Friday, February 24, 2012

Ash Wednesday Pilgrimage...to the EDC : Kathy O'Leary On The Politics Of...

Mentally ill immigrants trapped in US detention without attorneys

Mentally ill immigrants trapped in US detention without attorneys

Ken Steinhardt/Orange County RegisterMaria Franco embraces son Jose Franco-Gonzalez as his father, Francisco Franco, watches after Franco-Gonzalez's release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention in March 2010. Franco-Gonzalez, who is mentally disabled, pleaded guilty to assault in 2005 and was detained for five years without a hearing.

With his handcuffs briefly unlocked from his wrists while he faced a judge, Miguel Canto-Ortiz wore the familiar mark of a detainee: a bright orange shirt from the Santa Ana Jail. But unlike the thousands of others who have passed through this courtroom, Canto-Ortiz was a man without a lawyer.

On the back of his shaved head is a scar from a traumatic brain injury that rendered him unable to read, write or even remember his birthday.

It was Canto-Ortiz’s deportation hearing, and U.S. District Immigration Judge David C. Anderson was testing his mental condition. The judge asked the 51-year-old detainee if he could explain what type of courtroom he was in.

“Too much problem in my head – I can’t say anything,” Canto-Ortiz mumbled in Spanish.

For the legal system and immigrant-rights attorneys, his case represents a frustrating problem without an easy answer: Illegal immigrants with severe mental health problems – many without criminal records – have been trapped in detention in the United States without attorneys.

“These are people that are sitting in detention for years, not understanding what is happening to them,” said Talia Inlender, an attorney with Public Counsel, a pro bono law firm representing several of the plaintiffs in a class-action suit on behalf of mentally ill detainees in California, Arizona and Washington. “They are so mentally disabled they can’t participate in their own removal proceedings.”

The government holds, on average, more than 30,000 illegal immigrants in detention on any given day. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials do not know how many are mentally disabled, but class-action attorneys estimate as many as 1,000 immigration detainees have a “serious mental illness.”

In January 2011, Inlender and a group of pro bono law firms identified Canto-Ortiz, a native of Mexico who came to the U.S. as a child, as a potential plaintiff in the lawsuit they filed last year. It is the first class-action suit on behalf of detainees with severe mental disabilities who go through the immigration courts without access to attorneys.

The class-action lawsuit contends that by denying severely mentally ill detainees the right to court-appointed attorneys, the federal government has stripped them of due process rights and violated federal anti-discrimination laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives non-citizens the privilege of representation, but not at the government’s expense.

On Dec. 20, Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the suit class-action status. She concluded that there is no mechanism for evaluating whether detainees with mental disabilities are able to represent themselves.

It costs about $166 a day to house an illegal immigrant in detention, according to the National Immigration Forum, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. At just one facility, the Santa Ana Jail, the federal government pays about $15 million a year for housing illegal immigrants.

Government representatives would not comment on the lawsuit. But at a hearing in Los Angeles in March of last year, Victor M. Lawrence, principal assistant director of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, argued that the plaintiffs had not proven “there is a significant number of people that would potentially be injured.”

But pro bono attorneys say it takes time to identify mentally ill detainees who need representation – especially given communication barriers resulting from mental illness. Earlier last year, they identified several cases. Judge Gee, in her decision, found that the problems identified in the lawsuit are indeed systemic.

Man held in detention for years

The lawsuit grew out of the case of Jose Franco-Gonzalez, a mentally disabled man who pleaded guilty to assault and was detained in 2005. An immigration judge closed his deportation case because he didn’t have a lawyer and was mentally incompetent to represent himself. But he remained in detention.

During those years in detention, Franco-Gonzalez did not have a hearing. In March 2010, after Public Counsel and the ACLU filed a petition asking for his release, immigration officials released Franco-Gonzalez. For more than a year, he was monitored electronically. He is now receiving intensive mental health services as he waits for his next immigration hearing.

