Sunday, March 31, 2013

Immigrant Detainees and the Right to Counsel - NYTimes.com

Immigrant Detainees and the Right to Counsel - NYTimes.com

Immigrant Detainees and the Right to Counsel

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Save
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • Print
  • Reprints
DO immigrants who are incarcerated while their legal status is resolved deserve a lawyer?
John Moore/Getty Images
Detained Honduran immigrants in a holding cell in Mesa, Ariz., before being deported.
On a given day, roughly 34,000 immigrants are held in a patchwork of local jails and prisons, awaiting court hearings that determine whether they have the legal right to remain in the United States or will be deported. The recent revelation that roughly 300 immigration detainees are being held in solitary confinement — conditions that the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and others have said can constitute torture — highlights how punitive, costly and legally fraught American immigration policy has become.
Fifty years ago, the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright required state courts to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who could not afford lawyers. But people who are detained do not typically have lawyers because immigration law, unlike criminal law, does not provide a right to counsel. Immigrant detainees are allowed to hire lawyers, but more often than not, they cannot afford counsel or are shuffled through the system before they have a chance to find help.
Among the detainees not guaranteed representation are children, the mentally disabled, victims of sex trafficking, refugees, torture survivors and legal permanent residents. Free representation tends to be provided by lawyers at nonprofit advocacy groups that are ill equipped to keep up with demand.
The American immigration system is already wildly expensive, and providing lawyers for immigrants would make it even more expensive. In 2012, the Obama administration’s overall budget for immigration enforcement was $18 billion, significantly more than was spent by all other major federal law enforcement agencies combined, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to a report by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.
Advocates of tighter controls on immigration say that guaranteeing detainees counsel would make matters only worse. With guaranteed representation, they argue, more immigrants would be allowed to stay. Studies have shown that having a lawyer during removal proceedings vastly improves an immigrant’s ability to defend against deportation. Without counsel, only 3 percent prevail in their asylum cases compared with 18 percent who have legal counsel.
Jon Freere, a legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization based in Washington that advocates for reduced immigration, pointed out that American citizens routinely deal with important civil matters like child custody, foreclosures or evictions without the benefit of guaranteed legal representation.
“Why should illegal aliens be guaranteed greater protections than citizens?” he asked.
Throwing more immigration lawyers into the mix, he said, would probably slow the process only further, especially considering that immigration lawyers are always looking to expand the scope of asylum.
Other immigration opponents add that harsh detention conditions encourage immigrants to more quickly sign papers, agreeing to leave rather than adjudicate the matter. Switch to ankle bracelets and provide more detainees with lawyers, they argue, and immigrants will linger in the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that much longer — and at considerable added taxpayer cost.
But immigrant advocates, civil rights lawyers and some immigration judges argue that providing guaranteed representation would actually help lower costs, lessen backlogs in the legal system and prevent miscarriages of justice, protecting people who have a right to stay in the country against deportation. The National Association of Immigration Judges wants to see more legal help for immigrants, arguing that representation would speed processing times because properly counseled immigrants are less likely to pursue claims that have no legal basis or to appeal in cases with little chance of success.
Paul Grussendorf, an immigration judge in Philadelphia from 1997 to 2001 and then in San Francisco until 2004, said he saw many immigrants pass before his bench, and although dozens were qualified to stay in the country, they were ultimately deported because they lacked legal representation.
Dozens of detainees who could have qualified to stay gave up after months in detention, he said, because they had no prospects of ever finding counsel to help them. He cited studies indicating that I.C.E. currently pays roughly $2 billion per year just to detain immigrants and that 80 percent of that cost could be saved by releasing immigrants but tracking them using ankle bracelets.
“The savings here could easily be used to offset the price of providing counsel for most immigrants being processed by I.C.E.,” Mr. Grussendorf said.
But Jan C. Ting, a law professor at Temple University and an assistant commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1990 to 1993, said that shifting to alternative means of custody like ankle bracelets risked slowing the process and raising costs because it could increase the instances when immigrants failed to show up at their hearings.
“Only those who have worked on the government side have any appreciation of how difficult and expensive it is to try to enforce our immigration laws,” he added.
If Congress does not resolve questions about legal representation, civil rights advocates say they may challenge the status quo in the courts.
In what he described as a “first shot across the bow,” Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that his organization filed a federal class-action lawsuit in 2010 aimed at testing the constitutionality of immigrants’ right to counsel.
The lawsuit, filed in California, was on behalf of immigrants with severe mental disabilities who were never provided lawyers. The lead plaintiff in the case, José Antonio Franco González, who has an I.Q. below 55, was wrongfully held by I.C.E. for five years, which the A.C.L.U. argues could have been prevented if he had had a court-provided lawyer.
“If the government is going to deprive an individual of his liberty through a legal process,” Mr. Romero said, “the government should provide a lawyer to those who cannot afford one.”

