the information that they should delete it.

ICE officials are concerned about the posting of the data — which included information about migrants who sought to avoid deportation to countries such as Iran, Russia, and China — and are focused on quickly fixing the issue, an agency official said.

The agency mistakenly posted the data, which included immigrants’ names, case status, detention locations, and other information, during a routine update of its website.

The immigrant advocacy group Human Rights First notified ICE officials about the data breach on Monday and shortly after, the agency took steps to delete the data from its website. The file was contained on a page where ICE regularly publishes detention statistics.

The information was up for five hours and officials quickly worked to take it down after being notified it had been posted.

“Though unintentional, this release of information is a breach of policy and the agency is investigating the incident and taking all corrective actions necessary,” an ICE spokesperson said in a statement.

The disclosure is “embarrassing” and potentially dangerous for those affected, another DHS official told The Times.

Many immigrants fear that gangs, governments, or individuals back home will find out that they sought protection in the U.S. Asylum seekers regularly ask their immigration lawyers whether their home countries will find out about their applications. In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, a Cameroonian man the U.S. deported to his home country was summoned to court upon his return for “having, in the United States, spread false news … by declaring to be a victim of abuses by the Cameroonian Government.”

Anwen Hughes, a lawyer at Human Rights First, said that she has a recurring nightmare about leaving a bag full of client information on the subway.

She has never done so. But the fact that the possibility haunts her dreams offers some indication of the seriousness of posting immigrants’ personal information on the internet, she said. She hoped the error would serve as a reminder to the government to be especially careful with such data.

“Refugees’ willingness to trust the U.S. government with their information depends on reliable competence as well as a general intention to honor the law,” she said.

Diana Rashid, managing attorney of the National Immigrant Justice Center, found the name of one of her organization’s clients — a Mexican woman — on the list.

“We are deeply concerned about our client’s safety after ICE publicly shared this very sensitive information about her and thousands of others like her,” she said. “She is seeking protection from removal because she fears persecution if returned to her country of origin. Revealing this information makes her more vulnerable to the persecution and abuses she fears if deported.”

The disclosure of the information put lives at risk, said Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, an immigrant advocacy organization.

“The U.S. government has a crucial obligation to hold asylum seekers’ names and information in confidence so they don’t face retaliation or further harm by the governments or individuals whose persecution they fled,” Altman said. “ICE’s publication of confidential data is illegal and ethically unconscionable, a mistake that must never be repeated.”

Blaine Bookey, the legal director at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said she was aware of cases in which detained immigrants have been threatened when information about their status has become public.

“Any breach of asylum seeker information in such a public way could quite literally have life-or-death consequences and the government must take every precaution to protect their safety,” she said.

The agency has made other high-profile mistakes over the years, including accidentally arresting U.S. citizens.

“This episode adds to ICE’s well-documented history of dysfunction and internal accountability lapses,” said Nate Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who specializes in privacy issues.

The agency has fallen under heavy criticism over the years — at one point it was the least-liked federal agency — but has attempted to shift its practices during the Biden administration. Under Biden, ICE has limited the arrests of pregnant women and expanded “sensitive” areas such as playgrounds where arrests are generally off-limits.

The agency said the data were posted at 6:45 a.m. Pacific Monday and included the names and information of 6,252 immigrants seeking protection. Just before 11 a.m., Human Rights First notified the agency of the breach. ICE will tell the attorneys of the affected immigrants or the immigrants themselves about the disclosure.

“This will allow noncitizens or their attorneys-of-record to determine whether the disclosure may impact the merits of their protection claim,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times

How Riverside plans to use interns to help the homeless

sanfranciscohomelessPeople without a place to live or on the brink of homelessness often sleep blocks from churches and government agencies trying to lift people out of homelessness.

Meanwhile, local universities have students training to address homelessness, who sometimes travel to other counties or continents to help. The social work internship program approved by the Riverside City Council on Aug. 14 aims to connect those needs with those seeking to help.

La Sierra, California Baptist University and Loma Linda University will send 13 interns to six faith-based nonprofit organizations in Riverside starting this year. The interns will also be tasked with finding grant money to continue the program in future years and with compiling data on the program’s effectiveness.