Pro bono attorneys later added more mentally disabled plaintiffs to their class-action complaint – eight are now part of the lawsuit. Some of them are illegal immigrants; others are refugees or lawful permanent residents who faced having their legal status revoked because of criminal convictions.

Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, a refugee from Ukraine, is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis and major depression. He was convicted of attempted assault and robbery in 2005. He was detained in April 2010 at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Wash.

Without a lawyer, he represented himself in immigration court. A few months later, he was ordered deported. But with the help of the pro bono team, Khukhryanskiy appealed his case, and his deportation was canceled in April 2011. He was given a $30,000 bond but can’t afford to pay it, so he remains in detention. His next hearing is in February.

Among the others:

  • Maksim Piotrovich Zhalezny, a legal resident who had been arrested for misdemeanor theft, assault and disturbing the peace, is also diagnosed with schizophrenia. Because he didn’t have an attorney at the Sacramento County Jail – where he was detained in April 2010 – Zhalezny’s father agreed to represent him. But he backed out because he speaks little English and didn’t feel qualified. In response to the pro bono team, Zhalezny was granted a bond hearing and released under certain conditions.
  • Jose Chavez, who suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, has been detained since 2006 and remains unrepresented. He was held in the San Pedro Service Processing Center and at Otay Mesa, in San Diego, after an arrest for battery and assault. He was ordered deported but appealed with the help of other detainees. His case is closed as he waits in detention for an asylum hearing.
  • Yonas Woldemariam is a legal resident with bipolar disorder who before detention was in and out of mental institutions. He was detained in September 2010 on second-degree robbery charges and a probation violation from a prior petty theft. In March, he was transferred from the Yuba County Jail to the Sacramento County Jail, where he was in lockdown 23 hours a day and where phone calls are limited. The class-action complaint says he was transferred there because he refused to take an anti-psychotic medication. He was released last year and reunited with his family members.
  • Juan Sepulveda-Perez was detained for several month months at Otay Mesa. He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and has attempted suicide multiple times during his detention. He was released on Dec. 22.**

Mental competency policies needed, advocates say

In the past couple of years, Human Rights Watch and Texas Appleseed, a public interest law center, have issued reports identifying the lack of safeguards for mentally ill detainees, pointing to cases in which even American citizens were wrongly deported.

In May, with recommendations from the American Immigration Council and other lawyers groups, the Board of Immigration Appeals created guidelines for dealing with mentally ill detainees. The guidelines say a mentally competent detainee is someone who understands the nature of his or her case; can consult with an attorney or representative; and can examine adverse evidence, present favorable evidence and cross-examine government witnesses.

The board also said the Department of Homeland Security has an obligation to provide immigration judges with any relevant materials regarding an immigrant’s mental competency.

But advocacy groups and attorneys are pushing for a formal process that would include their input and create specific rules. For one, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not address immigration judges’ “lack of expertise in conducting competency assessments,” read a statement by the American Immigration Council. The board also doesn’t recommend appointing attorneys for the mentally incompetent.

The majority of detainees – roughly 60 percent – go without lawyers, according to the Department of Justice. Many are forced to represent themselves, often without adequate language skills.

“What we’re trying to do is to help get practices and procedures in place so it’s not left to an individual immigration judge or government attorney to determine the fate of a mentally incompetent detainee,” Inlender said. “We need a system in place so every detainee is getting a fair shake.”

In immigration court, Judge Anderson was visibly frustrated that Canto-Ortiz hadn’t been able to find a lawyer after six hearings and was clearly unable to represent himself. He had been in detention for a year already, and no one had been able to find any of his family members. A psychological evaluation completed in March at the urging of the pro bono team diagnosed Canto-Ortiz with psychotic disorder and hallucinations and indicated that he was not taking any psychotropic medications.

After taking a few minutes to read the psychological evaluation, the judge told the court that he was unable to offer a fair hearing to Canto-Ortiz. An attorney with the Department of Homeland Security suggested the hearing be postponed to a later date.

The judge denied that option. “I’ve done that already five times,” he said. “You’ve left me with no options but to terminate the proceedings.”

