6 ms·

Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU? As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that USCIS will start penalizing app

by knz 10y ago

Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU? As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that USCIS will start penalizing applicants that support organizations opposed to Trump. Today just proved that anything is possible and I'm sure we've all seen the stories about CBP asking to see the social media feeds of travelers in the past.

pvg 10y ago
I wouldn't worry about it, with the ACLU.
- hackuser 10y ago
  The ACLU has been demonized and criminalized by the right for generations. IIRC, during the McCarthy witch hunts, being an ACLU member made one suspect. It also depends where you are, for example in New York City or in rural Texas. I heard someone tell the story that in the 1950s or 60s in a small town in the the Eastern U.S., they subscribed to the New Republic and a similar magazine using a neighbor's address so that the postman wouldn't report them.
  - refurb 10y ago
    The ACLU has been demonized and criminalized by the right for generations. Well, to be honest, they seem to be selective about what constitutional rights they are willing to fight for.[1] [1]http://lidblog.com/aclu-getting-blasted-by-members-for/ http://lidblog.com/aclu-getting-blasted-by-members-for/
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I'm not sure what that has to do with criminalizing them; is that somehow illegal? By the way, an interesting website you cited. Here are the top headlines on the front page: * Trump’s Ban of Refugees from Terror-Prone Countries Not Comparable to Holocaust * USA Today Distorts Truth To Make Hero Gun Owner Look Bad * STUDY: About 800,000 Non-citizens Voted for Hillary in 2016 Election
    - ewoodrich 10y ago
      They're very transparent about their position on the 2nd amendment. They're not hiding anything. https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      That's a pretty weak argument. The ACLU undeniably supports Second Amendment rights. They do disagree with the Heller decision, but they don't actively oppose it. They do support the same fundamental argument behind the Miller decision that is cited by gun owners as a pro-gun rights position[0]. In their own words, they tend not to take Second Amendment cases because those are already handled by many other, much more well-funded organizations. Whereas the ACLU spends a lot of its money on causes that aren't supported by as many other groups. [0] The Miller decision is cited by both gun rights advocates and gun control advocates for different reasons, but the part of the Miller decision from which the ACLU derives its own position is one which is fundamentally supported by gun rights advocates - the ACLU just happens to take a less expansive view of that decision.
      - wahern 10y ago
        I agree the argument upthread is weak, but your defense of the ACLU is kinda weak, too. The ACLU's official legal stance on the 2nd Amendment is that it protects a collective right, not an individual right. And that collective right is, as a practical matter, reposed with the state. See https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment In other words, the ACLU sees the 2nd Amendment as a states' rights issue. But we we all know that states' rights is a loaded term in American political discourse. It was originally coined to defend Federal laws which affirmed property interests in slaves traveling in Northern states. In other words, the issue of the day was the slave holding states' rights to pass laws defending the property rights of its slave holders. And the argument was that if those property laws could be ignored once a slave fled to a non-slave state, it effectively diminished states' rights to protect the interests of its citizens (i.e. property interests in slaves). The biggest reason why the ACLU takes the legal stance it does is because many of its supporters support a so-called right to be free of violent crime. In particular, that means the right of local communities suffering from criminal gun violence to pass laws restricting gun rights. Initially that was a round-about way of referring to black, inner-city communities, but with the increasing attention given to gun massacres in predominantly white, suburban, areas, that "right to be free of violent crime" has become more inconclusive. It's important to understand as a legal matter the ACLU's stance effectively advances a states' rights argument, albeit in a narrow circumstance. However, their policy explanation for why they're doing that is couched in terms of what's effectively an individual right, specifically the right to be free of gun crime. The policy justification is arguably consistent with the ACLU's usual focus on human rights matters, but also rather inconsistent from a legal perspective in that the concept of a right to be free of [gun] crime as an excuse to limit others freedom is quite tortured. The history regarding states' rights issues, and the perpetual discriminatory treatment of minorities--specifically black minorities--by states that traditionally defend gun rights adds several layers of complexity. That complexity is important and relevant, but it doesn't justify the tortured conceptual logic of the ACLU's policy reasoning. From a purely textual and historical perspective I think it's pretty much beyond dispute that the 2nd Amendment was about preservation of states' powers to regulate (or not regulate) guns. Many state constitutions had clauses that specifically framed it as an individual right. So, yes, gun rights were often and widely seen as an individual right in some places. But the Federal constitution was almost exclusively focused on defining the limits of when and how federal legislative powers trumped state legislative powers. So while the federal government couldn't pass laws abridging political speech, states were free to do exactly that for 150 years. That's why the 1st Amendment isn't couched in terms of an individual right, but in terms of restricting federal powers--... shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That's because the real issue of the day was whether the federal government could pass laws that interfered with state laws protecting _or_ restricting behavior. It's only where the Federal government was expected to have a direct and necessary relationship with an individual person (eminent domain, search & seizure, trial) where things are framed as individual, inalienable rights. This was especially important in matters of gun rights. Because the federal government had ultimate authority to command state militias, states were afraid the federal government would limit their ability to defend themselves. The right of a state to defend itself basically boils down to the ability to prevent and suppress insurrections and rebellions, especially but not exclusively slave rebellions. Controlling that meant states needed the freedom to both protect the gun rights of some people, but also to limit the gun rights of other people, and to generally regulate guns however they saw fit. Different states might have wildly differing laws based on their circumstance. (You can sort of see how that fits the ACLU's logic of freedom from crime, but the perspective is still different--securing a state's regulatory power vs focusing on a very specific, individual "right". But after the Civil War, and in