The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts will continue to defend limits on re-detaining immigrants already released from prison, according to a Monday press release.
A hearing to defend these limits followed on Tuesday, where the U.S. Court of Appeals heard two arguments in which district courts rejected the government’s interpretation of a “mandatory” immigration detention provision.
Christopher Ott, communications director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the organization is battling the federal law that states that immigrants who have any prior offense have to be re-detained when they are released from prison.
“What we are arguing is that government has discretion in how to uphold that,” he said. “Especially in cases of people who pose no threat to the community, we are essentially saying that they should at least be allowed the chance to post bond and be released from detention while they wait for their immigration cases to proceed.”
The hearing was part of a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the national ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project in August 2013, the release stated. In May 2014, about 50 people obtained their release from detention after demonstrating to an immigration judge that they did not pose a flight risk or danger warranting continued detention.
“Many of them are long-time lawful permanent residents whom immigration authorities were detaining on the basis of old criminal convictions,” the release stated.
Clayton Gordon, an ACLU client who came to the United States when she was 6 years old, is often referenced by the ACLU as a representation for the conflicts many “lawful permanent residents” face. Gordon has been a lawful, permanent resident for over 30 years and served in the U.S. Army, the release stated.
Gordon was arrested in 2008 for a drug offense, was released in less than a day and completed his probationary term. In 2013, immigration agents seized him and placed him into mandatory detention because of the 2008 offense.
“Out of the blue, the authorities rearrested [Gordon] on the original offense, and then they held him for about half a year until our lawsuit succeeded in getting him out and reuniting him with his family,” Ott said. “To us, that kind of application of the law just makes no sense. Here is someone who is not only no threat to the community. He is actually active and engaged and a really helpful to the community. He was not fleeing. He was putting down roots. Why would you put this person back in detention for months? It just didn’t make any sense. It was a poor way to apply this law.”
Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in the press release that the current lawsuit asks government officials to consider releasing people like Gordon, instead of immediately holding them without a bond hearing.
“The fact that the government decided to release Mr. Gordon and many others after holding individual bond hearings shows that it does not believe that they pose a flight risk or danger justifying detention,” Segal said in the release. “It confirms that the over-broad application of mandatory detention causes unwarranted suffering at great taxpayer expense.”
Ott said the ACLU believes U.S. Congress intended to originally pass the law under much narrower circumstances, such as for when a particular person might be a threat to the community or might be a risk.
“In the case of clients like ours or many others, it’s clearly not the case,” he said. “We think it’s misapplication of the law to detain all these people regardless of their sentence.”
Several residents said detaining immigrants after they had already been imprisoned was cruel and unnecessary, and not respectful of human rights.
Matt Walczak, 25, of South Boston, said there is no need to re-detain immigrants.
“If they were serving time for something they did and they already served time, of course not,” he said. “Everyone deserves second chances.”
Eric Cigan, 53, of Fenway, said it is a misplaced priority to re-imprison immigrants.
“As a society, we are really too focused on putting people in prison with all the consequences that brings along with it,” he said. “That means they’re not working a job. They’re not able to be with their family. They’re not able to take advantage of their social network.”
Jessica Shotorbani, 19, of West Roxbury, said it’s hypocritical for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to try to improve immigration policy while not allowing for reform.
“During the Obama presidency, his administration has received a lot of scrutiny about their immigration policy. President Obama has been trying harder to provide a more accessible path to legally obtaining U.S. citizenship for all immigrants no matter who they are or where they come from,” she said. “Everyone should have the opportunity to become an American citizen no matter their background and these ‘criminal aliens’ should not be targeted in any way because they no longer pose a real threat to our society.”
Samantha Gross contributed to the reporting of this article.
