theintercept--2020-11-17--Will Biden Dismantle Trump’s Immigration Police State?

were staggering .
By the end of his first week in office , Donald Trump had already signed orders banning travelers from multiple Muslim-majority countries and tossed out rules establishing who the nation ’ s sprawling immigration enforcement apparatus should prioritize for arrest .
Hundreds more executive actions would follow in the years to come .
As part of a nativist effort to remake the U.S. relationship to immigration through an “ unshackling ” of the Department of Homeland Security , armed federal agents took thousands of immigrant children from their parents to terrify others from making the journey north @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the border ’ s most dangerous cities by the tens of thousands .
Mothers and fathers who dutifully checked-in at Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices for years walked into those same spaces only to find themselves handcuffed and deported .
And those were only the most infamous of the administration ’ s initiatives .
Asylum and refugee admissions came under withering attack through waves of critical but under-the-radar regulations and policy changes .
Now , it seems , that era is coming to an end , raising a critical question : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Last week , sources close to President-elect Joe Biden told CBS News that upon entering office , the incoming administration will swiftly and fully restore the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , better known as DACA , rescind Trump ’ s Muslim ban , and “ look to implement a 100-day freeze on deportations while his administration issues guidance narrowing who can be arrested by immigration agents.
” Among other key initiatives on the agenda , sources said a Biden White House will also end the punishing Migrant Protections Protocol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico , ” create a task force for locating children separated by DHS , and raise the nation ’ s cap on refugees — which fell to a record low of 15,000 under Trump — to 125,000 .
The ambitious vows , which tracked with promises made on the campaign trail , came one day after the Migration Policy Institute , a nonpartisan think tank , published a policy brief examining the incoming administration ’ s immigration plans .
Pointing to more than 400 executive orders as evidence , MPI reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reconstructed ” the immigration system “ based on a worldview of immigration as a security and economic threat to Americans.
” Unfortunately for immigrant rights advocates , MPI noted : “ The grafting of a dizzying array of Trump executive actions , policy guidance , and regulatory changes — some interlocking and thus difficult to unwind — atop a long-antiquated immigration system presents complex hurdles for an incoming administration that has vowed to roll back key Trump changes and advance bold reforms.
” Some of the challenges would be logistical .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , has to contend with the fact that after nearly four years of the Trump administration strangling refugee admissions , the capacity of the existing nonprofit infrastructure to take in refugees has been severely diminished .
In a phone call with reporters last week , MPI ’ s analysts and experts stressed that much of what a Biden White House could accomplish hinges on political will and timing , neither of which look particularly promising .
Hanging over the procedural and logistical challenges is the overarching question of whether the incoming Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has set for its first 100 days , said Sarah Pierce , an MPI policy analyst .
“ Will immigration actually be their key priority ?
” Pierce asked , before answering her own question : “ We know it ’ s not going to be.
” Pierce pointed to speeches Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris gave after their electoral victory .
“ They mentioned a lot of issues , but they didn ’ t mention immigration and during the Trump administration , immigration was the top policy priority , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had into enacting their agenda .
I think under a Biden administration , we ’ re about to see the pace of immigration changes slow down significantly.
” Noting Biden ’ s pledge to deliver a bill on comprehensive immigration reform within his first 100 days , Muzaffar Chishti , an MPI senior fellow and director , said this was the third moment in the last 20 years when the public has witnessed the prospect of a “ big move on immigration reform ” run up against national political realities outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there will be some movement towards immigration reform legislation , ” Chishti said .
“ But we know that ’ s an uphill task.
” Chishti described how “ mega-events ” over the past two decades have repeatedly foiled efforts at immigration reform .
For George W. Bush , who Chishti described as “ probably the most pro-immigrant Republican president in recent history , ” it was the September 11 attacks , “ one of the biggest mega-events ” of all time .
Then there was Barack Obama , who took office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Great Recession , and there was no possibility of any immigration reform legislation in the first term , ” Chishti said .
“ Unfortunately , similarly , when this administration takes effect with a lot of hope that there will be significant change on immigration , the first thing that the president-elect will have to deal with is the pandemic.
” On the border , the coronavirus has made a historic impact on the nature of immigration enforcement .
Earlier this year , Stephen Miller , the president ’ s ultra-hardline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public health officials and pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a rule that would allow Border Patrol agents to rapidly remove immigrants at the border without due process .
From March through September , border authorities used the rule to expel more than 200,000 migrants , including 8,800 unaccompanied children .
“ The incoming administration has not said what it will do about that , ” Doris Meissner , an MPI senior fellow and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program , as well as a former commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service , told reporters .
“ It ’ s highly likely that Covid conditions will continue to be in an emergency state , so it is possible that we would see a new administration maintain the CDC guidance at the border , at least for some period of time , ” she said , adding that an extension of the CDC rule could give Biden , “ some time for putting the changes into place that allow for a more functional system for granting asylum.
” Away from the border , Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a combination of cautious optimism from immigrant rights advocates and questions as to how , exactly , it would work , particularly in the case of individuals currently being held in immigration detention .
The answers to those questions remain unclear .
In other matters on the interior enforcement front , Biden has signaled that his administration would return to priorities set in the later years of the Obama administration that directed ICE personnel to focus their arrest activity on so-called criminal aliens and public safety threats .
ICE ’ s union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reign in the agency handcuffed deportation officers in the field , helping to pave the way for the “ unshackling ” rhetoric that defined the Trump era .
Immigrant rights advocates , meanwhile , argued that the priorities failed in their stated goals .
A New York Times analysis of government data supported those claims , and recent evidence has surfaced giving them additional weight .
Earlier this year , Netflix released a documentary series titled , “ Immigration Nation , ” in which a supervisory ICE officer addressed the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reintroduce .
“ Even under the Obama administration , when we had the priorities , that really didn ’ t limit anything , ” the field office director , identified as Bob , told the film crew .
“ What people didn ’ t realize , there was this little , I call it the fine print at the bottom , and it said , you can arrest anybody you basically want to if you think they present a threat to the United States or could possibly present a threat — and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to say .
… Doesn ’ t matter what for .
There ’ s millions of people to choose from.
” Lopez is not alone .
Among many immigrant rights advocates , the Obama-Biden administration is remembered for building a network of massive , for-profit detention centers for immigrant families on the border ; continuing the unprecedented expansion of Customs and Border Protection , even as the agency became the most corrupt actor in federal law enforcement ; and carrying out more deportations than any administration in the history of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 3 million people removed the last time Biden was in the White House .
In addition to being an epicenter of family separations , the Rio Grande Valley has been an ongoing target for border wall expansion under the current administration , leading to heated legal battles between the federal government and private landowners that continue to this day .
Biden has said that his administration would not build “ one more inch ” of new wall along the border — though he has not said what he would do about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through in places like southern Arizona , which has seen extensive environmental and cultural damage as a result of the president ’ s efforts — opting instead for a high-tech “ virtual wall.
” Here , too , Lopez said there is cause for concern .
In years past , virtual wall talk has largely translated into the federal government awarding lucrative contracts to military , security , and intelligence firms to install surveillance equipment in border communities .
“ For a while now , we ’ ve been fighting the physical border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the rusted steel kind of looking thing — but there are many types of walls that exist , which I think continue to paint the borderlands as this is sort of second-class state without the same constitutional protections as the rest of the country , ” Lopez said .
The technological border security solutions historically favored by Biden and others in the Democratic Party also pose a threat to human and civil rights along the border , Lopez added .
“ That will still lead to the same violence against immigrants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still lead to individuals suffering through exhaustion and entering through hazardous terrains .
It will still lead to myself and the millions of people who call the border home losing their privacy.
” Erika Andiola is also concerned about the direction the incoming administration might take .
In 2013 , Andiola ’ s mother and brother were arrested by ICE officers in Phoenix .
Andiola was 25 years old and already a rising force in the immigrant rights community .
The arrests made national news , and Andiola ’ s mother and brother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting for radical changes to the nation ’ s immigration system ever since , serving as a staffer on Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s 2016 presidential campaign and now working as chief advocacy officer for the Texas-based nonprofit RAICES Action .
“ I think the biggest mistake was really prioritizing enforcement , ” Andiola told The Intercept .
