Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:08 pm
Time: 9:08 pm
Results for asylum seekers
93 results foundAuthor: Amar, Sebastian Title: Seeking Asylum from Gang-Based Violence in Central America: A Resource Manual Summary: This resource manual is designed to provide information on gang-related asylum claims and specific information on the standards that apply under international law. Details: Washington, DC: CAIR - Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition, 2007. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/585a96a34.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Central America URL: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/585a96a34.pdf Shelf Number: 125117 Keywords: Asylum SeekersGang ViolenceGangs (Central America) |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Canada: A Global Detention Project Special Report Summary: The issue of immigration detention has been at the centre of a burgeoning public debate in Canada since the summer of 2010, when several hundred Sri Lankan asylum seekers arrived on Vancouver Island aboard a rusty Thai cargo ship called the MV Sun Sea. Several political figures used the event to stoke fears among the public that the country’s asylum system could be used by Tamil terrorists (Naumetz 2011). Authorities detained all 492 asylum seekers, including 63 women and 49 children, for several months at a cost of several million dollars (AI et al 2011). Although boat arrivals represented only a tiny fraction of the total number of asylum claims made in Canada in 2010, the incident spurred the Conservative Party government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to introduce that year controversial “anti-smuggling” legislation that would impose mandatory 12- month detention without access to independent review for certain categories of arriving non-citizens. The legislation, currently under consideration in Parliament as part of Bill C-31 (Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act), has been widely condemned by national and international rights groups, as well as opposition political parties. One opposition member of Parliament argued that if the anti-smuggling legislation passed it would “put a lot of emphasis on putting people behind bars before they get due process” (Naumetz 2011). The Sun Sea episode and the ensuing debate over the anti-smuggling law are only the latest manifestations of what some observers claim is Canada’s increasingly restrictive approach to immigration and asylum. This trend has been bolstered by a number of opinion polls in recent years that reveal growing negative attitudes among large swaths of the Canadian public. A government poll conducted in 2007 found that a majority of Canadians think that immigrants who are in the country illegally should be deported, even if they have family members living in the country (Aubry 2007). In a 2008 poll by the Globe and Mail, 61 percent of respondents said that Canada makes too many accommodations for minorities (Laghi 2008). And a September 2010 poll found that 50 percent of Canadians thought the passengers and crew of the Sun Sea should be deported back to their countries even if they have legitimate refugee claims and are not linked to terrorist activities (Vision Critical 2010). Many of Canada’s detention practices compare unfavourably to those of other key destination countries. Thus, for example, although there are widely recognized international human rights norms against using criminal facilities for the purposes of immigration detention, Canada remains one of only a handful of major industrialized countries to make widespread—and, in the case of Canada, increasing—use of prisons to confine non-citizens in administrative detention, where immigration detainees tend to be mixed with the regular prison population. As the Global Detention Project has found in other federal systems like Switzerland and Germany, Canada’s use of local prisons makes accessing up-to-date information about detention activities extraordinarily difficult, raising questions about the overall transparency of the Canadian detention estate. Also, in contrast to other major detaining countries, Canada has no institutionalized framework for independent monitoring of detention conditions and making reports on these conditions publicly available. Additionally, Canada’s lack of detention time limits places the country in the company of a dwindling number of states. On the other hand, Canada has made an effort to reform some detention practices (including detaining fewer numbers of minors in recent years); the detention capacity of its three dedicated facilities is quite small (currently less than 300 total places, though this number is set to expand); its average length of detention (approximately 25 days) places it in the median with respect to other key detaining countries; and the total number of detainees (less than 9,000 in FY 2010-2011) is comparable to that of other countries facing similar migratory pressures, though these numbers could surge in the near future. Additionally, despite the increasing securitization of immigration in public discourse and steadily decreasing numbers of accepted refugees, Canada has continued to settle more than ten thousand refugees yearly and in 2010 it admitted nearly 300,000 permanent residents. As Canada continues to debate its social attitudes and legal responses to immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, this GDP special report aims to focus attention on one aspect of its immigration policy—detention—which could be significantly impacted by this debate. This report offers a comprehensive review of Canada’s immigration detention regime and attempts to situate its policies and practices in an international context to enable observers, policy makers, and engaged individuals—both in and outside Canada—to better observe how the country stacks up to its peers and the potential ramifications of its political decision-making. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2012. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Canada_special_report_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Canada_special_report_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125123 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal Immigrants (Canada)Immigrant DetentionImmigrationRefugees |
Author: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Title: People Smugglers: Saviours or Criminals? A report on 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 - 2006 Summary: With the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle, Australian political debate has been reduced, more than ever before, to a series of catch phrases and oversimplifications. One such example is the slogan ‘stop the boats’. Such techniques fail to communicate the complexity of important issues and tend to create false generalisations in areas of debate that require a more balanced approach. The title of this report draws on a clear conflict in perceptions of people smugglers: not all people smugglers can be considered saviours, nor can they all be criminals. What is required is a balanced approach that appreciates the individual circumstances of each case. This report responds to exaggerations and generalisations that surround the debate on people smugglers, by providing guidance through research into 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 to 2006, and an analysis of the portrayal of people smugglers in Australian political rhetoric and the Australian media. This report contains seven parts. Part One introduces the reader to ‘people smuggling’, looking at legal and political definitions. Part Two considers some historical examples of ‘people smuggling’ under Australian law. Part Three provides an analysis of the causes of people smuggling, for both passengers and smugglers. Part Four explores the trends in people smuggling in the Australian context. Part Five contains the main research component of this report: an analysis of 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001-2006. Part Six compares the portrayal of people smugglers in the Australian media, and in political rhetoric to the results that were obtained in Part Five. Part Seven provides some conclusions on the issues surrounding people smugglers in Australia. Details: Sydney: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: www.alhr.asn.au Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 127709 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Smuggling (Australia)Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants |
Author: Phillips, Janet Title: Immigration Detention in Australia Summary: The policy of mandatory detention in Australia (that is the legal requirement to detain all non-citizens without a valid visa) was introduced by the Keating (Labor) Government in 1992 in response to a wave of Indochinese boat arrivals. Under this policy it is a requirement that ‘unlawful non-citizens’ (a national from another country without a valid visa) in Australia's migration zone are detained unless they have been afforded temporary lawful status through the grant of a bridging visa while they make arrangements to depart or apply for an alternative visa. Most are usually granted temporary lawful status in this manner, but if an unlawful non-citizen is considered to be a flight or security risk, or refuses to leave Australia voluntarily, they may be refused a bridging visa and detained in preparation for their removal. Currently, all asylum seekers who arrive without authority by boat are detained and usually transferred to Christmas Island initially while their reasons for being in Australia are identified. The main focus of Australia’s mandatory detention policy is to ensure that: • people who arrive without lawful authority do not enter the Australian community until they have satisfactorily completed health, character and security checks and been granted a visa, and • those who do not have authority to be in Australia are available for removal from the country. While Australia’s detention population is comprised of unauthorised boat arrivals (also referred to as irregular maritime arrivals), some visa overstayers and certain other unlawful non-citizens, it is the (often lengthy) mandatory detention of asylum seekers who have arrived unauthorised by boat that attracts the bulk of the attention in the public debate. Australia is not alone in detaining unauthorised arrivals in certain circumstances and many other countries around the world have onshore immigration detention or ‘reception’ centres. However, Australia is still the only country where immigration detention is mandatory for all unlawful non-citizens (including asylum seekers). This background note provides a brief overview of the historical and political context surrounding mandatory detention in Australia. It includes government policy responses and a statistical appendix with data drawn from available sources, including committee reports, ministerial press releases and figures supplied by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). Details: Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Background Note: Accessed March 28, 2013 at: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1311498/upload_binary/1311498.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22library/prspub/1311498%22 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1311498/upload_binary/1311498.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22library/prspub/1311498%22 Shelf Number: 128152 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal ImmigrationImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Australia) |
Author: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Title: Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection Summary: Since 2009, UNHCR has registered an increased number of asylum-seekers - both children and adults - from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala lodging claims in the Americas region. The United States recorded the largest number of new asylum applications out of all countries of asylum, having received 85% of the total of new applications brought by individuals from these three countries in 2012. The number of requests for asylum has likewise increased in countries other than the U.S. Combined, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize, documented a 432% increase in the number of asylum applications lodged by individuals from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. In the United States, the number of adults claiming fear of return to their countries of origin to government officials upon arriving to a port of entry or apprehension at the southern border increased sharply from 5,369 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 to 36,174 in FY 2013.25 Individuals from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and Mexico account for 70% of this increase. Beginning in October 2011, the U.S. Government recorded a dramatic rise - commonly referred to in the United States as "the surge" - in the number of unaccompanied and separated children arriving to the United States from these same three countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The total number of apprehensions of unaccompanied and separated children from these countries by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) jumped from 4,059 in FY 2011 to 10,443 in FY 2012 and then more than doubled again, to 21,537, in FY 2013. At the same time, a tremendous number of children from Mexico have been arriving to the U.S. over a longer period of time, and although the gap is narrowing as of FY 2013, the number of children from Mexico has far outpaced the number of children from any one of the three Central American countries. For example, in FY 2011, the number of Mexican children apprehended was 13,000, rising to 15,709 in FY 2012 and reaching 18,754 in FY 2013. Unlike the unaccompanied and separated children arriving to the U.S. from other countries, including El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, most of these children were promptly returned to Mexico after no more than a day or two in the custody of the U.S. authorities, making it even more difficult to obtain a full picture of who these children were and why they were coming to the U.S. While recognizing a significant contextual difference between the situation in Mexico and in the Northern Triangle of Central America, the common denominator is that all four countries are producing high numbers of unaccompanied and separated children seeking protection at the southern border of the United States. UNHCR's research was to ascertain the connection between the children's stated reasons, the findings of recent studies on the increasing violence and insecurity in the region, and international protection needs. UNHCR Washington conducted individual interviews with 404 unaccompanied or separated children - approximately 100 from each country - who arrived to the U.S. during or after October 2011 and, in the context of the current regional and national environments and the tremendous number of displaced children arriving to the U.S. from these four countries, analyzed the children's responses in order to answer two questions: Why are these children leaving their countries of origin? Are any of these children in need of international protection? Details: Washington, DC: UNHCR, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/UAC_UNHCR_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Central America URL: http://www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/UAC_UNHCR_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131896 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild ProtectionRunawaysUnaccompanied Children |
Author: Matthews, Adrian Title: "What's Going to Happen Tomorrow?" Unaccompanied Children Refused Asylum Summary: This report brings together a range of concerns that the Office of the Children's Commissioner has had for a number of years about how unaccompanied children navigate the asylum system they are channelled through when seeking permission (leave) to remain in the United Kingdom. The primary focus of the research for this report was on young people who had been unsuccessful in their asylum claims and who were now young adults (or on the cusp of becoming so).These young people are expected to leave the UK and return to their countries of origin - often war zones or countries whose Governments violate the rights of its citizens. Their voices and experiences feature throughout. The report is presented in two halves. Part 1 defines what is meant by unaccompanied children, provides an overview of their numbers in Europe and the UK, and looks at what happens to those whose claims are unsuccessful. It also considers care arrangements and the impact of how losing their asylum claim affected their status in the care system. The final chapter in part 1 reviews the legal assistance available to help children and young people put their cases before decision makers. At the end of part 1 we make a series of recommendations to Government, the Legal Aid Agency and others designed to allow children to participate fully and have their voice heard in legal proceedings that affect their lives and outcomes. Part 2 focuses on what young people told us about their journey from leaving their own country to final refusal of asylum, and the barriers they face in returning home. It highlights what would be good practice for agencies in dealing with unaccompanied children in the asylum system. The conclusion of this report considers how the Government might reconfigure current arrangements for those who do not meet the stringent criteria for asylum to provide a more realistic prospect of them leaving the UK at an appropriate time. The approach builds on discussions that have emerged in Europe suggesting that young migrants should be permitted to remain in the host state to complete a life project that prepares them for return to their country of origin or moving on elsewhere. At the end of part 2 we make a series of recommendations on how this may be achieved. Details: London: Office of the Children's Commissioner, 2014. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_794 Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_794 Shelf Number: 132295 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild ProtectionUndocumented ChildrenUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Reitano, Tuesday Title: Smuggled Futures: The dangerous path of the migrant from Africa to Europe Summary: In October 2013, Italy captured international headlines when a boat, carrying hundreds of asylum seekers sunk off its coast, killing over 360 people. The incident reflects the tremendous increase in African migration to Europe in recent years, in part due to the Arab Spring. While Africans have been migrating to Europe for decades, the instability across North Africa and the Sahel, coupled with the erosion of Libya's capacity to control its own borders, has resulted in an unprecedented surge of migrants to Italy in recent years. This surge shows no signs of subsiding. The decision to migrate may be fuelled by a multitude of motivations. Africa has the fastest population growth rate in the world, and although the continent is making momentous economic gains, it has broadly failed to translate these gains into sustainable livelihoods for its youth. Social and economic disparities, conflict, and crime in several countries throughout the continent, many Africans seek out new opportunities across the Mediterranean. It is estimated that in 80 percent of these cases, the journey is "facilitated" by migrant smugglers and criminal groups that who provides a range of services such as transportation, fraudulent identification, corruption of border officials and settlement services. Smugglers in transit countries coordinate with smugglers in source countries to act as guides, escorting individuals across the Sahara Desert, heading towards the coast. Although some smuggling networks are organized criminal structures, many are loosely linked chains of individuals, which make it challenging for authorities to dismantle. Three main smuggling routes characterize the irregular migration to Italy and beyond. The first is the Western route, for which the main source countries are Mali, the Gambia and Senegal. The Western route often connects in the Sahel with the Central Route, for which the source countries are Nigeria, Ghana and Niger. Finally, there is the Eastern route, which sources from Somalia, Eritrea and Darfur in South Sudan, and which tends to cut north through Sudan and Egypt and then along the northern coast of Africa. All of these routes converge in the Maghreb, and in recent years mostly in Libya, for the sea crossing to Italy. The cost of a trip to Italy averages several thousands of dollars, depending on the distance and difficulty of the route, the level of institutional control over the route and on the transit and destination countries' response to the migrants' arrival. It may take years to complete, as many remain in transit hubs along their route to work to afford the next leg of their trip. As a result, many migrants are "stuck" in towns along the way to the coast. In addition to exorbitant prices, migrants endure perilous conditions. As they make their way to the Mediterranean coast, migrants are often travel in overcrowded trucks, facing starvation and thirst before even reaching the coast. Once they reach the Mediterranean, people are packed into boats set for Europe, often embarking without enough fuel to make it to Italy. All too often, migrants drown. If migrants do arrive in Italy, their reception is less than favourable. Many are sent back to Africa. Given the exponential rise of irregular migrants and the humanitarian crises that accompany their failed attempts to reach European shores, EU states, including Italy, are under a growing pressure to restructure and align their immigration and asylum policies and practices. Current efforts to limit migration have only succeeded in shifting migration routes, forcing many seeking refuge to take more dangerous, riskier routes to Europe. Finding solutions to the problem of unmanaged migration cannot be limited to Italian border control but require regional cooperation in both Europe and Africa with governments addressing the root causes of mass migration. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 16, 2014 at: http://www.globalinitiative.net/download/global-initiative/Global%20Initiative%20-%20Migration%20from%20Africa%20to%20Europe%20-%20May%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Africa URL: http://www.globalinitiative.net/download/global-initiative/Global%20Initiative%20-%20Migration%20from%20Africa%20to%20Europe%20-%20May%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 132466 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsMigrationOrganized Crime |
Author: Triandafyllidou, Anna Title: Governing Irregular Migration and Asylum at the Borders of Europe: Between Efficiency and Protection Summary: This paper investigates recent developments in EU policy on controlling irregular migration and managing asylum at the EU's southern borders. The paper focuses on the (im) balancing act between efficiency and protection in EU policies. Beginning by expounding the notion of governance of irregular migration and asylum, we turn to critically discuss current European border control practices with a focus on the agencies and policies in place (including the Common European Asylum System). The paper concludes by showing how the EU's balancing act between irregular migration control and asylum management tips clearly towards the former even if it pays lip service to the latter as well as to the need of preventing the loss of human life. Details: Rome: Isituto Affari Internazionali, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Imagining Europe, no. 6: Accessed July 14, 2014 at: http://www.iai.it/pdf/ImaginingEurope/ImaginingEurope_06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.iai.it/pdf/ImaginingEurope/ImaginingEurope_06.pdf Shelf Number: 132667 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsIrregular Migration (Europe)Migration |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Containment Plan: Bulgaria's Pushbacks and Detention of Syrian and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants Summary: Since the Bulgarian government announced a plan in early November 2013 to contain and reduce the number of asylum seekers and other migrants irregularly crossing the border with Turkey, Bulgarian authorities have systematically prevented Syrians, Afghans, and other undocumented people from entering Bulgaria to lodge asylum claims. Refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants gave Human Rights Watch detailed accounts of 44 incidents involving at least 519 people in which Bulgarian border police apprehended and summarily returned them to Turkey without proper procedures and with no opportunity to lodge asylum claims, often using excessive force. Containment Plan also documents Bulgaria's failure to provide new arrivals with basic humanitarian assistance in 2013 such as adequate food and shelter, the brutal conditions of detention, inadequacies in Bulgaria's asylum procedures, shortfalls in its treatment of unaccompanied migrant children, and failure to support and integrate recognized refugees. With the help of the European Union, the humanitarian situation in Bulgaria has improved in 2014, but this coincides with the implementation of the pushback policy and a drop in arrivals of new asylum seekers. This suggests that those fortunate enough to have entered before the door was slammed will now be treated decently, but the rest will face a closed door. Containment Plan calls on the Bulgarian government to end summary expulsions at the Turkish border and to stop the excessive use of force by border guards. It also calls on the Bulgarian government to improve the treatment of detainees and detention conditions in police stations and migrant detention centers. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/bulgaria0414_ForUpload_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/bulgaria0414_ForUpload_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132731 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityHuman Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Bulgaria)Immigration |
