Following the recent changes made to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has decided to file suit against the Trump Administration.

The program was established by the previous administration, and the proposed changes and ending of the program has now put the lives of 800,000 young people in question.

Previously, in April of 2017, the President suggested to the public that those young people should “rest easy”, but apparently he had a change of heart. The ACLU sees the disheartening reversal to now end the program as a violation of the constitution as well as possible government abuse.

The ACLU has a total of 1.2 million members nationwide and thousands of volunteer attorneys who support the nonprofit organization and uses the U.S. Constitution as the basis for all advocacy actions taken.

With the recent changes to the DACA program, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit (IEIYC and Arreola vs. Duke) based on the opinion that the revocation of immigration status is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, an abuse of power and unlawful when the program rules and policies have been followed under the current law. Read more: Jim Larkin | and Michael Lacey | Facebook

The ACLU views the actions taken by the government as a violation of the Fifth Amendment as well as the federal Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit includes several government agencies such as the Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Customs and Border Protection.

The ACLU has previously filed similar cases against ICE for its misinterpretations of the laws as well as its enforcement tactics, and the ACLU come away with a successful resolution on behalf of the individuals represented.

In Arizona, the Lacey and Larkin Fund is continually forming resource information relating to the DACA program in order to bring awareness to the immigrants within the region who are more likely to become affected than any other state. In 2016, there were 1.2 million native-born immigrant residents in Arizona making up 18.4 percent of the state’s population with at least one immigrant parent.

This statistic has increased the need for the Lacey and Larkin Fund to assure the immigrant community of their rights through crucial information while also keeping them informed of the government’s actions.

The Lacey and Larkin Fund was established by Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin in 2013, and they both have received the humanitarian award for their commitment to the society.

Michael Lacey & Jim Larkin

Michael Lacey was born in Newark, New Jersey, but moved west to attend Arizona State University. After dropping out he and fellow student, Jim Larkin, changed the Phoenix New Times, a free weekly newspaper, into a self-sustaining business.


Now, let’s turn to Joe Arpaoi. For twenty-four years Mr. Arpaoi had been elected Maricopa County Sheriff. He built a career on being a hardliner on illegal immigration and did everything he could to fight against it. Unfortunately, “America’s Toughest Sheriff” also developed a reputation for violating people’s rights in pursuit of that aim.


On December 2011 the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his team to stop profiling Latino drivers, but the sheriff and his officers continued, claiming miscommunication was causing the confusion. All the while, the local paper, the Phoenix New Times continued to call out Sheriff Arpaoi and his team for their abuses until October 18, 2007. On that day Arpaoi’s armed deputies arrested Jim Larkin, the newspaper’s executive editor, and Micheal Lacey, the newspaper’s head of advertising, at their homes and had them illegally detained.


With the $3.75 million settlement the two received from the county they formed the Lacey and Larkin Frontera Fund, which gives grants to migrant-rights organizations throughout Arizona. And, they are returning to journalism with the launch of Front Page Confidential, a website that covers the threats to free speech and the First Amendment