Connect with us

World

Trump’s Tax Returns Are Out. Here’s How He Was Able to Pay so Little — so Often

Avatar

Published

on

WASHINGTON  — 

Former President Trump’s seven-year battle to keep the public from seeing his taxes ended in defeat Friday as a House committee released six years of returns documenting his aggressive efforts to minimize what he paid the IRS.

Trump and his wife, Melania, paid $750 or less in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017. The couple paid zero taxes in 2020 and claimed a $5.5-million refund, according to the returns released by the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax legislation.

In three other years, Trump paid significant amounts of taxes. As a share of his income, however, his payments were far below those of the average taxpayer. The returns show he paid $641,931 in 2015, just under $1 million in 2018 and $133,445 in 2019.

The 2018 payment came on reported adjusted gross income of $24.3 million — an effective tax rate of 4%. By contrast, the average taxpayer in 2018 paid $15,322 in federal income taxes, with an average rate of about 13%, according to the IRS.

Since 1977, the IRS has had a stated policy of mandatory audits of the tax returns of presidents and vice presidents. But in obtaining Trump’s returns, House Democrats discovered that during the first two years of Trump’s term, the IRS had not audited the president.

For the record:

7:51 a.m. Dec. 30, 2022An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated which year’s tax return from former President Trump the Ways and Means Committee says the IRS did not begin auditing until April 2019. It is the 2015 return.

When the agency finally did so, it didn’t dedicate enough resources to fully answer questions about Trump’s claims, the committee suggested. The IRS did not begin auditing Trump’s 2015 return until April 3, 2019, the day that the chairman of the tax-writing committee, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), sent the IRS a written inquiry, the panel said. The IRS disputed that, saying it began the audit the previous year.

“We anticipated the IRS would expand the mandatory audit program to account for the complex nature of the former president’s financial situation yet found no evidence of that. This is a major failure of the IRS under the prior administration, and certainly not what we had hoped to find,” Neal said in a written statement on Friday.

House Republicans, who will take control of the chamber next week, denounced the release of Trump’s taxes as a violation of his privacy and a dangerous precedent.

“This is a regrettable stain on the Ways and Means Committee and Congress, and will make American politics even more divisive and disheartening,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the senior Republican on the panel, said in a statement. “In the long run, Democrats will come to regret it.”

Trump also weighed in. “The Democrats should have never done it, the Supreme Court should have never approved it, and it’s going to lead to horrible things for so many people,” he said in a statement tweeted by his spokesperson. “The great USA divide will now grow far worse.”

The release of the returns — redacted to hide Social Security numbers and other private information — marked the final act of a saga that outlasted Trump’s presidency and included two trips to the Supreme Court as Trump resisted public disclosure of his financial records. It came in the final days of Democratic control of the House.

The disclosures raise multiple questions about whether Trump’s tax strategies simply took advantage of the law or broke it. Republicans, who denounced the release of the returns as a violation of Trump’s privacy, are unlikely to inquire further once they take over the Ways and Means Committee in January. But in the Senate, where the Democrats continue to have a majority, leaders of the Finance Committee have indicated they may pick up where the House Democrats left off.

During the years in which Trump battled disclosure, much of the information he sought to keep secret about his pre-presidential finances became public anyway, largely from a 2020 New York Times investigation.

The picture that emerged showed that for all Trump’s claims to be a great businessman, his core businesses — a sprawling network of hotels, golf courses and other properties — have lost millions of dollars year after year.

“He’s a staggering loser,” said Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The newly released records, covering 2015-20, add to that picture.

The returns do not appear to disclose any nefarious sources of income — contrary to speculation over the years by some of Trump’s opponents.

While many of his business ventures operated at a loss, Trump received a large amount of income from his reality television show, “The Apprentice,” and from other efforts to license his name. He also received steady income from a real estate partnership in which he has a partial ownership interest, but no management authority.

As Rosenthal and others point out, it’s not clear how much of the negative income reported by Trump on his tax forms can be attributed to actual business losses as opposed to aggressive use of tax rules.