Author: Restrepo, Dan Title: The Surge of Unaccompanied Children from Central America. Root Causes and Policy Solutions Summary: Over the past few years, and in particular over the past few months, the number of children and families leaving the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and arriving in neighboring countries and at our southern border has grown significantly. Already in fiscal year 2014, more than 57,000 children have arrived in the United States, double the number who made it to the U.S. southern border in FY 2013. The number of families arriving at the border, consisting mostly of mothers with infants and toddlers, has increased in similar proportions. In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, apprehended fewer than 10,000 families per year; yet, more than 55,000 families were apprehended in the first nine months of fiscal year 2014 alone. The majority of unaccompanied children and families who are arriving come from a region of Central America known as the "Northern Triangle," where high rates of violence and homicide have prevailed in recent years and economic opportunity is increasingly hard to come by. Officials believe a total of at least 90,000 children will arrive on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of this fiscal year in September. This brief aims to shed light on this complex situation by putting the numbers of people leaving the Northern Triangle into context; analyzing the broad host of drivers in Central America that have caused a significant uptick in children leaving their countries; and prescribing a series of foreign policy steps to facilitate management of this crisis and also to address the long-term root causes pushing these children to flee their home countries. This brief, however, does not delve into the needed domestic policy changes in the areas of immigration and refugee law. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2014 at: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CentAmerChildren3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CentAmerChildren3.pdf Shelf Number: 132808 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild Protection ImmigrationUndocumented Children Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Human Rights of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in Mexico Summary: 1. Pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 58 of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the IACHR") is presenting this report to assess the human rights situation of the international and domestic migrants in the context of human mobility in Mexico and to make recommendations to ensure that the migration and immigration policies, laws and practices in the United Mexican States (hereinafter "the Mexican State," "Mexico" or "the State") comport with the international human rights obligations it has undertaken to protect migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, victims of human trafficking and the internally displaced persons. 2. Throughout this report, various situations are described that affect the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, victims of human trafficking and the internally displaced in Mexico. This report's particular focus is on the serious violence, insecurity and discrimination that migrants in an irregular situation encounter when traveling through Mexico, which includes, inter alia, kidnapping, murder, disappearance, sexual violence, human trafficking and the smuggling of migrants. The report also looks at the issue of immigration detention and due process guarantees for migrants, asylum seekers and refugees held in immigration holding or detention centers. The report will also examine situations that affect the human rights of migrants who live in Mexico, such as their right to nondiscrimination in access to public services and their labor rights. The last part of the report examines the difficult circumstances under which those who defend the rights of migrants perform their mission. 3. Mexico is today a country of origin, transit and destination for migrants, and increasingly a country to which they return. Mexico is the necessary gateway of mixed migration flows, which include thousands of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking which have the United States as their main destination and, to a lesser extent, Canada. Of all the countries in the Americas, Mexico is doubtless the one that most clearly reflects the various faces of international migration in a country. Because of the enormous impact that international migration has had on Mexico, particularly as a country of origin for migrants, globally Mexico has been a principal driving force and advocate for the recognition and protection of the human rights of all migrants. 4. Furthermore, in recent years, public security in Mexico has been severely eroded by the intense violence generated by organized crime and the battle being waged against it. The spike in criminal violence in recent years in Mexico poses very complex challenges for the State, which is called upon to take every measure necessary to safeguard the security of persons within its jurisdiction, which obviously includes migrants. Security and protective measures have to be premised on respect for human rights to ensure that the actions taken by the State to fight crime do not end up becoming a source of still greater insecurity or even State abuse. Mexico does not have a citizen security and safety policy specifically geared to preventing, protecting and prosecuting crimes committed against migrants. Furthermore, the State's response to the surge in violence has be to shore up the military and police forces to help them fight crime, mainly drug trafficking. In many instances, the effect of these two factors has been to increase the violence and human rights violations committed by State agents, rather than to safeguard the security of those in Mexico. 5. While the severe insecurity that Mexico is now experiencing has had profound effects on the Mexican population, it has also revealed just how vulnerable migrants in Mexico are, particularly migrants in an irregular situation in transit through Mexico. In recent years, the Commission has been receiving news and reports of multiple cases in which migrants are abducted, driven into forced labor, murdered, disappeared and, in the case of women, frequently the victims of rape and sexual exploitation by organized crime. The Commission has also received information to the effect that in a considerable number of cases, State agents - members of the various police forces or personnel of the National Institute of Migration - have been directly involved in the commission of the crimes and human rights violations listed above. At the present time, the extreme vulnerability of migrants and other persons to the heightened risks of human mobility in Mexico is one of worse human tragedies in the region, involving large-scale and systematic human rights violations. 6. The insecurity of migrants in Mexico was why, during the hearing on the "Situation of the Human Rights of Migrants in Transit through Mexico" held on March 22, 2010, civil society organizations asked the IACHR to have its Rapporteurship on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families conduct an on-site visit to Mexico to examine the situation of migrants' human rights. For its part, the Mexican State's response was that the oversight mechanisms of the Inter-American and universal systems have an open, standing invitation to visit Mexico, so that the Rapporteurship's visit would be welcome. The onsite visit was hastened by a series of communications that civil society organizations sent to the IACHR Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrant Workers, and by thematic hearings held at Commission headquarters which revealed large-scale violations of migrants' human rights in recent years, the inefficacy of the public safety and security services, and the fact that no one was made to answer for the crimes committed against migrants. The Mexican State formally invited the Rapporteur to conduct an in loco visit, which he did from July 25 to August 2, 2011. Details: Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2013. 272p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2014 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/migrants/docs/pdf/Report-Migrants-Mexico-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/migrants/docs/pdf/Report-Migrants-Mexico-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 133293 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Rights Abuses(Mexico)Human SmugglingHuman TraffickingImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationOrganized Crime |
Author: Roth, Charles Title: Order in the Court: Commonsense Solutions to Improve Efficiency and Fairness in the Immigration Court Summary: The immigration court system is in crisis. Immigration judges with insufficient resources are forced to cope with an enormous and increasing backlog. Bona fide asylum seekers and other noncitizens with viable claims wait years to have their cases heard, and the hearings often are rushed and flawed. With the recently launched "rocket dockets" expediting cases of Central American children, many hearings will be delayed further and grow even more rushed and flawed. But unlike the humanitarian crisis driving these children to seek safety in the United States or the crisis of long overdue comprehensive immigration reform, the procedural crisis of the immigration courts can be readily addressed. With basic procedural reforms, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration courts, can increase the system's efficiency and provide a higher quality of adjudication at little or no additional cost to taxpayers. These reforms would reduce unnecessary hearing continuances and help administrative court judges to make more deliberate and informed rulings, thereby avoiding costly federal appeals. These recommendations draw on exhaustive research of the immigration court and other court systems and on the experience of attorneys at Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), who practice extensively in the immigration courts. The findings complement those of other recent reports on immigration adjudications by focusing on narrow improvements to the immigration court system that the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can implement without substantial additional resources. Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133915 Keywords: Asylum SeekersCourt ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Courts (U.S.)Immigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: Morse, Amyas Title: Reforming the UK Border and Immigration System: report Summary: The Home Office (the Department) has been directly responsible for managing the UK's immigration and border operations since April 2013. The Department aims to ensure the flow of people and goods through the system is efficient, while working towards its target to reduce net migration. In 2013-14, nearly 112 million people arrived in the UK. Before 2013, the former UK Border Agency (the Agency) managed the Department's immigration and asylum work. The Home Secretary separated border operations from the Agency in March 2012, setting up Border Force as a directorate within the Department. In March 2013, the Home Secretary abolished the remaining Agency and brought its work into the Department under two new directorates: UK Visas and Immigration and Immigration Enforcement. The Home Secretary did this because of the Agency's troubled history, including its large size and conflicting cultures; inadequate IT systems; the problematic policy and legal framework it worked in; and the resulting lack of transparency and accountability. The three directorates now working within the Department each have a different focus. UK Visas and Immigration decides on applications to visit and stay in the UK with a strong customer focus. Immigration Enforcement's remit is to enforce the law for those who break immigration rules. Border Force secures the UK border, through immigration and customs controls. The Department's new corporate centre, comprising finance, human resources, IT and performance reporting, supports the directorates. We reported progress in cutting costs and improving performance in the Agency and Border Force in July 2012. We also reported progress in Border Force in September 2013. After our 2012 report, the Committee of Public Accounts (the Committee) wrote to the Department expressing concerns, including: delays to the former Agency's transformation programme; the risk that a flagship IT programme would not deliver intended benefits; significant backlogs; poor workforce planning and skills strategy; inadequate demand modelling; and an insufficient focus on improvingperformance management. This report focuses on the progress the two new directorates have made in addressing the Committee's concerns and the Home Secretary's reasons for abolishing the Agency. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2014. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2015 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Reforming-the-UK-border-and-immigration-system.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Reforming-the-UK-border-and-immigration-system.pdf Shelf Number: 134415 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrationImmigration (U.K.) |
Author: Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat Title: Migrant Smuggling in the Horn of Africa & Yemen: The political economy and protection risks Summary: This publication, the first in a new series of studies by the RMMS on specific mixed migration issues, focuses on migrant smuggling in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. Globally, migration and mobility are important survival and poverty reduction strategies for a large and growing number of people. This is no different in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, a poor, environmentally fragile and conflict-prone region that has generated a heavy flow of mixed migration in recent years. In 'mixed migration', different groups of migrants may travel with or alongside each other, using the same routes and means of transport but with different motivations and objectives. The term is relatively new and encompasses groups of refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, Internally Displaced People, stateless persons on the move and trafficked persons. The 'status' (regular, irregular) of people on the move often changes and adapts over the course of a journey, leading to increased difficulties in classification. In this report the term migrant is often used to include all those in the mixed migration flows, even if they include refugees and asylum seekers. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), such movements often involve irregular or clandestine travel, "exposing people to exploitation and abuse by smugglers and traffickers or placing their lives at risk. Most migrants, when they travel irregularly, are in vulnerable situations". The majority in the Horn of Africa and Yemen move with the assistance or under the control of migrant smugglers. Although the results of migration may contribute to social and economic development, such forms of irregular migration represent huge challenges for governments and international organisations with regard to promoting the rights of migrants, addressing the issue of irregular migration and border management, ensuring national security and correct immigration procedures, and countering the activities of criminal networks. Migrant smuggling is a disturbing phenomenon due to the power dynamics and attendant protection risks between migrant and smuggler as well as between migrant and officials in the states through which migrants travel. Unlike human trafficking, the migrant starts his or her journey on a consensual basis, but this often soon changes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), migrant smuggling can be a 'deadly' business. Between 2006 and 2012, when regular monitoring of new arrivals first began, a conservative estimate indicates that almost half a million migrants (447,000) have set off to Yemen in boats from Djibouti or the Somali port city of Bossaso, almost all of them Somalis and Ethiopians. According to Human Rights Watch, and as this study will illustrate, asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants travelling to Yemen from the Horn of Africa suffer severe human rights abuses, violence or loss of life. They also claim that "despite the numbers and despite the human rights abuses, this has been largely ignored by the outside world". Many Eritrean migrants and asylum seekers take the western route through Sudan into Libya, while a large cohort of other Ethiopians and Somalis stream south through Kenya and towards South Africa. Almost all of this movement is facilitated by human smugglers. Details: Nairobi: RMMS, 2013. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 9, 2015 at: http://regionalmms.org/fileadmin/content/monthly%20summaries/series_booklet_Leo.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://regionalmms.org/fileadmin/content/monthly%20summaries/series_booklet_Leo.pdf Shelf Number: 134573 Keywords: Asylum SeekersCriminal NetworksHuman Smuggling (Africa)Human TraffickingMigrantsMigrationOrganized CrimeRefugees |
Author: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Title: Too Much Pain: Female Genital Mutilation and Asylum in the European Union Summary: Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. This harmful traditional practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa; in some countries in Asia and the Middle East; and among migrant and refugee communities from these areas in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America. FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the right to life when the procedure results in death. The practice of FGM is also considered as a criminal act in all EU Member States. This statistical overview has been prepared on the occasion of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) study on FGM in the European Union and Croatia. Little is known about FGM in the European Union in general, and this statement holds true about FGM and asylum more specifically. In light of the recognized need for country- and community-tailored responses, this study provides some of the statistical evidence needed to advance the discussion on the necessary policies and tools to address the specific vulnerabilities of female asylum-seekers with FGM in the asylum system on the one hand, and of refugee girls and women living with FGM and integrating in EU Member States on the other hand. In addition, in the absence of statistical data on asylum claims relating to this harmful traditional practice, this document also provides estimates that draw attention to the specific needs for international protection girls (and their parents) as well as women may raise in relation to FGM. Details: Geneva, SWIT: UNHCR, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/512c72ec2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/512c72ec2.pdf Shelf Number: 134617 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild Abuse and NeglectChild ProtectionFemale CuttingFemale Genital Mutilation Gender-Related ViolenceHuman Rights AbusesViolence Against Women |
Author: Girma, Marchu Title: I Am Human: Refugee Women's Experiences of Detention in the UK Summary: I Am Human, looks closely at the experiences of women detained in Yarl's Wood. It reveals that women are routinely watched and searched by male staff in the detention centre, despite Home Office denials. It is to be launched on 14 January at a conference in London with Stella Creasy MP, Richard Fuller MP, and over 100 refugee women and supporters. This report looks at the experiences of 38 women who came to the UK to seek asylum and were detained in Yarl's Wood detention centre between June 2012 and October 2014. It focuses particularly on what these women told us about how they were treated during their arrests, detention and attempted removals. We undertook this research in order to gain more insight into the way that the Home Office and their contractors treat women who come to this country seeking protection. 6396 women came to this country to claim asylum in their own right in 2013, out of 23,584 asylum applicants overall. During 2013, the Home Office detained 2038 women who had come to the UK to seek asylum. 43% were held for more than a month. (Many of those held in immigration detention are not asylum seekers, but we are only looking in our research at the experiences of those who come to the UK seeking asylum.) Details: London: Women for Refugee Women, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: http://refugeewomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WRW_IamHuman_report-for-web.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://refugeewomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WRW_IamHuman_report-for-web.pdf Shelf Number: 134681 Keywords: Asylum SeekersFemale InmatesImmigrant DetentionRefugees |
Author: De Bruycker, Philippe Title: Alternative to Immigration and Asylum Detention in the EU: Time for Implementation Summary: This report is an integral part of the project MADE REAL - "Making Alternatives to Detention in Europe a Reality by Exchanges, Advocacy and Learning" - which was co-financed by the European Commission and implemented by the Odysseus Academic Network together with 13 national partners. It constitutes a significant pooling of knowledge on the law and practice of detention decision-making and the operationalization of alternatives to detention in 6 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Lithuania, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In addition, it includes legal research on the scope of Member States' obligations to implement alternatives to immigration detention under international, European (i.e. Council of Europe) and EU law. The critical analysis of the legal frameworks as well as of the significant mass of information on national law and practice has led to the identification of underlying principles and good practices for fair decision-making on, and effective implementation of, alternatives to detention. However, the research also reveals defective practices, which contravene the legal obligations of Member States and are ineffective in achieving Member States' objectives. Details: Brussels, Belgium: Odysseus Network, 2015. 157p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://odysseus-network.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FINAL-REPORT-Alternatives-to-detention-in-the-EU.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://odysseus-network.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FINAL-REPORT-Alternatives-to-detention-in-the-EU.pdf Shelf Number: 134979 Keywords: Asylum DetentionAsylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Europe) |
Author: Abu-Hayyeh, Reem Title: Unwanted, Unnoticed: An audit of 160 Asylum and Immigration-related Deaths in Europe Summary: The deaths over the last five years, in the detention and reception centres, the streets and the squats of Europe, are a product of the rightlessness and the lack of human dignity European governments accord to migrants and asylum seekers. They are also the tip of the iceberg; the true figures are unknown, as in many countries migrants' deaths are not recorded or investigated. But of the deaths whose circumstances are known, the largest number, sixty, were suicides; 26 were caused by untreated illness or illness exacerbated by detention, while sixteen were caused by destitution. Details: London: Institute of Race Relations, 2015. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing No. 10: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ERP-Briefing-Paper-No-10-FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ERP-Briefing-Paper-No-10-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135123 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeaths in CustodyImmigrant Detention |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States: The Tension between Protection and Prevention Summary: Between 2011 and 2014, the number of Central American children and "family units" - parents traveling with minor children - who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border increased rapidly, reaching a peak of 137,000 in fiscal year 2014. While many of these migrants have valid claims for asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief, others are chiefly driven by economic concerns and a desire to reconnect with family members. This mixed flow has challenged the capacity of the United States to carry out its core immigration functions of preventing the admission of unauthorized immigrants while also providing protection to those who cannot be safely returned to their home countries. Media coverage of Central American arrivals in 2014 portrayed their entry as a failure of border security, but the actual policy failures were in the processing and adjudication of claims for relief from migrants presenting in a mixed migration flow of humanitarian and irregular migrants. Inadequate judicial and legal resources left some migrants waiting two years or more for a hearing before an immigration judge. Such delays amounted to a de facto policy of open admission for children and families. Furthermore, the Obama administration's responses to the rising Central American flows, including greater law enforcement resources at the border, expanded detention facilities, and the establishment of dedication child and family immigration court dockets, focused exclusively on immediate needs rather than longer-term solutions and they failed either to adequately protect vulnerable immigrants or to prevent future unauthorized flows. This report explains the shifting patterns of Central American migration between 2011 and 2014, analyzes the root of the policy challenges posed by these flows, and outlines U.S. and regional policy responses to address the crisis. It also makes recommendations on policies that advance both critical protection and enforcement goals in situations of complex, mixed flows, and provides additional policies that the United States, Mexico, and the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras might adopt to better manage child and family migration pressures today and in the future. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://migrationpolicy.org/research/unaccompanied-child-migration-united-states-tension-between-protection-and-prevention Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://migrationpolicy.org/research/unaccompanied-child-migration-united-states-tension-between-protection-and-prevention Shelf Number: 135193 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityChild ProtectionHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationImmigrationUnaccompanied Children (U.S.) |
Author: Hoatson, Lesley Title: Evaluating the impact of International Detention Coalition. Work towards ending and limiting unnecessary immigration detention and developing alternatives Summary: The IDC commissioned a comprehensive External Evaluation to consolidate key insights. Conducted by Lesley Hoatson, an accredited evaluator of NGO, UN and government programs, the evaluation looks at the impact of the IDC's work. It provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of advocacy outcomes as well as recommendations to strengthen the work of the IDC, following interviews with a wide range of members, funders, governments and stakeholders. Significantly the evaluation finds: - A broad range of stakeholders hold overwhelming support, respect and trust for the IDC - The IDC is seen as leading a community of practice that has moral authority and uses this political capital to move detention reform forward - The IDC has been a major contributor to the shift in the international debate towards alternatives to detention by offering leadership, technical expertise, groundbreaking research, capacity building and training - 90% of the 77 countries the IDC is working in now have NGOs advocating for alternatives to immigration detention, representing a 5 fold increase since 2009 - From this work has come changes to law, policy and practice and a significant number of people have either been released from detention Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2014. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135220 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationAsylum SeekersIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: Papademetriou, Demetrios G. Title: Beyond Asylum: Rethinking Protection Policies to Meet Sharply Escalating Needs Summary: With more than half of all registered refugees displaced for at least five years and forced displacement at levels unseen since World War II, there is growing recognition that the global protection system is failing both those it was designed to protect and the communities that offer refuge. Responsibility for providing protection is falling extremely unevenly on countries and communities closest to the regions of crisis. This reality undermines overall public support for the refugee system in countries of first asylum. But publics in wealthy countries in Europe and elsewhere that seemingly have "gold-standard" protection systems are also experiencing increasing "protection fatigue." A new report from the Migration Policy Institute's Transatlantic Council on Migration discusses the growing strains on the protection system before proposing a series of goals that national governments and international actors should pursue to facilitate the development of an innovative, comprehensive protection system that better meets the needs of today's refugees and host communities alike. In Beyond Asylum: Rethinking Protection Policies to Meet Sharply Escalating Needs, Transatlantic Council Convenor and MPI President Emeritus Demetrios G. Papademetriou urges policymakers to respond proactively to instability and the inevitable displacement before it becomes unmanageable-as seen with the rising flows crossing the Mediterranean in search of refuge in Europe, in Southeast Asia's Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea, and elsewhere. Investment in sustainable livelihoods and better living conditions for both refugees and host communities in the crisis region; wider legal channels for protection and alternative ways for refugees to submit claims (such as external processing); and the development of fairer, more effective asylum adjudication, reception and return policies are all necessary elements, Papademetriou suggests. "The scale of current protection demands has made the need for policy innovations clear, even to those outside the humanitarian community, and has created an ideal opportunity to experiment," Papademetriou writes. Among the recommendations, the report urges policymakers to move beyond the traditional care-and-maintenance model of protection by finding ways to empower refugees to gain access to secure living situations and the means to support themselves as quickly as possible. Policymakers "need to consider refugees not just as victims in need of shelter, but social and economic actors with a need for individual fulfillment and opportunities, and the potential to contribute to their host communities through their skills, international networks, access to unique streams of aid and resources, and purchase of local goods and services," Papademetriou writes. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/TCM-Protection-CouncilStatement.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/TCM-Protection-CouncilStatement.pdf Shelf Number: 135898 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrantsMigration PolicyRefugeesUndocumented Citizens |
Author: Naik, Asmita Title: Detained Youth: The fate of young migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in Libya today Summary: This study paints a damning picture of the immigration detention of young migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in Libya today. Based on in-depth interviews with 45 detainees (85 per cent of whom were unaccompanied children or young people), the study reveals a consistent pattern of arbitrary detention; of people held for months at a time without any form of due process in squalid, cramped conditions. Detention occurs in facilities across the country, many of which are reported to be under the control of the governing authorities or militia forces. Serious violations, including allegations of violence and brutality, are said to be commonplace, including in some of Libya's most well-known detention centres. As the first study of its kind to assess the particular plight of detained refugee, asylum-seeking and migrant children and youth in Libya's immigration detention centres, it provides timely information about the current situation in the country. The right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention is among the most fundamental of rights belonging to all human beings, and its consistent denial, especially to vulnerable minors and young people, is a matter of the gravest concern. The absence of a humane and orderly framework for handling migration flows in Libya is no doubt a contributing factor to the ever increasing numbers of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees willing to risk their lives in the Mediterranean to reach the safety of Europe. Details: s.l.: Mixed Migration Hub, 2015. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2015 at: http://www.migration4development.org/sites/default/files/mhub_2015_detained-youth.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Libya URL: http://www.migration4development.org/sites/default/files/mhub_2015_detained-youth.pdf Shelf Number: 136000 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrant YouthRefugeesUnaccompanied Children |