particular the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, there began a shift of using Federal constitutional laws to limit both federal and state powers, and thus a shift toward emphasizing particular individual rights. Remember, the inalienable rights Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were vague--life, liberty, and happiness. The next sentence says that the way to secure those vague rights was by securing the ability of men to govern themselves. It's a defense of democracy. It doesn't proscribe rules for limiting government power; on the contrary it affirms the power and legitimacy of self government to contravene pre-existing laws and limitations in order to secure individual rights as they saw fit. And in the context of a federal government, the highest concern was preserving the power of those individual state governments to address liberty issues as they best saw fit. The Civil War finally proved how limiting that conception of government was in actuality, even though it was long theoretically understood. It proved that even well-governed democracies were prone to act in a tyrannical manner even despite their own laws. (The 14th Amendment secures the right to equal protection of the laws.) The nation wasn't yet prepared to tackle that dilemma until it became an existential issue 80 years later. But the point is, you can't read the Federal constitution in terms of individual rights. Little of the original text makes sense from that perspective. But neither can you understand and explain subsequent legal and political reasoning, and the evolution of that reasoning, without understanding the complete history.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      We have the NRA to protect the 2nd amendment. The ACLU can focus on the other ones. There's no need to try and put it all under one tent: a lot of the pro 2nd amendment folks would not be happy supporting the other things ACLU fights for (separation of church and state, etc.) Nothing precludes you from being a member of both.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- vostok 10y ago
  I would worry about it if I was still a PR. Even as a naturalized citizen I worry about it.
  - pvg 10y ago
    Well, you are free to be as paranoid as you like and maybe that's a good thing but no, I don't think ACLU donations are grounds for denying your naturalization application. To actually take away citizenship is even harder. You can read about the basic criteria here http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/grounds-denied-citizenship.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/grounds-d... but please don't come back to tell me that donating to the ACLU can be interpreted as not having "demonstrated good moral character in the years leading up to application for citizenship".
    - vostok 10y ago
      Would you also like me to not tell you that the president will sign an executive order banning people from "Muslim" countries? I do agree that it is extremely unlikely that my citizenship will be taken away. Being denied naturalization does not seem out of the realm of possibility with the way things are going. More specifically, I bet that the probability is high enough that making a donation to the ACLU has negative expected value.
      - orsenthil 10y ago
        > ACLU has negative expected value. Welcome to the Internet. Anyone is free to have an opinion. Live in fear and do nothing.
      - pvg 10y ago
        That's not much of an argument and equating all bad things is not a very useful way to think about things (but again, you're welcome to it, it just doesn't make for much of a conversation). The president can't change laws with executive orders.
        10y ago
jseliger 10y ago
It looks like you can donate by check: https://www.aclu.org/how-you-can-help https://www.aclu.org/how-you-can-help, but I don't see an option for cash or Bitcoin. I suppose it could be possible to donate cash in person at one of their physical offices
- ryan-c 10y ago
  If they can take a check, they ought to be able to take a postal money order which you can pay for with cash.
nnf 10y ago
I've been considering donating but never had until just now. I was going to give $10/mo but kicked it up to $15/mo on your behalf so you don't have to worry about donating yourself and experiencing negative consequences as a result. Good luck on obtaining your citizenship.
- knz 10y ago
  Wow. That's amazing. Thank you!
fictioncircle 10y ago
The best option is to give a friend you trust cash. They, in turn can donate by proxy and that is basically how Citizens United works so it should be safe enough. There isn't really a good way to do it on your own unfortunately.
- baytrailcat 10y ago
  I really hope someone from ACLU is listening in this thread and doing something about taking anonymous donations (can they even?). This is a genuine fear that many of us non-citizens have.
ewoodrich 10y ago
It should be possible. I'm a Bitcoin skeptic but this is absolutely the model use-case.
yhager 10y ago
I'm replicating @nnf's response - never donated till now, figured I'll do $10 monthly, but bumped it to $15 for you.
- knz 10y ago
  Also amazing! Thank you!
- m_fayer 10y ago
  That donation has also been on my to-do list for a few days, you guys just kicked me into pulling the trigger. Replicated.
  - knz 10y ago
    Awesome. Thanks!
- Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
  I'm also throwing in an extra $25 one time donation. Not much but all my wife will allow at the moment.
- brian_cunnie 10y ago
  I just kicked in $250, one-time. To echo other posters, this was something I've been meaning to do.
baytrailcat 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing. One obvious thing to do is not claim it as a tax deductible donation, since it will go into federal records, which is easily accessed by law enforcement. Getting your past credit card statements may require one more hoop to jump through for them. Gosh.. how far have we fallen that we are seriously discussing this?
- mirimir 10y ago
  It seems that ACLU donations are not tax-deductable.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Just as an FYI, donations to the ACLU Foundation (which have somewhat more limited uses -- no lobbying, but still support litigation and other functions -- but still support the broad mission) are tax deductible. https://action.aclu.org/what-difference https://action.aclu.org/what-difference
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Cool! But at https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu it should perhaps say that, after "Contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union are not tax deductible."
      - UncleMeat 10y ago
        ACLU and ACLUF are different organizations. ACLU can lobby and donate to politicians, which is what makes them not tax deductible. ACLUF puts restrictions on where the money can go but has tax deductible donations.
        mirimir 10y ago
        Right. And ACLU can litigate. I used to donate to a litigation fund, and donor names were published. But I've never heard about that for ACLU. I wonder what was different about that litigation fund.
mirimir 10y ago
It would be very cool if they accepted donations using Bitcoin etc.
tn13 10y ago
This has been my fear too. I suggest use SudoPay.
pmarreck 10y ago
Perfect use case for Bitcoin, by the way. I'm tired of donating to someone un-anonymously and then basically getting harassed for years.