One widely used strategy that Trump took extensive advantage of involves carrying over losses from one year to reduce tax liability in another. In 2015, for example, Trump carried over an operating loss of $105.2 million. Such carryovers, smaller but still in the tens of millions, continued in subsequent years, until they apparently were used up in 2018 with a carryover of negative $23.4 million.

The source of those carryover losses from 2015-18 is thought to be a $700-million loss posted by Trump in 2009. In a report on Trump’s taxes, the House committee noted that these carryover losses need to be verified, and there are indications that the IRS may still be looking at whether the massive 2009 loss was valid.

Trump’s ability to zero out his tax liability highlights the extremely favorable treatment the real estate industry receives under tax law as well as strategies that he and other wealthy individuals use to minimize what they must pay.

Beyond the carryover losses, the returns also show a pattern of questionable claims, the committee report noted.

Those include large business-expense and charitable deductions that in some cases lack documentation; financial transactions with three of his children, Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric, that the committee report said may have been “disguised gifts”; and millions of dollars in write-offs related to an estate that Trump owns in the New York suburbs. He initially claimed the estate, known as Seven Springs, as a personal residence, then reclassified it as a business investment in 2014. The IRS is investigating whether that claim is valid, according to the committee.

The tax returns show a number of other cases, small and large, that were flagged by congressional staff. In one schedule for the 2015 tax year, Trump reported a $50,000 speaking fee that was almost entirely offset by $46,162 in claimed travel expenses.

In 2017, the year Trump paid a net tax of $750, his return shows he took $7.4 million in tax credits, which completely erased the tax he otherwise would have owed. Some of those tax credits were apparently for renovating the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Tax law provides for credit for investments in historic properties and for certain poor communities, but the IRS has not yet determined whether Trump’s claims were valid.

The committee confirmed that Trump’s returns from several years before his presidency remain under audits, which ultimately could cost him millions of dollars if the IRS rules against him.

Democrats pointed to what they described as the IRS’ failure to put enough resources into auditing Trump as evidence of possible political interference with the tax agency during Trump’s presidency as well as the broader issue of the agency’s lack of resources to go up against wealthy taxpayers and the lawyers and accounting firms they can hire.

Some of the delay may be due to the complexity of Trump’s businesses, with multi-tiered partnerships and so-called S corporations in which the entities pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credits through to shareholders.

Over the last 10 years, the IRS had the capacity to audit just one partnership with 100 or more partners in a year, said Richard Prisinzano, a former veteran of the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis who is now at Penn Wharton Budget Model, a think tank.

“I think the IRS is outgunned on this stuff,” he said.

At the Biden administration’s request, Congress this year approved a major increase in funds for the IRS, $80 billion over 10 years, mostly to improve its ability to audit wealthy taxpayers.

As a candidate and then as president, Trump repeatedly used the claim about being under audit to fend off demands that he release copies of his returns. Every president and major-party candidate dating back to President Carter has voluntarily released their tax returns.

Before formally announcing his run for the presidency in June 2015, Trump said he would release his taxes. But he soon began hedging and deflecting, and in February 2016, during a televised debate, settled on the claim that “I can’t do it until the audit is finished,” which he stuck to for the remainder of the campaign. Tax-law experts have repeatedly said that nothing in the audit process prevents a person from releasing copies of returns.

Trump’s effort to keep his taxes secret began to crumble after Democrats regained control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. A federal law dating to 1924 allows the congressional tax-writing committees to obtain copies of any individual’s tax returns — a seldom-used power, but one that provided Democrats with an opening to demand Trump’s information.

When the Ways and Means Committee asked for Trump’s returns in 2019, Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin refused, setting off a court fight that stretched across more than three years as Trump sought to block the disclosure.

A year ago, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled against the former president. In August, a federal appeals court in Washington also sided with Congress, saying that the Ways and Means panel had a valid legislative purpose in seeking to know how the IRS was handling Trump’s returns and that the disclosure of the tax information was not overly burdensome on Trump. The Supreme Court in November refused to review that ruling.

“Every president takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office,” the appeals court panel wrote. “This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug.”

