ACLU of Colorado urges Denver Immigration Court to stop what it says is intimidation of members of the public
ACLU urges Denver Immigration Court to stop what it says is intimidation
ACLU urges Denver Immigration Court to stop what it says is intimidation
The ACLU of Colorado is raising concerns about transparency inside Denver's immigration courthouse. On Thursday, the organization sent a formal letter accusing court staff and federal agents of restricting public access -- and in some cases, detaining legal observers without cause.
CBS
The ACLU says the ability for the public and media to monitor court proceedings is being blocked, raising concerns about basic civil liberties. Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains it is simply enforcing the rule of law.
"It is fundamental that members of the public, members of the press, need to see what is happening in our immigration courts," said Tim Macdonald, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado.
Legal observers and attorneys say they've recently been silenced, shut out, and in some cases, even handcuffed while attempting to observe proceedings.
"It's really been in the last three or four weeks that we've seen this amped-up effort to limit public access," Macdonald said.
He added that the lack of transparency contradicts the very principles of democracy.
"Democracy dies behind closed doors. Democracy dies in the darkness," he said. "We've heard rhetoric from this administration about the types of people they claim to be deporting -- but the facts are contrary."
Christina Brown, an immigration attorney with the Colorado Asylum Center, called recent developments "unprecedented."
"In the 12 years I've practiced law, that has never happened before," Brown said. "So that's something really new -- and really scary -- for a lot of people."
Attorneys and advocates say enforcement efforts have ramped up significantly in recent weeks. Observers once quietly allowed to sit in on hearings are now being told to leave.
"If you are not there with a client, and you say you're observing, they will make you leave," Brown added.
ICE responded to the ACLU's concerns by stating that the current administration is "implementing the rule of law," reversing previous policies that allowed undocumented individuals to be released without a notice to appear.
In a statement, the agency added: "Most aliens who illegally entered within the past two years are subject to expedited removals."
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review under the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment for this story.
Advocates argue the current process isn't fair to those trying to adjust their legal status.
"Entering the country without inspection is not a crime -- it's a civil infraction," Brown said. "It's like being sued for an unpaid bill, the court ruling against you, and then police coming to arrest you. It's a huge escalation for people trying to follow the rules."
The ACLU is calling on the immigration court to reverse course and restore public access. Advocates say what's at stake is more than courtroom visibility -- it's the foundation of due process itself.
The following document is the letter sent by the ACLU of Colorado:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
The unwinnable war America's Founding Fathers fought and won changed human history forever
Two hundred and forty-nine years ago, 56 men met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia to commit treason against the most powerful empire on Earth. Representing 13 colonies of that empire, these men – a mix of landowners, entrepreneurs, politicians and others – had become enamored with a new set of ideas flowing from enlightenment thinkers and Christian teaching. Those convictions led them to start a war no sane person believed they could win. Remember what government looked like back then. We now live in the world those 56 men created – a world in which even dictatorships like North Korea cloak themselves in the language of "republic." But in 1776, freedom, equality and self-governance were nascent concepts espoused by philosophers and adopted only incompletely in a few small enclaves. The vast majority of countries in the world were hereditary monarchies and empires under which equal rights and individual liberty were not contemplated. The Founders' fight seemed incomprehensible. In launching it, the Second Continental Congress largely tasked one man – Thomas Jefferson – with drafting the document that would articulate their vision for humanity and this new country and reshape history. Imagine how he must have felt. Jefferson secluded himself from June 11 to June 28 in a rented home on Market Street to draft the document. He was 33 years old at the time. In isolation in that rented townhome he drafted what I think is one of the most beautiful passages in history: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Read it again. Read it as if you were living under a Spanish colony in South America or under the iron fist of the Qing dynasty in China. Read it as if you were a poor tenant farmer under the oppressive rule of King George in Virginia or an enslaved person in Georgia (whose freedom under the principles of the Declaration was still decades away). Read it as if you grew up in a system that assumed you were worth less than your neighbor by virtue of your social station, and under which your future was limited by the circumstances of your birth. The Declaration was, in fact, a "revolutionary" statement articulating the ideological and factual basis for a coup against empire. But spiritually, it was more important than that. It was a revolution against history. It was a revolution against the idea that some men (and women) are worth more than others. It was a revolution for the idea of dignity, human rights, and equality before law. And when Jefferson submitted his document to the