“ For people who don ’ t understand immigration , it literally is detaining and deporting immigrants at a record number and creating programs and creating detention centers to be able to look tough on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While she welcomed Biden ’ s focus on policy targets that go beyond passing sweeping legislation , such as the deportation moratorium and reversing Trump ’ s executive orders , Andiola expressed concern with the advisers the incoming president has surrounded himself with .
In September , news broke that Biden had added the former head of Obama ’ s White House Domestic Policy Council , Cecilia Muñoz , to his transition team as a senior adviser .
While some immigration experts defended the decision and pointed to the Obama administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former Democratic National Committee spokesperson , told The Hill : “ Cecilia Muñoz is the one person besides Stephen Miller who has spent years of her public service dedicated to the smooth execution of mass deportation policy at the West Wing level.
” A polarizing figure in the immigrant rights community , Muñoz , who did not respond to a request for comment for this story , was the face of immigration policy under the former president and staunchly defended his most controversial efforts , even as DHS and local law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a single year .
When asked about the “ collateral damage ” incurred by the administration ’ s crackdown in a 2011 Frontline investigation , Muñoz told journalist Maria Hinojosa : “ At the end of the day , when you have immigration law that ’ s broken and you have a community of 10 million , 11 million people living and working in the United States illegally , some of these things are going to happen .
Even if the law is executed with perfection , there will be parents separated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an argument that would become commonplace among immigration officials under Trump : that suffering resulting from enforcement of immigration laws should be addressed by changing those laws , and until that time , DHS agencies would continue to do their jobs .
“ As long as Congress gives us the money to deport 400,000 people a year , that ’ s what the administration is going to do , ” she said .
“ That ’ s our obligation under the law.
” In the wake of the interview , the senior Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grassroots immigrant rights groups , which continued into the president ’ s second term .
In 2015 , 17 members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association called on the organization to rescind its invitation to Muñoz to appear as a keynote speaker at the group ’ s annual conference , describing her in a letter as “ one of the principal architects of shocking , widespread , and ongoing human rights violations against vulnerable children fleeing Central America.
” Muñoz ultimately delivered her address while critics held signs in protest and others booed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2011 , Deepak Bhargava , a distinguished lecturer at CUNY ’ s School of Labor and Urban Studies , was arrested alongside Rep. Luis Gutierrez ( D-Ill. ) outside the White House while protesting the Obama administration ’ s deportation crackdown .
At the time , Bhargava was the executive director of the Center for Community Change , a progressive community organization where Muñoz formerly served as a board chair .
He attended meetings with the president and to this day describes himself as a “ fierce critic ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that experience , Bhargava told The Intercept , “ I sort of feel like I can say with authority that criticism of Cecilia is misguided — she was really the one senior level pro-immigrant voice that consistently fought for the movement on the inside.
” Amid the fallout from the 2011 Frontline interview , Bhargava ’ s former organization was one of 18 groups that issued a joint statement in Muñoz ’ s defense .
In her years in the White House , Bhargava said , Muñoz won some battles and lost some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of staff Rahm Emmanuel and former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano .
“ It ’ s ridiculous to argue that immigrant communities would have fared better now with her absence , ” Bhargava said .
“ It kind of just makes me sad that the very justified anger about Obama ’ s immigration policies is landing on sort of the one progressive woman of color who I know from experience was in there fighting for the movement , often out of public view and in a pretty hostile setting.
” “ I feel like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than it would otherwise be on immigration because she ’ s there , ” he added .
“ I don ’ t know all the details of the criticisms people are making but I do know her , and I ’ m confident about who she is and what she stands up for when she ’ s in the room.
” Questions of accountability for the Obama years and divergent visions of what justice and change should look like in the immigration system , especially after four years of Trump , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office next year .
Andiola , who has called the Muñoz addition a “ huge mistake , ” said her concerns about the direction of the incoming administration on immigration deepened last week , when Biden and Harris released a list of agency review teams responsible for “ ensuring a smooth transfer of power ” and preparing the administration and its Cabinet “ to hit the ground running on Day One.
” Among those listed under DHS , Andiola said the only names she recognized were Obama-era officials .
She said she knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrant rights advocates who critiqued the Obama administration from the left , who had been contacted or gone to work with the incoming Biden team .
“ It ’ s definitely not a great start , ” she said .
“ But let ’ s hope for the better.
” Given the experience of the past four years , Andiola argued that Biden should be seeking advisers focused on dismantling the country ’ s detention and deportation apparatus ; advisors who won ’ t trade the safety of immigrant communities for long-shot political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important as pushing Congress to do something , ” she said , “ because we don ’ t want to end up in the same situation of the Obama administration.
” “ I ’ m just a little bit nervous that they are going to bring on board people who are not necessarily the opposite of Stephen Miller , and that ’ s what we need right now , ” Andiola went on to say .
“ We need someone who can wake up every day thinking , What am I going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite of what Stephen Miller does , which is waking up every day thinking what the heck he ’ s going to do to deport us and to harm us .
”

The pace and aggression were staggering. By the end of his first week in office, Donald Trump had already signed orders banning travelers from multiple Muslim-majority countries and tossed out rules establishing who the nation’s sprawling immigration enforcement apparatus should prioritize for arrest. Hundreds more executive actions would follow in the years to come.
As part of a nativist effort to remake the U.S. relationship to immigration through an “unshackling” of the Department of Homeland Security, armed federal agents took thousands of immigrant children from their parents to terrify others from making the journey north. Families were turned out into some of the border’s most dangerous cities by the tens of thousands. Mothers and fathers who dutifully checked-in at Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices for years walked into those same spaces only to find themselves handcuffed and deported.
And those were only the most infamous of the administration’s initiatives. Asylum and refugee admissions came under withering attack through waves of critical but under-the-radar regulations and policy changes.
Now, it seems, that era is coming to an end, raising a critical question: How much of what Trump built will remain?
Last week, sources close to President-elect Joe Biden told CBS News that upon entering office, the incoming administration will swiftly and fully restore the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA, rescind Trump’s Muslim ban, and “look to implement a 100-day freeze on deportations while his administration issues guidance narrowing who can be arrested by immigration agents.” Among other key initiatives on the agenda, sources said a Biden White House will also end the punishing Migrant Protections Protocol program, otherwise known as “Remain in Mexico,” create a task force for locating children separated by DHS, and raise the nation’s cap on refugees — which fell to a record low of 15,000 under Trump — to 125,000.
The ambitious vows, which tracked with promises made on the campaign trail, came one day after the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, published a policy brief examining the incoming administration’s immigration plans. Pointing to more than 400 executive orders as evidence, MPI reported that the outgoing administration had “methodically dismantled and reconstructed” the immigration system “based on a worldview of immigration as a security and economic threat to Americans.”
Unfortunately for immigrant rights advocates, MPI noted: “The grafting of a dizzying array of Trump executive actions, policy guidance, and regulatory changes — some interlocking and thus difficult to unwind — atop a long-antiquated immigration system presents complex hurdles for an incoming administration that has vowed to roll back key Trump changes and advance bold reforms.”
Some of the challenges would be logistical. Biden’s refugee resettlement plan, for example, has to contend with the fact that after nearly four years of the Trump administration strangling refugee admissions, the capacity of the existing nonprofit infrastructure to take in refugees has been severely diminished.
A migrant walks through a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico, on Nov. 5, 2019. The camp is an outgrowth of the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program. Photo: Eric Gay/AP
Similarly, while the incoming administration could swiftly end the “Remain in Mexico” program, which forced more than 67,000 people to wait out their asylum cases on the southern side of the border — in some instances in dangerous and squalid camps — Biden has not said whether he would allow individuals in the program into the U.S. As of September, roughly 24,500 people remained in the program, while fewer than 1 percent have been granted asylum. The challenge is not that the remaining cases necessarily reflect an unmanageable burden on the system; it’s that the 24,500 figure represents human beings whose needs and rights will require careful planning, attention, and resources if the Biden administration sincerely intends to distinguish itself from its predecessor.
“Will immigration actually be their key priority? We know it’s not going to be.”
In a phone call with reporters last week, MPI’s analysts and experts stressed that much of what a Biden White House could accomplish hinges on political will and timing, neither of which look particularly promising. Hanging over the procedural and logistical challenges is the overarching question of whether the incoming Biden administration can realistically accomplish the goals it has set for its first 100 days, said Sarah Pierce, an MPI policy analyst.
