Monday, September 16, 2013

Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees

Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees

Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees

September 14, 2013
via Amy Bracken and Public Radio International’s The World:

“It’s looking unlikely that Congress will take up immigration reform this fall. But the push is still on to put deportations and immigrant detention centers under the microscope. And some of those leading this effort are immigrants themselves—who’ve spent time in detention centers—and are organizing to support those still inside.” Read more here.

Friday, August 16, 2013

For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits

For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits

For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits

A year ago today, the federal government started accepting applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants temporary legal status to immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children. Since then, 5,946 Massachusetts immigrants have applied. Meet some of them below.
katherine

Katherine Asuncion

Age: 20
Birthplace: Dominican Republic
Hometown: Lynn
Immigrated To The U.S.: 2003
Job: Development Director for the Student Immigrant Movement
DACA Status: Approved December 6, 2012

Katherine graduated with an associate’s degree in business from Marian Court College in Swampscott. These days, she works for the Student Immigrant Movement in Boston, advocating for immigration reform. She says she initially became an activist for her own personal benefit; she wanted to advocate for the DREAM Act. But now she says her work has taken on a life of its own. She’s fighting for the entire immigrant community, not just herself.
Katherine says she doesn’t feel the current U.S. Senate immigration bill is fair. She thinks it spends too much money on border security. But she says the immigrant community has been fighting for so long that it needs some sort of relief. Her main concern is that it’s going to take too long to get citizenship, and in the waiting game people will fall out of the system or lose faith and return to their homeland.
For Katherine, DACA isn’t the ideal solution; it’s only temporary. But she acknowledges it has fundamentally changed her life.
jesus

Jesus Enciso

Age: 20
Birthplace: Mexico
Hometown: Marlborough
Immigrated To The U.S.: 1999
Job: Waiter and student at Clark University in Worcester, where he studies engineering and architecture
DACA Status: Applied August 30, 2012, but has yet to be be approved or denied

Jesus waits tables at Longfellow’s Wayside Inn in Sudbury. It’s a historic landmark, once owned by the inventor of the automobile, Henry Ford. Working at the oldest still-operating inn in the country is a point of a pride for him as a new immigrant.
He’s been an employee there for more than a year, but he can’t legally work in the U.S. He applied using his tax ID number instead of a Social Security number. He says management never asked about his status and he never said anything.
He says he understands that by talking to WBUR, his status with his employer is now public, but he says the need to tell his story transcends his fear.
Jesus, unlike many others we interviewed for this story, says he always knew he was undocumented; it wasn’t a family secret because they didn’t come by airplane, on a visa. They entered the U.S. running across the Mexican border.
abby

Rosmery Abigail Hernandez

Age: 19
Birthplace: Honduras
Hometown: Dorchester
Job: Works at Chipotle in Watertown and studies at North Shore Community College studying education
Immigrated To The U.S.: 2005
DACA Status: Approved December 21, 2012

Abby, as she goes for short, spent the early years of her childhood in Honduras without her parents. She says her dad left to work in the U.S. before she turned 2; she couldn’t even recognize his face when they reconnected.
Abby discovered she was undocumented in high school when she realized she didn’t have a Social Security number. She says she never told her friends because whenever her classes debated election politics, some of her classmates would insult undocumented immigrants, accuse them of stealing American jobs and assert that they should go back to where they came from.
Abby sounds frustrated when she explains that her parents never told her she had entered the country illegally. When she was applying for DACA, she did more research on her status and discovered not only was she undocumented, but the country had already sent her a deportation letter.
barerah

Barerah Masood

Age: 29
Birthplace: Pakistan
Hometown: Norfolk
Job: Works part-time at a convenience store owned by a family friend
Immigrated To The U.S.: 1988
DACA Status: Applied September 27, 2012, but has yet to be approved or denied

Barerah’s father was getting a degree in economics at Boston University, so he was in the country on a student visa. She says her father brought the rest of the family with him; she was 5 at the time.
After her dad graduated, he got an extension on the student visa. It eventually expired, but he overstayed and kept his family in the dark. Barerah says she didn’t discover she was undocumented until she wanted to apply for college. When she found out, she says she resented her dad. She questioned why he hadn’t bothered to straighten out the family’s legal status.
Barerah eventually went on to study psychology at UMass Boston. She also has a master’s degree in education from Cambridge College. She wants to teach students with disabilities. She had plans to substitute teach in the Norfolk Public School system his fall, but she’s still waiting for a response to her DACA application.
Barerah says she’s hopeful immigration reform will pass this time around, but she’s concerned with the current form of the bill, particularly the length of time it’ll take undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship.
xhulio