Author: Kuschminder, Katie Title: Irregular Migration Routes to Europe and Factors Influencing Migrants' Destination Choices Summary: Irregular migration to Europe has become a central issue for the 28 member states of the European Union (EU). The number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean with the intention to irregularly cross a European border reached a record high in 2014, when 267,344 people were detected at the EU borders. This is more than double the number of people who irregularly crossed a European border from the Mediterranean in 2013 (Frontex, 2015). Until the mid-2000s, Morocco was the main source country of irregular migrants entering Europe, but the majority of migrants who have entered Europe irregularly in recent years are from conflict-affected countries such as Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan (Duvell, 2011; Frontex, 2015). The same shift can be seen in the Dutch context: research from the Netherlands has indicated a decrease in the number of irregular Moroccans in the Netherlands over the past decade (Engbersen, Snel & van Meeteren, 2013). This is an example of the fact that the patterns of migration to Europe are continually changing (Collyer & De Haas, 2012). As will be shown in this comprehensive review of the literature of irregular migration to Europe, the routes of entry to the EU constantly adjust according to circumstances in the countries of origin, transit and destination. The EU has reacted to increased irregular migration flows through increased border securitisation and the building of 'Fortress Europe' (De Haas & Czaika, 2013). As has been continually stated by De Haas (2014), however, "increased border controls do not stop migration". The record number of irregular crossings into Europe in 2014 has illustrated this well. Irregular entry poses many challenges for the nation state by both challenging state sovereignty and requiring resources to address the movements. Border States of the EU, such as Greece and Italy, have in recent years received the largest numbers of irregular migrants. In December 2011, the European Court of Justice ruled that migrants could not be returned to Greece under the Dublin II regulation due to the over burdening of the asylum system and poor conditions for asylum seekers in Greece. Italy has placed 'burden-sharing' and migration in general as a high priority on the EU agenda given the disproportionate number of irregular migrants the country receives and the lack of resources the country possesses to address them. Details: Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, 2015. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 24, 2015 at: http://www.emnbelgium.be/sites/default/files/publications/irregular_migration_routes_maastricht_graduate_school_of_governance_june_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.emnbelgium.be/sites/default/files/publications/irregular_migration_routes_maastricht_graduate_school_of_governance_june_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136147 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Noferi, Mark Title: A Humane Approach Can Work: The Effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention for Asylum Seekers Summary: For decades, the U.S. refugee protection system has been a symbol of the nation's generosity and openness to the world's persecuted. Yet since Congress' enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), asylum seekers arriving at the United States-Mexico border have been subject to mandatory detention and summary deportation processes, resulting in the deportation of countless persons in need of protection. Empirical research has found, however, that asylum seekers fleeing persecution arrive predisposed to comply with legal processes and trust the system to provide them a fair hearing, even if they might lose. If the U.S. government treats asylum seekers fairly and humanely-i.e., releases them following their apprehension and provides legal assistance before their hearing-evidence suggests that they will be likely to appear for proceedings. Put simply, a humane approach can work. This report reviews emerging research on the release of asylum seekers from detention, including the impact of various forms of alternatives to detention (ATD), summarizes the primary harms caused by immigration detention, and argues that releasing asylum seekers (on alternatives as needed) and affording legal assistance can protect the rights of asylum seekers and facilitate compliance with proceedings and legitimate removals, at far less human and financial cost than detention. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council; New York: Center for Migration Studies, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Humane-Approach-Can-Work.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Humane-Approach-Can-Work.pdf Shelf Number: 136236 Keywords: Alternatives to DetentionAsylum SeekersDeportationImmigrants |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: The Detention of Asylum Seekers in the Mediterranean Region Summary: With the recent tragic surge in the number of deaths at sea of asylum seekers and other migrants attempting to reach Europe, enormous public attention is being focused on the treatment of these people across the Mediterranean. An important migration policy employed throughout the region is detention, including widespread deprivation of liberty of asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups. This Global Detention Project background paper is intended to highlight some of the vulnerabilities that people seeking international protection face when they are taken into custody in Mediterranean countries and to underscore the way that European Union-driven policies have impacted the migratory phenomenon in the region. The report focuses on eight key countries in Europe and North Africa. While there are clear differences in treatment from one side of the Mediterranean to the next, looked at collectively, the protection environment across all the countries in the region is bleak. Not surprisingly, the conditions of detention asylum seekers face in North African countries are often horrific and inhumane. However, in Europe, there are also serious shortcomings. In fact, as this backgrounder reports, reception and detention conditions in three of Europe's main asylum receiving countries (Greece, Italy, and Malta) are so inadequate that many of their EU counterparts have been forced to halt returns to these countries under the Dublin III Regulation Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Backgrounder : Accessed August 8, 2015 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/DIVERSE/GDP_Med_report_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/DIVERSE/GDP_Med_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 136361 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMigrants |
Author: Weber, Leanne Title: Deciding to Detain: How Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers are Made at Ports of Entry Summary: This research report is based on interviews conducted with immigration officers stationed at international air, sea and train ports in the UK in the late 1990s. It contains extensive first person quotes from immigration officers describing the factors that influence their discretionary decisions to detain asylum seekers on arrival. Both legal and extra-legal factors were found to influence these decisions. Moreover, statements made by immigration officials called into question claims made by departmental management at the time that detention on arrival was being used only as a last resort. Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2014. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Shelf Number: 136701 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlDecision-MakingDiscretionImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Human Rights First Title: U.S. Detention of Families Seeking Asylum: A One-Year Update Summary: On June 20, 2014-ironically, on World Refugee Day-the Obama administration announced its strategy for addressing the increase in families and children seeking protection at the U.S. southern border. Part of this plan: detain and quickly deport families from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in an attempt to deter more from coming. At the time, U.S. immigration authorities had fewer than 100 beds for detaining families with children, all in one facility in Pennsylvania. They quickly increased that number-first by using a makeshift facility in Artesia, New Mexico, then by converting a facility in Karnes County, Texas, and more recently, by opening a large facility in Dilley, Texas to hold up to 2,400 children and their mothers. All told, the administration's plans would increase family detention by 3,800 percent to 3,700 detention beds for children and their parents. One year later, as World Refugee Day 2015 approaches, the Obama Administration continues to send many mothers and children who fled persecution and violence in Central America into U.S. immigration detention. About five thousand children and mothers have been held in U.S. immigration detention since June 2014. Some have been held for nearly a year, and as of April 25, 2015, nearly one-third has spent more than two months in U.S. detention facilities. More than half of the children held in fiscal year 2014 were very young, from newborns to 6-year-olds. The mothers and children held at these facilities face an array of obstacles, from a lack of access to counsel to the day-to-day trauma of detention. Medical and mental health experts report that detention damages the mental health of children, causing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal behavior. Medical professionals who have interviewed these mothers confirm that detention is harming their mental health, and several have reportedly attempted suicide. Many of the women are survivors of violence who are already suffering from the effects of prior traumas. At the 2,400-bed Dilley facility, mothers have reported that their and their children's sleep is disrupted each night as officers come into their rooms each hour, shining flashlights and pulling blankets off faces to "count" each person. Beyond the human cost, immigration detention is extremely expensive. In addition to the over $2 billion Congress spends each year on immigration detention (even mandating that the agency maintain 34,000 beds regardless of need), the administration requested, and in March Congress appropriated, an additional $345.3 million to fund a sharp increase in the number of mothers and children held in detention. Family detention costs, on average, $1,029 per day for a family of three. By contrast, community-based supervision or other alternatives to detention cost much less, from 17 cents to $17 dollars a day in some cases. U.S. detention policies and practices relating to asylum seekers violate the nation's obligations under human rights and refugee protection conventions. While the administration has characterized these women and children as "illegal" border crossers, seeking asylum is not an "illegal" act. In fact, the United States has a legal obligation to protect those seeking asylum, one rooted in conventions the United States helped draft in the wake of World War II. Many of these mothers and children are indeed refugees entitled to protection under our laws and treaty commitments. Earlier this year, 87.9 percent passed initial credible fear screening interviews, indicating that they have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum. When represented by quality pro bono counsel, many are able to prove their eligibility for asylum or other relief. For instance, about 77 percent of those represented by pro bono attorneys through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have been determined by U.S. immigration judges to be "refugees" entitled to asylum or other protection. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf Shelf Number: 136788 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "As Though We Are Not Human Beings": Police Brutality against Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Macedonia Summary: Men, women, and children - many from Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan - have experienced police violence and inhumane, degrading treatment and arbitrary detention in Macedonia, a key transit country along the Western Balkans migration route into the European Union. Many migrants and asylum seekers have already made an arduous journey, boarding overcrowded vessels to cross the Aegean Sea or making the land border crossings from Turkey to Greece planning to travel onwards to northern EU countries. They typically reached Macedonia after walking for several days, often without enough food, water, or proper clothing. Many apprehended by the police in Macedonia were beaten with police batons, punched, kicked, and verbally insulted. They were either summarily returned to Greece amid more abuse or taken straight to detention where they were held in appalling conditions. As Though We Are Not Human Beings, based on interviews with migrants and asylum seekers, experts, and government officials, documents physical and verbal abuse at the hands of Macedonian officials at the border with Greece and ill-treatment by police guards in the Gazi Baba detention center, including physical and verbal abuse as well as gender-based violence. In addition to ill-treatment in Gazi Baba, the report finds that migrants and asylum seekers have been arbitrarily detained in Macedonia in inhumane and degrading conditions, including overcrowding; insufficient access to food and drinking water; and unhygienic and unsanitary conditions. The report calls on Macedonian authorities to stop police abuse, promptly investigate allegations of ill-treatment, and cease arbitrarily detaining migrants and asylum seekers in degrading conditions. It also calls on the European Union to press Macedonia to improve its treatment of migrants and asylum seekers and to assist with Macedonian authorities to respect the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers present in the country. Details: New York: HRW, 2015. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/macedonia0915_4up.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Macedonia URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/macedonia0915_4up.pdf Shelf Number: 136881 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsPolice BrutalityPolice MisconductPolice Use of Force |
Author: Bin Han, Chelsea Title: Smuggled migrant or migrant smuggler: erosion of sea-borne asylum seekers' access to refugee protection in Canada Summary: This paper argues that the criminalisation of smuggling has undermined refugee protection for sea-borne asylum seekers. It is pivotal to consider the categorical differentiation of sea-borne asylum seekers in the Canadian refugee system because, although there have been only seven notable cases of boat arrivals in Canada from 1986 to the present, they have triggered significant reforms in Canadian refugee law. At the intersection of international criminal law, Canadian criminal law and Canadian refugee law, the criminalisation of smuggling has resulted in an inability of sea-borne asylum seekers to access refugee status because they have assisted other presumptive refugees during a voyage. This paper argues that the broad grounds of 'ineligibility' for refugee status in Canadian refugee law and the broad concept of smuggling in Canadian criminal law erode access to refugee protection for sea-borne asylum seekers allegedly implicated in the smuggling of refugees. Moreover, interpretive contestation of sea-borne asylum seekers' complicity in smuggling in Canadian refugee law and the flawed assumption of the static identity of smugglers in international criminal law further undermine sea-borne asylum seekers' access to refugee protection in Canada. Sea-borne asylum seekers who do not align with the assumption of passivity of smuggled migrants are discursively framed as smugglers. International refugee law may fail to provide protection for bona fide refugees because of the artificial distinction between the smuggler and the migrant in international and national criminal frameworks on smuggling. Details: Oxford, UK: Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: RSC Working Paper Series, 106: Accessed October 2, 2015 at: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp106-smuggled-migrant-or-migrant-smuggler.pdf/ Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp106-smuggled-migrant-or-migrant-smuggler.pdf/ Shelf Number: 136940 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman SmugglingMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Filges, Trine Title: The Impact of Detention on the Health of Asylum Seekers: A Systematic Review Summary: BACKGROUND The last decades of the twentieth century were accompanied by an upsurge in the number of persons fleeing persecution and regional wars. Western countries have applied increasingly stringent measures to discourage those seeking asylum from entering their country. The most controversial of the measures to discourage people from seeking asylum is the decision by some Western countries to confine asylum seekers in detention facilities. In most countries, the detention of asylum seekers is an administrative procedure that is undertaken to verify the identity of individuals, process asylum claims, and/or ensure that a deportation order is carried out. A number of clinicians have expressed concern that detention increases mental health difficulties in asylum seekers, who is already a highly traumatized population, and have called for an end to such practices. This is clearly in conflict with government policies aimed at reducing the numbers of asylum seekers. OBJECTIVES - The main objective of this review is to assess evidence about the effects of detention on the mental and physical health and social functioning of asylum seekers. SEARCH STRATEGY - Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, internet search engines and hand searching of core journals. Searches were carried out to November 2013. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature. The searches were international in scope. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA - All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilized qualitative approaches were not included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS - The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 11,376 hits. A total of nine studies, consisting of 12 papers, met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The final selection comprised nine studies from four different countries. Two studies reported on the same sample of asylum seekers in Australia at different time points after release. The nine studies thus analysed eight different asylum populations. Six studies (all analysing asylum seekers in Australia) could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have too high risk of bias on the confounding item. Three studies were therefore included in the data synthesis. Meta-analysis was used to examine the effects of detention on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety while the asylum seekers were still detained. Random effects models were used to pool data across the studies using the standardised mean difference. Pooled estimates were weighted using inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis after release as only one study providing data after release was included in the data synthesis. RESULTS - Two studies provided data while the asylum seekers were still detained, and one study provided data less than a year after release. The total number of participants in these three studies was 359. We performed analyses separately for these time points. All outcomes were measured such that a negative effect size favours the detained asylum seekers, i.e. when an effect size is negative the detained asylum seekers are better off than comparison groups of non-detained asylum seekers. The three studies used in the data synthesis were all non randomised studies and only one of them was judged to be of some concern on the confounding item of the risk of bias tool. Primary study effect sizes for PTSD, depression and anxiety while the asylum seekers were still detained lies in the range 0.35 to 0.99, all favouring the non-detained asylum group. The weighted average effect sizes for PTSD and anxiety are of a magnitude which may be characterised as being of clinical importance: 0.45 [95% CI 0.19, 0.71] and 0.42 [95% CI 0.18, 0.66]. The weighted average effect size for depression is of an even higher magnitude: 0.68 [95% CI 0.10, 1.26]. All effects favour the non-detained; i.e. there is an adverse effect of detention on mental health. The magnitude of the pooled estimates should however be interpreted with caution as they are based on two studies, and for depression there is some inconsistency in the magnitude of effect sizes between the two studies. One study reported outcomes (PTSD, depression and anxiety) after release and the magnitude of the effect sizes were all of clinical importance: 0.59 [95% CI 0.02, 1.17], 0.60 [95% CI 0.02, 1.17] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.17, 1.34]; all favouring the non-detained asylum seekers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS - There is some evidence to suggest an independent adverse effect of detention on the mental health of asylum seekers. All studies used in the data synthesis reported adverse effects on the detained asylum seekers' mental health, measured as PTSD, depression and anxiety. The magnitude of the effect sizes lay in a clinical important range despite the fact that the comparison groups used in the primary studies faced a range of similar post-migration adversities and had a more or less similar experience of prior traumatic events as the detained asylum seekers. Thus, the current evidence suggests an independent deterioration of the mental health due to detention of a group of people who are already highly traumatised. Adverse effects on the mental health were found not only while the asylum seekers were detained, but also after release suggesting that the adverse mental health effect of detention may be prolonged, extending well beyond the point of release into the community. The conclusions should however be interpreted with caution as they are based on only three studies. More research is needed in order to fully investigate the effect of detention on mental health. While additional research is needed, the review does, however, offer support to the view that the detention of already traumatised asylum seekers may have adverse effects on their mental health. Details: Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration, 2015. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Campbell Systematic Review, 11(13): Accessed October 30, 2015 at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/253/ Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/253/ Shelf Number: 137175 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionMental Health Services |
Author: Amnesty International Title: By Hook or By Crook: Australia's Abuse of Asylum-Seekers at Sea Summary: Operation Sovereign Borders is Australia's military-led border control operation. In operations called turn-backs, Australian officials intercept boats of asylum-seekers and prevent them from landing in Australia. This report examines the legality and human rights impact of Operation Sovereign Border turn-backs, based on testimonies from people who had been on board boats that Australian officials intercepted between 2013 and 2015. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 6, 2015 at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA12/2576/2015/en/ Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA12/2576/2015/en/ Shelf Number: 137204 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityHuman Rights Abuses |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Fundamental rights implications of the obligation to provide fingerprints for Eurodac Summary: Eurodac is a large database of fingerprints the European Union (EU) set up for the smooth running of the Dublin system, a mechanism established to determine the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application. The paper intends to assist EU Member States and EU institutions and agencies in avoiding fundamental rights violations when promoting compliance with the duty to provide fingerprints, by examining more closely the impact of refusing to give fingerprints on the principle of non-refoulement, the right to liberty and security, and the protection from disproportionate use of force. It also contains a checklist to guide authorities responsible for implementing the duty to take fingerprints. This focus paper is the first publication of FRA's project on biometric data in large information technologies systems in the field of borders, immigration and asylum included in its Annual Work Programmes 2014-2016. It is a living document that FRA will review in case of new research findings or if the currently sparse national case law develops further. Although focused on fingerprints, the considerations included in this focus paper also apply to other biometric identifiers. Details: Vienna: FRA, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2015 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-fingerprinting-focus-paper_en.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-fingerprinting-focus-paper_en.pdf Shelf Number: 137371 Keywords: Asylum SeekersFingerprintingImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Asylum: Additional Actions Needed to Assess and Address Fraud Risks Summary: Each year, tens of thousands of aliens in the United States apply for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution on protected grounds. Asylum officers in DHS's USCIS and immigration judges in DOJ's EOIR adjudicate asylum applications. GAO was asked to review the status of the asylum system. This report addresses (1) what DHS and DOJ data indicate about trends in asylum claims, (2) the extent to which DHS and DOJ have designed mechanisms to prevent and detect asylum fraud, and (3) the extent to which DHS and DOJ designed and implemented processes to address any asylum fraud that has been identified. GAO analyzed DHS and DOJ data on asylum applications for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, reviewed DHS and DOJ policies and procedures related to asylum fraud, and interviewed DHS and DOJ officials in Washington, D.C., Falls Church, VA, and in asylum offices and immigration courts across the country selected on the basis of application data and other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS and DOJ conduct regular fraud risk assessments and that DHS, among other things, implement tools for detecting fraud patterns, develop asylum-specific guidance for fraud detection roles and responsibilities, and implement timeliness goals for pending termination reviews. DHS and DOJ concurred with GAO's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-50: Accessed November 2, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673941.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673941.pdf Shelf Number: 137425 Keywords: AliensAsylum SeekersImmigrantsImmigration Fraud |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee Title: The work of Immigration Directorates (Q3 2015) Summary: In the past, the Home Affairs Committee has assessed the Home Office's performance on a quarterly basis against a number of indicators covering aspects of its work. This report covers Q3 2015 - the three months from July to September 2015 - and the data was published on 26 November 2015. The report is divided into two sections, reflecting how the work is divided in the Home Office. Part one covers the work of UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI): Visa application; Sponsors and licensing; New asylum cases; Syrian resettlement; Asylum and immigration caseload; Spouse visas; Appeals and tribunals performance; MPs correspondence; Staff numbers. Part two covers the work of Immigration Enforcement: The Migration Refusal Pool; Sponsors and suspension; Immigration detention; Foreign National Offenders. Details: London: Stationery Office Limited, 2016. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 772: Sixth Report of Session 2015-16: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmhaff/772/772.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmhaff/772/772.pdf Shelf Number: 138398 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant detentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Georgetown University. Law Center. Human Rights Institute Title: The Cost of Stemming the Tide: How Immigration Enforcement Practices in Southern Mexico Limit Migrant Children's Access to International Protection Summary: The dramatic increase in the number of children migrating from the Northern Triangle countries to Mexico and the United States has garnered international attention. What is more concerning, though, is the lack of protection of the human rights of the children who are migrating. A report published today by the Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute (HRI) finds that Mexico is currently falling short of its human rights obligations and is putting migrant children at risk of being returned to violent and dangerous situations in their home countries by failing to provide adequate access to international protection. The report, The Cost of Stemming the Tide: How Immigration Enforcement Practices in Southern Mexico Limit Migrant Children's Access to International Protection, is the product of months of research, including dozens of interviews with affected children and families, advocates and government officials and agency staff. Many of the Central American children interviewed were seeking asylum in Mexico. The researchers also found that migrant children in Southern Mexico are systematically detained, often in poor conditions, for long and unpredictable periods. Detention conditions - coupled with the prospect of being detained for months while awaiting a decision on their status - deters children from seeking asylum. The United States has invested significant political and fiscal resources in the fortification of Mexico's southern border. But encouraging increased apprehension and deportation of children at Mexico's southern border may come at a significant cost to children's rights. International law requires that countries receiving migrants, like Mexico, meaningfully inform them of their right to seek asylum and provide access to procedures to determine whether they merit asylum or other forms of international protection. Although Mexico's laws, policies, constitutional provisions are meant to guarantee these protections, the report found that they are failing to do so in practice. Details: Washington, DC: Human Rights Institute, 2016. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2016 at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/human-rights-institute/fact-finding/upload/HRI-Fact-Finding-Report-Stemming-the-Tide-Web-PDF_English.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/human-rights-institute/fact-finding/upload/HRI-Fact-Finding-Report-Stemming-the-Tide-Web-PDF_English.pdf Shelf Number: 138536 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild MigrantsChild ProtectionHuman Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionMigrant Children |