“Will immigration actually be their key priority?” Pierce asked, before answering her own question: “We know it’s not going to be.” Pierce pointed to speeches Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris gave after their electoral victory. “They mentioned a lot of issues, but they didn’t mention immigration and during the Trump administration, immigration was the top policy priority,” she said. “They poured everything they had into enacting their agenda. I think under a Biden administration, we’re about to see the pace of immigration changes slow down significantly.”
Noting Biden’s pledge to deliver a bill on comprehensive immigration reform within his first 100 days, Muzaffar Chishti, an MPI senior fellow and director, said this was the third moment in the last 20 years when the public has witnessed the prospect of a “big move on immigration reform” run up against national political realities outside of the immigration sphere. “One can expect that there will be some movement towards immigration reform legislation,” Chishti said. “But we know that’s an uphill task.”
Chishti described how “mega-events” over the past two decades have repeatedly foiled efforts at immigration reform. For George W. Bush, who Chishti described as “probably the most pro-immigrant Republican president in recent history,” it was the September 11 attacks, “one of the biggest mega-events” of all time. Then there was Barack Obama, who took office in 2009. “He was confronted with the Great Recession, and there was no possibility of any immigration reform legislation in the first term,” Chishti said. “Unfortunately, similarly, when this administration takes effect with a lot of hope that there will be significant change on immigration, the first thing that the president-elect will have to deal with is the pandemic.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
On the border, the coronavirus has made a historic impact on the nature of immigration enforcement. Earlier this year, Stephen Miller, the president’s ultra-hardline immigration adviser, successfully overcame the concerns of public health officials and pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a rule that would allow Border Patrol agents to rapidly remove immigrants at the border without due process. From March through September, border authorities used the rule to expel more than 200,000 migrants, including 8,800 unaccompanied children.
“The incoming administration has not said what it will do about that,” Doris Meissner, an MPI senior fellow and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program, as well as a former commissioner of the now-defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, told reporters. “It’s highly likely that Covid conditions will continue to be in an emergency state, so it is possible that we would see a new administration maintain the CDC guidance at the border, at least for some period of time,” she said, adding that an extension of the CDC rule could give Biden, “some time for putting the changes into place that allow for a more functional system for granting asylum.”
Away from the border, Biden’s proposed deportation moratorium has been met with a combination of cautious optimism from immigrant rights advocates and questions as to how, exactly, it would work, particularly in the case of individuals currently being held in immigration detention. The answers to those questions remain unclear.
In other matters on the interior enforcement front, Biden has signaled that his administration would return to priorities set in the later years of the Obama administration that directed ICE personnel to focus their arrest activity on so-called criminal aliens and public safety threats. ICE’s union and other right-wing commentators howled that efforts to rein in the agency handcuffed deportation officers in the field, helping to pave the way for the “unshackling” rhetoric that defined the Trump era. Immigrant rights advocates, meanwhile, argued that the priorities failed in their stated goals. A New York Times analysis of government data supported those claims, and recent evidence has surfaced giving them additional weight.
Earlier this year, Netflix released a documentary series titled, “Immigration Nation,” in which a supervisory ICE officer addressed the kind of enforcement priorities that Biden could seek to reintroduce. “Even under the Obama administration, when we had the priorities, that really didn’t limit anything,” the field office director, identified as Bob, told the film crew. “What people didn’t realize, there was this little, I call it the fine print at the bottom, and it said, you can arrest anybody you basically want to if you think they present a threat to the United States or could possibly present a threat — and we did! — it’s so easy to say. … Doesn’t matter what for. There’s millions of people to choose from.”
About fifty pro-immigration reform demonstrators gathered for a rally outside the United States Supreme Court January 15, 2016 in Washington, DC. Demonstrators called on the Supreme Court to take up and overrule a lower court’s ruling against President Barack Obama’s 2014 immigration executive actions. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Avoiding Obama’s Mistakes
A return to some version of the Obama era is precisely what Biden’s critics on the left are hoping to avoid.
For Roberto Lopez, a community organizer with the Texas Civil Rights Project in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, 2014 was a year of political awakening. It was the year that his community made news around the world, with thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America showing up to the border seeking asylum.
“That is when we started to really see just the images of children in the cages in the Central Processing Center here in South Texas,” Lopez told The Intercept. “That is sort of the lens that I view a Biden administration from.”
Lopez is not alone. Among many immigrant rights advocates, the Obama-Biden administration is remembered for building a network of massive, for-profit detention centers for immigrant families on the border; continuing the unprecedented expansion of Customs and Border Protection, even as the agency became the most corrupt actor in federal law enforcement; and carrying out more deportations than any administration in the history of the country, including Trump’s, with more than 3 million people removed the last time Biden was in the White House.
In addition to being an epicenter of family separations, the Rio Grande Valley has been an ongoing target for border wall expansion under the current administration, leading to heated legal battles between the federal government and private landowners that continue to this day. Biden has said that his administration would not build “one more inch” of new wall along the border — though he has not said what he would do about the sections of wall Trump has rammed through in places like southern Arizona, which has seen extensive environmental and cultural damage as a result of the president’s efforts — opting instead for a high-tech “virtual wall.”
Here, too, Lopez said there is cause for concern. In years past, virtual wall talk has largely translated into the federal government awarding lucrative contracts to military, security, and intelligence firms to install surveillance equipment in border communities.
“For a while now, we’ve been fighting the physical border wall — the concrete, the bollards, the rusted steel kind of looking thing — but there are many types of walls that exist, which I think continue to paint the borderlands as this is sort of second-class state without the same constitutional protections as the rest of the country,” Lopez said. The technological border security solutions historically favored by Biden and others in the Democratic Party also pose a threat to human and civil rights along the border, Lopez added. “That will still lead to the same violence against immigrants,” he said. “It will still lead to individuals suffering through exhaustion and entering through hazardous terrains. It will still lead to myself and the millions of people who call the border home losing their privacy.”
Erika Andiola is also concerned about the direction the incoming administration might take. In 2013, Andiola’s mother and brother were arrested by ICE officers in Phoenix. Andiola was 25 years old and already a rising force in the immigrant rights community. The arrests made national news, and Andiola’s mother and brother were eventually released.
Andiola has been fighting for radical changes to the nation’s immigration system ever since, serving as a staffer on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign and now working as chief advocacy officer for the Texas-based nonprofit RAICES Action.
In Andiola’s view, one of the core advocacy mistakes of the Obama era was to throw enormous time and energy into a legislative process that wedded immigration reform to the continued expansion of the immigration police state.
In her view, one of the core advocacy mistakes of the Obama era was to throw enormous time and energy into a legislative process — specifically the attempted passage of the DREAM Act, which would provide protections to young immigrants — that wedded immigration reform to the continued expansion of the immigration police state. While the agencies of DHS grew and grew, the reform never came. Instead, a hypernationalist whose top immigration policy adviser endorsed white supremacist views took control of the federal government’s increasingly militarized Homeland Security agencies, ushering in four years of terror for immigrant communities.
Erika Andiola, who recently resigned her position in the congressional office of Rep. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), speaks at a press conference held by the Dream Action Coalition on immigration reform December 4, 2013 in Washington, DC. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
“I think the biggest mistake was really prioritizing enforcement,” Andiola told The Intercept. “For people who don’t understand immigration, it literally is detaining and deporting immigrants at a record number and creating programs and creating detention centers to be able to look tough on immigration for Republicans to come around.”
While she welcomed Biden’s focus on policy targets that go beyond passing sweeping legislation, such as the deportation moratorium and reversing Trump’s executive orders, Andiola expressed concern with the advisers the incoming president has surrounded himself with.
In September, news broke that Biden had added the former head of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz, to his transition team as a senior adviser. While some immigration experts defended the decision and pointed to the Obama administration’s evolution on immigration policy, Pablo Manríquez, a former Democratic National Committee spokesperson, told The Hill: “Cecilia Muñoz is the one person besides Stephen Miller who has spent years of her public service dedicated to the smooth execution of mass deportation policy at the West Wing level.”
A polarizing figure in the immigrant rights community, Muñoz, who did not respond to a request for comment for this story, was the face of immigration policy under the former president and staunchly defended his most controversial efforts, even as DHS and local law enforcement collaborations fueled an extraordinary 409,849 deportations in a single year. When asked about the “collateral damage” incurred by the administration’s crackdown in a 2011 Frontline investigation, Muñoz told journalist Maria Hinojosa: “At the end of the day, when you have immigration law that’s broken and you have a community of 10 million, 11 million people living and working in the United States illegally, some of these things are going to happen. Even if the law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children.”