It was a partial victory for Canto-Ortiz, who no longer faced possible deportation to Mexico but could continue to linger, in limbo, in the Santa Ana Jail.

Legal immigrant faces troubles

In another case, even holding a green card didn’t shield Ever Martinez from the possibility of deportation. Martinez was born in El Salvador and is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. In 2007, he was charged with felony assault after he got in a fight with his stepfather.

Martinez started showing signs of mental illness in his early 20s, and when his mother took him to a Los Angeles psychiatric ward, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and placed on medication. He kept getting worse, and he was in and out of mental hospitals for several years. But Martinez had no history of violence, said his mother, Maria Elena Felipe.

That changed shortly after Martinez moved back in with his mother in 2007. In June of that year, while Felipe was at work, Martinez was arrested after getting into a fight with his stepfather, whom he knocked unconscious and who lay in a coma for 10 days.

Martinez was charged with a felony – a charge that can lead to deportation even for legal permanent residents. He was then transferred in late 2009 from criminal custody to the Otay Mesa detention center, a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego.

Martinez occupied one of 32 beds in the mental health ward managed by ICE’s Health Service Corps, which provides medical and public health services to those in its custody. Otay Mesa ­– operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, a private company with more than 60 facilities in the U.S. – is one of two federal detention centers that provide care for the severely mentally disabled, said Lauren Mack, an ICE spokeswoman.

There are 240 detainees being treated for “some form of mental illness with varying levels of severity” at Otay Mesa, she said. The other center, the Krome Detention Center, is near Miami.

In recent years, the ACLU has sued the federal government for health and safety violations at Otay Mesa, including overcrowding. In response in 2008, ICE transferred more than a hundred detainees out of Otay Mesa.

In a 2007 lawsuit, the ACLU cited inadequate medical care and negligence. It said that detainees were subjected to long delays before treatment, denied necessary medication for chronic illnesses and refused referrals prescribed by medical staff.

In 2008, a federal district judge ruled against the federal government. The court found that the withholding of a medical test and delaying a biopsy for a detainee at Otay Mesa, who later died of cancer, was “beyond cruel and unusual.” The lawsuit cited the cases of 11 other detainees, some whose mental illnesses went untreated and others who had to wait almost a year for surgery or for treatment for diabetes, chest pains, hypertension and abscessed teeth.

In December 2010, the federal government reached a settlement with the ACLU. ICE is required to add psychiatric staff, as well as remove existing policies that say detainees have access only to emergency medical services.

Struggles with complaint process

In general, attorneys working with detainees hear a laundry list of typical complaints.

“There’s very little outdoor space, the food isn’t good, the guards abuse them, they have problems contacting lawyers or their loved ones, the phone system is bad, the law library isn’t good, they’re stuck in their cells all day long,” said Michael Kaufman, an ACLU attorney based in Los Angeles.

One of the most common complaints is that ICE or sheriffs at the jails that contract out to ICE don’t respond when detainees file a complaint, Kaufman said. “Someone that’s mentally ill may not even understand the complaint process,” he said.

Receiving visitors takes longer when a detainee is in isolation. There are fewer visiting rooms, and transporting the detainees from their segregation units requires more manpower, said Sean Riordan, an attorney with the ACLU’s San Diego branch.

Maria Felipe said that more than once, she waited 12 hours to see Ever Martinez for an hour, arriving at 8 in the morning and leaving at 8 at night. Felipe worried even more about what would happen to Martinez if he were deported – he would find no one in El Salvador to take care of him.

“All the family we have are here – there is no one back home,” she said. But there was little hope without a lawyer – a cost she couldn’t pay. Martinez’s immigration documents stated that he was schizophrenic and on medication.

The attorneys working on the class-action suit brought Martinez to the attention of the federal district court in August 2010. In addition to his immigration documents stating his condition, the lawyers requested an evaluation, which concluded that Martinez “is clearly not competent to represent himself. His illness precludes a capacity to conceptualize ideas and verbally advocate a defense in his removal proceedings.”