Ian Urbina is an investigative reporter for The New York Times. Catherine Rentz is an independent journalist based at the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.



  • Save
  • E-mail
  • Share

Monday, March 25, 2013

Ash Wednesday 2013 Pilgrimage To Repent Immigrant Detention : Helen on H...

Helen speaks about the relief work she has been doing in Newark & Essex County for Hurricane Sandy victims; & suggests that we get involved here:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Jersey-Hope-and-Healing/396646023744929

Clergy, Faith Leaders, Activists, Community Members & Former Immigrant Detainees Gathering on Ash Wednesday to Repent the Sin of Imprisoning Immigrants for Profit

http://www.facebook.com/events/559439964085146/

http://www.facebook.com/notes/casa-esperanza/ash-wednesday-rally-march-vigil-in-new-jersey-against-immigrant-detention/10151423239208537

On Wednesday, February 13th, 2013, people from across New Jersey and New York representing over a dozen faith-based, community and immigrant rights groups gathered for the fourth year in a row in Liberty State Park in Jersey City in front of the bridge to Ellis Island and in sight of the Statue of Liberty to repent the sin of immigration detention. This is the beginning of a day long series of events called "No More Silence! Awake to Justice!"

Participants travelled to Hackensack, Newark and Kearney to highlight sites of suffering for immigrants and their families. The day culminated with the 17th annual vigil at the Elizabeth Detention Center, the for-profit facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) where ICE first started incarcerating immigrants in NJ almost two decades ago.

The event was co-sponsored by: IRATE & First Friends; Pax Christi NJ; Action 21; American Friends Service Committee -- Immigrant Rights Program, Newark; Casa Esperanza, Felician Sisters of North America; Wind of the Spirit; Office of Peace, Justice and Ecological Integrity for the Sisters of Charity of NJ; St. Joseph's Social Service Center; Elizabeth Coalition to House the Homeless, CEUS; NJ DREAM Act Coalition,; Anakbayan-USA; St. Peter's University Social Justice Program; Haiti Solidarity Network of the Northeast; Sisters of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill; Monmouth County Coalition of Immigrant Rights

____________________________________________________________


Action 21:

http://www.njaction21.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Action-21/154352017954889

American Friends Service Committee, Immigrant Rights Program of Newark:

https://afsc.org/office/newark-nj
http://www.facebook.com/pages/AFSC-Immigrant-Rights-Program/184778154878751

Anakbayan NJ:

http://www.facebook.com/anakbayan.nj
http://anakbayannynj.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/anakbayannynj

http://bayanihanfestival.com/BayanihanFestival

Casa Esperanza:

http://www.facebook.com/casaesperanzanj
http://www.facebook.com/groups/casaesperanzanj/
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/casaesperanza
http://www.linkedin.com/in/casaesperanza
https://twitter.com/casaesperanzanj

https://plus.google.com/u/0/110331423146816267627/posts

http://www.flickr.com/people/casaesperanza/
http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/casaesperanza
http://www.myspace.com/552664030
http://casaesperanza.newsvine.com/
http://digg.com/casaesperanzanj

And subscribe to our blogspots:

http://casaesperanzanj.blogspot.com/
http://immigrantdetainees.blogspot.com/
http://s-comm-nj.blogspot.com/
http://njaid.blogspot.com/

CEUS:

http://www.ceusnj.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Centro-Comunitario-CEUS/127560981584

Elizabeth Coalition to House the Homeless:

http://www.theelizabethcoalition.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elizabeth-Coalition-to-House-the-Homeless/241497229099

Felician Sisters of Lodi:

http://www.feliciansisters.org/journeyhope.cfm?lang=E
https://plus.google.com/107813221673489142019/about?gl=us&hl=en
http://www.stjoenj.net/

IRATE & First Friends:

www.irate-firstfriends.org
http://www.facebook.com/IRATEFF
https://twitter.com/IRATEFrstFrnds

http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/irate

Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry:

http://www.njsynod.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&itemid=98
http://www.lsmnj.org/programs-services/community-outreach-services/immigration-refugee-program/

Monmouth County Coalition for Immigrant Rights:

http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/visitationlistusprograms

New Jersey Advocates For Immigrant Detainees (NJAID):

http://njaid.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/njaid
http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Jersey-Advocates-For-Immigrant-Detainees/102314033207233

https://vimeo.com/album/1662771

New Jersey Dream Act Coalition:

http://njdac.org/
http://www.facebook.com/njdac
https://twitter.com/NJdreamAct

New Jersey Forum for Human Rights:

http://www.hg.org/law-firms/Human-Rights/USA-New-Jersey.html
http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/students/student-organizations