Muñoz then made an argument that would become commonplace among immigration officials under Trump: that suffering resulting from enforcement of immigration laws should be addressed by changing those laws, and until that time, DHS agencies would continue to do their jobs. “As long as Congress gives us the money to deport 400,000 people a year, that’s what the administration is going to do,” she said. “That’s our obligation under the law.”
In the wake of the interview, the senior Obama administration official came under intense criticism from grassroots immigrant rights groups, which continued into the president’s second term. In 2015, 17 members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association called on the organization to rescind its invitation to Muñoz to appear as a keynote speaker at the group’s annual conference, describing her in a letter as “one of the principal architects of shocking, widespread, and ongoing human rights violations against vulnerable children fleeing Central America.” Muñoz ultimately delivered her address while critics held signs in protest and others booed.
Muñoz is not without her defenders. In 2011, Deepak Bhargava, a distinguished lecturer at CUNY’s School of Labor and Urban Studies, was arrested alongside Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) outside the White House while protesting the Obama administration’s deportation crackdown. At the time, Bhargava was the executive director of the Center for Community Change, a progressive community organization where Muñoz formerly served as a board chair. He attended meetings with the president and to this day describes himself as a “fierce critic” of the former administration’s policies. Given that experience, Bhargava told The Intercept, “I sort of feel like I can say with authority that criticism of Cecilia is misguided — she was really the one senior level pro-immigrant voice that consistently fought for the movement on the inside.”
Amid the fallout from the 2011 Frontline interview, Bhargava’s former organization was one of 18 groups that issued a joint statement in Muñoz’s defense. In her years in the White House, Bhargava said, Muñoz won some battles and lost some battles, including against former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel and former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. “It’s ridiculous to argue that immigrant communities would have fared better now with her absence,” Bhargava said. “It kind of just makes me sad that the very justified anger about Obama’s immigration policies is landing on sort of the one progressive woman of color who I know from experience was in there fighting for the movement, often out of public view and in a pretty hostile setting.”
“I feel like the Biden administration is going to be better than it would otherwise be on immigration because she’s there,” he added. “I don’t know all the details of the criticisms people are making but I do know her, and I’m confident about who she is and what she stands up for when she’s in the room.”
Questions of accountability for the Obama years and divergent visions of what justice and change should look like in the immigration system, especially after four years of Trump, will take on new urgency when Biden assumes office next year.
Andiola, who has called the Muñoz addition a “huge mistake,” said her concerns about the direction of the incoming administration on immigration deepened last week, when Biden and Harris released a list of agency review teams responsible for “ensuring a smooth transfer of power” and preparing the administration and its Cabinet “to hit the ground running on Day One.” Among those listed under DHS, Andiola said the only names she recognized were Obama-era officials. She said she knew of nobody from her political orbit, immigrant rights advocates who critiqued the Obama administration from the left, who had been contacted or gone to work with the incoming Biden team. “It’s definitely not a great start,” she said. “But let’s hope for the better.”
Given the experience of the past four years, Andiola argued that Biden should be seeking advisers focused on dismantling the country’s detention and deportation apparatus; advisors who won’t trade the safety of immigrant communities for long-shot political opportunities. “That’s as important as pushing Congress to do something,” she said, “because we don’t want to end up in the same situation of the Obama administration.”
“I’m just a little bit nervous that they are going to bring on board people who are not necessarily the opposite of Stephen Miller, and that’s what we need right now,” Andiola went on to say. “We need someone who can wake up every day thinking, What am I going to do for the immigrant community? Just the opposite of what Stephen Miller does, which is waking up every day thinking what the heck he’s going to do to deport us and to harm us.”


theintercept--2020-11-17--Rahm Emanuel Is Pushing for Transportation Secretary Post

Rahm Emanuel is lobbying strenuously for the job of transportation secretary in a Biden administration , sources close to the situation told The Intercept .
A junior Cabinet position for Emanuel would invert a power dynamic that has long complicated the relationship between the hard-charging Emanuel and President-elect Joe Biden .
It goes back to the early days of the Clinton administration .
With Republicans bearing down on the House of Representatives in the 1994 midterms , the White House still had hopes of staving off a wipeout and thought that a major crime bill would go a long way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the measure was championed by Biden , then a Delaware senator and chair of the Judiciary Committee .
In the White House , the effort was being organized by the up-and-coming Emanuel , then the White House political director in his early 30s , who ’ d been in high school when Biden first started pushing Democrats to get tougher on crime during the Carter administration .
For Biden , the crime bill was the culmination of more than a decade of legislative work , an act that would bear his name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy .
For Emanuel , Biden was one more lawmaker who needed his feelings catered to .
Emanuel is not well known for his delicate touch , and in a June 30 , 1994 memo , he asked Bill Clinton if the president could do a little cleanup for him .
“ Certain key members have recently had their feathers ruffled , and need reassurance that they and their particular interests are appreciated and supported , ” Emanuel wrote .
Among that small list : In May 1994 , Biden had come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , which would allow death penalty defendants to use racial disparity statistics in fighting execution .
The measure was a high priority of the Congressional Black Caucus , NAACP , the American Civil Liberties Union , and a coalition of racial justice groups .
After Biden ’ s defense of it on the Senate floor , however , it became increasingly clear that the White House was willing to strip it out to win right-wing support .
That Biden couldn ’ t protect a key provision of the crime bill from Emanuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They didn ’ t get along during the process of passing the crime bill , ” recalled one Democratic operative , who requested anonymity due to his relationship with the Biden apparatus .
“ Rahm was being his usual bullying self , and Biden thought it was his bill.
” Emanuel recalled a close working relationship with Biden during the Clinton administration , saying that he was impressed with Biden ’ s political courage in pursuit of the crime bill .
In a meeting Clinton held with House and Senate Democratic leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged him to pull the assault weapons ban out of the overall bill , noting that they were having problems getting the package through their respective chambers .
“ Everyone knew it would effectively kill the assault weapon ban .
Clinton refused , ” Emanuel told The Intercept .
“ Biden disagreed with leadership .
Stood up just before the meeting was to end and said to the room , but directed to POTUS , ‘ I suppose I need to wear the flak jacket to get this done the way you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ That ’ s about right , Joe.
’ And that ’ s how it ended.
” Emanuel said that he and Clinton administration officials Ron Klain and Bruce Reed “ were assigned to work with Senator Biden to find the votes to keep the AWB in the overall package.
” Klain and Reed became longtime allies of Biden , with Klain set to serve as Biden ’ s White House chief of staff .
Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 for a lucrative stint in the private sector , pocketing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years for brokering deals , mostly in the nuclear industry , between the types of people he ’ d met while serving in the White House .
He and Biden didn ’ t overlap much until Barack Obama was elected president , naming Emanuel as his chief of staff .
To demonstrate the breadth of his power , Emanuel would tell visitors to his West Wing office that it was eight square feet larger than the vice president ’ s across the street .
Emanuel left in October 2010 to run for Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the Affordable Care Act , Wall Street reform , an economic stimulus — that would be cut short when Republicans took the House a month later .
David Axelrod , an adviser to the president at the time , said Emanuel and Biden had a good relationship .
“ They got along very well , ” Axelrod said .
“ They did know each other from that period in the ’ 90s when Rahm was honchoing the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban.
” Emanuel and the president tended to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , who was schooled in the Senate tradition of meandering ruminations .
The Senate for decades prided itself as the world ’ s “ greatest deliberative body , ” and senators prided themselves in their expressions of deference and courtesy for their colleagues .
Talking endlessly in circles was a way for senators to avoid conflict and keep an air of civility about the body .
It also suited the elderly men in the upper chamber , who enjoyed telling stories about the old days and hearing themselves speak .
Tony Blinken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years who is considered a potential secretary of state pick , said that Obama couldn ’ t quite take Biden ’ s rambling approach in the Senate .
“ They weren ’ t in sync , ” Blinken told a reporter for the Washington Post Magazine .
“ Obama would listen to Biden holding forth in the committee and roll his eyes.
” Obama once passed a note to his aide Robert Gibbs during one such committee meeting that read simply : “ Shoot .
Me .
Now.
” Among Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice continued , as Biden was known as the guy whose suggestions in the meeting would send it sideways unless humored and then respectfully ignored .
Biden , though , valued his private time with Obama .