“We have congregations with very loving people who simply need some structure for how to serve the community, and this is a way to provide that structure,” said Daphne Thomas, an associate professor of social work at La Sierra University and field director of the Riverside school’s internship program. “We’re simply putting it together.”

After a one-year pilot, the program is expected to expand to other sites, including religions other than Christianity and interns from professions other than social work, said Luke Villalobos of Mayor Rusty Bailey’s office, which is supervising the program along with Path of Life Ministries. …

Click here to read the full article from the Riverside Press-Enterprise 

Another Loss in Court for Xavier Becerra

A Southern California judge, once disparaged by President Donald Trump, ruled in his favor Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging Department of Homeland Security decisions related to Trump’s plans for a wall along the southern border.

The state of California and several environmental advocacy groups brought three lawsuits last year against DHS, which were consolidated into one before U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the Southern District of California. The lawsuits challenged waivers signed by former DHS Secretaries John Kelly and Elaine Duke, pursuant to the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, to allow construction of the wall.

The plaintiffs alleged DHS exceeded its authority in issuing the waivers, as well as various constitutional violations.

In a 101-page opinion, Curiel wrote that he “does not have serious constitutional doubts” about the immigration law allowing for such waivers, and that the DHS secretaries did not act “in excess of their delegated powers” in issuing them.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has filed more than two dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration, said in a statement that Trump’s wall is “medieval” and “does not belong in the 21st century.” The AG did not say yet if the state will appeal. …

Click here to read the full article from The Recorder 

Latest Idea To Curb 2nd Amendment Gun Rights Won’t Fly

No-Fly-List

Image courtesy of minutemennews.com

It’s a great idea to ban terrorists and suspected terrorists from buying firearms, but the U.S. government’s “No Fly List” can’t be used to do it.

The problem is that the no-fly list is secret. The government won’t say who’s on it, or how they got on it, or how they can get off it.

“The U.S. government does not reveal whether a particular person is on or not on a watchlist,” the Department of Homeland Security explains on its website. “If the government revealed this information, terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the watchlist’s purpose by determining in advance which of their members were likely to be questioned or detained.”

That means the use of the no-fly list for gun sales might actually be helpful to terrorists, but there’s an even more serious problem with the idea. It crumbles the foundation of all your constitutional rights: due process of law.

The U.S. Constitution twice guarantees due process of law to every person. It’s in the Fifth and 14th Amendments. But what does it mean, exactly?

At the time of the founding of the nation, “due process” meant the ordinary procedures of the law, the opposite of arbitrary power.

In our era, the U.S. Supreme Court has given “due process” a broader meaning. The term now encompasses a general right to fundamental fairness.

But by either definition, the government can’t deny a basic constitutional right to any person just by placing them on a secret government list.

The no-fly list is a subset of the U.S. government’s terrorist watchlist, which is administered by the FBI and the Justice Department in cooperation with the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State and Treasury, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

According to the DHS website, “Intelligence and law enforcement agencies nominate individuals for the watchlist based on established criteria.”

What criteria? Established by whom? We don’t know and they’re not going to tell us, and that’s fine for a screening tool to prevent some passengers from boarding planes. There is no explicit constitutional right to travel on commercial flights.

But there certainly is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In order for the government’s terrorist watchlist to be used as the basis for limiting that right, it will have to be made public. Otherwise, innocent people will be denied their rights based on mistakes, like the ones DHS is trying to sort out with its Traveler Redress Inquiry Program.

“Many people erroneously believe that they are experiencing a screening delay because they are on a watchlist,” DHS says on its website. “In fact, such delays are often caused merely by a name similarity to another person who is on the watchlist. Ninety-nine percent of individuals who apply for redress are not on the terrorist watchlist, but are misidentified as people who are.”

With an error rate that high, the government’s use of the watchlist must be watched.

President Obama called it “insane” that people on the no-fly list can buy guns, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, agreed with him. But it’s not insane to protect innocent people from secret government actions against them.

Limits on government power are what make the United States a free country. In other places, officials can simply decide to do anything, to anybody, at any time, for any reason. Not here.

Americans have rights that cannot be taken away by the arbitrary actions of government officials.

That’s the deal we signed, and we’re going to hold them to it.