Pax Christi NJ:

http://paxsummit.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/70959325050/

Wind of the Spirit:

http://www.windofthespirit.net/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wind-of-the-Spirit/130553323629649

Immigrants Held in Solitary Cells, Often for Weeks - NYTimes.com

Immigrants Held in Solitary Cells, Often for Weeks - NYTimes.com

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Immigration Detention: Release Shows Dire Need for Alternatives to Detention

Immigration Detention: Release Shows Dire Need for Alternatives to Detention
I

mmigration Detention: Release Shows Dire Need for Alternatives to Detention

210px-Jail_Bars_Icon.svg
Today, I’d like to showcase the reflections of Anna Campbell, National Network Coordinator of LIRS’s Access to Justice unit. Here is what she has to say about the sequester and the release of detained immigrants.
The whole nation is beginning to feel the pain of deep spending cuts as the judgment day known as the “sequester” becomes a reality. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not exempt.  Last week, federal immigration officials announced the release of hundreds of detained immigrants from centers around the country in preemption of the pending budget cuts.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency charged with enforcing immigration laws,  is currently required by Congress to fill 34,000 detention beds each day with immigrants charged with being deportable, yet ICE has publicly stated that the sequester will hinder its ability to satisfy this detention mandate.  This mandate and the nonsensical results it produces need to go.
ICE’s decision to release a small percentage of those in immigration custody incensed some lawmakers with reputations as staunch immigration foes and was mischaracterized by the media as an extreme measure.  But for LIRS, and many other immigrants’ rights organizations, the move fundamentally validated the important role alternatives to detention can play within our immigrant justice system.  Immigration detention is a civil authority that is not intended to be punitive, but rather is used solely to ensure compliance with immigration adjudications. ICE’s release of hundreds of immigration detainees last week confirms that the agency currently detains some people simply to meet a congressional quota rather than to better secure U.S. communities. DHS has said that they released “low-risk” and “non-criminal” detainees.  This raises a number of questions. What does “low-risk” mean? Why are immigrants being locked up in the first place if their civil immigration case could be processed while they reside in the family and with their children?  If there is a cheaper and more humane mechanism for enforcing immigration law while ensuring individual appearance during deportation proceedings, why wouldn’t it be utilized?
This country needs alternatives to detention to be a part of the immigration reform debate.  More specifically, we need more community-based services as alternatives to continuing to unnecessarily infringe on individuals’ liberties. Alternatives are not only more humane, but also fiscally responsible, which is increasingly important as we repeatedly face austerity measures like the sequester.  Alternatives to detention cost the government significantly less than physical detention and could reduce detention spending by nearly 80%.  LIRS provides community-based services as an alternative to detention via its Community Support Network in seven different parts of the country. These services – legal representation, housing and case management – facilitate rehabilitation from past trauma, expedite long-term integration for individuals who remain in the United States, and encourage compliance with all legal processes.
Finally, while LIRS is pleased that DHS has decided to release individuals whom it in fact does not need to detain, we cannot forget that each of these migrants is still in deportation proceedings.  Each individual faces an imminent threat of being torn away from family members and community, and could be forced to return to a country where they may face persecution and isolation. We also can’t forget that DHS is still required to fill 34,000 beds, with or without funding and with or without need, and this must change. If Washington solves the current budget crisis, will these individuals be re-detained? Will ICE arrest more “low-risk” immigrants just to fill bed space? Is that a responsible way to use federal dollars, if a cheaper if not free alternative is available? We here at LIRS believe it’s high time to utilize effective, more affordable, and more humane alternatives.
Image credit: Antonu








Rethink Immigration: Sequestration Exposes Need to Eliminate the Immigration Detention Bed Quota | National Immigrant Justice Center

Rethink Immigration: Sequestration Exposes Need to Eliminate the Immigration Detention Bed Quota | National Immigrant Justice Center

Rethink Immigration: Sequestration Exposes Need to Eliminate the Immigration Detention Bed Quota

Bookmark and Share
Rethink Immigration is a new blog series in which National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) staff, clients, and volunteers share their unique perspectives and specific recommendations on what Congress and the Obama administration must include in comprehensive immigration reform to create an inclusive, fair, and humane immigration system. We hope to show the profound impact that our country’s complex and outdated immigration laws and decades of draconian enforcement have had on everyone in our society. Click here to read more about NIJC’s principles and priorities for immigration reform.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released at least 2,000 people from detention centers across the country, including many in the Chicago area. DHS stated that the move was related to financial concerns in advance of spending cuts expected to occur under sequestration. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is quoted as saying, “I'm supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?”
Secretary Napolitano was referencing the so-called DHS detention bed quota. Congress has appropriated enough money — more than $2 billion — to detain 34,000 immigrants each night. The trouble with having a quota is that the decision of whether to detain a person is based on whether there is a bed that needs to be filled. Men and women are put in detention, torn from their families, and blocked from access to counsel not for the sake of public safety but so the government can meet an arbitrary goal of occupied detention beds. As Congress and President Obama legislate a new immigration system, sequestration might provide an unexpected yet valuable lesson: enforcing our country’s immigration laws need not rely on expensive detention that deprives people of basic rights.
 