Read More

Original Article: latimes.com

World

School Librarians Vilified As the ‘arm of Satan’ in Book-banning Wars

Avatar

Published

on

In her time as a Texas school librarian, Carolyn Foote watched the image of her profession veer from “shrinking violets behind spectacles” cataloging titles to “pedophiles and groomers” out to pollute the minds of the nation’s youth.

“Librarians came from a climate of being so appreciated to hearing this message that we’re reviled,” said Foote, co-founder of Freadom Fighters, an advocacy group for librarians that has nearly 15,000 Twitter followers. “It was an astonishing turn of events.” A lot of librarians are asking themselves whether they want to remain in the profession, she added. “At least five people I know have retired early.”

Once a comforting presence at story circle and book fairs, librarians have been condemned, bullied and drawn into battles over censorship as school and library boards face intensifying pressure from conservatives seeking to ban books exploring racial and LGBTQ themes. Those voices have grown stronger in red states since the pandemic, when parental groups opposed to mask mandates expanded their sights and became more involved in how and what their children were taught.

Recent polls suggest most Americans are not in favor of banning books. But concentrated pressure by politically connected parental groups, said Peter Bromberg, a board member at EveryLibrary, a nonprofit library advisory group, “has librarians facing a great deal of stress. There are signs on people’s lawns calling librarians pedophiles.” They face pressure from principals and administrators over book displays, and “neighbors talk about them being an arm of Satan.”

The Patmos Library in Jamestown, Mich., which lost public funding after a campaign by conservatives, forcing it to rely on donations.
(Joshua Lott / Washington Post via Getty Images)

Some librarians are fighting back; others have lost or left their jobs. The culture wars over books come at a time when about 27% of public libraries have reduced staff because of budget cuts and other reasons, according to a 2021 national survey. Lessa Kanani’opua Pelayo-Lozado, president of the American Library Assn., said librarians’ problems are compounded by attacks that are part of an effort “seeking to abolish diverse ideas and erode this country of freedom of expression. I see it as the dismantling of education.”

::

A number of school board meetings in recent years have become explosive and emblematic of the country’s political animosities. Parents yell, boo, shake fists and hold up sexually graphic images in dramas that play out on social media. Similar scenes have erupted at public libraries, including at the Patmos Library in western Michigan, where at least two librarians have quit amid pressure and harassment from residents demanding the removal of LGBTQ books and young adult graphic novels.

Visitors enter the Patmos Library.
(Joshua Lott / Washington Post via Getty Images)

At the library’s December board meeting, librarian Jean Reicher denounced critics a week after the building closed early over fears for the staff’s safety. She said that signs around town labeled her a pedophile and that she’d received abusive phone calls and had cameras pointed at her. Her emotional retort came a month after a campaign led by conservatives succeeded in defunding the library, forcing it to rely on donations.

“We have been threatened. We have been cursed,” said Reicher. “How dare you people. You don’t know me. You don’t know anything about me. You have said I’ve sexualized your children. I’m grooming your children.”

She raised her hands. Her anger welled.

“I have six grandkids out there,” she said, ticking off the offenses aimed at her. “I moved to this town 2½ years ago, and I regret it every day for the last year. This has been horrible,” she continued. “I wasn’t raised this way. I believe in God. I’m a Catholic. I’m a Christian. I’m everything you are.”

School and library boards are encountering demands from conservative lawmakers and parental groups, such as Moms for Liberty and Mama Bears Rising, and in a few instances the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys, to scour libraries of what they consider upsetting pornographic and LGBTQ depictions. Many conservatives criticize schools as overrun with progressive ideas that are confusing children about race and gender.

“By exposing our children to adult concepts such as gender identity we are asking them to carry a load that is much too heavy for them,” Kit Hart, a Moms for Liberty member, said in a video posted last year from a school board meeting in Carroll County, Md. “A 10-year-old should not be reduced to his sexuality.”

