The ACLU doesn't generate propaganda or take single sided political stances on matters. They defend all sides of the spectrum equally as it pertains to their rights.
If you consider it to be anti Trump propaganda, then in all likelihood it means Trump is violating rights. The ACLU is perhaps one of the most non-partisan organizations.
They have a fairly nuanced and IMHO fair take on civil liberties regarding gun rights. I'm sure many second amendment supporters may take issue with their stance, but in my reading, it's quite fair and non partisan. In fact they encourage people on both sides to work together and vote towards clear law on the matter. The ACLU focuses on rights violations not advocacy for extension of rights beyond what is decreed in law.
I don't believe they support the individual's right to own a gun beyond what a state or the Federal government allows. The Feds could outlaw individuals rights to own a gun tomorrow and the ACLU wouldn't bat an eye. Check out their position on it. They flat out state it's only for militias and anything beyond that for individuals is not supported Constitutionally (aka left up to state/federal laws to dictate) https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment. I think this article reasonable says what I'm trying to say much better. https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...
The sitting president was elected as a Republican on the promise of deporting foreign nationals living illegally in the United States. Wether you agree or strongly disagree with that policy, how is suing to let them stay “non-partisan”?
EDIT:
I’m not arguing about this policy. The fact that 43% of Americans oppose the admittance of central american migrates seeking to claim refugee status makes it a partisan issue.
Out of curiosity, what is your understanding of the rights afforded to individuals within the United States regardless of their legality? Especially with regards to applying for humanitarian refuge legally?
The perceived partisanship of this is directly related to what you consider the rights of the people versus what is written in law etc...
I personally believe that everyone in the USA should be protected via their Constitutionally mandated personal rights. That said there is nothing in the Constitution about giving asylum and that is the mandate of Congress. I personally believe that a well thought out quota system is needed. We can't take everyone in the world who wants to seek asylum here. That's simply not possible. No one who isn't a US citizen has a right to live here, it is strictly up to the US government to say how many in what time span.
The ACLU however is not defending people's unilateral right to live in the US. They are defending the right to due process and the ability to apply for humanitarian refugee status.
If it can be shown that undocumented immigrants were afforded those, then the ACLU hasn't gotten involved to the best of my knowledge.
Why did you oversimplify "unprecedented policy of expelling migrant children from the U.S. southern border without giving them an opportunity to seek humanitarian refuge" to "deporting foreign nationals living illegally?"
Because they'd file the same suit if a Democratic president took similar actions. In fact, they already did[1]. They're not working for the benefit of either party, but rather for the general protection of the civil liberties of people in America, regardless of politics. They've historically represented many different viewpoints, up to and including literal Nazis [2].