by knz 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

I wouldn't worry about it, with the ACLU.

hackuser 10y ago
The ACLU has been demonized and criminalized by the right for generations. IIRC, during the McCarthy witch hunts, being an ACLU member made one suspect. It also depends where you are, for example in New York City or in rural Texas. I heard someone tell the story that in the 1950s or 60s in a small town in the the Eastern U.S., they subscribed to the New Republic and a similar magazine using a neighbor's address so that the postman wouldn't report them.
- refurb 10y ago
  The ACLU has been demonized and criminalized by the right for generations. Well, to be honest, they seem to be selective about what constitutional rights they are willing to fight for.[1] [1]http://lidblog.com/aclu-getting-blasted-by-members-for/ http://lidblog.com/aclu-getting-blasted-by-members-for/
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I'm not sure what that has to do with criminalizing them; is that somehow illegal? By the way, an interesting website you cited. Here are the top headlines on the front page: * Trump’s Ban of Refugees from Terror-Prone Countries Not Comparable to Holocaust * USA Today Distorts Truth To Make Hero Gun Owner Look Bad * STUDY: About 800,000 Non-citizens Voted for Hillary in 2016 Election
  - ewoodrich 10y ago
    They're very transparent about their position on the 2nd amendment. They're not hiding anything. https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    That's a pretty weak argument. The ACLU undeniably supports Second Amendment rights. They do disagree with the Heller decision, but they don't actively oppose it. They do support the same fundamental argument behind the Miller decision that is cited by gun owners as a pro-gun rights position[0]. In their own words, they tend not to take Second Amendment cases because those are already handled by many other, much more well-funded organizations. Whereas the ACLU spends a lot of its money on causes that aren't supported by as many other groups. [0] The Miller decision is cited by both gun rights advocates and gun control advocates for different reasons, but the part of the Miller decision from which the ACLU derives its own position is one which is fundamentally supported by gun rights advocates - the ACLU just happens to take a less expansive view of that decision.
    - wahern 10y ago
      I agree the argument upthread is weak, but your defense of the ACLU is kinda weak, too. The ACLU's official legal stance on the 2nd Amendment is that it protects a collective right, not an individual right. And that collective right is, as a practical matter, reposed with the state. See https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment In other words, the ACLU sees the 2nd Amendment as a states' rights issue. But we we all know that states' rights is a loaded term in American political discourse. It was originally coined to defend Federal laws which affirmed property interests in slaves traveling in Northern states. In other words, the issue of the day was the slave holding states' rights to pass laws defending the property rights of its slave holders. And the argument was that if those property laws could be ignored once a slave fled to a non-slave state, it effectively diminished states' rights to protect the interests of its citizens (i.e. property interests in slaves). The biggest reason why the ACLU takes the legal stance it does is because many of its supporters support a so-called right to be free of violent crime. In particular, that means the right of local communities suffering from criminal gun violence to pass laws restricting gun rights. Initially that was a round-about way of referring to black, inner-city communities, but with the increasing attention given to gun massacres in predominantly white, suburban, areas, that "right to be free of violent crime" has become more inconclusive. It's important to understand as a legal matter the ACLU's stance effectively advances a states' rights argument, albeit in a narrow circumstance. However, their policy explanation for why they're doing that is couched in terms of what's effectively an individual right, specifically the right to be free of gun crime. The policy justification is arguably consistent with the ACLU's usual focus on human rights matters, but also rather inconsistent from a legal perspective in that the concept of a right to be free of [gun] crime as an excuse to limit others freedom is quite tortured. The history regarding states' rights issues, and the perpetual discriminatory treatment of minorities--specifically black minorities--by states that traditionally defend gun rights adds several layers of complexity. That complexity is important and relevant, but it doesn't justify the tortured conceptual logic of the ACLU's policy reasoning. From a purely textual and historical perspective I think it's pretty much beyond dispute that the 2nd Amendment was about preservation of states' powers to regulate (or not regulate) guns. Many state constitutions had clauses that specifically framed it as an individual right. So, yes, gun rights were often and widely seen as an individual right in some places. But the Federal constitution was almost exclusively focused on defining the limits of when and how federal legislative powers