A video posted on the Moms for Liberty website shows another one of its members outlining her concerns at a public meeting in Mecklenburg, N.C.: “Parents beware of terms like social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion. Those inherently good things are being used to disguise a biased political agenda,” she said. “Our schools are becoming indoctrination camps and a breeding ground for hatred and division.”

Florida and other states have placed tougher restrictions on books that schools can stock. A Missouri law passed last year makes it a crime for a school to provide sexually explicit material to a student. After a discrimination complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is investigating a Texas school district after a superintendent directed librarians to remove LGBTQ-related books.

“We have been thrown to the forefront of the cultural wars whether we want to be there or not,” said Amanda Jones, a middle school librarian in Livingston Parish, La., who last year broke out in hives and fell into depression after she was threatened for speaking against censorship. “It’s not fun to be vilified in your small town or the country at large. It’s all related to their using political fear and outrage. And they’re using children to do it.”

Jones was skewered by conservative activists, including Citizens for a New Louisiana, after she warned at a library meeting that “hate and fear disguised as moral outrage have no place in Livingston Parish.” A picture of her appeared online with a red circle around her head — resembling a target — and she was called a pig and a supporter of teaching anal sex to 11-year-olds. Someone suggested she should be slapped.

Martha Hickson, a high school librarian in Annandale, N.J., endured similar stress and said she lost 12 pounds in one week after she was accused by a parent at a school board meeting of being a groomer by providing graphic novels and memoirs, such as “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison, that could influence children toward “heinous acts.”

Maia Kobabe holds a copy of her book “Gender Queer: A Memoir” at North Sonoma Regional Park in Santa Rosa, Calif. Her graphic novel about coming out as nonbinary is the most banned book in America.
(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

“What really stung was that my name was used in that context,” said Hickson, 63,whoin 2020 received the American Assn. of School Librarians’ Intellectual Freedom Award. “It was devastating. I broke down and I couldn’t stop crying.” She couldn’t catch her breath, she said, and “couldn’t speak in full sentences. I cracked two teeth from grinding and was fitted with a night guard. I go to the pool now and swim three times a week. It washes the stress away.”

Jessica Brassington, head of the Texas-based Mama Bears Rising, which advocates for increased parental oversight in education, said her intent is not to rebuke librarians or teachers but to get stricter state guidelines on selecting school books in what she sees as a broader war against her Christian faith.

“We want to protect our children. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen beyond the book. Suicide. Alienation,” said Brassington, whose organization has pressed for the removal of books in school districts and warned against children being indoctrinated by an “evil” sexual agenda.“We want to know what books are available to our children. … The parents are being bypassed.”

::

Calls to ban certain books in schools have arisen for generations among liberal and conservative parents, educators and activist groups. Classics such as Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” have been pulled from reading lists. Books deemed to be obscene such as “The Catcher in the Rye” and “Tropic of Cancer” were censored for decades. In the 1980s, well-funded and organized groups like the Christian right Moral Majority condemned books on secular humanism.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has pushed laws to restrict school instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation.
(Paul Hennessy / SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Those battles echo today and have accelerated as religious conservatives and right-leaning politicians, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have backed bills to limit school instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation. Of the 1,648 titles banned in schools across the country in the 2021-22 school year, according to a PEN America study, 41% had prominent LGBTQ characters or explicitly explored LGBTQ themes.

“It’s hard to compare this to anything other than the Red Scare in the 1950s,” said Foote, a retired high school librarian of 29 years who was named a Champion of Change by President Obama. “There’s nothing else remotely close to this.”

Librarians are being “pushed out of the process of selecting books,” said Tasslyn Magnusson, a Wisconsin writer and teacher who has compiled a national database of books being challenged in school districts. “We’re cutting kids off from all the things they need to function in a diverse society. They’re trying to [keep] kids from learning about the world. How will kids grow into good Americans and global citizens? I just read somewhere James Baldwin got banned.”

School librarians have long been accustomed to hearing from angry parents. Some parents request that their child not be allowed to check out certain books. Demands to remove a book from circulation traditionally go through a committee review process. But librarians have complained recently that thorough reviews are sometimes skipped or influenced by pressure from parental groups.

