By Jen Cook, Policy Director

President Trump’s announcement to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is a cruel development for Dreamers and a damaging decision for all of us in North Dakota and across America.

Five years ago, the federal government made a deal with undocumented immigrant youth who had arrived here as kids and grown up as Americans: as long as you pass a criminal background check you can live, study, and work here. Hundreds of thousands of young people came out of the shadows and accepted the government’s offer in good faith and worked hard to build their lives here. That includes about 100 people in North Dakota alone.

DACA has allowed Dreamers to gain diplomas, earn a paycheck, start businesses, purchase homes, and fully contribute to this nation they call home. DACA also has provided daily peace of mind that they wouldn’t be deported back to a country they barely remember for driving with a broken taillight.

But now, with President Trump’s announcement, our government has gone back on its word to these Dreamers, and thrown the lives and futures of 800,000 people into disarray. The end of DACA also ensures chaos in thousands of workplaces across America as DACAmented workers lose their work permits in small businesses and Fortune 50 companies alike. In North Dakota alone, the end of DACA is projected to cost us over $8.6 million in lost annual GDP. Given that the United States government has repeatedly — and successfully — defended the legal validity of DACA, today’s news also amounts to a complete reversal of the United States’ own consistent legal positions.

But the legal arguments and economic projections aren’t as important as a simple question - what kind of country do we want to be? Unlike President Trump, the vision of America that I was raised to believe in sides with Dreamers instead of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

While today is a sad day for Dreamers, their courage, industry, and organizing won the DACA program in 2012. Nothing will deter them - or us - from continuing to fight for their families and their futures. This means that we all need to call on Congress to pass the clean, standalone, and bipartisan Dream Act that addresses Dreamers’ renewed vulnerability to deportation and provides a permanent path to citizenship for these aspiring Americans. Lawmakers such as Representative Cramer, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Heitkamp must decide if they are on the side of Dreamers or on the side of the ugly forces that helped to end DACA.

In this moment of truth, I stand with Dreamers in North Dakota and across America.

By Kanya Bennett, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

President Trump continues to be a man of his word in all the wrong ways.

Today the president made good on his campaign promise to the Fraternal Order of Police to rescind Executive Order 13688 and put thousands of bayonets and hundreds of grenade launchers from the U.S. military back in the hands of police. It also leaves law enforcement’s federally provided drones, explosives, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles without oversight.

The result? Weapons of war will again be used to police our communities, no questions asked. Your town could be the next Ferguson or Fallujah.

When President Obama issued the executive order, which charged a federal agency working group with implementing oversight and protocols around the weapons of war given to local law enforcement agencies, he did so in response to calls from many Americans that their communities not be treated like war zones. Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars expressed horror that they, while on active duty overseas, were less heavily armed than the local police in Ferguson. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said, “The idea that state and local police departments need tactical vehicles and MRAPs with gun turrets is excessive.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) described the need to differentiate a “police response and a military response.”

Clearly, the new president disagrees with members of his own party, confusing Missouri with Mosul. In a candidate questionnaire from the Fraternal Order of Police, then-Republican nominee Trump said of the Department of Defense program that distributes these weapons that “[t]he 1033 program is an excellent program that enhances community safety” and that he would “rescind the current executive order.” In making its case for the 1033 program and others, the FOP found “offensive” the notion “that the equipment could be misapplied” and should therefore be subjected to federal oversight.

The reversal of E.O. 13688 dismantles this necessary oversight. E.O. 13688 created an interagency working group that included the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security — the primary federal providers of military weapons and equipment to law enforcement. At minimum, the working group ensured that the agencies doling out these military-grade weapons were talking to one another, but it also established necessary policies, including the prohibition on bayonets and grenade launchers.

But even with federal officials now talking, we know the 1033 program is still plagued by problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently disguised itself as a federal law enforcement agency and received 1033 military ware, no questions asked.

JEFF SESSIONS IS WRONG ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS

ADD YOUR NAME

Without interagency coordination, it is now possible that the Department of Defense could provide an MRAP to a police department subjected to Department of Justice complaints of police misconduct — that is, if this administration even continues to investigate systemic police misconduct.

Even with the interagency working group’s oversight since January 2015, we continue to see unwarranted police militarization post-Ferguson. Just look at law enforcement’s response at Standing Rock, where armored vehicles, automatic rifles, concussion grenades, sound cannons, and water cannons were used against peaceful protestors. Consider Baton Rouge, where those organizing around the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling were met with militarization and excessive force. And we still have SWAT teams detonating flash-bang grenades near a 9-month-oldwhen executing home searches for drugs. Do you remember Baby Bou Bou?

Many in law enforcement fail to see how military-grade weapons in America’s communities have negative consequences.

So, what’s next? There are three immediate responses needed to the rescission of the executive order:

• Communities must call out the federal government for instigating police militarization.
• Congress must continue their call for a suspension of the 1033 program and enact the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act to eliminate the federal gifting of MRAPs and grenades to police once and for all.
• State and local communities must take control over the weapons of war coming to their towns, just as we are asking them to take control of surveillance.

On Inauguration Day, the White House published an issue briefreminding us that “[t]he Trump Administration will be a law and order administration.” The brief states that “[t]he dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and promises to “end it.” It pledges“more community engagement” and “more effective policing.”

Given today’s executive action, just how this administration plans to reconcile these goals is not clear. We know that militarized policing is not “effective policing,” as it does not deescalate, reduce bias, or improve police-community relations. And we hope this administration does not think that treating neighborhoods like war zones is an effective way to create “more community engagement.”

If the new president wants to be the president of “all Americans,” he must listen to the majority of Americans who have said they do not want weapons of wars in their communities.