Just as he had to go through Emanuel to get his crime bill over the line , he now found Emanuel between him and the president .
Every White House sees tension between the vice president and the chief of staff , though Biden recognized that as a former member of Congress who gave up his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaker of the House — Emanuel was as entitled to respect as Biden was .
In May , Emanuel told CNN that Biden would often come into his office and offer him advice .
“ I ’ ve talked to Joe Biden multiple times over the last two months , ” Emanuel said .
“ I ’ ve had the same conversation with Joe Biden today as I did when I was chief of staff , and he ’ d come in and tell me what I needed to do up in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice on things.
” “ Rahm respected him a lot , ” Axelrod recalled .
“ Sought his counsel .
Appreciated his loyalty to the president and his insights on Congress and interventions with them at critical times.
” Biden played an active role in lobbying senators during the White House ’ s major pushes for legislation , but did not have a Dick Cheney-level presence in administration debates , which meant there was little opportunity for Biden and Emanuel to cross swords or to have feathers ruffled .
Since Emanuel left the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an openly friendly relationship .
Through tears , Emanuel told a CNN documentary crew about Biden reaching out after Emanuel ’ s father had died — as thoroughly a Biden gesture as imaginable .
“ Joe was the first one to call .
I mean , like the day he died .
He ’ s got a lot of stuff going on , ” Emanuel noted , referencing the Iowa caucuses and Biden ’ s presidential campaign , pausing to collect himself .
“ He ’ s a good man .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nefarious or dark motivation , ” said Emanuel , who is himself routinely ascribed with dark motivations .
Emanuel , however , was not uniformly a Biden cheerleader during the primary .
“ The concern I have for Joe is it looks a little too restoration and not enough change , ” Emanuel said in March 2019 on MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe.
” After Biden won the nomination , Emanuel made sure the public knew he was in regular touch with the nominee .
Still , there was a hint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interminably long late-night phone calls .
“ I ’ ve seen him energetic .
I ’ ve seen him working .
My phone calls are late into the night with him , so if anything , he ’ s got too much energy .
I ’ m the one that ’ s saying , ‘ Joe , I got ta go , time up , ’ ” Emanuel said on CNN .
“ So I ’ m very confident in the capacity of the vice president .
I knew him when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Clinton .
I knew him as a colleague when I was in Congress , chief of staff , mayor , and I know him now .
And he ’ s the same person I ’ ve seen before.
” The post of transportation secretary has long been considered somewhat outside of politics , which , paradoxically , could be an advantage for Emanuel as he pursues it , given that it is a less threatening position to hold — which could dampen opposition from both progressives in the Democratic Party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-N.Y. , spoke for many on the party ’ s left flank when she told the New York Times that an Emanuel appointment would be “ divisive ” at a time the party needs to come together .
“ It would signal , I think , a hostile approach to the grassroots and the progressive wing of the party , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
Emanuel has largely directed his most aggressive political assaults not at Republicans , but at the progressive wing of the party .
Emanuel was first elected to Congress in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War and ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 , a wave year for Democrats that saw fierce primaries between progressives and Emanuel-backed centrists .
“ We took on the communists in the party , ” Emanuel celebrated after one primary victory .
During his stint in the Obama administration , Emanuel was frequently at war privately with progressive groups to get them to keep their skepticism of the administration quiet — at one point telling a meeting of progressives that they were “ fucking retarded ” for pressuring Blue Dog Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside funding of organizations that didn ’ t get in line .
Emanuel later apologized for using the word “ retarded.
” As Chicago mayor , Emanuel continued to antagonize the left on everything from housing to policing to education .
His tenure was effectively ended when it emerged that his office played a role in covering up the murder by Chicago police of Laquan McDonald .

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is lobbying strenuously for the job of transportation secretary in a Biden administration, sources close to the situation told The Intercept. A junior Cabinet position for Emanuel would invert a power dynamic that has long complicated the relationship between the hard-charging Emanuel and President-elect Joe Biden.
It goes back to the early days of the Clinton administration. With Republicans bearing down on the House of Representatives in the 1994 midterms, the White House still had hopes of staving off a wipeout and thought that a major crime bill would go a long way toward that goal.
In the Senate, the measure was championed by Biden, then a Delaware senator and chair of the Judiciary Committee. In the White House, the effort was being organized by the up-and-coming Emanuel, then the White House political director in his early 30s, who’d been in high school when Biden first started pushing Democrats to get tougher on crime during the Carter administration.
For Biden, the crime bill was the culmination of more than a decade of legislative work, an act that would bear his name and become a key part of his legacy. For Emanuel, Biden was one more lawmaker who needed his feelings catered to. Emanuel is not well known for his delicate touch, and in a June 30, 1994 memo, he asked Bill Clinton if the president could do a little cleanup for him. “Certain key members have recently had their feathers ruffled, and need reassurance that they and their particular interests are appreciated and supported,” Emanuel wrote. Among that small list:
Source: Clinton Digital Library
In May 1994, Biden had come out in strong support of the Racial Justice Act, which would allow death penalty defendants to use racial disparity statistics in fighting execution. The measure was a high priority of the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a coalition of racial justice groups. After Biden’s defense of it on the Senate floor, however, it became increasingly clear that the White House was willing to strip it out to win right-wing support.
That Biden couldn’t protect a key provision of the crime bill from Emanuel’s political calculations angered him. “They didn’t get along during the process of passing the crime bill,” recalled one Democratic operative, who requested anonymity due to his relationship with the Biden apparatus. “Rahm was being his usual bullying self, and Biden thought it was his bill.”
Emanuel recalled a close working relationship with Biden during the Clinton administration, saying that he was impressed with Biden’s political courage in pursuit of the crime bill. In a meeting Clinton held with House and Senate Democratic leadership, Emanuel said, the congressional Democrats urged him to pull the assault weapons ban out of the overall bill, noting that they were having problems getting the package through their respective chambers. “Everyone knew it would effectively kill the assault weapon ban. Clinton refused,” Emanuel told The Intercept. “Biden disagreed with leadership. Stood up just before the meeting was to end and said to the room, but directed to POTUS, ‘I suppose I need to wear the flak jacket to get this done the way you want, Mr. President.’ Clinton said, ‘That’s about right, Joe.’ And that’s how it ended.”
Emanuel said that he and Clinton administration officials Ron Klain and Bruce Reed “were assigned to work with Senator Biden to find the votes to keep the AWB in the overall package.” Klain and Reed became longtime allies of Biden, with Klain set to serve as Biden’s White House chief of staff.
Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 for a lucrative stint in the private sector, pocketing some $16 million in less than two years for brokering deals, mostly in the nuclear industry, between the types of people he’d met while serving in the White House. He and Biden didn’t overlap much until Barack Obama was elected president, naming Emanuel as his chief of staff. To demonstrate the breadth of his power, Emanuel would tell visitors to his West Wing office that it was eight square feet larger than the vice president’s across the street.
Emanuel left in October 2010 to run for Chicago mayor after a flurry of legislative activity — the Affordable Care Act, Wall Street reform, an economic stimulus — that would be cut short when Republicans took the House a month later.
David Axelrod, an adviser to the president at the time, said Emanuel and Biden had a good relationship. “They got along very well,” Axelrod said. “They did know each other from that period in the ’90s when Rahm was honchoing the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban.”
Emanuel and the president tended to move at a faster pace than Biden, however, who was schooled in the Senate tradition of meandering ruminations. The Senate for decades prided itself as the world’s “greatest deliberative body,” and senators prided themselves in their expressions of deference and courtesy for their colleagues. Talking endlessly in circles was a way for senators to avoid conflict and keep an air of civility about the body. It also suited the elderly men in the upper chamber, who enjoyed telling stories about the old days and hearing themselves speak.
Just as Biden had to go through Emanuel to get his crime bill over the line, he now found Emanuel between him and the president.
Tony Blinken, a close aide to Biden over the years who is considered a potential secretary of state pick, said that Obama couldn’t quite take Biden’s rambling approach in the Senate. “They weren’t in sync,” Blinken told a reporter for the Washington Post Magazine. “Obama would listen to Biden holding forth in the committee and roll his eyes.” Obama once passed a note to his aide Robert Gibbs during one such committee meeting that read simply: “Shoot. Me. Now.”