Author: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Title: Women on the Run: First-Hand Accounts of Refugees Fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico Summary: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is entrusted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly with responsibility for providing international protection to refugees and others of concern and, together with governments, for seeking permanent solutions to their problems. UNHCR would not be able to carry out its essential duties without the support, cooperation, and participation of States around the world. UNHCR provides international protection and direct assistance to refugees in some 125 countries throughout the world. It has over 60 years of experience supervising the international treaty-based system of refugee protection and has twice received the Nobel Peace Prize for its work on behalf of refugees. UNHCR works closely with governments and others to ensure that the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol are honored, and that national and regional migration policies are sensitive to the protection needs of all individuals. International refugee protection centers on providing refugees the protection of asylum, ensuring their human rights are respected, and safeguarding the principle of non-refoulement: the prohibition against returning individuals to a place where they would face danger. The protection of women is a core priority of UNHCR at the global, regional, and national levels. Gender inequality systematically prevents women and girls from claiming and enjoying their rights, and is exacerbated by displacement. UNHCR is committed to promoting gender equality and ensuring equal access to protection and assistance so women can fully participate in all decisions affecting their lives. In 2014, for instance, the percentage of females playing active roles in leadership and management structures in refugee communities increased from 42 to 46 per cent;136 UNHCR's sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) reporting and awareness raising led to a doubling of reported incidents in 44 key countries; and women identified access to livelihood options as key to creating self-reliance and sustainable solutions to displacement. UNHCR's Executive Committee has adopted four general conclusions relating specifically to refugee women. These conclusions note the need for UNHCR and host governments to give particular attention to the international protection needs of refugee women; the need for reliable information and statistics about refugee women in order to increase public awareness of their situation; the need for an active senior-level steering committee on refugee women; and the need for the development of training modules on the subject for field officers. The UNHCR Regional Office in Washington, DC covering the United States of America and the Caribbean gives priority to enhancing protection for women arriving in and within the United States, including for women in detention. After coming into contact with increasing numbers of women and families fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, UNHCR undertook this study to understand the challenges they face. The overarching goal for the study was to hear from the women themselves the reasons they fled their countries of origin and the challenges they encountered while seeking protection. The women's voices provide the foundation for the ultimate aim of the study: to document profiles of women from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico with a need for international protection, and provide policy makers and adjudicators with necessary information to bolster regional asylum for women. Details: Washington, DC: UNHCR, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2016 at: http://www.unhcr.org/5630f24c6.html Year: 2015 Country: Central America URL: http://www.unhcr.org/5630f24c6.html Shelf Number: 138557 Keywords: Asylum SeekersGender-Based ViolenceImmigrantsRefugeesSexual ViolenceViolence Against Women, Girls |
Author: Carrera, Sergio Title: A European Border and Coast Guard: What's in a Name? Summary: This paper assesses the Commission's proposal presented in December 2015 to set up a European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG), based on the responses made by the EU border agency Frontex to the "refugee crisis" that began in 2015 and continues unabated. It explores the extent to which this proposed new body will be capable of remedying the EU's shortcomings in meeting established border and asylum standards and related institutional needs on the ground and concludes that it is unlikely to do so. The paper argues that the EBCG proposal does not establish a true European Border and Coast Guard. Instead it would revamp Frontex into a Frontex Agency. The EBCG would expand the current logic of national border guards to be committed to the Frontex Agency 'pools' and therefore does not solve the 'dependency' of Frontex on member states. More importantly, the EBCG would do too little to ensure that member states comply with EU border and asylum standards, which has constituted the central deficiency throughout 2015 and earlier. We find that it will also fall short of establishing a professional culture in border control cooperation to be shared across the Union. Revamping and relabelling Frontex will create expectations that will be difficult to fulfil if compliance with EU border, reception, and asylum standards remains weak on the ground. The paper calls on the EU to give higher priority to policies dealing with the structural compliance with EU border and asylum standards by all member states, moving beyond the EU Dublin system and including an enlarged role for the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). Details: Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2016. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe : Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745230 Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745230 Shelf Number: 138628 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlBorder Security |
Author: Mouzourakis, Minos Title: Wrong counts and closing doors: The reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe Summary: Europe's ongoing failure to find humane responses to the plight of refugees has led to severe difficulties in ensuring reception for those seeking asylum, according to the latest report of the Asylum Information Database (AIDA). The report documents the situation in 20 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Serbia and Turkey. The report demonstrates that the inability of reception systems to adapt to higher numbers of asylum seekers is a structural challenge throughout Europe. This has been the case in countries receiving the majority of refugees and migrants, but equally in those faced with much smaller increases in the number of arrivals. While some countries have shown great readiness to find accommodation solutions for the newly arrived, other states - often presented as countries of transit - have not enhanced their reception capacity even in the face of political commitments to do so at the Western Balkan Leaders' Meeting of October 2015. The lack of sufficient accommodation places has driven many persons in need of protection into inadequate living conditions and destitution. A central challenge to the operation of reception systems has been the obligation of states to identify vulnerabilities and provide appropriate reception to persons with special needs. Vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied children have been unduly subjected to detention due to the unavailability of appropriate reception places, not least in countries of first arrival. The implementation of the "hotspot" approach in Italy and Greece has reinforced the risk of detention of asylum seekers and migrants, contrary to states' obligations. The report also documents discrimination faced by asylum seekers of certain nationalities in the reception context. As many as eight European countries have resorted to some form of discrimination by privileging some nationalities over others when providing accommodation. In some countries, certain asylum seekers have found themselves arbitrarily detained on the basis of their nationality. Details: Brussels: European Council on Refugees and Exiles, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: AIDA Asylum Information Database: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/shadow-reports/aida_wrong_counts_and_closing_doors.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/shadow-reports/aida_wrong_counts_and_closing_doors.pdf Shelf Number: 138629 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionRefugees |
Author: Katwala, Sunder Title: Engaging the Anxious Middle on Immigration Reform: Evidence from the UK Debate Summary: The United Kingdom is often presented as having particularly hostile attitudes toward immigration compared to other countries. Momentum generated by those who are firmly opposed to current immigration levels was a major factor behind the call for a June 2016 referendum on UK membership in the European Union, and has also played a role in tough migration policies put forward by the coalition and Conservative governments. Certainly, immigration is an increasingly salient issue in UK politics and surveys indicate that public trust in the government's ability to manage inflows has fallen to abject levels. Immigration emerged as a key political issue in the late 1990s, and from 2013 onwards politics "caught up" with public views, as parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) rose to prominence campaigning on a populist, anti-immigration platform. However, the authors of this report make the case that polls reveal far more nuanced public attitudes towards immigration and immigrants than commonly depicted in the media and political discourse. Though there are substantial minorities of strong opinion for and against immigration, most people fall into the "anxious middle." They are skeptical about the government's handling of immigration and worried about the effects of immigration on society and the economy, but are not hostile toward immigrants themselves, especially skilled ones who can contribute to the economy. This Transatlantic Council on Migration report analyzes polling data in an attempt to paint a more accurate picture of public opinion on immigration - focusing on the concerns of the anxious middle. It examines several drivers of public opinion in the United Kingdom, including media coverage of immigration, before considering how recent migration policy changes can be linked to public opinion - or, crucially, what policymakers perceive to be the public will. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 11, 2016 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/engaging-anxious-middle-immigration-reform-evidence-uk-debate Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/engaging-anxious-middle-immigration-reform-evidence-uk-debate Shelf Number: 139001 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrationRefugees |
Author: Lampard, Kate Title: Independent investigation into concerns about Yarl's Wood Immigration removal centre Summary: An independent report published today into the culture and practices at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre ('Yarl's Wood') has found there is not an endemic culture of abuse nor a hidden problem of inappropriate behaviour by staff at the centre. The report, commissioned by Serco following a series of allegations, did however find serious concerns with staffing arrangements including capacity, training, and an inadequate proportion of female officers to care for women at the centre, and has made 35 recommendations for improvement. The investigation, by Kate Lampard CBE and Ed Marsden from Verita, highlighted both the challenges of running Yarl's Wood and the concerns and experiences of the residents living there whilst their immigration applications are processed. Further specific issues identified by the investigating team as needing improvement, include: the physical environment and access to outside space; the availability of meaningful activities and education programmes for residents; weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements and policies; inconsistent policies and underdeveloped practice in relation to raising concerns and whistle blowing; the choice and quality of the food available; and training, development and appraisal of staff. In addition the report makes recommendations aimed at ensuring greater transparency and openness about Yarl's Wood, noting how there is a disparity between perceptions and the reality of how the centre is managed and run. Details: London: Verita Consultants, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 11, 2016 at: http://www.yarlswood.co.uk/news/view/an-independent-investigation-into-concerns-about-yarls-wood-immigration-rem Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.yarlswood.co.uk/news/view/an-independent-investigation-into-concerns-about-yarls-wood-immigration-rem Shelf Number: 139007 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Title: Beyond Detention: A Global Strategy to support governments to end the detention of asylum-seekers and refugees Summary: Putting people in detention has become a routine - rather than exceptional - response to the irregular entry or stay of asylum-seekers and migrants1 in a number of countries. Some governments view detention as a means to dissuade irregular migration to or applying for asylum in their territories. While acknowledging that irregular entry or stay may present many challenges to States, detention is not the answer. Research in fact shows that not even the most stringent detention policies deter irregular migration, and further, that there are workable alternatives to detention that can achieve governmental objectives of security, public order and the efficient processing of asylum applications. Importantly, as seeking asylum is not an unlawful act, detaining asylum-seekers for the sole reason of having entered without prior authorisation runs counter to international law. Under international law, individuals have the right to seek asylum, and if they do so, to be treated humanely and with dignity. Access to open reception arrangements and fair and efficient status determination procedures need to be part of the overall State architecture. Detention also has many negative lasting effects on individuals. It undermines their human dignity and can cause unnecessary suffering, with serious consequences for their health and wellbeing, in particular when they are detained for long periods. Detention increases anxiety, fear and frustrations and can exacerbate past traumatic experiences. It takes place, frequently, in places and in conditions that do not meet human rights standards. Detention of children is particularly serious due to the devastating effect it may have on their physical, emotional and psychological development, even if they are not separated from their families. Children should, in principle, not be detained at all. Detention removes asylum-seekers from the community, which is sometimes the goal, inhibiting opportunities to benefit from existing support networks (both formal and informal), and diminishing people's capacity to be independent, self-sufficient and fulfilled members of the community after release. All these factors are further aggravated by the uncertainty about its duration and outcome. Details: Geneva, SWIT: UNHCR, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: http://www.unhcr.org/53aa929f6.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.unhcr.org/53aa929f6.pdf Shelf Number: 139306 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionRefugees |
Author: National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) Title: Foreign National Offenders, Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System Summary: The mental health needs of foreign national individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system are a neglected issue, with what discussion does exist on this subject confining itself solely to the prison system. Whilst this is to an extent understandable as this is where the concentration of foreign national individuals lies, it is also important to look at the criminal justice system as a whole (as well as its interface with the mental health and the immigration system) in any examination of the mental health needs of foreign national offenders and detainees. Foreign nationals - including those with a learning disability - often have mental health needs which go beyond (and are different to) those experienced by the general offender population, and which can be exacerbated by other factors that render them more vulnerable than other indigenous defendants or offenders. In addition to the usual health stresses that accompany being arrested and incarcerated, foreign national prisoners may experience: - mental health and welfare problems (such as isolation, separation from family, trauma and loss, particularly if they are seeking refuge or asylum) - a lack of access to information about their current experience - a lack of legal and immigration advice - language barriers and a shortage of translation facilities - a period of effectively being held in bureaucratic limbo following the serving of their sentence and prior to deportation - limited preparation for release and insufficient access to resettlement programmes - a fear of return to their home country fuelled either by a lack of affinity with that country or by other reasons. All of the above factors can impact on the experience of foreign nationals in the criminal justice process and, as such, affect their well-being and mental health. Details: London: NACRO, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: A Nacro Mental Health Briefing Paper: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: https://3bx16p38bchl32s0e12di03h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Foreign-national-offenders-mental-health-and-the-criminal-justice-system.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://3bx16p38bchl32s0e12di03h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Foreign-national-offenders-mental-health-and-the-criminal-justice-system.pdf Shelf Number: 147898 Keywords: Asylum SeekersForeign InmatesForeign National OffendersForeign PrisonersImmigrants and CrimeMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "Why Are You Keeping Me Here?" Unaccompanied Children Detained in Greece Summary: Greek authorities registered more than 3,300 unaccompanied asylum-seeking and other migrant children in the first seven months of 2016. Many had fled violence and conflict in their home countries such as Syria and Afghanistan and arrived alone in Greece, their point of entry to the European Union. The country's longstanding shortage of shelter space for children has grown particularly acute in the context of Europe's ongoing refugee crisis. In the absence of sufficient, suitable accommodation, Greek authorities routinely detain unaccompanied children in police stations and detention centers, justifying it as a temporary protection measure in children's best interest. In practice it is anything but. "Why Are You Keeping Me Here?:" Unaccompanied Children Detained in Greece, based on interviews with 42 children, documents the Greek authorities' arbitrary detention of unaccompanied children in unhygienic, degrading conditions in which they are vulnerable to physical abuse, as well as lack of access to care, protection, and other services. The situations documented not only violate children's right to liberty but often constitute inhumane and degrading treatment. The Greek government should put an end to the unjustified detention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and ensure that there are sufficient and suitable alternatives to detention. The European Union should provide resources to support Greece's efforts. Greece and European Union member states should intensify efforts to relocate unaccompanied asylum-seeking children out of Greece including through family reunification with family members living in other EU countries. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/greece0916_web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Greece URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/greece0916_web.pdf Shelf Number: 140282 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild MigrantsImmigrant DetentionMigrant ChildrenUnaccompanied Children |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund - UNICEF Title: Broken Dreams: Central American Children's Dangerous Journey to the United States Summary: The flow of refugee and migrant children from Central America making their way to the United States shows no sign of letting up, despite the dangers of the journey and stronger immigration enforcement measures implemented after a major increase in numbers in mid-2014. In the first six months of 2016, almost 26,000 unaccompanied children and close to 29,700 people travelling as a family - mostly mothers and young children - were apprehended at the US border.2 Most are from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, which have some of the world's highest murder rates.3 They seek to get away from brutal gangs that target them or poverty and exclusion that deprive them of education and hope. Many also travel north to reunify with their families. Many of the adults and some of the children apprehended at the US border are deported in expedited proceedings, women and young children spend weeks, and at times months in detention, while unaccompanied children may face years of uncertainty as their cases go before immigration courts. If deported, some of them could be killed or raped by the gangs they had sought to escape in the first place. All these children need protection every step of the way - at home, along the journey and at their destination. Thousands never make it as far as the US border. In the first six months of 2016, more than 16,000 refugee and migrant children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were apprehended in Mexico.4 In addition, hundreds of refugees and migrants die every year in the harsh environment along the Mexico-US border.5 Many more are missing and are feared to have been kidnapped, trafficked or murdered.6 "It is heart-rending to think of these children - most of them teenagers, but some even younger - making the gruelling and extremely dangerous journey in search of safety and a better life. This flow of young refugees and migrants highlights the critical importance of tackling the violence and socio-economic conditions in their countries of origin," said UNICEF's Deputy Executive Director Justin Forsyth. Details: UNICEF, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.unicef.org/media/files/UNICEF_Child_Alert_Central_America_2016_report_final(1).pdf Year: 2016 Country: Central America URL: http://www.unicef.org/media/files/UNICEF_Child_Alert_Central_America_2016_report_final(1).pdf Shelf Number: 147814 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild MigrantsImmigrantsUnaccompanied Children |
Author: Barrick, Leigh Title: Divided by Detention: Asylum-Seeking Families' Experiences of Separation Summary: As the number of asylum-seeking families from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico arriving in the United States soared in recent years, the Obama Administration aggressively expanded family detention in an attempt to "deter" the arrival of others. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened large detention centers to detain mothers and children. Although DHS has the authority to place asylum-seekers directly into immigration court proceedings, it continues to detain mothers and children and subject them to fast-track removal. Families and advocates have exposed the numerous ways that detention and fast-track removal jeopardize the well-being of asylum-seeking families. They have also drawn attention to the due-process violations caused by detention that prevent families from accessing the system of humanitarian protection created for people in their circumstances. This report examines what happens when "family detention" does not actually keep loved ones together. Through its custody determinations, DHS splits family members - sending them to different facilities around the country - while failing to track and reunite those who arrive separately. While DHS claims that family detention keeps families together, the truth is that a mother and child who are sent to family detention will often have been separated by DHS from other loved ones with whom they fled - including husbands, fathers, grandparents, older children, and siblings. Minors who arrive with non-parent caretakers are often removed from their custody. These DHS custody determinations that divide families do not occur in a vacuum. The administration has targeted these families, while Congress maintains a controversial directive to fund a minimum capacity of 34,000 noncitizen detention beds. This report profiles the experiences of five asylum-seeking families who are divided by detention. It provides a preliminary analysis of how this separation occurs, and the impact this separation can have on families' well-being and ability to access humanitarian protection. The families interviewed express that separation negatively impacts their mental and material well-being. Four attorneys highly experienced in representing detained asylum-seeking families interviewed for this report argue that being split up also negatively impacts families' ability to access protection. Families bear the burden of tracking down their loved ones, worrying about their well-being, and attempting to link their cases. Multiple adjudicators across the country may rule on the same case, while only hearing a piece of the story. Ultimately, it is possible that family members who fled their country for the same reason may receive inconsistent decisions in their cases. This report calls for further research into these issues. Separating families has countless negative impacts, while allowing them to stay together has numerous benefits. Doing the latter would allow the U.S. government to better uphold its various commitments to family unity and parental rights in immigration enforcement activities, support the well-being of families, give them more effective access to humanitarian protection, and prevent the unnecessary waste of government resources. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/divided-by-detention-asylum-seeking-families-experience-of-separation Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/divided-by-detention-asylum-seeking-families-experience-of-separation Shelf Number: 144864 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal ImmigrationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Island of Despair: Australia's "Processing" of Refugees on Nauru Summary: The current policy of the Australian Government is that no person who arrives in the country by boat seeking asylum can ever settle in Australia. Instead, anyone who arrives by boat is forcibly taken to offshore "Refugee Processing Centres", one of which is on the remote Pacific island of Nauru. The government claims that the policy protects people who might otherwise undertake the hazardous boat crossing to Australia. However, since its inception, offshore processing has been designed to be punitive and has been widely promoted by a succession of Australian governments as a deterrent and as a demonstration of Australia securing its borders. Details: London: AI, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2016 at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa12/4934/2016/en/ Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa12/4934/2016/en/ Shelf Number: 145007 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityHuman Rights AbusesRefugees |