In September 2010, an immigration judge ordered the termination of his deportation case and sent it to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In her decision, Judge Renee Renner said: “The current law and regulations offer little guidance as to how the court should proceed … with a mentally incompetent detainee who is representing himself in his removal proceedings.”

It was relatively good news that his case was terminated, but Martinez continued to linger in detention as his case remained pending before the appeals board. Renner did not appoint him a lawyer. But with the help of the pro bono team that had identified him in detention, Martinez was able to receive a bond hearing.

In April, Felipe was anxiously waiting to see Martinez outside the detention center for the first time in two years. He had been released from Otay Mesa with a $1,500 bond on the condition that he be evaluated and placed in the care of a mental health facility.

Martinez was taken to an urgent care center in Los Angeles to receive his evaluation. A mental health professional determined that he needed to be hospitalized and found a bed for him at Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center.

Felipe had to come up with bail that same day – and it was already the afternoon – or her son would be taken back to San Diego. She scrambled to the bail office and was told that it was closed. Then the pro bono team arrived.

As she prepared to see her son, her eyes filled with tears. “I don’t know what I’m going to tell him,” she said. “When I saw him at the detention center, I became so sad. Now I feel my heart is a little more at peace. He is not in a detention center – he is in a different place.”

A week after Martinez’s release from detention, Miguel Canto-Ortiz also was released. But without a lawyer and without family to help him, he was sent to a homeless shelter. The next day, he was nowhere to be found. The Mexican Consulate and a few pro bono attorneys continue to look for him in the streets of Santa Ana.

**Correction: This story originally reported that Juan Sepulveda-Perez remained in detention. He was released Dec. 22.

For-Profit Prison System Guarantees Injustice « National Prison Divestment Campaign

For-Profit Prison System Guarantees Injustice « National Prison Divestment Campaign

For-Profit Prison System Guarantees Injustice

Private Prisons Profit From Pain

By Jakada Imani | The Huffington Post | February 23, 2012

I’ve been working on issues of police accountability, locked-up youth, violence, and community investment for a long time. Sometimes I think that no example of injustice could still surprise me. I was recently proved wrong.

It happened when I was sent a Huffington Post article about the Corrections Corporation of America’s (CCA) move to buy prisons from cash-strapped states. As part of their offer to the 48 states they propositioned was a 20-year management contract, plus an assurance that the prison would remain at least 90 percent full over the course of the contract. Shame on you CCA, shame on you!

Incarceration for profit is just plain wrong. Making a business from other people’s suffering is wrong. And demanding that states guarantee their for-profit corporation chock-full prisons is immoral.

Over the last decade, crime has decreased every year. Last year, the FBI’s Annual Uniform Crime Report showed that the nation experienced a 5.5 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes in 2010. The preliminary report from 2011 shows the same trend- both violent and property crimes have continued. Crime is on the decline, yet the CCA is demanding that governments continue to deliver bodies at sustained rates.

Public safety is one of government’s first duties. In theory, our states’ correctional systems do this through rehabilitating offenders. Yet, we know all too well that most prisons fail to rehabilitate the people warehoused there. Public prisons already struggle to address the root causes of drug use, poverty or violence that are often at the root of crime. They fail at giving inmates the education, counseling or job training they need to turn their lives around. Prisons across the nation do nothing to reduce harm in our communities and in fact, the high rates of incarceration in communities of color has proven to further destabilize our communities.

For-profit prisons are not going to do better. What incentive do private lock-ups have to end the revolving door of incarceration when they profit from it? Allowing a profit motive to drive our country’s prison system guarantees injustice.

I’m not the first to suggest that the CCA puts profit ahead of people’s lives. This week a lawsuit was filed against the CCA by the family of a prisoner who was stabbed to death in a CCA facility.

Let’s also be clear that over-incarceration in America impacts people of color first and worst. There is a well-documented disparity about who serves time in prison and for how long, regardless of their offense. More than 60% of those locked up in adult prisons across the US are people of color. It has been shown time and time again that poor folks and people of color are more likely to go to prison and to serve longer sentences than their white or wealthier counterparts who’ve committed the very same offense.