Xhulio Uruci

Age: 20
Birthplace: Albania
Hometown: Newton
Jon: Student at UMass Amherst studying math
Immigrated To The U.S.: 2000
DACA Status: Approved in December 2012

Xhulio’s family immigrated from Albania and applied for political asylum when he was 7 years old. He says after years of waiting for legal protection his family’s request was denied. During his junior year of high school, the day before he was planning to compete in the national track and field finals, he found out he did not have legal status in the U.S. He remained undocumented for three years until he received DACA last December.
Xhulio says he doesn’t think the Senate’s version of immigration reform is ideal. Nor does he think Congress will find the perfect remedy at this point in time. He feels conflicted about whether he can support a bill that could potentially help millions of undocumented people, even if it marginalizes others.
filipe

Filipe Zamborlini

Age: 24
Birthplace: Brazil
Hometown: Everett
Immigrated To The U.S.: 2001
Job: Bilingual senior assistant in the Office of state Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz
DACA Status: Approved September 4, 2012

Filipe lives with his mom, his grandmother and his cat in an apartment in Everett.
He went to Boston Latin Academy and expected after graduation to enroll in a four-year college. It wasn’t that easy, though, when he discovered he was undocumented.
He eventually started college at UMass Boston, but he says he got himself deep into debt. He misread the tuition costs. He thought it was $12,000 per year, signed up for classes and then realized it was $12,000 per semester. He dropped out before completing his second year because he couldn’t afford to stay. He had taken a $26,000 loan from Bank of America his first year. In theory, it was supposed to be an annual recurring loan, but when the economy tanked, he couldn’t renew it.
To make matters worse, his mom lost her job. So they had no money to pay the tuition bill. He’s planning to start classes at the Harvard Extension School this fall, with the hopes of majoring in government and economics.
While Filipe plans to start college again, his younger brother is living an entirely different life. He got into trouble and was deported back to Brazil. Filipe says his biggest concern with immigration reform is how the bill will treat mixed status families, like his own.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

US Reveals It Held Hundreds of Immigrant Kids in Adult Detention

US Reveals It Held Hundreds of Immigrant Kids in Adult Detention

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Voices from Detention: Elder Virgilio Gomez López





Congress currently requires 34,000 immigrants be detained daily. The 34,000 bed mandate, essentially a quota system, exacerbates the inhumanity of detention. Most immigrants are incarcerated in appalling conditions, with no knowledge of when or if they will be released. True immigration reform should eliminate the bed mandate. Call your member of Congress and ask them to eliminate the arbitrary 34,000 detention bed quota: (202) 224-3121

El Congreso exige actualmente que 34.000 inmigrantes estén detenidos cada día. El mandato de 34.000 camas de detención, esencialmente un sistema de cuotas, agrava la falta de humanidad en el sistema de detención. La mayoría de los inmigrantes están encarcelados en condiciones deplorables, sin ningún conocimiento de cuándo o si van a ser liberados. Una reforma migratoria verdadera deberia eliminar esta cuota de camas.
Llame a su Congresista y pídale que eliminen la cuota arbitraria de 34.000 camas de detención (202) 224-3121

Monday, April 15, 2013

via @NIJC: Minor Crimes Should Not Lead to Immigration Exile | Detention Watch Network: Monitoring & Challenging Immigration Detention, Immigration Enforcement & Deportation

via @NIJC: Minor Crimes Should Not Lead to Immigration Exile | Detention Watch Network: Monitoring & Challenging Immigration Detention, Immigration Enforcement & Deportation

April 12, 2013
By Lisa Koop, posted 4/10/13
via the National Immigrant Justice Center:

Rethink Immigration: Minor Crimes Should Not Lead to Immigration Exile
Tonight a woman in northern Indiana is crying. I called to tell her that her husband is being deported to MeImagexico tomorrow. If she wants, she can send her two U.S. citizen children to a town on the western edge of Chicago at dawn to see him briefly as he is processed for deportation via O’Hare International Airport. They can take him a small suitcase and whatever money they can scrape together. The woman cannot go see him. She is undocumented and cannot risk leaving her children with no parents. Unless the laws change, her husband will not be coming back.
The woman’s husband, Jorge*, is not a criminal. He was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after a traffic stop in January, during which he was found to be driving without a license. More than 15 years ago, Jorge was stopped at the border and issued a deportation order. This time, ICE initially threatened to prosecute him criminally for illegal reentry, but later decided simply to deport him again without a hearing.
Jorge’s story is not unique. Immigrants in our communities face deportation for technical violations and minor crimes all the time. The government calls them “priority” removals. In reality, they are mothers and fathers, neighbors, and friends.
As Congress debates a new immigration law, there likely will be voices calling for tougher penalties for immigrants convicted of crimes. But before we concede that “criminals” do not deserve immigration benefits, we must recognize that allowing the legislative process to take this course will mean many good people will be left out, simply because of small mistakes they made long ago. Our immigration laws already define “crimes” too broadly and punish the people who commit them too harshly.
Juana, a lawful permanent resident, was in deportation proceedings for shoplifting. One shoplifting offense usually does not make someone deportable, but two offenses often trigger removability. Juana had her toddler with her more than a decade ago when she tried to steal a few clothing items from a store. Store security caught her and noticed that Juana’s toddler had grabbed a toy from another store and dropped it into her stroller. Juana was charged with two shoplifting offenses. A stuffed duck landed her in removal proceedings. She spent years fighting to remain in the United States with her citizen husband and three citizen daughters.
Rafed, also a lawful permanent resident, got into a fight at school when he was in his late teens after other students targeted him with ethnic slurs for being Arab. He was charged with battery. Years later, when he was in his thirties, he was placed in removal proceedings based on that schoolyard brawl. His large extended family was anguished at the thought of losing him.
Hamsa, from Ethiopia, is the loving single father of a young U.S. citizen daughter. His daughter’s mother suffers from mental illness, struggles with substance abuse, and lives with an abusive man. During a legal battle over their daughter, she called ICE on Hamsa and they arrested him when he appeared to fight for custody of his daughter. Though Hamsa was a lawful permanent resident, he was removable because years earlier, when he was a young man hanging out with the wrong crowd, he was twice arrested for possessing very small amounts of marijuana.
When the government talks about “priority” removals, they are talking about Jorge, Juana, Rafed and Hamsa. These people are entrenched in their communities and deeply loved and needed by their families. While some people in their situation ultimately win relief from deportation, many do not. And even when they win, they lose years of their lives to anxiety and fear of banishment from their homes. They spend their limited resources paying lawyers. Their lives are placed on pause while they contemplate unknown futures. They have already paid for their crimes—usually with probation and fines—not realizing that those punishments were nothing compared to the risk of exile they faced in the immigration system.
When the legal system forces loving families apart, it is time to reevaluate whether our laws promote and protect justice or perpetuate avoidable harm. Any expansion of criminal grounds of removability or inadmissibility will ensnare people who are critical to the wellbeing of our communities. Instead of further punishing people who have already paid their debts for minor crimes, our laws must change to make sure everyone facing deportation has access to the basic right of a fair day in court. Any new immigration law must allow judges more discretion to view each individual holistically, rather than as an “alien” defined by a decades-old conviction. To be truly comprehensive, immigration reform must include Jorge, Juana, Rafed, Hamsa, and the families – including U.S. citizens – who love them.
*Names have been changed.
Lisa Koop is a managing attorney for Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center.

Rethink Immigration: Detention Without a Hearing is Un-American | National Immigrant Justice Center

Rethink Immigration: Detention Without a Hearing is Un-American | National Immigrant Justice Center