In part one of our legislative update series, we blogged about our lobbying efforts to preserve First Amendment rights for all North Dakotans. Our second update detailed our work advocating for criminal justice reform. In this last update, we’ll summarize our lobbying efforts on behalf of the LGBT community, immigrants and refugees, religious freedom, and voting rights.

LGBTQ+ Non-Discrimination – HB 1386 (Failed to Pass)

• This session’s bill added protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, and other areas of the North Dakota Human Rights Act for LGBTQ+ North Dakotans.  It was introduced by Rep. Joshua Boschee.  We supported the bill along with our coalition partners, but the bill failed to pass out of committee with a favorable recommendation and did not receive enough votes on the House floor to pass.  It is past time for North Dakota’s politicians to recognize the humanity and equality of ND’s LGBTQ population by passing legislation that will prohibit discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.  We’ll continue to work toward finding ways to promote policies in North Dakota that ensure LGBTQ+ North Dakotans are protected from discrimination and enjoy equality in the workplace, public spaces, schools, and beyond.

Anti-Sharia – HB 1425 (Defeated)

• HB 1425 or the anti-Sharia bill was introduced by prime sponsor Rep. Kim Koppelman.  This bill was an attempt to ban any consideration or analysis of religious systems or laws in cases heard before North Dakota courts.  Although the bill’s language did not explicitly name Islam, proponents of bills like HB 1425 that passed in other states have been motivated by an unfounded fear that Sharia law or Islamic doctrine will overtake our judicial system and laws.   Our courts routinely hear cases that involve some consideration of whether there was a valid religious belief espoused by one party in the case or whether a contract between two parties can be arbitrated in a religious arbitration.  U.S. courts do not apply religious law, but look to the basis of the belief to determine the facts of a dispute and then apply US laws according to federal and state statutes and the US Constitution.   HB 1425 was unnecessary and a threat to religious freedom.  We collaborated with the ND Catholic Conference and the ND Human Rights Coalition to defeat the bill.

School Prayer – HB 1275 (Passed)

• This bill was introduced by prime sponsor Rep. Kim Koppelman.  HB 1275 sought to allow prayer over the loudspeaker at public and private school games and extracurricular activities.  Speech communicated through a loudspeaker at public or private school activities sanctioned by the ND High School Activities Association is considered government speech.  In order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, government speech in a school setting cannot appear to promote or endorse any particular religion.  The original version of HB 1275 was unconstitutional.  The bill passed in its unconstitutional form in the House and was amended in the Senate to remove the mandate that loudspeaker prayer be allowed at NDHSAA school activities.  Although the bill as passed is no longer unconstitutional, we have serious concerns that the remaining language of the bill, which allows student initiated prayer at school activities, may encourage or lead to school prayer activities that appear to be endorsed by the government.  Such government endorsement would be unconstitutional because it in effect can coerce students and others to conform to religious beliefs that are not their own. 

Anti-Refugee -- HB 1427 (Passed)

• This bill was introduced by prime sponsor Rep. Chris Olson.  The original version of the bill required the state to evaluate the costs refugee resettlement to cities and the state of North Dakota and under broad and vague language gave the Governor power to determine whether refugee resettlement should be halted in North Dakota based on a limited amount of collected data required by the bill.  We worked with a broad array of partners like Lutheran Social Services, the ND Catholic Conference, ND Human Rights Coalition, immigration attorneys, and the refugee community to defeat this unconstitutional bill.  The House committee voted to overhaul the original version of the bill with a hog house amendment.  The amended bill became a refugee resettlement study to be conducted in the 2017-2018 interim.  The amended refugee study bill passed both the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor.  In June the Legislative Management committee voted to select the refugee study to move forward in the interim.  We will closely follow this interim study and work with coalition partners to present complete and accurate information to the interim committee about the tremendous benefits our state enjoys because refugees and their families resettle in North Dakota and the legal and constitutional requirements the committee must consider during the study.

Voter Identification -- HB 1369 (Passed)

• HB 1369 was introduced by prime sponsor Rep. Al Carlson.  This voter ID bill was another attempt to modify the state’s current voter ID law which is being litigated in ND’s federal court.  In August 2016, a federal court placed an injunction on the state’s voter ID law and required the reinstatement of voter affidavits for use in the 2016 general election for any voter who lacked an ID required by ND’s voter ID law.  HB 1369 sought to remove the affidavit requirement by adding a provisional ballot option to the state’s current voter ID law.  The bill also added a few other supplementary curing documents for voters to use to verify their voter ID (if the ID was not current) such as a utility bill or pay stub.  This bill is problematic for several reasons.  Chief among the bill’s problems is that the provisional ballot is not counted on the eve of the election and will require a qualified voter who could not show ID at the polling place to follow-up with their elections office with a valid voter ID and supplementary documents within 6 days following the election and prior to the meeting of the canvassing board.  If the voter fails to provide an appropriate ID within the required timeframe the voter’s ballot will not be counted in the election.  This does not provide a voter without an official ID a failsafe to vote like the voter affidavit.  The bill as passed also adds an additional burden on otherwise eligible voters to travel to their local election’s office to have their vote count.  Although the bill became law, it remains to be seen whether the new law will pass constitutional scrutiny if it is reviewed by the federal court handling the ongoing voter ID litigation in North Dakota.

Looking forward:

In the interim legislative session we will be following a number of committees as they study refugee resettlement, incarceration issues, and behavioral health.  We encourage you to reach out to us if you have interest in supporting our policy work and we’ll endeavor to keep you up-to-date on our interim legislative work.  And as always, thank you for your continuing support!