So where will these 90% full prisons the CCA demands come from? By continuing to wage failed drug wars in poor communities and by locking up more and more people of color.

CCA’s CEO Damon Hininger stands to benefit should the states provide him with prisons well-stocked with prisoners. In 2010, for example, his total compensation equaled $3,266,387.

One way for the 1% to stay at the top, not to mention to widen the disparity between our nation’s richest and poorest citizens, is to make a profit from locking up the bottom rungs of the 99%.

Our country needs to invest in businesses and industries that, in turn, invest in our people, create real jobs and help to build a future we can be proud of. Join me in calling on the CCA to immediately rescind its 90% clause from any future contracts with States. And to publicly agree that their future contracts and bids will not include occupancy clauses. Let’s not allow the CCA to put their profits ahead of the health and well-being of our people and communities any longer.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Report Reveals Widespread Problems in Arizona’s Private Prisons « Detention Watch Network: Monitoring & Challenging Immigration Detention, Immigration Enforcement & Deportation

Report Reveals Widespread Problems in Arizona’s Private Prisons « Detention Watch Network: Monitoring & Challenging Immigration Detention, Immigration Enforcement & Deportation

Report Reveals Widespread Problems in Arizona’s Private Prisons

FEBRUARY 14, 2012

via American Friends Service Committee – Immigrant Rights Program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 10, 2012

Contact: Caroline Isaacs, (520) 256-4146 (cell), cisaacs@afsc.org

Report Reveals Widespread Problems in Arizona’s Private Prisons:

Cites Safety Issues, Lack of Accountability, and Cost

Phoenix: A Quaker group that has been advocating against prison privatization in Arizona will release an extensive report reviewing the safety, quality, and cost of private prisons in Arizona—including 6 prisons operated by Corrections Corporation of America that do not contract with the state. The report is the first of its kind to be completed in Arizona, and reveals widespread and persistent problems in private facilities.

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is holding a press conference on Wednesday, February 15th, at 10:30 am (please note time change) on the lawn of the state capitol to announce their findings and call on the state to cancel its plans to expand privatization. The group will also offer a telephonic press conference at 11:30am for statewide and national media unable to travel to Phoenix.**

The report cites data showing that the private prisons under contract with the state cost more than equivalent units operated by the Department of Corrections. The group estimates that in 2009 and 2010, Arizona overpaid for these units by as much as $7 million. If the state adds 2,000 medium-security private beds, Arizonans could be losing over $10 million every year on private prisons.

The report also reveals that all private prisons in Arizona for which security assessment information was available had serious security flaws:

· The Arizona Auditor General found a total of 157 security failures in the 5 private prisons under contract with the Arizona Department of Corrections, including malfunctioning cameras, doors, and alarms; holes under fences; broken perimeter lights and cameras; and inefficient or outright inept security practices across the board by state and private corrections officers and managers.

· California’s Inspector General found serious security flaws and improper treatment of California inmates held in three CCA prisons in Arizona. Inspectors found flaws with the incident alarm-response systems at the three prisons because there was no audible alarm, and two were found to have malfunctioning and out-of-focus security cameras.

· AFSC found evidence of at least 28 riots in private prisons since 2009. The number of riots is likely underreported. AFSC also found evidence of as many as 33 other serious disturbances involving groups of prisoners classified under “refusal to obey,” “tampering with state property,” and “obstructing an officer.” Some of these incidents involved as many as 10, 20 and even 50 prisoners.

· There were at least 6 escapes from inside Arizona private prisons in the past 10 years

Both press conferences will feature the following speakers:

1. Caroline Isaacs, Director of the Arizona American Friends Service Committee and the author of the report

2. Dante Gordon, formerly incarcerated at the Kingman prison, operated by Management and Training Corporation. Mr. Gordon was injured in a 2010 riot at Kingman during which the private prison guards stood by as a small group of African-American prisoners were assaulted by a mob of white inmates.