Congress, and those 56 men signed it and shipped it off to King George and to others rulers around the world, they ignited a war in the America colonies that would become a centuries-long war to transform the globe from tyranny to liberty. War they got. Five of the signers were captured, tortured and killed. Nine died from wounds or hardships fighting in the war. All were impacted – raked by violence, their homes and property ravaged, their children thrust into the violence they created. They starved. They lost battles. They must have wondered if it was worth it – these ideals that had caused them to plunge a nation into violence. And then, unexpectedly, they won. In creating America, those Founding Fathers reshaped history. We now live in a world in which nearly half of countries are democracies. The combination of political freedom, free markets and the technological innovation unleashed by those systems has lifted billions of people out of poverty – creating a world more than 100 times richer than the one that existed at the time of the Declaration of Independence. The dominant ideology now globally is the one articulated in the Declaration. And the revolution in America has become a revolution in human history. This weekend in the United States we celebrate Independence Day. We celebrate 56 men who risked everything. But we also solemnly reflect on the charge of the Declaration and its authors. All people are created equal. We are all endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Each of us deserves life, liberty, and the ability to pursue our own unique paths to flourishing. But those inalienable rights are not guaranteed. As our forebears, we are called to embrace and fight for them. Abraham Lincoln once noted that great men "thirst and burn for distinction" and will have it, "whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men." And around the world the powers that oppose liberty, dignity and opportunity fight ceaselessly to dominate others. May we, on this Independence Day, fight back. May we have the audacity and conviction to oppose the enemies of liberty and to continue to fight for the promise of the Declaration and America's spiritual foundation. May we do so out of love – for our neighbors and for the blessings of the Creator. And may we gain courage from the example of those 56 men, their hundreds of thousands of compatriots, and the unwinnable war they won. Happy Independence Day.
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Author suggests Democrats should 'embrace pornography' to win back young men
The Democratic Party should "embrace pornography" to attract young men to their side of the aisle, a far-left author and writer argued this week. "I have many thoughts on how the Democratic Party might start to win back young men who have abandoned the party for fascism," Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and a columnist for The Nation, wrote in an article published Wednesday. "None of them involve abandoning women's rights, women's leadership, or the LGBTQ community," Mystal said. "But one of my suggestions is that the Democrats should embrace pornography and other examples of sexiness and smut under the umbrella of free speech." Mystal, who is the author of "Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America," released in March, which discusses "the flawed foundations of the rules we live by," said that pornography helps people. "Now, to be clear, pornography is viewed and enjoyed by all sorts of people, male and female, gay and straight, trans and cis," Mystal wrote. "Indeed, one of the highest, best uses of porn (I can't believe I just wrote that) is that it helps young people figure out what they're actually into. Sex-positive porn enjoyers are not a political demographic the Democrats generally have a problem with." He suggested that Democrats might have difficulty persuading straight White men that "Free Palestine" flags are included in one's right to exercise free speech, but says it will be easy to persuade men that pornography is free speech. "That's because pornography is an actual free speech issue," Mystal wrote. "So is smut. So is obscenity. These are forms of free speech that conservatives and Republicans in the government are constantly trying to regulate." Also at issue in his column is his belief that age verification laws, like the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court which reaffirmed Texas' right to verify the ages of people who use pornography sites to ensure minors will not have access. The Supreme Court pointed out that about 21 other states have passed similar regulations on sexual content that could be damaging to minors. "Nobody was arguing that minors have a constitutional right to access porn," Mystal said. "But adults do. Regulating adult access to porn is a point-and-one-handed-click restriction on the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression." In a reply to Mystal's post on X sharing his article, journalist Taylor Lorenz praised his take, saying, "YES PLEASE!!!!!!! I'm screaming to the void about this. So grateful for your piece." Haley McNamara, Senior Vice President at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, condemned the take from Mystal. "No political party should embrace pornography—research shows both men and women alike are facing serious mental health challenges as a result of porn, ranging from depression and compulsive behaviors to escalating addictions and stunted sexual and social development," she told Fox News Digital. "These issues often manifest as isolation, anxiety, or difficulty forming healthy relationships. Not to mention, as exposes against Pornhub, XVideos, OnlyFans and more have shown, even mainstream porn sites are often filled with videos of sex trafficking, rape, and child sexual abuse. It is a ludicrous suggestion that any political party promotes porn on its platform."