trumped state legislative powers. So while the federal government couldn't pass laws abridging political speech, states were free to do exactly that for 150 years. That's why the 1st Amendment isn't couched in terms of an individual right, but in terms of restricting federal powers--... shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That's because the real issue of the day was whether the federal government could pass laws that interfered with state laws protecting _or_ restricting behavior. It's only where the Federal government was expected to have a direct and necessary relationship with an individual person (eminent domain, search & seizure, trial) where things are framed as individual, inalienable rights. This was especially important in matters of gun rights. Because the federal government had ultimate authority to command state militias, states were afraid the federal government would limit their ability to defend themselves. The right of a state to defend itself basically boils down to the ability to prevent and suppress insurrections and rebellions, especially but not exclusively slave rebellions. Controlling that meant states needed the freedom to both protect the gun rights of some people, but also to limit the gun rights of other people, and to generally regulate guns however they saw fit. Different states might have wildly differing laws based on their circumstance. (You can sort of see how that fits the ACLU's logic of freedom from crime, but the perspective is still different--securing a state's regulatory power vs focusing on a very specific, individual "right". But after the Civil War, and in particular the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, there began a shift of using Federal constitutional laws to limit both federal and state powers, and thus a shift toward emphasizing particular individual rights. Remember, the inalienable rights Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were vague--life, liberty, and happiness. The next sentence says that the way to secure those vague rights was by securing the ability of men to govern themselves. It's a defense of democracy. It doesn't proscribe rules for limiting government power; on the contrary it affirms the power and legitimacy of self government to contravene pre-existing laws and limitations in order to secure individual rights as they saw fit. And in the context of a federal government, the highest concern was preserving the power of those individual state governments to address liberty issues as they best saw fit. The Civil War finally proved how limiting that conception of government was in actuality, even though it was long theoretically understood. It proved that even well-governed democracies were prone to act in a tyrannical manner even despite their own laws. (The 14th Amendment secures the right to equal protection of the laws.) The nation wasn't yet prepared to tackle that dilemma until it became an existential issue 80 years later. But the point is, you can't read the Federal constitution in terms of individual rights. Little of the original text makes sense from that perspective. But neither can you understand and explain subsequent legal and political reasoning, and the evolution of that reasoning, without understanding the complete history.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    We have the NRA to protect the 2nd amendment. The ACLU can focus on the other ones. There's no need to try and put it all under one tent: a lot of the pro 2nd amendment folks would not be happy supporting the other things ACLU fights for (separation of church and state, etc.) Nothing precludes you from being a member of both.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
vostok 10y ago
I would worry about it if I was still a PR. Even as a naturalized citizen I worry about it.
- pvg 10y ago
  Well, you are free to be as paranoid as you like and maybe that's a good thing but no, I don't think ACLU donations are grounds for denying your naturalization application. To actually take away citizenship is even harder. You can read about the basic criteria here http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/grounds-denied-citizenship.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/grounds-d... but please don't come back to tell me that donating to the ACLU can be interpreted as not having "demonstrated good moral character in the years leading up to application for citizenship".
  - vostok 10y ago
    Would you also like me to not tell you that the president will sign an executive order banning people from "Muslim" countries? I do agree that it is extremely unlikely that my citizenship will be taken away. Being denied naturalization does not seem out of the realm of possibility with the way things are going. More specifically, I bet that the probability is high enough that making a donation to the ACLU has negative expected value.
    - orsenthil 10y ago
      > ACLU has negative expected value. Welcome to the Internet. Anyone is free to have an opinion. Live in fear and do nothing.
    - pvg 10y ago
      That's not much of an argument and equating all bad things is not a very useful way to think about things (but again, you're welcome to it, it just doesn't make for much of a conversation). The president can't change laws with executive orders.
      - 10y ago