Author: European Programme for Integration and Migration Title: Forgotten: Administratively detained irregular migrants and asylum seekers Summary: i. FINDINGS 1. The number of administratively detained irregular immigrants and asylum seekers is significantly reduced compared to the prior to 2015 period. 2. The detention conditions diverge from the relevant legislation, regarding not only the international standards and the CPT recommendations, but also the governmental declarations of February 17, 2015. In particular, we observed: - Use of detention areas that the CPT has deemed inappropriate for more than a few days detention as well as use of the Special Juvenile Detention Center in Amygdaleza which has been declared inappropriate for the detention of minors - Inadequate maintenance of the facilities - Lack of yard time - Inadequate healthcare - Lack of support by social workers and psychologists - Inadequate and poor quality feeding - Inadequate heating/ cooling conditions - Lack of provision in clothes, shoes and personal hygiene items - Lack of recreational activities - Lack of interpretation services - Lack of information to the detainees regarding: - their legal status; - the Rules of operation of the detention centers - the impending forced return - Lack of free legal aid 3. The procedures followed by the competent authorities regarding administrative detention diverge from provisions laid down in the legislation and from the governmental declarations of February 17, 2015. In particular, we observed that: In the Hellenic Police Departments there are serious long-standing systemic problems: - Lack of an individualized approach based on the characteristics, the situation and the needs of foreign nationals who are under arrest - Lack of use of alternatives to detention - Systematic, unjustified detention of dubious legitimacy on the grounds of public order - Detention of individuals whose removal violates the principle of non-refoulement - Detention for a period longer than six months - Re-arrest for the purpose of return despite prolonged and ineffective previous detention - Detention of seriously ill people - Failure to take into account data that arise over the period of detention regarding the health status of detainees and extension of the detention of vulnerable persons - Lack of interpretation services, indispensable to the detainees in order to fully understand their legal status, the decisions that concern them and the documents they are asked to sign - Lack of free legal assistance - Lack of information regarding an imminent enforcement of forced return Details: s.l.: EPIM, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2016 at: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/forgotten.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/forgotten.pdf Shelf Number: 145008 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionMigrantsMigrationRefugeesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Stranded Hope: Hungary's Sustained Attack on the Rights of Refugees and Migrants Summary: Fences, teargas, and draconian legislation: over the last year the Hungarian authorities have baulked at little in their determination to keep refugees and migrants out of the country. The government's programme of militarization, criminalization and isolation has ushered in a set of measures which have resulted in violent push-backs at the border with Serbia, unlawful detentions inside the country and dire living conditions for those waiting at the border. This briefing documents the pernicious consequences of Hungary's current policies in flagrant breach of international human rights and refugee law and EU directives. Details: London: AI, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2016 at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur27/4864/2016/en/ Year: 2016 Country: Hungary URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur27/4864/2016/en/ Shelf Number: 145006 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Rights AbusesIllegal MigrantsMigrant DetentionMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Research Directorate Title: The Situation of Women Victims of Violence and of Sexual Minorities in El Salvador Summary: In 2013, Canada and the United States began working together to identify opportunities to establish new modes of cooperation in the areas of asylum and immigration; this collaboration is known as the Asylum Cooperation Action Plan (ACAP). The ACAP, through the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), approached the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada to seek the IRB's interest in supporting the capacity building activities to be undertaken in the Americas with the objective of improving asylum systems in the region. In May 2015, the Deputy Chairperson of the IRB's Refugee Protection Division (RPD) participated in a meeting between Canada, Mexico and the United States, where it was agreed that the IRB would undertake a number of activities to support the development of quality refugee status determination by Mexico. One of these activities involved IRB participation in a joint information-gathering mission (henceforth referred to as the "mission") to El Salvador, in conjunction with representatives from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Mexican government's Commission for Refugee Aid (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados, COMAR), and the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE) of Mexico, under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Mexico and El Salvador. A representative of the Mexican Embassy in San Salvador also participated. The joint mission was carried out from 11 to 15 April 2016. Following the completion of the joint mission, the IRB conducted its own research for one further week in El Salvador. The purpose of this was to meet with additional expert sources not included in the joint mission agenda due to time constraints, to gather corroborating and contrasting information, and to enable the IRB's Research Directorate to develop new contacts, strengthen existing ones, and obtain information uniquely needed to support the IRB's decision-making on refugee status determination now or in the future. The purpose of the mission to El Salvador was to gather information related to state efforts to combat crime; the structure of criminal gangs, their areas of operation, activities, and recruitment practices; the situation of gender-based and domestic violence against women; the situation of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or intersex) people; and the efficacy of the police and judiciary to provide recourse to victims of crime, investigate and prosecute crimes. This report summarizes the information gathered by the representatives of the IRB during both the joint mission and during the IRB's additional week of research. Details: Ottawa: The Board, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: El Salvador: Information Gathering Mission Report - Part 2: Accessed November 8, 2016 at: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/NdpCnd/Pages/Salvador-2016P2.aspx Year: 2016 Country: El Salvador URL: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/NdpCnd/Pages/Salvador-2016P2.aspx Shelf Number: 146284 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDomestic ViolenceGangsGender-Related ViolenceImmigrationViolence Against Women, Girls |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration Courts and Judges Summary: GAO analyzed the outcomes of 595,795 asylum applications completed by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) between fiscal years 1995 and 2014, and identified outcome variation both over time and across immigration courts and judges. From fiscal years 2008 through 2014, annual grant rates for affirmative asylum applications (those filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the initiative of the individual and referred to an EOIR immigration judge) ranged from 21 to 44 percent. In the same period, grant rates for defensive asylum applications (those initiated before an immigration judge) ranged from 15 to 26 percent. Further, EOIR data indicate that asylum grant rates varied by immigration court. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, the grant rate was 66 percent (affirmative) and 52 percent (defensive) in the New York, New York, immigration court and less than 5 percent (affirmative and defensive) in the Omaha, Nebraska, and Atlanta, Georgia, immigration courts. GAO found that certain case and judge-related factors are associated with variation in the outcomes of asylum applications. For example, applicants who were represented by legal counsel were granted asylum at a rate 3.1 (affirmative) and 1.8 (defensive) times higher than applicants who were not represented. After statistically controlling for certain factors, such as judge experience and whether or not the applicant had dependents, GAO found variation remained in the outcomes of completed asylum applications across immigration courts and judges. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 29 and 38 percentage points, respectively, for a representative applicant with the same average characteristics we measured, whose case was heard in different immigration courts. In addition, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 47 and 57 percentage points, respectively, for the same representative applicant whose case was heard by different immigration judges. GAO could not control for the underlying facts and merits of individual asylum applications because EOIR's case management system was designed to track and manage workloads and does not collect data on all of the details of individual proceedings. Nonetheless, the data available allowed GAO to hold constant certain factors of each asylum application, enabling GAO to compare outcomes across immigration courts and judges. EOIR provides legal resources to targeted populations, including asylum applicants, through the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC). EOIR and its contractor use LOP and LOPC site visits, monthly conference calls, and quarterly reports to monitor these programs. However, EOIR has not established performance measures, consistent with principles outlined in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, to determine whether these programs are having a measurable impact in meeting program objectives. Developing and implementing performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to determine whether LOP and LOPC are having a measurable impact would better position EOIR to make any adjustments necessary to improve the programs' performance. Why GAO Did This Study Tens of thousands of foreign nationals in the United States apply annually for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution on protected grounds. EOIR's immigration judges decide asylum application outcomes in court proceedings. In 2008, GAO reported that EOIR data from October 1994 through April 2007 showed significant variation in the outcomes across immigration courts and judges (grants versus denials) of such applications. The Senate Appropriations Committee report for DHS Appropriations Act, 2015, included a provision for GAO to update its 2008 report. This report examines (1) variation in asylum applications outcomes over time and across courts and judges; (2) factors associated with variability; and (3) EOIR's actions to facilitate asylum applicants' access to legal resources. GAO analyzed EOIR data—using multivariate statistics—on asylum outcomes from fiscal years 1995 through 2014, the most current data available at the time of GAO's analysis; reviewed EOIR policies and procedures; and interviewed EOIR officials and immigration judges about court proceedings and legal access programs. GAO observed asylum hearings in 10 immigration courts selected on the basis of application data and other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that EOIR develop and implement a system of performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP and LOPC. EOIR concurred with GAO's recommendation Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-72: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf Shelf Number: 140464 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrantsImmigration CourtsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Hansen, Randall Title: Constrained by its Roots: How the Origins of the Global Asylum System Limit Contemporary Protection Summary: Territorial asylum - the principle that a refugee must reach the territory of a host country in order to lodge a protection claim—has evolved as the principal mechanism for providing humanitarian protection. However, the refugee regime was designed to cope with regular, manageable outflows, not mass displacement. With unprecedented global displacement, with 65.3 million displaced persons in 2015, the territorial asylum system is overwhelmed. And fewer than 1 percent of displaced people in need of protection are resettled annually. Making access to protection contingent upon access to territory has been criticized as at best inefficient, and at worst deadly. It creates powerful incentives for asylum seekers to undertake dangerous, illegal journeys, often at the hands of smugglers, which come at high human and financial costs. But efforts to decouple access to territory from access to protection - either by processing applications in countries of first asylum or at consulates, or by resettling people directly from countries of first asylum - have remained small in scale. This Transatlantic Council on Migration report considers whether there are viable alternatives to territorial asylum, and explores how they might be implemented. Among the solutions proposed by the author: expanding resettlement, increasing financial responsibility sharing, and concentrating resources where most refugees can be found: in the Global South. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/constrained-its-roots-how-origins-global-asylum-system-limit-contemporary-protection Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/constrained-its-roots-how-origins-global-asylum-system-limit-contemporary-protection Shelf Number: 145403 Keywords: Asylum SeekersMigrationMigration PolicyRefugees |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Current migration situation in the EU: hate crime Summary: Asylum seekers and migrants face various forms of violence and harassment across the European Union (EU). As this month's report on the migration situation underscores, such acts are both perpetrated and condoned by state authorities, private individuals, as well as vigilante groups. They increasingly also target activists and politicians perceived as 'pro-refugee'. Meanwhile, a lack of relevant data is hampering efforts to develop effective measures to prevent these incidents. Outlining recent attacks in 14 EU Member States, this focus of the November report also examines the diverse factors that undermine the reporting of such incidents and highlights promising practices seeking to counter them. Details: Vienna: FRA, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2016-november-monthly-focus-hate-crime_en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2016-november-monthly-focus-hate-crime_en.pdf Shelf Number: 145998 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBias CrimesHate CrimesImmigrantsRefugeesVigilantism |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Current migration situation in the EU: separated children Summary: Although official figures on the phenomenon are lacking, it is clear that children arriving in the European Union (EU) are often accompanied by persons other than their parents or guardians. Such children are usually referred to as "separated" children. Their identification and registration bring additional challenges, and their protection needs are often neglected. On arrival, these children are often "accompanied", but the accompanying adult(s) may not necessarily be able, or suitable, to assume responsibility for their care. These children are also at risk of exploitation and abuse, or may already be victims. Their realities and special needs require additional attention. The lack of data and guidance on separated children poses a serious challenge. This focus section outlines the specific protection needs of separated children, and highlights current responses and promising practices among EU Member States. Details: Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-december-2016-monthly-migration-report-separated-childr.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-december-2016-monthly-migration-report-separated-childr.pdf Shelf Number: 146279 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild ProtectionImmigrantsImmigration PolicySeparated Children |
Author: Cuthbert, Neil Title: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers in Australia: A Comparative Perspective Summary: This working paper reviews the current policy of removing failed asylum seekers in Australia and draws lessons from similar policy areas and reforms in the United Kingdom and Canada. The authors put forward five policy recommendations. First, forcible removal of failed asylum seekers should be used as a last resort. Second, timely processing and removal is critical and deadlines could be reintroduced. Third, immigration detention periods can be shortened. Fourth, Australia would benefit from stronger international cooperation, including readmission agreements with countries of origin. Lastly, and most importantly, policymakers must ensure that removal of failed asylum seekers adheres to the principle of non‑refoulement. Details: Sydney: Lowry Institute, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/Removal%20of%20failed%20asylum%20seekers%20in%20Australia.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/Removal%20of%20failed%20asylum%20seekers%20in%20Australia.pdf Shelf Number: 144701 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman RightsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyRefugees |
Author: Rietig, Victoria Title: Stopping the Revolving Door: Reception and Reintegration Services for Central American Deportees Summary: In the past five years, hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants deported from Mexico and the United States -including tens of thousands of children - have arrived back in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. For many deportees, the conditions upon arrival are worse than those that compelled them to leave in the first place. They and their families may be in crippling debt after having paid smugglers, and many return to communities that are even less safe than when they left. Thus, a significant number are in danger of entering a revolving door of migration, deportation, and remigration. Efforts to break this cycle center on providing more and better opportunities for Central America's people, especially its youth - an effort that includes reception programs and reintegration services for deportees once they return. Governments of Central America acknowledge the need for comprehensive policies and programs to help their deported citizens anchor themselves again upon return. All three countries offer reception services to most deportees, but reintegration services are far more limited and serve only a few. This report offers a detailed profile of the organization, funding sources, capacity, and the numbers of deportees served in reception and reintegration programs in the Northern Triangle. While the relevance of reintegration programs is largely unquestioned, knowledge is limited about what services are already in place, and how existing programs can be leveraged effectively. The authors note that there is little in the way of program evaluation or monitoring. This report attempts to fill these knowledge gaps by describing the types of reception and reintegration services, and analyzing common challenges to building successful initiatives in the region. An appendix provides further details on the programs surveyed, including relevant actors, organizations, budgets, evaluations, numbers of beneficiaries, and challenges. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Year: 2015 Country: Central America URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Shelf Number: 144765 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeporteesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: Australia. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Title: Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre Summary: Australia's policy of offshore processing has been the subject of a number of Senate inquiries. These inquires have been highly critical of many aspects of the Regional Processing Centre (RPC) policy. The evidence which this committee has received has fallen primarily within three main areas: - the operation and administration of RPCs, including service delivery, incident reporting, and health, safety and welfare; - the offshore processing policy itself, including whether it is effective, lawful, and/or represents 'value for money'; and - looking to the future, including how Australia can expedite third country resettlement options. A substantial part of this report is devoted to recording the high number of incident reports made public through the publication of 'the Nauru files', and supported by evidence from submitters to this inquiry. While evidence of this nature is not new, and reflects evidence which has been presented to previous inquiries, it is the first time that this volume and detail of information has been publicly available. Some of the reports are recordings of allegations made by refugees and asylum seekers, and many contain information which workers have observed first hand. The content is deeply concerning. Collectively, these reports paint the picture of a deeply troubled asylum seeker and refugee population, and an unsafe living environment - especially for children. Even more troublingly, these reports only record those incidents which have actually been reported to workers, or which workers have themselves observed. Undoubtedly, they do not reflect the true prevalence of such incidents. In its current manifestation, Australia's policy of offshore processing is deeply affected by structural complexity. Despite the efforts of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the department), its contractors and sub-contractors, and other related stakeholders, there are clear failures by the department in administering the current policy in a safe and transparent manner. The policy structure is complex, and it relies heavily on the private sector to administer the day-to-day management of the scheme. This structural complexity has led to a lack of accountability and transparency in the administration of the policy, and a failure to clearly acknowledge where the duty of care lies in relation to those asylum seekers and refugees. For a policy which represents such a significant investment of Australian public funds, this lack of accountability is disturbing. Details: Sydney: The Senate, 2017. 245p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/NauruandManusRPCs/Report Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 145239 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Rights AbusesRefugees |
Author: Drake, B. Shaw Title: Crossing the Line: U.S. Border Agents Illegally Turning Away Asylum Seekers at U.S. Border Summary: The U.S. government is illegally turning away asylum seekers at official land crossings all along the southern border. Border agents must refer a person seeking asylum or expressing a fear of persecution to a protection screening interview or an immigration court proceeding where they can seek asylum. Instead, some border agents are blocking access to asylum by refusing to process protection requests. This practice violates both U.S. law and U.S. treaty obligations. It also clashes with the ideals of a nation that has often led globally on refugee protection, a nation that President Reagan aptly described as a "beacon" to people searching for freedom. U.S. government entities have raised concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers. In 2016, for example, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) cited some Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers' "outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims and inadequate quality assurance procedures." Also in 2016 Human Rights First and other non-governmental organizations raised concerns about reports that the government was turning away asylum seekers in San Ysidro, California as CPB officers struggled to manage an increase in arrivals. This practice proliferated after the November 2016 election and persists even as the number of arrivals has fallen sharply. In the wake of the election and President Trump's January executive orders relating to refugees, CPB agents have in some cases claimed the United States is no longer accepting asylum seekers. For example, a CBP officer in south Texas reportedly told a Central American asylum seeker, "Trump says we don't have to let you in." In San Ysidro a CPB officer reportedly told a Mexican asylum seeker, "[Christians] are the people we are giving asylum to, not people like you." CBP officers are improperly rejecting asylum seekers at small ports of entry and major ones across the border, including in Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, El Paso, and San Diego. When they are blocked from protection, asylum seekers face continued danger in Mexico, often immediately. Cartels, smugglers, and traffickers - who control areas around border crossings and wait outside some ports of entry where they see migrants and asylum seekers as easy prey - have kidnapped, raped, and robbed asylum seekers wrongly turned away by the U.S. government. In February, March, and April, Human Rights First researchers visited the border regions of California, Texas, and Arizona, and the Mexican border cities of Reynosa, Matamoros, Nogales, and Tijuana. They interviewed asylum seekers, attorneys, non-profit legal staff, faith-based groups assisting refugees, and migrant shelter staff. While recent data shows CBP agents referred some 8,000 asylum seekers at ports of entry from December 2016 to March 2017, an unknown number of asylum seekers have been unlawfully rejected. This report is based on 125 cases of individuals and families wrongfully denied access to U.S. asylum procedures at U.S. ports of entry. Many more have likely suffered a similar fate as these abuses often goes unreported due to the security threats faced by those who are turned away, the dearth of legal counsel, and the lack of effective compliance mechanisms and monitoring of CBP practices. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2017 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf Shelf Number: 145318 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder PatrolBorder SecurityHuman Rights AbusesImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Barciela,Franco Title: Broward Transitional Center: A 'Model' for Civil Detention Summary: When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced plans to reform our nation's troubled immigrant detention facility in 2009, ICE promoted the Broward Transitional Center (BTC) as a model for "civil" detention. ICE Chief John Morton noted that BTC only housed nonviolent detainees, among them asylum seekers. An ICE detention reform list of accomplishments further noted that BTC "offers a less restrictive, yet secure environment." AI Justice's response, as then noted in the New York Times, remains unchanged. BTC may offer a better environment than a local jail, but the vast majority of its detainees have committed no crimes or only minor infractions. They are precisely the population that ICE should release: people who pose no threat to their communities and should not be locked up in detention, even if it is a less punitive detention. Ensuring that ICE does not detain people needlessly is particularly urgent now, as immigration reform is percolating in Congress. Even as we were finalizing this report, ICE was releasing thousands of immigrant detainees across the nation because of looming federal budget cuts triggered by sequestration. Details: Miami, FL: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2017 at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aijustice/pages/284/attachments/original/1390429868/BTC-A-Model-for-Civil-Detention.pdf?1390429868 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aijustice/pages/284/attachments/original/1390429868/BTC-A-Model-for-Civil-Detention.pdf?1390429868 Shelf Number: 145321 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Detention Watch Network Title: Expose and Close, One Year Later: The Absence of Accountability in Immigration Detention Summary: While the debate over immigration reform rages in the halls of Congress, the moral and human rights crisis caused by the mass incarceration of immigrants has been largely ignored. Although it is commonly unknown, the United States has built and maintains the largest immigration detention infrastructure in the world. In 2003 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) declared its intention to round up all deportable individuals and over the succeeding decade the annual number of immigrants detained and deported has climbed precipitously. Under President Obama the U.S. immigration system has taken a decidedly punitive turn, nearing two million deportations under his tenure while over 429,000 immigrants were detained in 2011 alone. The U.S. has made detention mandatory for certain immigrants, requiring ICE to incarcerate them without a bond hearing or other opportunity to be considered for release. Mandatory detention has created a system so massive and mismanaged that ICE is incapable of overseeing it. Instead, ICE has resorted to outsourcing operations to predatory private prison companies and rural jails seeking to supplement their incomes. Since 2007 the detention system has operated on a congressionally mandated quota, which arbitrarily requires 34,000 people be detained daily. The bed quota has undoubtedly led to prolonged detention for individuals who could have been released. With a network of over 250 prisons operated by federal, state, and local governments, as well as by private corporations, the detention system exacts a grim emotional, physical and financial toll on immigrant communities at taxpayers' expense. Immigrants in detention are denied basic needs, such as contact with lawyers and loved ones, adequate food and hygiene, and access to fresh air and sunlight. They endure racial slurs and discriminatory treatment by prison staff. They are subject to sub-standard medical care and denial of specialty care, resulting in prolonged injury, sickness and/or death. There is no accountability for those who suffer needlessly behind bars. Immigrants in ICE custody are in civil detention, meaning that they are locked up to ensure their appearance at and compliance with immigration courts. Anyone who is a non-citizen can be detained, including asylum seekers, legal permanent residents, visa holders and undocumented immigrants. As immigrants continue to be heavily criminalized and profiled, even the pettiest of crimes, such as shoplifting or minor drug possession, can lead to detention and deportation, despite having already paid their debt to society. In 2009 after extensive reports of abuses and deaths of immigrants in ICE custody, ICE announced ambitious plans for reform. Three years later Detention Watch Network (DWN) released its "Expose and Close" report, which documented abuses and inhumane conditions at ten immigrant detention facilities across the country, each of which is emblematic of the serious problems throughout the system. After the release of the "Expose and Close" report ICE responded by promising to send in assessment teams (including medical professionals), which, to our knowledge, never happened. Instead, ICE simply claimed that the 10 facilities in question were in compliance with appropriate standards. The following report documents the current state of the immigration detention system, which continues to be plagued by deaths and suicides, subpar medical and mental health care, inedible food, and arbitrary restrictions on visitation and access to legal resources. The information in this report is based on written and oral testimonies gathered over the last year by a number of non-profit organizations, including through visits to the facilities and interviews with present and formerly detained individuals and detention staff. Details: Washington, DC: Detention Watch Network, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2017 at: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20Expose%20and%20Close%20One%20Year%20Later%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20Expose%20and%20Close%20One%20Year%20Later%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 146024 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: European Network of Statelessness Title: Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention: Agenda for Change Summary: The increasing use of immigration detention and the growing criminalisation of irregular migration are concerning global and European trends, which result in more people being detained for reasons that are unlawful or arbitrary. These trends are particularly concerning for stateless people or those who may be at risk of statelessness, as they are often trapped in systems that criminalise their irregular migration status and subject them to ongoing detention without offering them any real prospects for adjusting their status or availing themselves of a nationality. While immigration detention is a significant area of general concern to stateless people, the unique barriers to removal faced by stateless people and those at risk of statelessness, put them at particular risk of unlawful or arbitrary detention in the context of removal procedures. As the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held in Kim v Russia, a stateless person is highly vulnerable to being "simply left to languish for months and years...without any authority taking an active interest in [their] fate and well-being". Although there are other important circumstances in which stateless persons may be detained, which merit further attention (for example under criminal law, national security, or in asylum procedures), the research findings emerging from this project shone a light on the specific vulnerabilities faced by stateless people in removal procedures. This is therefore the focus of this agenda for change. It is hoped that reform in this area can act as a catalyst for change more widely, leading to effective mechanisms for the prevention of arbitrary immigration detention and contributing to a shift towards alternatives to detention across the region. Stateless people will only be protected from arbitrary detention if authorities recognise and act upon the specific rights of the stateless in international law on the one hand, and the fundamental right to liberty and security of the person, on the other. The research found that states are largely failing to acknowledge the vulnerabilities associated with statelessness, to put in place effective procedures to identify statelessness and to protect stateless people, leading to a failure to prevent their arbitrary detention. Recognising these rights and vulnerabilities, and taking steps to identify statelessness, will help to guard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Europe urgently needs to foster change on the issue of immigration detention. Regional advocacy is shifting towards recognising the harm inflicted by immigration detention and a consensus is emerging among civil society actors as well as UNHCR, the Council of Europe, and national governments, that there is a need to expand and improve alternatives to detention. The output from this project serves as a further indictment of the failings of Europe's detention regimes. Drawing on evidence from two years of research into statelessness and immigration detention in the region, and the law, policy, and practice in six diverse countries (Bulgaria, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK and Ukraine), this report now presents an agenda for change at national and regional levels. Promoting both the protection of individuals' human rights and the development of fairer and more efficient systems, this report is intended as a tool for civil society to advocate for change and for policy makers to effect sustainable reform. Part I reflects on the current reality in Europe, highlighting the most fundamental challenges that emerged from the research and which need to be addressed. Part II looks ahead and further explores the change that needs to happen in key areas to achieve the goal of ending the arbitrary detention of stateless persons or those at risk of statelessness in Europe. Part III summarises the key recommendations and sets out an advocacy agenda. At the end of the report there is a short glossary of key terms and a list of key resources including links to each of the country reports and the Regional Toolkit for Practitioners, where more detailed analysis of the relevant legal and policy frameworks can be found, as well as other useful external resources on detention and statelessness. If achieved, the reforms set out here will not only bring law, policy, and practice in Europe more in line with international human rights standards, but it will also bring the wider benefits of fairer and more efficient systems to governments and communities across the region. Details: London: European Network on Statelessness, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 15, 2017 at: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/attachments/resources/ENS_LockeInLimbo_Detention_Agenda_online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/attachments/resources/ENS_LockeInLimbo_Detention_Agenda_online.pdf Shelf Number: 146184 Keywords: Arbitrary DetentionAsylum SeekersIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Rodriguez, Alicia Title: Unwelcome Visitors: Challenges faced by people visiting immigration detention Summary: Every day, ordinary Australians visit people detained in Australia's onshore immigration detention facilities. This is an important and often under-appreciated role. These visitors provide emotional support to people in detention, advocate on their behalf and fill in the gaps that exist in provision of services and information in immigration detention facilities. It is not easy to visit people in immigration detention, to hear their stories and to speak up for those who are the victims of Australia's current punitive approach to people seeking asylum. Visiting immigration detention facilities takes time, energy and commitment, and often has a significant impact on the wellbeing of visitors. Yet, all too often, we hear some politicians and media outlets falsely blaming these visitors and advocates for encouraging people to harm themselves or to disobey rules. Over the past year, the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) has increasingly heard from these visitors that security conditions in immigration detention facilities are being intensified and it is now more difficult to visit people in immigration detention. Correspondingly, people in immigration detention are becoming increasingly isolated from the wider community, with negative impacts on their mental and physical wellbeing. These concerns led us to conduct a national study to explore these issues further. This report is the result of our extensive research and consultations with detention visitors and people previously held in detention. It explores the challenges faced by people when trying to access detention facilities, including: constantly changing rules and their inconsistent application difficulties in arranging a visit, including searches and drug tests lack of adequate space in visitor rooms in some facilities arbitrary rules and intensified security conditions that make visits less friendly, and specific challenges faced by religious visitors. This report identifies the impacts of those difficulties on both visitors and people detained and puts forward a number of recommendations to address those challenges. This report showcases the spirit of volunteerism in Australia, presenting the accounts of many volunteers who continue visiting detention facilities despite difficulties, so they can bring people hope and get their voices and concerns heard. People who visit immigration detention often provide the only public information about what is happening in our immigration detention facilities. This is because Australia does not have an official national body that publicly and regularly reports on visits to immigration detention facilities. The Refugee Council of Australia welcomes the Australian Government's commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) by the end of 201 We hope that this will result in greater scrutiny of immigration detention and ultimately better treatment of those in detention. Details: Sydney: Refugee Council of Australia, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2/17: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf Shelf Number: 146696 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDetention CentersImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementPrison VisitorsRefugees |
Author: Jesuit Refugee Service Europe Title: From Deprivation to Liberty: Alternatives to detention in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom Summary: The negative effects of detention upon various categories of migrants - asylum seekers, the undocumented, families, minors - has been observed and well documented by medical researchers, non-governmental organisations and even policymakers and politicians. Our 2010 study found that detention systematically deteriorates the physical and mental condition of nearly everyone who experiences it. Symptoms related to depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common. Prolonged detention deepens the severity of these symptoms, but they are already noticeable in the first weeks of detainment. The financial cost of detention, together with the severe damage it inflicts on migrants, begs a fundamental question: is detention truly worth implementing, considering all of its associated harms? Better yet is the question: are there not more cost-effective and humane ways for states to manage migration flows into their territories? The purpose of this study is to examine alternatives to detention in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom through the perspective of those who most closely experience it: migrants themselves. A good deal of research has been done on alternatives from an institutional perspective, namely that of NGOs and governments. The absence of migrant voices in these studies has had less to do with their purposeful exclusion than it has had with the difficult of finding target samples. Far too few European Union member states implement alternatives; for those who do, migrants may be understandably reluctant to speak to researchers given their vulnerable situation. And compared with interviewing migrants in closed detention facilities, it is harder to interview migrants participating in alternatives because they are usually dispersed in communities. Among the reasons we chose to conduct research in Belgium, Germany and the UK is because each has distinct and identifiable alternatives to detention. Belgium operates lieux d'hebergement for undocumented families who have been living in the country, for families who apply for asylum at the border and for families in Dublin Regulation procedures. Families are accommodated in government-designated private housing, and are attached to a case manager. Few restrictions are imposed on families, and they are provided with a range of social services, including food vouchers. We interviewed six families staying in three of the four towns where the houses are located Details: Brussels: Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2017 at: http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/from%20deprivation%20to%20liberty.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/from%20deprivation%20to%20liberty.pdf Shelf Number: 131734 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsAsylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionMigrantsPrisons |
Author: Mossou, Sylvain Title: Child Immigration Detention in Europe Summary: Among the people seeking sanctuary in Europe, the number of children has substantially increased (32 percent of European Union asylum applications in 2016). European countries seek to substantially reduce the number of migrants entering Europe and increase the number of people returned. Interior ministers are increasingly influencing a wide range of government policy, and shaping the common European policy negotiated in Brussels. They have prioritised returning asylum seekers to their country of origin, and an increased use of immigration detention to manage this process. This is even becoming visible on the European landscape, due to detention centre building projects, especially on both the European and African sides of the Mediterranean. However, detention is costly, ineffective and, more often than not, infringes human rights standards and refugee protection. Details: Brussels: Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Child-immigration-detention-in-Europe.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Child-immigration-detention-in-Europe.pdf Shelf Number: 147029 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChildren of Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Detention Unaccompanied Children |
Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Mexico's Southern Border: Security, Central American Migration, and U.S. Policy Summary: It has been nearly three years since the Mexican government announced its Southern Border Program, which dramatically increased security operations and apprehensions of northbound migrants. This report-based on field research in the area surrounding Tenosique, Tabasco along Mexico's border with Guatemala-examines migration flows, enforcement, and insecurity in southern Mexico. - THERE HAS BEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO INTEND TO STAY IN MEXICO, RATHER THAN TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES. Many are seeking asylum or other forms of immigration status. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a 311 percent increase in asylum requests in Mexico. In the first three months of 2017, Mexico had received more asylum applications than all of 2015. The UN Refugee Agency estimates that Mexico will receive up to 20,000 asylum requests in 2017. - DECREASED MIGRATION FLOWS THROUGH MEXICO AND AT THE U.S. SOUTHWEST BORDER DURING THE MONTHS FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. News of the Trump administration's hard line appears to have caused a wave of Central American migration before January 20, and a sharp drop afterward. However, until there are improvements in the violence and adverse conditions from which Central Americans are fleeing, people will continue to migrate en masse. By May 2017, apprehension levels at the U.S-Mexico border had begun to tiptoe back up, with a 31 percent increase in total apprehensions compared to April, and a 50 percent increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied minors. - ALTHOUGH MEXICO REGISTERED LOWER APPREHENSION LEVELS IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF 2017 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS, MIGRATION ENFORCEMENT UNDER MEXICO'S SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM REMAINS HIGH. Total migrant apprehensions increased by a staggering 85 percent during the Southern Border Program's first two years of operation (July 2014 to June 2016) compared to pre-Program levels. Limited government resources, migrants' and smugglers' ability to adjust to new security patterns, corruption among authorities, and an overall drop in migration from Central America since President Trump took office have all likely contributed to the leveling off of apprehensions seen in Mexico in recent months. - CRIMES AND ABUSES AGAINST MIGRANTS TRAVELING THROUGH MEXICO CONTINUE TO OCCUR AT ALARMING RATES, AND SHELTERS HAVE NOTED A MORE INTENSE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE IN THE CASES THEY DOCUMENT. While Mexico's major organized criminal groups do not operate heavily in the Tenosique corridor, smaller criminal bands and Central American gang affiliates routinely rob, kidnap, and sexually assault migrants along this portion of the migration route. Migrant rights organizations in southern Mexico documented an increase in cases of migration and police authorities' abuse of migrants as a result of the Southern Border Program, including recent accounts of migration agents, who are supposed to be unarmed, using pellet guns and electrical shock devices. - THERE HAVE BEEN FEWER U.S. ASSISTANCE DELIVERIES TO MEXICO FOR THE SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM THAN ORIGINALLY EXPECTED, BUT BIOMETRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS CONTINUE APACE. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are currently implementing a US$88 million dollar program to increase Mexican immigration authorities' capacity to collect biometric data and share information about who is crossing through Mexico with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are also funding a US$75 million project to improve secure communications between Mexican agencies in the country's southern border zone. This program has erected 12 communications towers so far, all of them on Mexican naval posts. - THE MIGRATION ROUTE INTO MEXICO THROUGH TENOSIQUE, TABASCO HAS SEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE REGION. Between 2014 and 2016, the number of children (both accompanied and unaccompanied) apprehended in the state of Tabasco increased by 60 percent. The majority of migrants traveling through this area of the border are from Honduras. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download Year: 2017 Country: Central America URL: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download Shelf Number: 147169 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementMigrantsUnaccompanied Minors |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children Summary: Children have represented up to a third of migrant arrivals in the European Union (EU) since the summer of 2015. Upon arrival, they need and have a right to protection, in line with EU and international law. Detaining children for migration management or asylum reasons - with or without family members - is difficult to justify, practically very challenging to implement in line with fundamental rights and clearly not in the child's best interests. Current efforts to speed up asylum processing and make returns more effective may prompt an increased use of immigration detention, possibly also affecting children. This can entail serious risks of violating children's right to liberty and security if the strict safeguards protecting children from arbitrary detention are disregarded. Children should be placed in open centres that provide for the necessary protection and care to which they are entitled, and which promote their best interests. This report takes the rights of the child to protection and care set forth in Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a starting point when examining the content of the right to liberty and security. It outlines the main fundamental rights safeguards provided for in EU and human rights law to prevent unlawful and arbitrary detention. It also describes practical examples from the Member States, drawing on promising practices wherever possible. In so doing, it aims to assist asylum and migration practitioners in implementing policies in line with the law, so that immigration detention of children ends or becomes truly exceptional. Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/child-migrant-detention Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/child-migrant-detention Shelf Number: 147173 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant DetentionImmigration DetentionUndocumented Children |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Harrowing Journeys: Children and youth on the move across the Mediterranean Sea, at risk of trafficking and exploitation Summary: Young migrants and refugees set out to escape harm or secure better futures - and face staggering risks in the process. For 17-year-old Mohammad, who travelled through Libya to seek asylum in Italy, violence and persecution back home meant the choice was clear: "We risked our lives to come here," he says, "we crossed a sea. We knew it is not safe, so we sacrificed. We do it, or we die." For children and youth on the move via the Mediterranean Sea routes to Europe, the journey is marked by high levels of abuse, trafficking and exploitation. Some are more vulnerable than others: those travelling alone, those with low levels of education and those undertaking longer journeys. Most vulnerable of all are those who, like Mohammad, come from sub-Saharan Africa. These findings come from a new UNICEF and International Organization for Migration (IOM) analysis of the journeys of some 11,000 migrant and refugee children (adolescents aged 14-17) and youth (18-24), as recorded in their responses to the Displacement Tracking Matrix Flow Monitoring Surveys conducted by IOM along the Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes to Europe in 2016 and 2017. The analysis reveals that while adolescents and youth are at greater risk than adults on both routes, the Central Mediterranean route to Italy is singularly dangerous. It takes most young migrants and refugees through Libya, where they contend with pervasive lawlessness and violence and are often detained, by state authorities and others. On both routes, additional years of education and travelling in a group, whether with family or not, afford young migrants and refugees a measure of protection. But where they come from outweighs either of these factors. An adolescent boy from subSaharan Africa, who has secondary education and travels in a group along the Central Mediterranean route, faces a 73 per cent risk of being exploited. If he came from another region, the risk would drop to 38 per cent. Anecdotal reports and qualitative research from the Mediterranean region and elsewhere suggest that racism underlies this difference. Countless testimonies from young migrants and refugees from sub-Saharan Africa make clear that they are treated more harshly and targeted for exploitation because of the colour of their skin. The story that emerges from the data confirms the tragic reality that adolescents and youth are prepared to pay a high price for a chance at a better life. Those interviewed in the surveys are among millions on the move worldwide, as recent decades have seen high levels of displacement, across borders and within countries. Many flee brutal conflicts or violence, while others move in search of prospects for better education or livelihoods. With regular migration pathways barred for most, those seeking to make their way across borders often place their fates in the hands of smugglers. This alone leaves them dependent and vulnerable. They risk life and limb as they travel through harsh environments - and suffer appalling abuse and exploitation if they fall into the hands of traffickers, armed groups or other predators. As the world continues to grapple with the reality of migration and displacement, the findings from this report underscore the urgent need for action. To protect the most vulnerable among those on the move, UNICEF and IOM call for a multi-pronged strategy that addresses the interplay of factors that expose migrant and refugee children and youth to risk - or help keep them safe. Such a strategy includes expanding safe and regular migration channels to dampen the demand for smugglers, while fighting trafficking and exploitation. To enhance the resilience and protect the rights of children and youth, it entails investing in education and other basic services, coordinating child protection efforts across countries, and fighting racism and xenophobia in the countries migrants and refugees travel through and the ones in which they seek to make their lives. Details: New York: UNICEF, 2017. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Harrowing_Journeys_Children_and_youth_on_the_move_across_the_Mediterranean.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Harrowing_Journeys_Children_and_youth_on_the_move_across_the_Mediterranean.pdf Shelf Number: 147236 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild MigrantsChild TraffickingHuman SmugglingHuman TraffickingRefugees |
Author: Institute of Race Relations Title: Accelerated removals: a study of the human cost of EU deportation policies, 2009-2010 Summary: This briefing paper and list of thirty-eight asylum- and immigration-related deaths examines developments over eighteen months which suggest that, in the countries of northern and eastern Europe the scale and pace of deportations is accelerating, even as the number of new arrivals declines. Speedier removals have been accompanied by the increased use of force, as well as measures that both deny asylum seekers access to justice and limit the ability of NGOs to scrutinise the system and provide independent oversight. There is evidence that speeding up the pace of removal puts individuals under abnormal levels of stress that are deleterious to health and can even undermine the will to live. This briefing also attempts the difficult task of quantifying the human cost of deportations. Details: London: The Institute, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper no. 4: Accessed September 25, 2017 at: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/accelerated-removals-a-study-of-the-human-cost-of-eu-deportation-policies-20092010# Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/accelerated-removals-a-study-of-the-human-cost-of-eu-deportation-policies-20092010# Shelf Number: 147450 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigration Enforcement |