DHS's Muddled Priorities
 
Typically, when making a custody determination, a DHS officer considers numerous factors, with emphasis on whether the individual is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Given that detaining an immigrant in DHS custody costs taxpayers $164 per day per detainee (compared to alternative forms of custody that cost as little as 30 cents up to 14 dollars per day per person), it seems reasonable to expect that DHS would choose not to detain a person unless there was truly a compelling reason to do so. 
 
But when officers feel they must meet a bed quota, the logic changes. Inevitably, DHS lowers its standard for who must be detained. 

DHS documents leaked a few weeks ago to USA Today revealed that immigration officers were pressured to meet deportation quotas by setting up traffic “seatbelt” checkpoints and combing driver’s license databases to find people to arrest. As a result, taxpayer dollars likely paid to put in costly deportation proceedings people whose only offense was not having immigration papers. In the detention context, we see similar poor decision making by DHS officers trying to fill bed space. Hard working men and women who could be supporting their families and contributing to our communities are instead languishing behind bars. In the past year in my detention work I have met a domestic violence victim picked up from her hospital room, a high school student who was weeks from graduation, a man who had been in the United States for 20 years and whose U.S. citizen wife was dying from lung disease, and the father of two toddlers whose U.S. citizen wife had cerebral palsy — to name only a few. None of these individuals had committed offenses worse than traffic tickets and none had prior immigration violations. 
 
DHS has stated its intention to exercise prosecutorial discretion more broadly at all levels, from deciding whom to detain in the first place to deciding which cases are really priorities to pursue in court. But the goals of using prosecutorial discretion and simultaneously maintaining a daily detention population of 34,000 people are obviously at odds with each other. DHS officers cannot find 34,000 dangerous criminal immigrants to meet its arbitrary quota, so it continues to detain many people who do not have criminal convictions or who have been convicted of only minor offenses. Prosecutorial discretion at the court level has been granted in less than two percent of cases.
 
Prolonged Detention Denies Justice
 
In cases where individuals might qualify for bonds, DHS attempts to keep them detained by ordering bonds their families cannot afford. The minimum immigration bond is $1,500, and anything up to $3,000 is considered a “low” bond. For many working class families even this is a huge amount of money, particularly when the detained individual is the main source of income. High bonds lead to the lengthy and expensive detention of people who are neither flight risks nor threats to the community. 
 
One client I worked with was the only breadwinner in his family. His U.S. citizen wife could not work due to a disability, and she and their two young children had to move in with her parents because she could no longer pay rent after DHS detained her husband. The only way they might have been able to pay the bond was by selling the vehicle they used to get to medical appointments. As a result, our client remained detained for five months until he won his case. 
 
Prolonged detention becomes traumatic for immigrants and their families. It also adds significant barriers to success in court. People who might be able to win their cases if they were allowed to pay reasonable bonds, released on their own recognizance, or permitted to participate in some other alternative form of custody will lose because they are detained. In detention, it is harder for people to find and communicate with lawyers (85 percent of detained immigrants have no legal representation), let alone gather the documentation and evidence they need to prove to a judge that they have a right to stay in the United States. I spoke with one man who received the horrifying news shortly after he was detained that his preteen daughter had attempted suicide due to the emotional impact of his detention. In the fallout from this crisis, the daughter’s mother was no longer able to pay for phone service, and the man was unable to communicate with his family for months — and therefore was unable to get the documents he needed to fight his case.
 
On the other hand, under current DHS practices, each person who does pay his or her bond represents another bed that DHS has to hurry and fill again, meaning that more and more people are detained.
 
Congress Can Fix This
 
It is time for legislators to eliminate the detention bed quota. Congress should clarify appropriations language to allow DHS officers to use the money for alternative forms of custody and instruct the agency to maximize the use of those alternatives. 
 
The fact that DHS was able to release so many people from detention last week and rely on other methods to ensure they go to court shows how easily it can be done. It not only makes financial sense for taxpayers, but also is necessary to ensure justice and due process for immigrants and their families. I expect that we will soon be hearing stories from clients whose families were reunited and who were able to better defend their cases as a result of sequestration. 
 
Elizabeth Kalmbach is the detention and due process coordinator for Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center, where she organizes Know Your Rights visits and provides legal consultations to immigrants detained at six county jails in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.