Among Obama’s aides, including Emanuel, that practice continued, as Biden was known as the guy whose suggestions in the meeting would send it sideways unless humored and then respectfully ignored. Biden, though, valued his private time with Obama. Just as he had to go through Emanuel to get his crime bill over the line, he now found Emanuel between him and the president. Every White House sees tension between the vice president and the chief of staff, though Biden recognized that as a former member of Congress who gave up his seat — and his potential to become speaker of the House — Emanuel was as entitled to respect as Biden was.
In May, Emanuel told CNN that Biden would often come into his office and offer him advice. “I’ve talked to Joe Biden multiple times over the last two months,” Emanuel said. “I’ve had the same conversation with Joe Biden today as I did when I was chief of staff, and he’d come in and tell me what I needed to do up in Congress to get something done and seek his advice on things.”
“Rahm respected him a lot,” Axelrod recalled. “Sought his counsel. Appreciated his loyalty to the president and his insights on Congress and interventions with them at critical times.”
Biden played an active role in lobbying senators during the White House’s major pushes for legislation, but did not have a Dick Cheney-level presence in administration debates, which meant there was little opportunity for Biden and Emanuel to cross swords or to have feathers ruffled.
Since Emanuel left the White House, the pair have had an openly friendly relationship. Through tears, Emanuel told a CNN documentary crew about Biden reaching out after Emanuel’s father had died — as thoroughly a Biden gesture as imaginable. “Joe was the first one to call. I mean, like the day he died. He’s got a lot of stuff going on,” Emanuel noted, referencing the Iowa caucuses and Biden’s presidential campaign, pausing to collect himself. “He’s a good man. Even if you disagree with Joe, nobody assigns a nefarious or dark motivation,” said Emanuel, who is himself routinely ascribed with dark motivations.
Emanuel, however, was not uniformly a Biden cheerleader during the primary. “The concern I have for Joe is it looks a little too restoration and not enough change,” Emanuel said in March 2019 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” After Biden won the nomination, Emanuel made sure the public knew he was in regular touch with the nominee.
The post of transportation secretary has long been considered somewhat outside of politics, which, paradoxically, could be an advantage for Emanuel.
Still, there was a hint of that eye-rolling in how he described the interminably long late-night phone calls. “I’ve seen him energetic. I’ve seen him working. My phone calls are late into the night with him, so if anything, he’s got too much energy. I’m the one that’s saying, ‘Joe, I gotta go, time up,’” Emanuel said on CNN. “So I’m very confident in the capacity of the vice president. I knew him when he was a senator, when I worked for President Clinton. I knew him as a colleague when I was in Congress, chief of staff, mayor, and I know him now. And he’s the same person I’ve seen before.”
The post of transportation secretary has long been considered somewhat outside of politics, which, paradoxically, could be an advantage for Emanuel as he pursues it, given that it is a less threatening position to hold — which could dampen opposition from both progressives in the Democratic Party and from Republicans. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., spoke for many on the party’s left flank when she told the New York Times that an Emanuel appointment would be “divisive” at a time the party needs to come together. “It would signal, I think, a hostile approach to the grassroots and the progressive wing of the party,” Ocasio-Cortez said. Emanuel has largely directed his most aggressive political assaults not at Republicans, but at the progressive wing of the party.
Emanuel was first elected to Congress in 2002 as a backer of the Iraq War and ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, a wave year for Democrats that saw fierce primaries between progressives and Emanuel-backed centrists. “We took on the communists in the party,” Emanuel celebrated after one primary victory. During his stint in the Obama administration, Emanuel was frequently at war privately with progressive groups to get them to keep their skepticism of the administration quiet — at one point telling a meeting of progressives that they were “fucking retarded” for pressuring Blue Dog Democrats, and at other times threatening the outside funding of organizations that didn’t get in line. Emanuel later apologized for using the word “retarded.”
As Chicago mayor, Emanuel continued to antagonize the left on everything from housing to policing to education. His tenure was effectively ended when it emerged that his office played a role in covering up the murder by Chicago police of Laquan McDonald.


theintercept--2020-11-17--DHS Plans to Start Collecting Eye Scans and DNA — With the Help of Defense Contractors

potential bureaucratic rule change , the Department of Homeland Security is planning to collect unprecedented levels of biometric information from immigration applicants and their sponsors — including U.S. citizens .
While some types of applicants have long been required to submit photographs and fingerprints , a rule currently under consideration would require practically everyone applying for any kind of status , or detained by immigration enforcement agents , to provide iris scans , voiceprints and palmprints , and , in some cases , DNA samples .
A tangled web of defense and surveillance contractors , which operate with little public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infrastructure that would be needed to store these records .
After proposing the rule in September , DHS is currently reviewing , and must respond to , thousands of comments it received during the 30-day period in which the public could weigh in .
The agency had signaled that the proposal would be coming when it announced last year that it would be retiring its legacy Automated Biometric Identification System , or IDENT , and replacing it with the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology framework — stating explicitly that one of its objectives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data and make searching and matching easier .
Where HART was the vessel , the new proposed rule is the means of collecting all the new data types to populate it .
Any potential contractors tasked with rolling out the new data collection infrastructure and management won ’ t be decided until after the rule is finalized , but a look at the companies currently working on building out DHS ’ s already vast biometrics capabilities is instructive .
The contract for the current biometrics management system used by the U.S .
Citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for case processing , background checks , and identity verification was awarded in 2015 to the relatively large but low-profile federal contractor Pyramid Systems , which is based in Fairfax , Virginia .
Run by a Taiwanese immigrant couple who are Democratic donors , Pyramid has been contracted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development , the Securities and Exchange Commission , the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , the Census Bureau , and other agencies .
In a 2016 release about the contract , which is potentially worth up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it would “ provide Agile services for enhancement and operations and maintenance ( O & M ) of current biometrics applications used for U.S. immigration-related efforts , ” using jargon for a software development methodology focused on constantly evolving to changing circumstances and a client ’ s needs .
Defense giant BAE Systems has a $ 47 million contract for USCIS biometrics support and collection , which appears to involve the mechanics of actually taking fingerprints and photographs .
The technical infrastructure for the processing , searching , matching , and maintenance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HART are being built by Northrop Grumman through a contract potentially worth $ 143 million .
These international defense conglomerates have , over the years , amassed tens of thousands of U.S. government contracts worth tens of billions of dollars , including hundreds with DHS alone , for everything from software to weapons .
These partnerships between defense contractors and DHS — a sprawling agency created after 9/11 — form the backbone of a decadeslong melding of the war on terror with the war on drugs , and the expansion of an all-encompassing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and outside the country .
BAE Systems and Pyramid Systems did not respond to requests for comment ; Northrop Grumman referred questions to DHS , which responded to detailed questions by pointing back to its press release .
DHS ’ s data collection operations are also aided by its contracts with the surveillance state .
HART , like much of the federal government ’ s data infrastructure , is hosted on Amazon Web Services ; Amazon has made itself indispensable as its lobbying machine simultaneously pushes anti-labor , pro-surveillance , and pro-monopolization policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI — which built its software by trawling social media and the web for billions of images to scrape — already has an active contract with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement , which , as a component of DHS , could easily match those images against the HART database .
Palantir , the data-mining firm founded by billionaire Peter Thiel whose software uses data from various databases to form detailed relationship maps and establish connections between individuals , also has a contract with ICE .
That nongovernmental entities with commercial incentives and fewer limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much personal data is alarming to privacy watchdogs .
“ It has a private prison feel .
When you start contracting out that stuff to the private sector , the private sector will never care about rights , ” said Paromita Shah , executive director of Just Futures Law .
In October , several Democratic senators called on the Trump administration to reverse course on its expansion of biometric data collection .
“ This proposed rule by the Department of Homeland Security should send chills down the spines of every American who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big brother-style government surveillance , ” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley , one of the letter ’ s signatories , said in a statement to The Intercept .
“ It ’ s disturbing that the Trump administration is trying to inch us closer to that slippery slope and further intimidate our immigrant communities .
We have to keep fighting tooth and nail to bolster biometric data privacy rights and oppose dangerous and misguided data collection policies like this one.
” The Trump administration has not issued a timeline for when it will finish reviewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Joe Biden ’ s inauguration in January , the new administration would have to go through a regulatory process to roll it back .
If not , Biden ’ s DHS could decide not to move forward with implementing the rule .
But it ’ s far from certain that it would .
While the president-elect has promised to roll back some unpopular Trump-era immigration policies , like the travel ban , the expansion of the surveillance state has long been a point of bipartisan consensus .
