This week, President Trump kicked off his re-election campaign by tweeting a threat to deport millions of immigrants, apparently referring to his administration’s plans for mass raids on families across the country. Meanwhile, news continues to break about what his administration is already doing, as dizzying as it is horrifying: A six-year-old girl dying in the Arizona desert on the way to seek asylum, a premature baby languishing at a border holding site, a trans woman dying from pneumonia after asking to be deported rather than remain in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention without proper medical care.

What’s remarkable is that in the midst of the extreme rhetoric and reality, people across the country are finding common ground on immigration. In at least seven states, grassroots activists have quietly built coalitions necessary to enact pro-immigrant rights laws, many of which will limit the Trump administration’s ability to carry out its threats to deport millions.

One of the standouts is the Keep Washington Working Act, which will affect nearly one million Washingtonians — one in every seven people in the state — who are immigrants. It bars local law enforcement from acting as an arm of ICE — routinely questioning individuals about immigration status, notifying ICE that a noncitizen is in custody, and detaining someone for the purpose of facilitating their deportation. This law — and a variety of laws and policies that more than 400 counties have adopted since Trump came to office — make it harder for ICE to detain and deport people at the levels President Trump is threatening, since ICE relies on local law enforcement for the vast majority of its arrests.

Although Washington’s new law is among the most protective we’ve seen, it is far from alone. This summer, Colorado enacted a law that prohibits state and local law enforcement from honoring detainers, which are ICE’s written requests to hold people an extra 48 hours after their release date so that ICE can decide whether to detain them. And Connecticut’s governor just signed into law a measure to strengthen the state’s Trust Act, which is designed to protect due process rights of immigrants by requiring a judicial order to detain an individual for ICE.

Illinois’ governor is expected to sign the Keep Illinois Families Together Act, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from acting as ICE deputies through 287(g) agreements, which have a history of leading to racial profiling against Latinx communities. llinois’ legislature also extended the state’s effective ban on for-profit prisons to include ICE private prisons. Oregon’s legislature passed a bill that will make it safer for immigrants to participate in court proceedings by prohibiting judges from asking defendants to disclose their immigration status.

One reason these laws are passing is that coalitions have brought together unlikely allies: the big employers in each state. For some industries, protecting these workers is a matter of necessity: an estimated 70 percent of hired workers in the agriculture industry are immigrants. It is 50 percent in the dairy industry. And the tourism industry, from ski slopes to Disney World, relies on immigrant labor. Employers worry that ICE’s indiscriminate targeting of immigrant communities will force immigrants into the shadows and out of the state. Expect other states to follow Washington’s lead in passing pro-immigrant laws — through coalitions of local industries and community activists.

Immigrant rights victories are also building on the strength of the criminal justice reform movement. This spring, Utah, Colorado, and New York enacted so-called 364-day measures, joining several states. These measures reduce the maximum jail sentence for misdemeanor offenses by one day, from 365 to 364 days. That protects immigrants from serious consequences imposed by federal immigration law that kicks in when the maximum possible sentence for an offense is 365 days or more— even if the person’s actual sentence is just a few days. Those consequences include detention, deportation, and loss of opportunity for individuals to adjust their immigration status. These reform measures ensure that convictions for minor offenses like shoplifting don’t carry devastating immigration consequences.

There is, of course, a serious backlash against these measures. Local politicians are taking their cues from President Trump. Florida Governor Rick DeSantis campaigned on and just signed into law a purported ban on “sanctuary cities,” over the opposition of business leaders and the Miami police chief, and even though there are no “sanctuary cities” in Florida. The North Carolina legislature is debating HB 370, which would force local law enforcement to do ICE’s bidding, even though sheriffs from the state’s biggest cities have spoken out against it.

Nevertheless, the wave of pro-immigrant legislation in the states — and the recent passage in the House of Representatives of the American Dream and Promise Act — represents a powerful cross-current to the Trump administration’s increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy.

And they show that presidential candidates have a clear mandate from voters. That’s why, as part of the ACLU’s Rights for All campaign, volunteers are asking presidential candidates to commit to an overhaul of our immigration system. We need a fair and achievable path to citizenship for people who are undocumented, far fewer people languishing in immigration detention, and an end to ICE’s reliance on state and local law enforcement to facilitate deportations. Many communities and state governments support immigrant rights — and they are enacting changes a new president should build on in 2021.

Naureen Shah, Senior Advocacy and Policy Counsel

Today, the Supreme Court announced that a governmental display of a 40-foot-tall Latin cross as a war memorial for all veterans does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision ignores our constitutional commitment to official religious neutrality and is a slap in the face to non-Christian veterans. There is, however, a small silver lining: The opinion itself was narrow, making clear that the ruling is not an invitation for government officials to erect new religious displays.

In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the court concluded that the Bladensburg Cross — originally built to honor a Maryland county’s World War I dead — is constitutional for a combination of reasons, including its nearly hundred-year history and the court’s belief that the cross has somehow taken on an “added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials.” But there are several flaws in the court’s reasoning.

First, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Alito cites the rows of white crosses that memorialize fallen American service members in World War I cemeteries overseas. Yet those crosses are tied to the individual faith of each soldier. Notably, the graves of Jewish service members in those cemeteries are marked with the Star of David, not a Latin cross. That’s because the Latin cross is inextricably linked to the Christian belief in the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection, and the promise of eternal life—a point emphasized in friend-of-the-court briefs filed by both the Baptist Joint Committee and the American Jewish War Veterans for the United States of America. As Justice Ginsburg explains in her dissent, the Latin cross is an “exclusively Christian symbol.” It is “not emblematic of any other faith,” and it certainly has “never shed its Christian character.”

Second, the Bladensburg Cross does not stand as a memorial to fallen World War I soldiers alone. Although the cross was erected in the 1920s on private land as a World War I memorial, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission went out of its way in 1961 to acquire the cross and the land on which it sits — for the purpose of preserving the monument and, purportedly, to address traffic-safety concerns. But the Commission wasn’t satisfied with merely maintaining the cross’s connection to World War I; instead, it spent $100,000 renovating the monument, and then, in 1985, held a religious ceremony featuring prayer by a Catholic priest to rededicate the cross to veterans of all wars.

Finally, a constitutional violation shouldn’t be granted safe harbor merely because it has endured over time. The Bladensburg Cross was privately built and owned, and could have stood forever, undisturbed and without controversy. When individuals express religious beliefs or display religious symbols on private property — however prominently — it is perfectly constitutional. That changes, though, once the government decides to meddle with private religious expression by taking ownership over it. Here, the cross became a symbol of official religious preference for Christians when the Commission got involved. That the Bladensburg Cross has remained in place for so long, displayed and maintained by the government, only compounds and amplifies this message of religious exclusion.

Nevertheless, the court’s misguided focus on the monument’s age and the meaning of the cross as it relates to World War I necessarily limits the reach of today’s ruling. The decision merely permits the display of this specific monument given the unique circumstances surrounding it. It is not a license for government officials to put up religious symbols whenever and wherever they want. As the court’s majority emphasized, “retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones.”

Those who value the separation of church and state must remain vigilant. In rewriting the meaning of the Latin cross and treating it as a secular icon, even in these limited circumstances, the court has eroded fundamental constitutional principles. If the government can redefine the most recognizable and sacred of religious symbols and practices, and then co-opt them for official purposes, the Establishment Clause’s ban on government promotion of religion — and government preference for one faith — could soon become a relic of the past.

Daniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
& Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

This feature is part of the ACLU of Florida's "LGBTQ+ Youth Activist Project" commemorating Pride Month during the month of June.

"My name is Kezia Gilyard. I'm 27-years-old. I work at Broward County Public Schools as the LGBTQ+ Coordinator."

Q: How does your work make our community a more inclusive and open place for everyone, regardless of where they come from, how they identify, or who they love?

A: "About 276,000 students are in our school district. And about fifteen percent of those are LGBTQ, so about 40,000.

"I've seen students who go from having really unsupportive dismissive, sometimes hostile families when they first come out, who end up having parents who say, 'You know you are my son. And they'll come tell me.' I've had parents send me copies of birth certificates that are updated with the correct gender marker. I've had kids who've come to our LGBTQ+ Youth Summit and use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity for the first time. Even in elementary school, our students do have a political consciousness. They do understand that these times are not safe for students like them."

Q: What do you see as the most pressing issue currently affecting LGBTQ youth? What do you think will help alleviate it?

A: "I've had a lot of transgender students in high school who say because I have an unsupportive family I know I can just go into the military when I graduate and, now there's the military ban. So, that's no longer an option. And, for a lot of them that was their only option. Because of bullying sometime they would skip school so their grades aren't where they need to be. They thought, here's this one thing that I can do with my life in a place where I know I can get quality healthcare in the military. And, that's no longer an option for a lot of them. And, that's landed a lot of my students in a very dark place.

"Hope is a fragile thing but I really do try work with those students and help them understand that there's always another way. There's always a way to get out there. I do work with quite a few students who are experiencing homelessness. So, nationally, about forty percent of homeless youth or youth experiencing homelessness are LGBTQ. So, within our school district we have quite a few homeless students and I work with the students who are LGBTQ in conjunction with our homeless department.

"And, so they also understand that the changing tide politically will have an impact on whether or not they can find safe, adequate, affordable housing in South Florida.

"We see a lot of policies that dictate what students can look like, dress like, feel like, be like. Where they can use the restroom and where they can't. Where they can use the locker room and where they can't. With the ageism, there's a certain distrust that students know what they need and what makes them feel safe and affirmed. So, there needs to be a trust and there needs to be a sharing of power at the table. And, decision making at the table for students to be able to tell adults this is what I need and this is what makes me feel safe."

Q: What message of encouragement would you like to send to LGBTQ youth who may not have the love and support to know that they are worthy and capable of being themselves, regardless of circumstance?

A: "During this Pride Month of June, 2019, on the heels of the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, I will say to any youth who is experiencing discomfort, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, and all of the phobias that intersect our lives. I will say remember that you are your own person. No one can tell you who you are or who you aren't. You know who you are and it's okay if it takes you awhile to get there.

"Everyone takes a while to learn who they are, but you know who you are so, speak for yourself.

"Don't allow anyone to speak for you. And, there is nothing about us without us."

Kezia Gilyard, 27, is from Fort Lauderdale, Florida.