Author: Burgi-Palomino, Daniella Title: "Does My Story Matter?" Seeking Asylum at Mexico's Southern Border Summary: Mexico closed 2016 with a record total of 8,788 asylum applications, more than double compared to 2015. Over 90 percent of these were from Central America, which reflects the flow of families and children from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador seeking protection not only in the United States but also across the region. This year, asylum applications continue to grow. According to preliminary government figures, between January and March 2017 Mexico received 3,543 asylum applications, more than it did in all of 2015. In the United States, apprehensions of individuals and families at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped in the first few months of 2017 compared to figures for the same period in 2016. However, the conditions in Central America driving this migration remain largely unchanged - the high levels of gang violence, corruption, and impunity remain some of the worst in the world. According to one study, in both 2015 and 2016 El Salvador was the world's most violent country, and its capital, San Salvador, was the most murderous city. The three Northern Triangle countries had a combined total of 14,870 homicides in 2016 and individually were still well above the minimum of 10 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants identified by the United Nations to constitute an epidemic of violence - with El Salvador at 81 murders, Honduras at 58, and Guatemala at 27 per every 100,000 inhabitants. NGO reports from early 2017 demonstrate sustained generalized violence perpetrated by gangs and security forces resulting in forced displacement, extortion, sexual and gender-based violence, severe limitations on access to education for children, and internal displacement due to the construction of megaprojects. Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF) staff traveled to Tenosique and Tapachula in southern Mexico during the second half of 2016 in order to understand the dynamics of Central American asylum-seeking families and children crossing Mexico's southern border, the degree to which they had access to protections, and how they were impacted by migration enforcement operations. We concluded that, three years after the implementation of Mexico's Southern Border Plan, harsh migration enforcement tactics continue to violate the rights of not only migrants but also of Mexican border communities. We found that the routes inland from the border near Tenosique and Tapachula remain full of danger for migrants and asylum seekers. Violence is perpetuated by organized crime, smaller criminal groups, and often in collusion with Mexican migration enforcement agents and local police. Access to asylum in Mexico is still the exception rather than the rule. The process remains difficult and frustrating. Obtaining international protection in Mexico is largely dependent on access to legal counsel, case accompaniment, and proximity to Mexico's Commission for Refugee Assistance (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados, COMAR) offices to complete the process. Mexico's National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migracion, INM) often discourages migrants from applying for asylum as opposed to effectively screening individuals and channeling them to COMAR. Far too few children have a chance to access asylum in Mexico and are not channeled to COMAR from Mexico's National System for Integral Development of the Family (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, DIF) or INM facilities. We confirmed that efforts to house asylum seekers outside of detention facilities, or alternatives to detention initiatives, are being implemented on an ad-hoc basis and are far from fully institutionalized across the country. At the same time, this report confirms a growing interest among asylum seekers in staying in Mexico, if they have access to services and jobs. We found that even after receiving asylum, refugees have limited opportunities to lead a normal life along Mexico's southern border because of a lack of opportunities and safety concerns. Despite all of these challenges, it is important to note that Mexico has taken some steps forward to strengthen its asylum system and address abuses against migrants since our trip. However, it is a mixed bag. While there has been progress, there have also been some steps backwards. These problems demonstrate that Mexico's asylum system must still be strengthened by increasing COMAR's resources to expand staffing and coverage across Mexico, expanding alternatives to detention programs for asylum seekers, and ensuring adequate screening and identification of all those in need of protection, including unaccompanied migrant children. U.S. support for improving Mexico's asylum system should be an integral part of its cooperation with Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: Latin America Working Group, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/LAWGEF_MX_Asylum_Report_July_2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/LAWGEF_MX_Asylum_Report_July_2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148185 Keywords: Asylum SeekersMigrantsMigration Enforcement |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Ireland: Will Better Detention Mean More Detention? Summary: Ireland does not emphasize detention in its migration and asylum policies, nor does it face the same migratory pressures as some of its EU partners. Nevertheless, because the country fails to separate its few immigration detainees, who are placed in prisons, from people in criminal procedures, the country has faced significant international criticism. Officials have long-standing plans to open a dedicated immigration detention facility, but while such a move may bring the country into compliance with some international norms, it may also lead to more people being detained. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2018. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-ireland-will-better-detention-mean-more-detention Year: 2018 Country: Ireland URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-ireland-will-better-detention-mean-more-detention Shelf Number: 149595 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal Immigration Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Migrants |
Author: Byrne, Kevin Title: Protected on Paper? An analysis of Nordic country responses to asylum-seeking children Summary: This research, commissioned by the Nordic National Committees for UNICEF, examines to what extent the rights of asylum-seeking children are respected and protected in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The report reviews relevant national legislative and policy frameworks; examines how these are implemented; documents good practices; and highlights gaps in national standards and their compliance to international standards. It makes some broad recommendations on how to strengthen and extend legal, policy and practice frameworks to ensure the full realization and protection of child asylum seekers' rights and entitlements in the Nordic region. It further provides country-specific detailed, practical recommendations on how to ensure protection and welfare for asylum-seeking children. It makes country-specific recommendations on how legal, policy and practice frameworks can be strengthened to ensure full protection of children's rights and entitlements. Details: Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, 2018. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/NORDIC%2028%20LOWRES.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/NORDIC%2028%20LOWRES.pdf Shelf Number: 149608 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild MigrantsChild ProtectionRefugees |
Author: Mbiyozo, Aimee-Noel Title: Fleeing terror, fighting terror: The truth about refugees and violent extremism Summary: Refugees are increasingly subjected to harsh policies that violate the spirit of refugee laws, and that are often justified by claiming the refugees pose security risks. This study examines the effects of violent extremism among South Sudanese and Somalian refugees in Ethiopia. The risks of violent extremism in both populations are low and refugees play a key role in fighting extremist threats. However, the harsh conditions they are subjected to over long periods pose several humanitarian, development and security concerns. Urgent efforts to improve living conditions for refugees are needed. Details: Pretoria: institute for Security Studies, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: East Africa Report 17: Accessed March 30, 2018 at: https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear17-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Ethiopia URL: https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ear17-1.pdf Shelf Number: 149620 Keywords: Asylum SeekersExtremists Refugees Violence Violent Crime Violent Extremism |
Author: GRETA (Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings Title: 7th General Report on GRETA's Activities Covering the period from 1 January 20 31 December 2017 Summary: I am pleased to introduce the Seventh General Report on GRETA's activities and to highlight the on-going work of the Council of Europe in combating trafficking in human beings and vindicating the rights of victims of trafficking. The human rights-based approach to combating human trafficking is critical to all aspects of GRETA's work, recognising as it does that trafficking in human beings is a serious human rights violation, one that, as the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly noted, treats human beings as commodities to be bought and sold. This General Report covers the activities of GRETA from 1 January to 31 December 2017. The year 2017 marked further progress in the application of the Convention across Europe, with the ratification by the Czech Republic on 29 March 2017. All member States of the Council of Europe, with the exception of the Russian Federation, have now ratified the Convention, and Belarus is also a State Party. While the expansion in ratifications of the Convention is significant to ensure greater reach in our work, more effective implementation by States Parties of the Convention standards remains critical. Against a backdrop of millions of people forcibly displaced worldwide, and hundreds of thousands of people on the move in Europe, the risks of exploitation are great. Of particular concern are the risks faced by victims of trafficking on arrival in Europe, with many barriers in place to accessing protection and heightened risks of re-trafficking within Europe. The gender dimension of human trafficking, and gender inequality as both a cause and a driver of exploitation, is central to many of GRETA's country reports. The risks faced by children and young people remain of particular concern, as weaknesses in child protection systems in many countries lead to failings in ensuring timely responses to the rights and needs of migrant and asylum-seeking children at risk. Strengthening the impact of GRETA's work in combating human trafficking is critical and the report highlights examples of where implementation of Convention standards is securing incremental change. Legislative changes continue, as well as policy and practical measures to improve early identification of child victims, steps to provide assistance to male victims of trafficking, and more proactive approaches to ensure access to compensation and legal redress. In this Seventh General Report, GRETA highlights the particular challenges of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. Labour exploitation was chosen as one of the thematic focuses of the second evaluation round of the Convention because of GRETA's concern that Convention obligations were not being met, and that many victims of labour trafficking were not being identified as such nor granted access to assistance and protection. 2017 saw the adoption of the landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Chowdury and Others v Greece, in which the Convention and its Explanatory Report, together with GRETA's reports on Italy and Spain, were widely cited. The judgment is an important contribution to European human rights law in recognising the complex and subtle forms of coercion that underpin trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. The judgment is significant given GRETA's findings that many domestic courts fail to fully understand the gravity of labour exploitation or the nexus with human trafficking. As of the end of 2017, GRETA had adopted 42 country reports under the first evaluation round and 25 country reports under the second evaluation round. These reports highlight that in many States Parties, trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation is the predominant form of human trafficking identified. There is, however, an increase in the number of identified victims of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation, and in several countries, labour trafficking has emerged as the predominant form of trafficking. While there are considerable variations in the number and proportion of labour trafficking victims among countries, all countries indicate an upward trend of labour exploitation. hese trends are of great concern to GRETA and highlight the urgent need for closer co-operation between States, civil society, trade unions and the private sector. GRETA has repeatedly stressed the need for comprehensive legislation on trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation, including recognition of the irrelevance of the victim's consent to the intended exploitation, and the need for heightened attention to the abuse of a position of vulnerability. Trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation occurs in the formal and informal economies, with migrant workers particularly at risk. Men constitute most of the identified victims of labour trafficking, in sectors as diverse as agriculture, construction, hospitality and fisheries. Women are also victims of trafficking for labour exploitation, often in the more isolated setting of domestic and care work. The possibility of trafficking occurring in diplomatic households is now well recognised, and GRETA's country reports highlight examples of good practice in prevention of such exploitation and in overcoming the barriers presented by state and diplomatic immunity claims. Poverty and discrimination on grounds of 'race' or ethnicity, as well as migration status, continue to contribute to the risks faced by minority communities, including risks of labour exploitation. The increasing precariousness of work, and the risks encountered by seasonal and migrant workers in particular, are documented in several of GRETA's country reports. The fisheries industry is recognised as posing particular challenges to the resourcing and functioning of inspectorates and other oversight bodies. GRETA's reports highlight steps being taken to strengthen preventive measures, yet the limited oversight of agricultural and other sectors contributes to difficulties in outreach to those often most at risk of exploitation. Limited resources for labour inspectorates, restrictions on collective bargaining and restricted access to channels for legal migration all contribute to labour trafficking. Access to information and to legal assistance remains a challenge for many victims of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation, and GRETA highlights the importance of ensuring that victims are not criminalised, and can secure access to compensation and effective legal redress. The move towards greater transparency in supply chains, with significant legislative developments as well as policy initiatives, is highlighted as a potentially useful tool to combat human trafficking. In 2017, GRETA again invoked its urgent procedure mechanism, undertaking a short country visit to Hungary, in response to concerns raised in relation to the identification and access to assistance and protection of victims of trafficking. The use of the urgent procedure ensures a more timely response to potentially serious violations of human rights. Combined with the one-year follow-up reporting by States Parties now adopted, GRETA's monitoring work is developing to be more responsive, timely and effective. Complementing GRETA's monitoring work is the continued expansion of the Council GRETA's recommendations. GRETA is also working with other Council of Europe bodies to strengthen the impact of its work, including with MONEYVAL to highlight the importance of financial investigations in disrupting trafficking networks, as well as with other international organisations and civil society to assist in the identification of victims of trafficking among asylum seekers and migrants. 2017 came to an end with images of human trafficking in Libya and concerns at labour exploitation of many migrants travelling en route to Europe. This highlights the urgent need for strengthened co-operation between states and prevention measures to combat exploitation and abuse. Details: Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, 2018. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2018 at: https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-1-7gr-en/16807af20e Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-1-7gr-en/16807af20e Shelf Number: 149745 Keywords: Asylum SeekersForced LaborHuman TraffickingLabor ExploitationLabor TraffickingMigrantsSexual ExploitationTrafficking for Labor |
Author: Danelo, David J. Title: For Protection or Profit? Free trade, human smuggling and international border management Summary: For the past two decades, policy officials and human-rights groups in both Europe and the US have participated in a vicious cycle of criticizing each other over the impact of border-control policies. Many activists hold enforcement authorities responsible for the human impact of migration enforcement, evident in allegations of increases in human smuggling and the grim realities of migrant deaths. In contrast, policymakers often claim that humanrights advocates encourage migration and risk-taking by proposing consequence-free international transit, which exacerbates the problem. Although the role of free-trade policies and supply chains is critical to understanding the border-management landscape in which these activities play out, customs laws are rarely considered by either side in this debate. This policy paper considers the impact of multinational corporations on border control through so-called trusted trader and traveller programmes, whose aim is to reduce border inspections for individuals and companies by allowing inspectors to pre-screen cargo and passengers who pass background investigations. Although these programmes have become essential to the management of global supply chains, they often create an illusion of increased security while simultaneously intensifying the divide between those who are and those who are not willing to pay the fees to participate in them. The paper also critically examines two pillars of American border policy - beyond-the-border initiatives and joint border management - and compares them with security elements of the European system. These mechanisms, which increased sharply through American-led initiatives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, often appear effective and harmless, and therefore receive little scrutiny. Both in the US and Europe, multinational border-control agreements have been subjected to little scrutiny because of the failure of stakeholders to hold the global transportation system and state authorities accountable for these agreements. Although scant empirical evidence is available, what little does exist suggests that illicit activities, such as smuggling, are only marginally deterred by these strategies. By taking advantage of the vulnerabilities in such border-control agreements, smugglers of migrants and contraband are able to exploit trusted trader/ traveler programmes and public-private partnerships by using companies or people that are participants to make illicit transits. Although these agreements should not be eliminated, Europe should be cautious about mirroring the American approach to border management. And amid the current political climate of increasingly xenophobic US immigration policies, European policy negotiators should consider stipulating minimum requirements for participation in US programmes, including protections for people seeking humanitarian relief. Details: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Note: Accessed April 18, 2018 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Shelf Number: 149847 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlBorder SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationMigration EnforcementOrganized Crime |
Author: Park, Maki Title: Responding to the ECEC Needs of Children of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe and North America Summary: In Europe and North America, the arrival of heightened numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in recent years has challenged the ability of governments and service providers to both meet initial reception needs and provide effective long-term integration services. Young children make up a significant share of these newcomers. As a result, there is a pressing need for early childhood education and care (ECEC) programs equipped to serve culturally and linguistically diverse learners and their families, including by supporting the healthy development of children who have experienced trauma. his report explores the findings of a nine-country study of ECEC policies and practices designed to serve young children of refugees and asylum seekers. It draws on fieldwork conducted in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States-major host countries with varied refugee and asylum-seeker populations, migration-management policies, and ECEC systems-to highlights both common challenges and promising practices. In many of the countries studied, country-wide responses to the ECEC needs of this population have been weak or nonexistent, as has support for the local government actors charged with ECEC service provision. And while many ECEC programs recognize the importance of trauma-informed care, few feel they have the training or resources to adequately provide it. Nonetheless, some countries and individual ECEC programs have developed strategies to better serve these children-from expanding services and language supports, to offering health and educational services in one location, to boosting stakeholder coordination through interagency and community partnerships. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2018. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/responding-ecec-needs-children-refugees-asylum-seekers-europe-north-america Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/responding-ecec-needs-children-refugees-asylum-seekers-europe-north-america Shelf Number: 149857 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChildren of ImmigrantsImmigration PolicyRefugees |
Author: Bruni, Vittorio Title: Study on Migration Routes in West and Central Africa Summary: This report provides an overview of the complex migration trends in West and Central Africa. Based on a desk review of the existing literature and data, the report presents the main drivers and trends of migration in the region, the main routes migrants take to move from the region to get to Europe, migrant vulnerabilities, and the policy and programme responses to migration (multilateral and inter-regional frameworks, regional organizations, and bilateral agreements). The migration contexts of thirteen countries in West and Central Africa are examined: Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. These countries are, to different extents, all origin, transit, and/or destination countries of migrants. In West and Central Africa, asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants move within the region and beyond it, motivated by different and often overlapping factors, including conflicts, political and socio-economic conditions, and environmental causes. Economic migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, tend to use similar migration routes and modes of travel. Among the group of migrants originating from the focus countries there are also irregular migrants and victims of human trafficking. For most "irregular" West-African migrants, migration is "regular" in the sense that movements of citizens of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are prescribed by the freedom of movement protocols of ECOWAS. However, while citizens in this region have the right to free movement, they often lack the correct or recognised documents for movement, making them "irregular" migrants in the region. Even with the ECOWAS free movement protocol in place, there are many barriers to regular migration for prospective migrants, including administrative and bureaucratic challenges and a lack of governmental ability to implement ECOWAS legislations. Corruption is also a major impediment to regular migration, as paying bribes to border patrols is, in many countries, an institutionalised norm. Bribes are often required even when migrants are in possession of proper documentation. Most migrants in the West and Central African region move within the region, and they largely do so by travelling by highways in private cars or buses. Contrary to popular belief, the minority of people that migrate from the region seek to reach Europe. Among those migrants that seek to reach Europe, most rely for the last part of their journey on smugglers that will bring them from some northern Nigerien or Malian cities to either Algeria or, more commonly, Libya. Generally, the complex nature of migration in the region makes it a challenge to identify different types of migrants and their specific vulnerabilities and needs. For these reasons, the flows of migration in the region are often referred to as mixed or complex migration. Details: Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, 2017. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1518182884.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Africa URL: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1518182884.pdf Shelf Number: 149927 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityHuman TraffickingImmigrantsImmigration PolicyMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Marchand, Katrin Title: Study on Migration Routes in the East and Horn of Africa Summary: This report provides an overview of the complex mixed migration trends in the East and Horn of Africa. Based on a desk review of the existing literature and data on the main drivers and trends of migration in the region, the main routes, migrant vulnerabilities and needs as well as policy and programme responses to migration are presented. Specifically, the mixed migration context of eight countries in the East and Horn of Africa is examined: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. These countries are, to different extents, all origin, transit and/ or destination countries of migrants. In the East and Horn of Africa, asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants move within the region as well as beyond for a variety of different factors, including conflicts, political and socio-economic conditions as well as environmental causes in their respective countries of origin. These migrants often use the same migration routes and modes of travel, including smugglers. In addition, victims of trafficking may also be among these migrants. Overall, this mixed nature of migration in the region makes it a challenge to identify different types of migrants and their specific vulnerabilities and needs. Drivers of Migration The factors that lead people to make the decision to migrate through both regular and irregular channels are often called the drivers of migration. This includes both voluntary and forced movements as well as temporary and permanent ones. The countries in the East and Horn of Africa share many characteristics, but differ in others. It can be said that the region as a whole faces challenges associated with low human and economic development. In addition, violent conflicts, political oppression and persecution are or have been main migration drivers in Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. In the case of Eritrea the obligatory national service requirements present another significant driver of migration. Environmental factors are also increasingly affecting countries in the region and impact peoples' livelihoods and migration decisions. Migration from Uganda and Kenya is mainly driven by economic factors. Often it is a mix of different factors that lead to the decision to migrate. It is important to keep in mind that even though the eight focus countries share some common drivers of migration the specific country context matters. Details: Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, 2017. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1517475164.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Africa URL: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1517475164.pdf Shelf Number: 149929 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Border Security Human TraffickingImmigrants Immigration Policy Migrants Refugees |