jseliger 10y ago

It looks like you can donate by check: https://www.aclu.org/how-you-can-help https://www.aclu.org/how-you-can-help, but I don't see an option for cash or Bitcoin. I suppose it could be possible to donate cash in person at one of their physical offices

ryan-c 10y ago
If they can take a check, they ought to be able to take a postal money order which you can pay for with cash.

nnf 10y ago

I've been considering donating but never had until just now. I was going to give $10/mo but kicked it up to $15/mo on your behalf so you don't have to worry about donating yourself and experiencing negative consequences as a result. Good luck on obtaining your citizenship.

knz 10y ago
Wow. That's amazing. Thank you!

fictioncircle 10y ago

The best option is to give a friend you trust cash. They, in turn can donate by proxy and that is basically how Citizens United works so it should be safe enough. There isn't really a good way to do it on your own unfortunately.

baytrailcat 10y ago
I really hope someone from ACLU is listening in this thread and doing something about taking anonymous donations (can they even?). This is a genuine fear that many of us non-citizens have.

ewoodrich 10y ago

It should be possible. I'm a Bitcoin skeptic but this is absolutely the model use-case.

yhager 10y ago

I'm replicating @nnf's response - never donated till now, figured I'll do $10 monthly, but bumped it to $15 for you.

knz 10y ago
Also amazing! Thank you!
m_fayer 10y ago
That donation has also been on my to-do list for a few days, you guys just kicked me into pulling the trigger. Replicated.
- knz 10y ago
  Awesome. Thanks!
Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
I'm also throwing in an extra $25 one time donation. Not much but all my wife will allow at the moment.
brian_cunnie 10y ago
I just kicked in $250, one-time. To echo other posters, this was something I've been meaning to do.

baytrailcat 10y ago

I was thinking the same thing. One obvious thing to do is not claim it as a tax deductible donation, since it will go into federal records, which is easily accessed by law enforcement. Getting your past credit card statements may require one more hoop to jump through for them. Gosh.. how far have we fallen that we are seriously discussing this?

mirimir 10y ago
It seems that ACLU donations are not tax-deductable.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Just as an FYI, donations to the ACLU Foundation (which have somewhat more limited uses -- no lobbying, but still support litigation and other functions -- but still support the broad mission) are tax deductible. https://action.aclu.org/what-difference https://action.aclu.org/what-difference
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Cool! But at https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu it should perhaps say that, after "Contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union are not tax deductible."
    - UncleMeat 10y ago
      ACLU and ACLUF are different organizations. ACLU can lobby and donate to politicians, which is what makes them not tax deductible. ACLUF puts restrictions on where the money can go but has tax deductible donations.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Right. And ACLU can litigate. I used to donate to a litigation fund, and donor names were published. But I've never heard about that for ACLU. I wonder what was different about that litigation fund.

mirimir 10y ago

It would be very cool if they accepted donations using Bitcoin etc.

tn13 10y ago

This has been my fear too. I suggest use SudoPay.

pmarreck 10y ago

Perfect use case for Bitcoin, by the way. I'm tired of donating to someone un-anonymously and then basically getting harassed for years.