3. Rep. Chad Campbell, who has introduced 6 bills this session that would impose reporting, oversight, and accountability requirements on all private prisons operating in Arizona.

4. King Downing, national representative with the AFSC in Philadelphia. Mr. Downing will speak on why the findings of the Arizona AFSC report have national import and impact.

**For statewide and national media who cannot attend the press conference on the Capitol Lawn, AFSC will offer a telephonic press conference at 11:30am. Reporters who wish to participate are asked to please RSVP by Monday, 2/13 by sending an email to Caroline Isaacs at cisaacs@afsc.org. All registered participants will then receive the call in number and access code. Phone lines must be reserved in advance, so please be sure to contact us if you wish to participate.

#####

Monday, February 13, 2012

Report urges alternative to mass deportation of illegal immigrants | The Sierra Vista Herald

Report urges alternative to mass deportation of illegal immigrants | The Sierra Vista Herald








Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend
BY JONATHON SHACAT
Herald/Review

BISBEE — A special report issued earlier this month by the Immigration Policy Center called “Discrediting ‘Self Deportation’ as Immigration Policy” argues that forcing all illegal immigrants to leave the United States would make life difficult for everyone.

The strategy called “attrition through enforcement” was conceived by national immigration restrictionist organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA.

While these groups favor severe restrictions on all immigration and support mass deportation, they are also proponents of this strategy. Recognizing the current political reality, they have sought to market the idea of attrition through enforcement as a kinder, gentler alternative to the harsh, expensive, and unworkable strategy of mass deportation,” states the Immigration Policy Center report.

According to CIS (Center for Immigration Studies), attrition through enforcement involves reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., and deterring future unauthorized immigrants from coming, by stepping up enforcement of existing laws and increasing the incentives for immigrants to ‘deport themselves.’ As Numbers USAputs it: ‘There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here,’” it continues.

According to its Web site, the Immigration Policy Center is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC’s mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. In its report, the group points out that attrition through enforcement has not resulted in a significant reduction in the unauthorized immigrant population, and it has had a devastating impact on communities.

Is making our communities so thoroughly inhospitable that people will choose to leave really in line with our values as Americans? If we go this route, how do we distinguish ourselves from those immigrant‐sending countries where crime, terrorism, economic turmoil, and political violence make living conditions unbearable, causing migrants to leave?” the report asks.

The Immigration Policy Center maintains that instead of the de facto strategy of attrition through enforcement, it’s possible to create a well‐functioning, national, legal immigration system, and that Congress and the President can engage in a serious legislative process to humanely deal with millions of unauthorized immigrants who live here and to reform the family‐ and employment‐based visa systems.

On the other hand, Al Garza of Huachuca City said he supports attrition through enforcement or self deportation. He said he thinks it is neither draconian, nor inhumane, and it is clearly not anti-immigrant. Garza is a national leader/advisor for the Border Security Movement, the combined efforts of organizations including the Tea parties. Also, he is the former national executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. “By order of the President, the Department of Homeland Security has implemented stealth amnesty by halting deportations, providing deceptive reports and undermining the very laws they are responsible to enforce,” he said.

The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act clearly defines aiding and abetting as a felony, he added. When the federal government fails or ignores enforcement of the immigration laws, it becomes the responsibility of each state to protect its citizens of all colors, race or creed.

Being of Mexican origin, I am appalled at Mexico’s hypocrisy, its draconian cheap labor exportation, its inhumane treatment of its citizens and its audacity for suing American citizens when we demand enforcement of our laws,” Garza said. “If United States citizens are guilty of civil rights violations for enforcing laws that quell an out of control invasion, then Mexico is guilty of human rights violations for forcing its citizens to flee the corruption and maltreatment they are forced to endure. Suffice it to say, ‘Attrition by Enforcement’ is a most civil and humane approach to the illegal immigration dilemma. We will no longer survive as a nation if we remain as Mexico’s relief valve,” he continued.