That pressure in some districts is likely to make for less diverse reading lists as librarians choose not to select certain books. “If librarians are being threatened with lawsuits and fines,” said Pelayo-Lozado, whose association is holding a nationwide conference this weekend that will address book banning, “it can lead to self-censoring.”

Hickson’s school district in New Jersey faced criticism in 2021 when a group of parents wanted “Gender Queer,” “Lawn Boy” and other books removed from the library. A complaint was filed against Hickson with police, but the country prosecutor did not pursue charges. At later school board meetings, a contingent of parents, students and residents urged the board not to purge those titles. A district committee reviewed the books and last year decided to keep them on the shelves.

“But I was still tarred and feathered,” said Hickson. Amid pressure from her union and support in the community, the school board said accusations of “malicious motives” against Hickson were unfounded. “I look at these kids and my heart breaks,” she said. “These groups wanting to ban books have a whole political machinery around them and are using books as proxies to attack people in society.” Kids have to deal with “bullying, slurs and shoving.”

Jones in Louisiana said school libraries are often refuges for students to explore what they may be experiencing along racial and LGBTQ themes.

“A lot of parents supported me but they were scared to speak out because of harassment,” said Jones, president of the Louisiana Assn. of School Librarians. “Some students question their identity and they come to me and ask about LGBTQ books. But the parents want to keep it quiet so the child is not harassed. This whole thing has turned my life upside down.”

Jones is on medical leave until next semester. A defamation suit she filed against two men, including one belonging to the conservative group Citizens for a New Louisiana, was dismissed. She said she will appeal. Last month, state Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, who is running for governor, announced a tip line for people to “protect” children and report library books that contain “extremely graphic sexual content.”

“They’re using librarians again for their politics,” said Jones, who is writing a book about her ordeal and forming a citizens’ alliance against censorship in the state’s 64 parishes.

Read More

Original Source: latimes.com

Continue Reading

World

Supreme Court Says It Cannot Determine Who Leaked Draft Abortion Opinion Last Year

Avatar

Published

on

WASHINGTON — 

The Supreme Court said Thursday it has failed to solve the mystery of who leaked its draft opinion last May in the pending abortion case that resulted in overturning Roe vs. Wade.

The leak of the high-profile decision is one of the biggest breaches in court history.

In a statement, the court said Gail Curley, its marshal, interviewed 97 people who worked at the court and had access to draft opinions, and then re-interviewed several of them. But she could not determine who copied the draft opinion and gave it to Politico.

“The Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees. But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the court said.

The leaked draft confirmed what many had already suspected at the time. Five conservatives led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. had agreed to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 and allow states to prohibit some or all such procedures.

The day after the unprecedented leak, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. confirmed the draft opinion was authentic, and he said the breach would not affect the handling of the decision.

In late June, the court issued the 5-4 decision in the Mississippi abortion case, and its opinion closely matched the draft.

The justices said they were shocked and surprised by the leak, and they remain angry over what they described in Thursday’s statement as “an extraordinary betrayal of trust” and a “grave assault on the judicial process.”

Although the justices often argue back and forth when cases are heard in the court, they insist on strict confidentiality when they are writing and revising opinions.

Law clerks are hired for one year and are required to promise they will maintain the confidentiality of these internal debates.

The marshal’s report hinted that she may suspect one or more people were involved in the leak, but lacked evidence to prove that. She also said the COVID-19 pandemic may have played a role because employees were working from home.

“If a court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information,” she wrote. “The pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the court’s security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the court’s IT networks, increasing the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of court sensitive information.”

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had been asked to independently evaluate the court’s internal inquiry, and he pronounced it a “thorough investigation.”

The court said it has not closed the investigation. “The Marshal reports that ‘[i]nvestigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending. To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.”

Read More

Source Here: latimes.com

Continue Reading

World

ICE Releases Thousands of Migrants Affected by Data Breach

Avatar

Published

on

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have released nearly 3,000 immigrants whose personal information, including birthdates and detention locations, was inadvertently posted online by the government, according to U.S. officials.