The Biden transition team did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
represents a significant departure from current practices , where only certain applicants for visas , residency , and naturalization must submit photographs and fingerprints .
Under the new regime , practically everyone presenting an application with USCIS , and their U.S. resident or citizen sponsors , will be expected to provide iris scans , voiceprints — which can be used to identify an individual by the sound and tenor of their voice alone — palmprints , and DNA in cases where they are attempting to prove a genetic relationship .
As written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding an unlimited amount of other characteristics without further public discussion , including “ behavioral characteristics ” such as gait recognition .
While DHS and its component agencies have long had congressional authority to collect DNA from immigrants in their custody , it was not until this year that ICE and Customs and Border Protection began to do so .
The proposed rule goes a step further , mandating additional types of detainee data collection for the first time , as well as for the first time DNA from nondetained applicants .
USCIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all visitors to the U.S. , as well as from all immigrants at any point up until they become a naturalized citizen , for which the shortest , widely available path — marrying a U.S. citizen — can take four or five years when factoring in processing times .
Some people on work visas can reside in the country legally for decades without the option to obtain residency and subsequent citizenship .
Even U.S. citizens could be forced to provide biometric data if , for example , they sponsor the application of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application is reopened .
While other government entities , like the Department of Justice , also collect biometrics , DHS is known as a uniquely opaque and privacy-adverse domestic law enforcement and surveillance apparatus .
Its culture disdains privacy , perhaps best exemplified by reports that former DHS Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan , whose job included overseeing the department ’ s compliance with widely accepted standards known as Fair Information Practice Principles , or FIPPs , was called a “ terrorist ” by others within the department .
The Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is strictly controlled by a number of internal privacy guidelines , including a limited number of purposes for which it can be accessed .
HART has far fewer protections .
DHS wants its database to be as big as the Justice Department ’ s , said Shah , “ but no one cares about who has access to it , who is it being shared with , can people have access to their own data .
They ’ re not asking those questions.
” A former USCIS asylum officer who asked not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. immigration sphere said , “ It ’ s sort of an open joke that it ’ s a mystery ” who has access to what kind of data .
“ It ’ s like a black hole.
” Access concerns are compounded by not just what the data is , but how it ’ s organized in the system .
When the FBI stores DNA in its CODIS database , the information is stored without names or other identifying characteristics .
For its part , DHS intends to use DNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning that the DNA would be stored with biographic information with linkages between individuals .
The proposed rule would also allow for the DNA to be used “ as authorized by the immigration and naturalization laws , ” a vague clause that has privacy advocates worried .
“ Once you start collecting that information from people , it ’ s pretty easy to start mapping out whole immigrant communities , ” said Jennifer Lynch , the surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
While DHS currently only requests biometrics from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age constraints , meaning minors — incapable of giving consent — will be caught in the dragnet of invasive surveillance .
Pam Dixon , executive director of the World Privacy Forum , said that would be unethical and counterfactual , citing research that has shown that biometric identification is wildly inaccurate for young children .
“ It ’ s fact-free .
It ’ s science-free .
It ’ s just , ‘ Here ’ s what we want , and we ’ re gon na get it , and we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words identity theft and fraud and terrorism.
’ That ’ s what this is , ” said Dixon .
DHS ’ s own privacy assessment of HART flags the possibility that the data could be inadvertently released , stating that as of the initial rollout , there was no security plan in place to prevent leaks and that a number of different contractors would have direct access to HART data .
that DHS won ’ t do enough to ensure that there will be limited access and usage for the data , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s just no central place where you can find information on what the regulations are for access to various databases , what the restrictions are , and how data ’ s been shared , ” said EFF ’ s Lynch .
The government is required to provide disclosures as to how the data can be used and accessed , but , much like political dark money run through webs of impenetrable LLCs , the trick is to create a tangled mess of usage permissions and exemptions that is ultimately indecipherable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , but can be accessed by another government agency with a different set of restrictions , which in turn is part of a larger contractor-run analytic framework , and so on and so forth .
Despite DHS ’ s policy of adherence to the FIPPS , it is often up to its individual agencies to ensure contractors ’ compliance .
On that front , there ’ s already plenty of cause for concern .
In a report published this September , the Government Accountability Office concluded that , since CBP had first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for air and sea travel in 2017 , it “ had audited only one of its more than 20 commercial airline partners and did not have a plan to ensure that all partners are audited for compliance with the program ’ s privacy requirements.
” The GAO hasn ’ t conducted an evaluation of the new rule , Rebecca Gambler , the director of the GAO ’ s Homeland Security and Justice division , told The Intercept .
Still , Gambler said that as CBP expands its facial recognition program , “ those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to grow.
” She emphasized that CBP agreed to a set of recommendations in the report and has appeared to try to implement them ; yet these reforms seem to have come about as a result of direct urging .
While the stated goal of the biometrics collection is identity verification and a biometric collection , there are few constraints on the use of the data , which can be shared with a host of different law enforcement agencies and governments .
The rule ’ s ill-defined continuous vetting program could effectively mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those whose information is collected , like an always-on no-fly list that could unexpectedly trigger enormous consequences , with little chance of recourse .
Privacy advocates worry that a system now focused on immigrants and their family members could eventually be expanded to the broader public .
“ There ’ s no basis in history for being sanguine about the idea that once these things are trialed on foreigners , who have few legal rights anyway , and where the American public won ’ t complain , ” said Edward Hasbrouck , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will then become the new normal for U.S. citizens as well .
”

Through a little-discussed potential bureaucratic rule change, the Department of Homeland Security is planning to collect unprecedented levels of biometric information from immigration applicants and their sponsors — including U.S. citizens. While some types of applicants have long been required to submit photographs and fingerprints, a rule currently under consideration would require practically everyone applying for any kind of status, or detained by immigration enforcement agents, to provide iris scans, voiceprints and palmprints, and, in some cases, DNA samples. A tangled web of defense and surveillance contractors, which operate with little public oversight, have already begun to build the infrastructure that would be needed to store these records.
After proposing the rule in September, DHS is currently reviewing, and must respond to, thousands of comments it received during the 30-day period in which the public could weigh in. The agency had signaled that the proposal would be coming when it announced last year that it would be retiring its legacy Automated Biometric Identification System, or IDENT, and replacing it with the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology framework — stating explicitly that one of its objectives was to collect more types of biometric data and make searching and matching easier. Where HART was the vessel, the new proposed rule is the means of collecting all the new data types to populate it.
Any potential contractors tasked with rolling out the new data collection infrastructure and management won’t be decided until after the rule is finalized, but a look at the companies currently working on building out DHS’s already vast biometrics capabilities is instructive.
The contract for the current biometrics management system used by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, for case processing, background checks, and identity verification was awarded in 2015 to the relatively large but low-profile federal contractor Pyramid Systems, which is based in Fairfax, Virginia. Run by a Taiwanese immigrant couple who are Democratic donors, Pyramid has been contracted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Census Bureau, and other agencies. In a 2016 release about the contract, which is potentially worth up to $87.5 million, the company wrote that it would “provide Agile services for enhancement and operations and maintenance (O&M) of current biometrics applications used for U.S. immigration-related efforts,” using jargon for a software development methodology focused on constantly evolving to changing circumstances and a client’s needs.
Defense giant BAE Systems has a $47 million contract for USCIS biometrics support and collection, which appears to involve the mechanics of actually taking fingerprints and photographs. The technical infrastructure for the processing, searching, matching, and maintenance of the first couple of components of HART are being built by Northrop Grumman through a contract potentially worth $143 million.
These international defense conglomerates have, over the years, amassed tens of thousands of U.S. government contracts worth tens of billions of dollars, including hundreds with DHS alone, for everything from software to weapons. These partnerships between defense contractors and DHS — a sprawling agency created after 9/11 — form the backbone of a decadeslong melding of the war on terror with the war on drugs, and the expansion of an all-encompassing national security state whose reach extends inside and outside the country. BAE Systems and Pyramid Systems did not respond to requests for comment; Northrop Grumman referred questions to DHS, which responded to detailed questions by pointing back to its press release.
“The private sector will never care about rights.”