Rethink Immigration: Detention Without a Hearing is Un-American

Bookmark and Share
In 1996, new immigration laws dramatically expanded the categories of criminal convictions that make immigrants facing deportation ineligible for immigration bonds and therefore subject to mandatory custody. Prior to this time, there was some provision for mandatory custody but it only applied under very limited circumstances. Now a broad range of convictions, including what most Americans consider relatively minor infractions, can subject immigrants to mandatory custody.
When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determines that someone is subject to mandatory custody, under current law that person does not have a chance to have a judge review the decision and consider whether it is appropriate. I have seen countless cases in which a reasonable bond would have permitted good people to avoid unnecessary trauma and saved the government thousands of dollars.
Comprehensive immigration reform gives Congress an opportunity to eliminate mandatory custody entirely, or at least limit it to people with the most serious violent crimes.
Unnecessary—and Absurd
The story of Michael*, a recent NIJC client, illustrates well the problems with mandatory custody. Michael is a lawful permanent resident and has lived in the United States since childhood. When he was 17 he experimented with cocaine and tried the drug twice before being caught at a traffic stop with some in his possession. He was arrested and pled guilty to simple possession of a controlled substance and served several months in prison. Michael was never a drug addict and never used drugs again after his arrest.
Three years later, when Michael came into contact with ICE, the agency decided he was subject to mandatory custody due to his conviction. Michael had many positive factors in his case, including his lengthy lawful residence in the United States, strong educational and work history, numerous lawful family members whom he supported, and years of tax returns. He also qualified for a pardon under immigration law, and from the outset it was clear that he had a strong case. Indeed, the government eventually granted Michael relief and allowed him to stay in the United States. But because current immigration law prevented a judge from weighing the positives in Michael’s case against his one drug conviction and determining an appropriate bond amount, Michael was detained at taxpayer’s expense the full the two and a half months it took to fight his case.
It is absurd to think that a single conviction for possession made Michael such a threat to the community or significant flight risk that he absolutely had to be confined. Yet that is how he was treated.
Michael’s situation is not unique.
Double Jeopardy
It is important to note that immigration detention is not supposed to be part of the punishment for a crime. It is the job of the criminal justice system to determine if it is appropriate or necessary for an individual to serve time in jail or prison because of an offense. Individuals coming into immigration custody have already served that time, if any. Many of them were never sentenced to jail at all and received probation or community service for their convictions. Because immigration detention is not a sentence, there is no limit to the amount of time someone can be detained if subject to mandatory custody. NIJC has had clients detained for years under these provisions, as their complex immigration cases moved through the courts, with no right to judicial review of their detention at any time.
Judges should be able to use bond amounts to mitigate any risks they see in allowing a detainee to be released from custody. When there are more serious risks, the amount of money charged for the bond is higher. If on a rare occasion the judge feels that the risks of letting a detainee out of custody cannot be moderated by any amount of bond, then bond might be denied – but only after a full hearing in which all the factors of the case are considered.
A Merciless System
I will never forget another client, Sara*, who suffered extraordinarily because she was deemed to be subject to mandatory custody. I still remember clearly the day I first met Sara at the detention center. She could barely meet my eyes as she told me about being repeatedly raped by a male relative at the age of 14. After looking into Sara’s case we were able to file an application for a U visa, which is available to immigrant crime victims who have cooperated with the authorities in the crime investigation. She had cooperated with the police and her abuser had been convicted on felony charges and spent time in jail.
Unfortunately for Sara, despite the strong facts of her U visa case she was considered to be subject to mandatory custody because of two misdemeanor convictions. The first was for a shoplifting charge for taking a sweater when she was 18 years old, a mistake for which she takes responsibility and feels thoroughly ashamed. The second conviction was for domestic battery, a charge that came about after she scratched an abusive boyfriend in self defense when he attacked her. When the police came, Sara was unable to adequately respond to her boyfriend’s allegations due language barriers and because she was upset and scared. Her public defender advised her to plead guilty to the charges.
Because these two convictions subjected her to mandatory custody, Sara was detained for the 10 months it took the government to grant her U visa. Sara’s abuser had often kept her locked in a room, and being confined in a jail cell forced her to relive that trauma. She had nightmares, gained weight, and could not get through a conversation with me without crying.
Sara ultimately was granted the visa and released from custody. Her detention cost taxpayers around $40,000 and was a major set back in Sara’s attempts to recover from her abuse.
How to Fix It
A conviction on someone’s record is only one of many factors that judges should be allowed to consider when deciding whether to keep someone in immigration detention. Individuals who can demonstrate rehabilitation and other positive factors should have a chance to have them considered.
Congress must change the mandatory custody laws to allow for bond hearings in the majority of cases. For Michael and Sarah, it would have saved months of heartache and thousands of dollars in government resources.
*Names have been changed
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.
Rethink Immigration is a blog series in which National Immigrant Justice Center 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.