In late November, officials accidentally posted to the agency’s website the names, birthdates, nationalities and detention locations of 6,252 immigrants who claimed to be fleeing torture and persecution. Immigrant advocates criticized the disclosure, saying it could put people at risk.

ICE will not deport any immigrants affected by the disclosure until they have a chance to raise the issue in immigration court, officials said. But more than 100 immigrants whose information was leaked already had been deported by the time the breach was discovered. Another group — fewer than 10 people, officials said — was deported shortly after the data leak but before those migrants were notified. The agency is willing to help those deportees who wish to return to the U.S. and seek asylum, officials added.

Many immigrants who seek safety in the U.S. fear that gangs, governments or individuals back home will find out that they did so and retaliate against them or their families. To mitigate that risk, a federal regulation generally forbids the release of personal information of people seeking asylum and other protections without approval by top Homeland Security officials.

“Although inadvertent, ICE put lives at risk through this data breach. The commitments ICE has made to those impacted will go a significant way toward mitigating the harm done, but only if ICE is diligent and transparent in making good on its promises,” said Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, an immigrant advocacy organization.

The agency should take more proactive action, however, Altman said, and guarantee the safe return of the immigrants already deported so they can make new claims for asylum.

Curtis Morrison, an immigration lawyer in California, said he is planning to file a lawsuit on behalf of more than a dozen immigrant detainees who claim the disclosure put them in danger.

The agency’s “actions are not sufficient to mitigate the harm of ICE’s data breach,” Morrison said in an email Thursday.

ICE’s disclosure of the more than 6,000 names triggered a massive effort by the agency to investigate the causes of the error and reduce the risk of retaliation against immigrants whose information was exposed.

The agency has been contacting immigrants whose information was posted online, including several hundred people who already had been released from custody by the time the information was posted.

The agency mistakenly published the data during a routine update of its website Nov. 28. Human Rights First notified ICE officials about the mistake, and the agency quickly deleted the data. The file was posted to a page where ICE regularly publishes detention statistics. The information was up for about five hours.

“Though unintentional, this release of information is a breach of policy and the agency is investigating the incident and taking all corrective actions necessary,” an ICE spokesperson said in a statement.

Thus far, about 2,900 immigrants named in the leak have been released from custody. An additional 2,200 still in custody will have their cases reviewed for potential release.

ICE officials will allow some immigrants affected by the data disclosure to seek asylum even if they would not normally have been eligible. The agency will not oppose efforts to reopen cases of immigrants affected by the leak.

In December, the Department of Homeland Security inadvertently tipped off the Cuban government that some of the immigrants the agency sought to deport to the island nation had asked the U.S. for protection from persecution or torture.

A Homeland Security official communicating with the Cuban government about deportation flights to the country “unintentionally” indicated that some of the 103 Cubans who could have been placed on a flight had been affected by the late November data breach, ICE officials told Congress in December.

The Homeland Security official did not name any specific individuals. But telling Cuba that some of the potential deportees had been affected by the ICE leak amounted to confirming that they had sought shelter in the U.S. Every person whose information was leaked had sought U.S. protection, and the leak was widely covered in U.S. media.

None of the 103 Cubans have been removed, and ICE officials said that about 90 have been released from U.S. custody as of early January, agency officials said this week.

In December, several members of Congress, including Reps. Norma Torres (D-Pomona) and Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-San Pedro), sent a letter to ICE leadership demanding answers on how the initial leak happened.

“We believe that ICE’s failure to comply with simple regulations to protect asylum seekers have potentially endangered the lives of these vulnerable individuals and their families and urge you to take immediate action to ensure the privacy of this and other sensitive information held by the agency,” the letter stated.

“We are deeply troubled by this news because federal law mandates that the information of people seeking asylum is to be kept confidential,” the letter said. “Several of us frequently receive visits from individuals risking life and livelihood to help their communities thrive in the face of repressive regimes. Some of these courageous individuals go on to seek asylum in the United States — and it is unacceptable to put their information into the hands of bad actors.”

Read More

Original Source: latimes.com

Continue Reading

Trending

FreshHypeMedia.com