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's treatment of immigrants is harmful, immoral, un-American
In May, an 18-year-old named Marcelo Gomez, who has lived in the U.S. on an expired visa since he was 7, was arrested on his way to a volleyball game in Milford, Mass. During his six days in detention, Marcelo was unable to change his clothes. He slept on a concrete floor and shared a toilet with 35 to 40 other men. In June, 48-year-old Narcisco Barranco, an undocumented immigrant with no criminal record who was working as a gardener in Santa Ana, Calif., was pinned to the pavement and repeatedly hit in the head by four masked Customs and Border Patrol agents. After a formal request by the Mexican Consulate General in Los Angeles, Barranco received medical attention for his wounds and a heart condition. One of his three sons — all of whom served in the U.S. Marines — rebutted Trump administration claims that Barranco had attempted to assault officers with his weed trimmer, and said that if he had treated someone in this way when he was in uniform, 'it would have been a war crime.' Around the same time, Sayed Naser was detained by ICE agents following a hearing on his Special Immigrant Visa application and placed in an expedited removal facility in San Diego. A civilian interpreter who had worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Naser fled to Brazil after the Taliban had killed his brother and abducted his father during a family wedding. Naser subsequently traveled 6,000 miles to Mexico on foot and was granted parole into the U.S. while seeking asylum. In May, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated Temporary Protected Status for Afghans, putting 11,000 of them at risk of deportation. If Naser, who does not have a criminal record, fails to pass his 'credible threat' interview, which will be conducted over the telephone without his lawyer, he will almost certainly be deported. His wife and children remain in hiding. A few days ago, Kilmar Abrego Garcia stated in a legal filing that he had been beaten and tortured in the notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison which the Department of Justice deported him to by mistake. These cases provide compelling evidence that the Trump administration's detention and deportation polices conflict with the traditions, values and 'do unto others' sense of fairness and decency of a nation of immigrants. Of the 59,000 immigrants now in detention, over 70 percent were arrested in the interior of the U.S., not at or near the border. Forty-seven percent have no criminal convictions; of those who do, the most common crimes are violations of immigration and traffic laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has so far apprehended only 6 percent of known immigrant murderers and 11 percent of immigrants convicted of sexual assault. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt — apparently unaware that living in the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant is a civil, not a criminal offense (except for those apprehended while crossing the border) — told reporters that everyone arrested by ICE is a criminal 'because they illegally broke our nation's laws.' In fact, the immigrant population, both documented and undocumented, commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens. In Texas, undocumented immigrants are 47 percent less likely to be convicted of a crime than those who were born here. Facilities housing detainees are often grotesquely overcrowded. Medication is not always provided, detainees can spend a week between showers, and family members are not always told where their loved ones are. According to Paul Chavez, director at Americans for Immigrant Justice in Florida, 'conditions were never great, but this is horrendous.' Between Jan. 1, 2025 and late June, 10 immigrants died while in ICE custody, two of them by suicide, almost three times the rate while Joe Biden was president. Last week, two detainees were added to the list. One of them, Isidro Perez, was a 75-year-old Cuban immigrant, who came to America 59 years ago and was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in 1984. Law enforcement officials are required to identify themselves when making an arrest 'as soon as it is practical and safe to do so,' indicate their authority to detain the suspect and obey restrictions on searches and seizures. But federal laws don't stipulate the circumstances under which government officials can wear masks. Although President Trump has called for the immediate arrest of masked protesters, Homeland Security officials defend masks as necessary to protect ICE agents from retaliation. Critics point out that masks and plain clothes increase the likelihood that suspects will mistake law enforcement officers for criminals and make it more difficult to hold agents accountable for using excessive force. 'What other definition of secret police is there,' Boston Mayor Michelle Wu asked, 'when people are getting snatched off the streets by masked individuals, not being told where they're going, disappeared until somehow someone finds some information?' Although Americans continue to support secure borders, a recent poll revealed that 57 percent of them do not approve of Trump's handling of immigration and ICE tactics. Perhaps for this reason, Trump has tried to have it both ways on immigration. During his 2024 campaign, he promised to arrest 'the worst first.' Last month, Trump declared, 'all of them [i.e. '21 million Illegal Aliens'] have to go home, as do countless other Illegals and Criminals, who will turn us into a bankrupt Third World Nation.' Yet Trump also said that employers feared that 'our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long-time workers away from them, with their jobs being almost impossible to replace.' Vowing to 'get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA,' Trump indicated he would pause ICE raids on farms, meatpacking plants, hotels and restaurants. But Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of public affairs at DHS, quickly declared, 'The president has been incredibly clear. There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts.' It remains unclear at this writing whether Trump will order a pause. Meanwhile, the number of detainees and deportees keeps growing — as do reports of denials of due process and access to legal representation. Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-Texas) and five other congressional Republicans have called on the administration to prioritize enforcement: 'Every minute that we spend pursuing an individual with a clean record is a minute less that we dedicate to apprehending terrorists or cartel operatives.' How low do poll numbers have to sink, and how many more employers will have to pressure the White House, before the president decides his approach to immigration is bad policy and bad politics? Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