DHS’s data collection operations are also aided by its contracts with the surveillance state. HART, like much of the federal government’s data infrastructure, is hosted on Amazon Web Services; Amazon has made itself indispensable as its lobbying machine simultaneously pushes anti-labor, pro-surveillance, and pro-monopolization policy. The controversial facial recognition firm Clearview AI — which built its software by trawling social media and the web for billions of images to scrape — already has an active contract with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which, as a component of DHS, could easily match those images against the HART database. Palantir, the data-mining firm founded by billionaire Peter Thiel whose software uses data from various databases to form detailed relationship maps and establish connections between individuals, also has a contract with ICE.
That nongovernmental entities with commercial incentives and fewer limits on data use would have access to so much personal data is alarming to privacy watchdogs. “It has a private prison feel. When you start contracting out that stuff to the private sector, the private sector will never care about rights,” said Paromita Shah, executive director of Just Futures Law.
In October, several Democratic senators called on the Trump administration to reverse course on its expansion of biometric data collection. “This proposed rule by the Department of Homeland Security should send chills down the spines of every American who doesn’t want to live under big brother-style government surveillance,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement to The Intercept. “It’s disturbing that the Trump administration is trying to inch us closer to that slippery slope and further intimidate our immigrant communities. We have to keep fighting tooth and nail to bolster biometric data privacy rights and oppose dangerous and misguided data collection policies like this one.”
The Trump administration has not issued a timeline for when it will finish reviewing public comments. If that should happen before Joe Biden’s inauguration in January, the new administration would have to go through a regulatory process to roll it back. If not, Biden’s DHS could decide not to move forward with implementing the rule. But it’s far from certain that it would. While the president-elect has promised to roll back some unpopular Trump-era immigration policies, like the travel ban, the expansion of the surveillance state has long been a point of bipartisan consensus. The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
The proposed rule represents a significant departure from current practices, where only certain applicants for visas, residency, and naturalization must submit photographs and fingerprints. Under the new regime, practically everyone presenting an application with USCIS, and their U.S. resident or citizen sponsors, will be expected to provide iris scans, voiceprints — which can be used to identify an individual by the sound and tenor of their voice alone — palmprints, and DNA in cases where they are attempting to prove a genetic relationship. As written, it leaves the door open for adding an unlimited amount of other characteristics without further public discussion, including “behavioral characteristics” such as gait recognition.
While DHS and its component agencies have long had congressional authority to collect DNA from immigrants in their custody, it was not until this year that ICE and Customs and Border Protection began to do so. The proposed rule goes a step further, mandating additional types of detainee data collection for the first time, as well as for the first time DNA from nondetained applicants.
A visitor who just arrived from London is fingerprinted at U.S. Customs and Border Protection at Washington Dulles International Airport where all foreign passengers are required to be fingerprinted Aug. 30, 2018, in Dulles, Va. Photo: Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images
USCIS would be able to collect biometrics from all visitors to the U.S., as well as from all immigrants at any point up until they become a naturalized citizen, for which the shortest, widely available path — marrying a U.S. citizen — can take four or five years when factoring in processing times. Some people on work visas can reside in the country legally for decades without the option to obtain residency and subsequent citizenship. Even U.S. citizens could be forced to provide biometric data if, for example, they sponsor the application of a family member or if their prior naturalization application is reopened.
DHS is known as a uniquely opaque and privacy-adverse domestic law enforcement and surveillance apparatus.
While other government entities, like the Department of Justice, also collect biometrics, DHS is known as a uniquely opaque and privacy-adverse domestic law enforcement and surveillance apparatus. Its culture disdains privacy, perhaps best exemplified by reports that former DHS Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan, whose job included overseeing the department’s compliance with widely accepted standards known as Fair Information Practice Principles, or FIPPs, was called a “terrorist” by others within the department.
The Justice Department’s biometrics database, for example, is strictly controlled by a number of internal privacy guidelines, including a limited number of purposes for which it can be accessed. HART has far fewer protections. DHS wants its database to be as big as the Justice Department’s, said Shah, “but no one cares about who has access to it, who is it being shared with, can people have access to their own data. They’re not asking those questions.”
A former USCIS asylum officer who asked not to be named because she still works in the U.S. immigration sphere said, “It’s sort of an open joke that it’s a mystery” who has access to what kind of data. “It’s like a black hole.”
Access concerns are compounded by not just what the data is, but how it’s organized in the system. When the FBI stores DNA in its CODIS database, the information is stored without names or other identifying characteristics. For its part, DHS intends to use DNA for the purposes of establishing genetic relationships, meaning that the DNA would be stored with biographic information with linkages between individuals.
“Once you start collecting that information from people, it’s pretty easy to start mapping out whole immigrant communities.”
The proposed rule would also allow for the DNA to be used “as authorized by the immigration and naturalization laws,” a vague clause that has privacy advocates worried. “Once you start collecting that information from people, it’s pretty easy to start mapping out whole immigrant communities,” said Jennifer Lynch, the surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
While DHS currently only requests biometrics from adults, the proposed rule would eliminate age constraints, meaning minors — incapable of giving consent — will be caught in the dragnet of invasive surveillance. Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, said that would be unethical and counterfactual, citing research that has shown that biometric identification is wildly inaccurate for young children. “It’s fact-free. It’s science-free. It’s just, ‘Here’s what we want, and we’re gonna get it, and we’re going to explain it away by saying the words identity theft and fraud and terrorism.’ That’s what this is,” said Dixon.
DHS’s own privacy assessment of HART flags the possibility that the data could be inadvertently released, stating that as of the initial rollout, there was no security plan in place to prevent leaks and that a number of different contractors would have direct access to HART data.
Privacy advocates worry that DHS won’t do enough to ensure that there will be limited access and usage for the data, for government employees and contractors alike. “There’s just no central place where you can find information on what the regulations are for access to various databases, what the restrictions are, and how data’s been shared,” said EFF’s Lynch.
The government is required to provide disclosures as to how the data can be used and accessed, but, much like political dark money run through webs of impenetrable LLCs, the trick is to create a tangled mess of usage permissions and exemptions that is ultimately indecipherable. So a database might have certain privacy restrictions, but can be accessed by another government agency with a different set of restrictions, which in turn is part of a larger contractor-run analytic framework, and so on and so forth.
The rule’s ill-defined continuous vetting program could effectively mean an endless parade of invisible checkpoints for those whose information is collected.
Despite DHS’s policy of adherence to the FIPPS, it is often up to its individual agencies to ensure contractors’ compliance. On that front, there’s already plenty of cause for concern. In a report published this September, the Government Accountability Office concluded that, since CBP had first started using facial recognition for identity verification for air and sea travel in 2017, it “had audited only one of its more than 20 commercial airline partners and did not have a plan to ensure that all partners are audited for compliance with the program’s privacy requirements.”
The GAO hasn’t conducted an evaluation of the new rule, Rebecca Gambler, the director of the GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice division, told The Intercept. Still, Gambler said that as CBP expands its facial recognition program, “those privacy risks are just going to continue to grow.” She emphasized that CBP agreed to a set of recommendations in the report and has appeared to try to implement them; yet these reforms seem to have come about as a result of direct urging.
In mid-November, Homeland Security issued another proposed biometrics rule, dealing with the CBP’s long-planned rollout of a system to run facial recognition on everyone entering or leaving the country. While there have been pilot programs for the congressionally mandated scheme for some time, with the entry portion of the project almost fully implemented, the new rules would require effectively every noncitizen to be photographed both when arriving in and departing the United States. U.S. citizens would technically be allowed to opt out, but in practice they haven’t always been able to do so even under the current rules. Over 180,000 of the very same images taken as part of this process have also already been leaked by the breach of a CBP contractor’s system. The rule is undergoing a short public comment period slated to end on December 21.
While the stated goal of the biometrics collection is identity verification and a biometric collection, there are few constraints on the use of the data, which can be shared with a host of different law enforcement agencies and governments. The rule’s ill-defined continuous vetting program could effectively mean an endless parade of invisible checkpoints for those whose information is collected, like an always-on no-fly list that could unexpectedly trigger enormous consequences, with little chance of recourse.
Privacy advocates worry that a system now focused on immigrants and their family members could eventually be expanded to the broader public. “There’s no basis in history for being sanguine about the idea that once these things are trialed on foreigners, who have few legal rights anyway, and where the American public won’t complain,” said Edward Hasbrouck, a travel and privacy expert, “that they will then become the new normal for U.S. citizens as well.”
Update: Nov. 19, 2020
This article has been updated to include information about a new CBP biometrics rule proposed by DHS after publication.