Author: Liddell, Marg Title: Evaluation of the Walking Alongside Program (WAP) Summary: This report on the evaluation of the Flemington and Kensington Community Legal Centre's (FKCLC) Walking Alongside Program (WAP) presents findings on the extent to which the outcomes of the program have fulfilled its objectives to date. The WAP is a socio-legal support program for young people of Sudanese and other African migrant/refugee backgrounds pursuing police accountability through often long-running legal actions. It was developed as an adjunct to the FKCLC's Police Accountability Project (PAP)in recognition of its client group's vulnerability and need for ongoing support. The outcome objectives this evaluation set out to measure include enhanced legal, health and educational outcomes; enhanced police accountability; improvements in health and well-being; enhanced community capacity, safety and resilience; reduction in social exclusion and barriers to justice; and whether the WAP is an effective model for replication. A qualitative approach to the evaluation was taken involving interviews and case file analysis. Academic and policy literature on the themes of hope, social exclusion, wellbeing, and community capacity was reviewed as these represent important aspects of the migrant/refugee resettlement experience. While the complexity and overlap of these concepts is acknowledged in the literature, a general consensus emerges about their core meanings, as we discuss. We also consider the literature on therapeutic jurisprudence since this principle underpins the FKCLCs approach to its work. The assumption is that legal processes and interactions can have both harmful and helpful consequences. The FKCLC clearly sees its role as remedying any harmful effects and promoting access to justice for individuals and communities in the inner west region of Melbourne and beyond. These themes are central to the WAP and highlight the important role this kind of program plays to ensure that migrants and refugees in the Flemington and Kensington area (and elsewhere) are welcomed, supported and treated as equal members of our multicultural society. That is not, however, to downplay or disregard the rich diversity within and between communities. The emphasis on participant-driven evaluation in the literature cautions against adopting predetermined constructs or measures. We acknowledge, therefore, that the construct 'refugee youth' itself "can mask the diverse ways in which a young person from a refugee background experiences the world" (Brough et al. 2003: 195): as a young black person, man, woman, migrant, refugee, African, Somalian, Sudanese, Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk, for example. The literature highlights the need to allow and encourage interviewees to give voice to their own experience, rather than impose preconceived measures upon them. Also that in-depth narrative accounts provide a rich source of qualitative data about both individual and shared experience. We prepared interview questions that were designed to elicit and capture narrative accounts of the views and experiences of WAP participants, their family members, and support professionals. Thematic content analysis of the qualitative data provided the basis for this evaluation. A total of thirteen interviews were conducted. The very low take-up rate for interviews with WAP participants - only four were possible - reflects these young people's vulnerability, disengagement, and the difficulty gaining access to this group. Some of the professionals interviewed referred to a period of six to nine months needed to gain their trust. This timeframe extended beyond that available for the evaluation. Interview data was therefore supplemented by analysis of twenty WAP files, which enabled the researchers to obtain a broader picture of the role of the youth engagement officers (YEOs) as well as a view on whether the overall objectives of the WAP had been met. Difficulties also arose in locating family members to interview, with only one coming forward. Eight professionals were interviewed: three from FKCLC, and five support professionals who worked with the same group of young people or with other disengaged youth in the Western region. Although the sample was small, data from the file analysis and individual interviews indicated that most of the objectives of the WAP were being met. Frequent accolades of the YEO, both past and current, related especially to their unconditional care and positive regard for the young people and their families, and their ability to work collaboratively with other services to provide holistic case management. Interviews with professionals reflected a deep understanding of the WAP client group and many referred to this group's vulnerability and disengagement from family, community and the service system. The professionals commented on the value of the PAP and the WAP and the importance of the notion of 'walking alongside' people engaged in protracted human rights litigation. All professionals indicated that the YEO was able to undertake tasks that they were often unable to, due to the flexibility of the YEO's role in providing unlimited and unconditional support, regardless of the client's situation. They believed that, without the YEO, many of the young people would not have pursued or continued with their police accountability cases. The advocacy role of the YEO was pivotal in raising awareness of the plight of the people linked to both the WAP and the PAP. This was reinforced with examples of over-policing and discrimination. While there were criticisms of police there were also comments that some police engaged positively with African young people in inner west Melbourne. The overwhelming view expressed was that more police needed to understand and be prepared to engage in an appropriate and respectful manner with African migrants/refugees. WAP participants interviewed indicated the value of the program, with reference to the YEO's ability to stick with them or "hang in there" with young people "no matter what." Participants felt that this helped the young people combat a sense of helplessness and to feel empowered, more confident to pursue their rights. For some this had translated into an ability to advocate for themselves and others, leading their peers in ways to effectively respond to police and to become model responsible citizens. Testament to the YEO's commitment was that WAP clients maintained and/or resumed contact with them. Support and interpretation of court proceedings by the YEO enabled the legal and non-legal proceedings to be brought together and this reduced the stress for the WAP clients. This was important for not just the FKCLC staff but for other staff working with the WAP clients. All those interviewed, including the WAP clients, felt that there was value in the WAP concept being replicated in other community legal centres. They felt that as well as human rights and police accountability cases it could be extended to support people involved in criminal and civil litigation. This was reinforced in comments that the YEO was able to provide systemic advocacy and be inclusive and collaborative in her work with a range of services, both legal and non-legal. Without the WAP the participants felt that "things would return to the way they were" and this would mean a reduction in police accountability. It would also mean that young people would have no place to go when they felt that they were being targeted or discriminated against. All interviewees referred to there being insufficient funding and time for the current YEO position. All thought that the funding should be extended as this would give the YEO greater capacity to assist more young people, as well as advocate for change in the way that young people are dealt with in legal, criminal and civil proceedings. While the data sets were small, sufficient information emerged to determine that the WAP objectives were being met, and to support the recommendation that the program be continued and extended. Recommendations From the findings of this evaluation, we recommend the following: 1. The Youth Engagement Officer (YEO) should be funded to cover more days of the week - currently the position is funded for three days. 2. Consideration should be given to employing an additional YEO. 3. The funding for the Walking Alongside Program (WAP) should be extended to include more time: - to work with police to improve the collaborative relationships between police and the young people being supported by the WAP - while this is currently being undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer of the Flemington Kensington Community Legal Centre (FKCLC) there is clearly a role for a YEO in this process; - to be able to provide support to more people over more days of the week; - to make improvements to the internal procedures in managing the cases; - so that collection of information from the point at which the Youth Engagement Officers commences contact with the Police Accountability Program and vice versa can be documented and internal file sharing and file management can be streamlined. 4. Consideration should be given for FKCLC to take a leadership and advocacy role to assist other Community Legal Centres to undertake legal and non-legal advocacy work. This could include: - Human rights and public interest litigation - Criminal and civil litigation. This emphasis should be on the collaborative role of the YEO to facilitate, support and advocate for program participants' access to the range of services required to meet their wider social and emotional needs. 5. FKCLC and the YEO should use these findings to continue to raise awareness, as Higgs (2013) suggests, of: - the value of giving young people hope to develop pathways away from behaviours that are harmful to themselves and others; - the need to recognise and acknowledge injustices that many young people experience and work to remedy these to improve their overall well-being; - the need to establish more inclusionary practices so that young people can feel part of a community of care, within the broader community. 6. Recognising that the FKCLC has helped clients to become advocates and peer leaders, we recommend this model be expanded to train other young people as mentors to work alongside the YEO and the community. 7. While the study was small there were sufficient comments on police behaviour to suggest that police training be enhanced to include anti-bias training. A recent example of six young African men being asked to leave an Apple store suggests that such bias is a wider community problem. 8. Further qualitative research (such as life narratives and participant observations- see Fangen 2010) is required to explore and raise awareness of the problems African youth and their families encounter in settling in a new country, given the traumatic experiences they have often faced in their home country. Details: Melbourne: RMIT University, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diana_Johns/publication/304269475_Evaluation_of_the_Walking_Alongside_Program_WAP/links/576b612808aef2a864d211ae/Evaluation-of-the-Walking-Alongside-Program-WAP.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diana_Johns/publication/304269475_Evaluation_of_the_Walking_Alongside_Program_WAP/links/576b612808aef2a864d211ae/Evaluation-of-the-Walking-Alongside-Program-WAP.pdf Shelf Number: 150413 Keywords: Asylum SeekersMigrantsPolice AccountabilityPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPolice-Juvenile RelationsRefugees |
Author: Oikonomou, Spyros-Vlad Title: Borderlines of Despair: First-line reception of asylum seekers at the Greek borders Summary: The implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement on March 20, 2016 (henceforth the "Statement"), coupled with the closure of the so-called "Balkan Route", led to a drastic decrease of the unprecedented refugee flows experienced throughout 2015 in the Eastern Mediterranean. It also led to the entrapment of more than 50,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Greece, and especially on the five main island points of entry: Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos. Shortly afterwards, on April 3, 2016, the Greek Parliament adopted Law 4375/2016 (henceforth L.4375/2016), introducing the "fast-track border procedure", which though providing less safeguards for asylum seekers and applicable only under exceptional circumstances, has been since used with a view to the Statement's implementation. In the same context, the "first country of asylum" and "safe third country" clauses, which formed part of previous legislation, were now used to implement the Statement, by making it possible to return ("readmission") to Turkey not only newly arrived (at the islands) "irregular migrants," but also asylum seekers and refugees whose asylum applications would thereafter be found "inadmissible", as per a clause that had never before been previously enforced. Cumulatively, these events marked a new chapter in the Greek/European management of Migration, with one of its defining characteristics being the gradual (re)institutionalization of the overall management of Greek-bound mixed migration flows. In the meanwhile, and within this state-led re-appropriation of border management, the newly established island Reception and Identification Centers (RICs), as well as the land border RIC of Evros (RIC at Fylakio, Evros), became the frontline structures for the reception and accommodation of foreign nationals/non-nationals fleeing persecution and/or destitution. The project In this context, the current project was aimed at assessing how (and if) some aspects of the reception of third-country nationals/non-nationals at the Greek borders evolved since the Statement's implementation in March 2016, and up to the research's conclusion in April 2018. The point of reference for this was the recast European Directive on the reception of applicants for international protection (Reception Directive), which though belatedly transposed into Greek legislation on the 15th of May 2018, still provides/provided for the absolute minimum standards for the reception of third country nationals/non-nationals applying for asylum in Europe, and therefore in Greece as well. The primary analytical lens, however, was that of the experiences to which asylum seekers have been subjected throughout their initial reception at the Greek borders, in the context of their RIC-based reception and accommodation. Therefore, the main underlying questions revolved around what happens when asylum seekers arrive in Greece, to what extent are their reception and accommodation (living conditions) in line with the imperative to respect and protect their decency and rights, and what are the effects of reception towards both their short and long-term well-being, as well as their relation with their new host society. In terms of methodology, the project was based on interviews with officials and/or other professionals engaged in the field of refugee protection, field research and desk-based research. Interviews and discussions were primarily carried out with GCR personnel at the borders and in Athens and Thessaloniki, and were complemented by some 38 additional interviews with state and other officials and employees working in the field. Desk research consisted primarily of reviewing GCR's internal and published reports, legal documents, as well as reports and articles published by intergovernmental, nongovernmental and other organizations and professionals. Field research, lastly, consisted of visiting a number of refugee reception sites (RICs) and Pre-Removal Centers, of which those found at the island border regions of Lesvos and Kos, the Greek-Turkish land border of Evros, as well as two makeshift accommodation sites/squats at the city-port of Patra will be examined in the current report. Details: Athens: Greek Council Refugees, 2018. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2018 at: www.gcr.gr Year: 2018 Country: Greece URL: www.gcr.gr Shelf Number: 150433 Keywords: Asylum SeekersMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Canada: Important Reforms, Ongoing Concerns Summary: Although Canada has experienced increasing immigration pressures, including receiving in 2017 the highest number of asylum claims in its history, the country has not witnessed the same acrimonious public debate over immigration seen elsewhere. It has adopted important reforms, including the introduction of a National Immigration Detention Framework aimed at improving detention conditions and reducing the use of prisons for immigration reasons. Concerns, however, remain: One third of immigration detainees are still held in prisons, including individuals with mental health conditions; there is no maximum limit to the length of detention; children may be "housed" in detention facilities to prevent the separation of families; Canada is one of only a handful of countries with a mandatory detention policy, which includes detention for up to 12 months with no judicial review; and anti-terrorism provisions in its immigration legislation have been used to detain and deport foreign nationals on secret evidence. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2018. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GDP-Immigration-Detention-Canada-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Canada URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GDP-Immigration-Detention-Canada-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 150582 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Global Detention Project: Annual Report 2017 Summary: The world's population is growing, as are the numbers of people on the move, driven by hunger, persecution, war, scarcity, or dreams of a better future. In 2017, according to UN statistics, there were 258 million international migrants, 60 percent of whom were living in Asia and Europe. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 22 million of these people fall within the protections provided by the UN Refugee Convention. Whether a child migrant, a refugee, an asylum seeker, a victim of trafficking, or a stateless person, what is common to all of these vulnerable people are the growing numbers of obstacles being placed in their way, including detention and deportation, as well as increasingly hostile public attitudes. While the world's leading migration experts and human rights bodies are taking notice of the plight of these people, as reflected in the negotiations over the Global Compacts on refugees and migrants, there remains a critical need for more detailed, systematic information about the treatment and conditions non-citizens face in detention in order to hold governments accountable and advocate for effective, meaningful reforms. This demand for more and better detention data was repeatedly affirmed by international bodies in 2017, including by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, the UN Special Representative on Migration, and the UN Independent Expert of the Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty. Recognition of this need spurred the founding of the Global Detention Project more than a decade ago as a student-led research project at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Motivated by the goal of measuring the worldwide spread of immigration detention, GDP researchers developed a first-of-its-kind methodology for documenting where people are deprived of their liberty for migration-related reasons. This methodology has since expanded to include indicators on a range of other elements of detention systems, including conditions in detention, statistical trends, domestic and international law, and the institutions responsible for operating and providing services in detention. To date we have developed data on more than 100 countries and 2,100 detention centres. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, 2018. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/global-detention-project-annual-report-2017 Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/global-detention-project-annual-report-2017 Shelf Number: 150825 Keywords: Asylum SeekersIllegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants Refugees Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Kanics, Jyothi, ed. Title: Migrating Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children's Migration to Europe Summary: The independent migration of children, while having several characteristics and many links in common with that of adults, has emerged as a specific phenomenon all over the world. The planned, forced or spontaneous decision to abandon the household and country of origin takes on a new dimension when the people involved in a long and often dangerous migration adventure are sometimes just in their early teens. Since the early 1990s, most European countries have been destination or transit points (sometimes both) for these young migrants. When confronted with the migration of unaccompanied and separated children, European national legal frameworks and government policies are known to be in continual conflict between the more or less repressive enforcement of their asylum and/or immigration rules and an ambiguous (but timid) interpretation of the international and national legal instruments created for the care of children 'in need', regardless of their origin or nationality. There is often a marked discrepancy between, on the one hand, the rights to which migrants in general, and child migrants in particular, are entitled according to international legal standards and, on the other, the effective protection they receive and the difficulties they experience in the countries where they live and work and through which they travel. This disparity between the principles agreed to by governments and the reality of individual lives underscores the vulnerability of migrants in terms of dignity and human rights. A major problem for children is that they are considered as migrants before they are considered as children - this automatically lowers their legal protection, as international standards regarding children are much more elaborated and more widely ratified than those regarding migrants. Migrants have rights under two sets of international instruments: first, the core human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the provisions of which apply universally and thus protect migrants; and second, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions that apply specifically to migrants, and to migrant workers in particular. Furthermore, children have rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). But, as with migrants generally, there is no international or regional legislative framework dealing directly with child migrants. Nonetheless, in addition to the ICCPR and ICESCR, norms regarding children's welfare in general and the protection of children from economic exploitation and harmful work are directly or indirectly relevant to children, accompanied or unaccompanied, who are in a process of forced or voluntary movement. Similarly, the protective measures within the CRC, the ILO Conventions on child labour, the UN Protocols on trafficking, and regional instruments are also relevant. Within the European Union (EU) legal framework, the protection of child migrants is very limited and no regional legal framework that adequately addresses this issue is in place. Generally, the ability to migrate or travel legally without an adult is quite limited for children, especially internationally. This means that children migrating alone are more likely to do so irregularly, thus increasing the risk of exploitation or abuse. Research into independent child migration suggests that it is usually older children who are involved in this phenomenon; that child migration is usually highest in regions where adult migration is also high; that independent child migration can be, and often is, a positive decision taken by the child with the aim of improving life opportunities; and that child migrants, like adults, rely on their social and financial resource networks when migrating. The current dominant debate in most European countries is still restricted to the national level and sometimes even to national/regional or local levels. The double or even triple level of competences in most of the national territories implies a significant spread of diverging national practices that shape the treatment of migrant children. The competences regarding immigration and asylum issues (access to the territory, identification, asylum process, immigration status) are generally assumed at national level. However, aspects relating to the care of children (evaluation of the individual situation, reception and care, guardianship or fostering) are often within the competence of regional or local authorities and practices therefore vary widely. This dispersion and confusion, combined with a lack of adequate responses to the main objectives of migrant children, mean that a significant number remain outside the control of the relevant authorities and care institutions. As a result, these unprotected migrant children live in situations of increasing vulnerability and instability as victims of trafficking and exploitation networks or simply surviving on their own, sometimes by committing illicit or unlawful activities. Despite the completion of various research studies on this issue, this reality remains broadly unidentified. The central issues of understanding how this migration is constructed in the contexts of origin, and the different factors playing a role in the migration of these children, require a more extensive examination. To date, hardly any research has been carried out on the children's main countries and regions of origin, which might indicate the main 'push factors' and the motivation behind the increasing number of departures. The main migrant children's profiles, the social and economic situation of their families and the role played by the household and the communities in the migration decision, the choice of the migration route and the function of those encountered during the journey are all key points that remain largely unknown. A better knowledge of these factors will allow not only an understanding of the migration fluxes and phenomena on a more abstract or academic level, but will prove essential if effective protection and respect for these children are to be secured. The desire to find answers to all these questions and uncertainties lay behind the organization of an international conference, 'The Migration of Unaccompanied Minors in Europe: the Contexts of Origin, the Migration Routes and the Reception Systems'. This conference, organized by the research centre MIGRINTER, University of Poitiers-CNRS and the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (based in Belgium) with the support of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences Sector, was held in Poitiers (France) in October 2007 with the aim of creating a forum for discussion between researchers and practitioners in this field. Experts from over twenty countries participated and exchanged information on three main issues: - a comparative approach to the different legislative frameworks, policies and practices in various European countries and an overview and analysis of the protection offered at European level on the basis of international obligations; - an overview of the situation of children who lack protection in the destination countries; and - an analysis of the situation and definition of childhood and the different profiles of migrant and potential migrant children in the main countries of origin. The present publication brings together the main conclusions of the Poitiers conference. From a selection of the most relevant contributions, it seeks to provide an extensive overview of the main questions and issues outlined above. The contributors come from a wide variety of disciplines, combining mainly legal, sociological and anthropological backgrounds. They generally provide an analytical approach to the different issues from both a descriptive and a critical perspective. The three original parts of the conference have been condensed into two main parts in the book: the first five chapters describe the situation and treatment of unaccompanied and separated migrant and asylum-seeking children in the destination societies; and the following chapters analyse the main contexts of origin of migrant children and the different factors playing a role in migration choices. Details: Paris: UNESCO, 2010. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2018 at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190796e.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190796e.pdf Shelf Number: 150926 Keywords: Asylum SeekersChild LaborChild Migrants Child Trafficking Immigration Enforcement Refugees Unaccompanied Children Unaccompanied Minors |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Libya: "A Human Rights Crisis" Summary: Libya is notoriously perilous for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, who often suffer a litany of abuses, including at the country's numerous detention facilities. Conditions at these facilities, many of which are under the control of militias, are deplorable. There are frequent shortages of water and food; over-crowding is endemic; detainees can experience physical mistreatment and torture; forced labour and slavery are rife; and there is a stark absence of oversight and regulation. Nevertheless, Italy and the European Union continue to strike controversial migration control deals with various actors in Libya aimed at reducing flows across the Mediterranean. These arrangements include equipping Libyan farces to "rescue" intercepted migrants and refugees at sea, investing in detention centres, and paying militias to control migration. KEY CONCERNS Refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants are regularly exposed to indefinite detention in centres run by the Interior Ministry's Department for Combating Illegal Immigration or local militias; Detention conditions across the country are a matter of "grave concern," according to the UN, as detainees are forced to live in severely overcrowded facilities with little food, water, or medical care, and suffer physical abuse, forced labour, slavery, and torture; The automatic placement of asylum seekers and migrants intercepted at sea in detention centres places them at risk of human rights abuses, which could be attenuated by expanding the use of shelters and other non-custodial measures that have been proposed by international experts; There do not appear to be any legal provisions regulating administrative forms of immigration detention and there is an urgent need for the country to develop a sound legal framework for its migration polices that is in line with international human rights standards; There is severely inadequate data collection by national authorities concerning the locations and numbers of people apprehended by both official agencies and non-state actors; Women and children are not recognised as requiring special attention and thus they remain particularly vulnerable to abuse and ill-treatment, including rape and human trafficking; Italy and the European Union continue to broker deals with various Libyan forces to control migration despite their involvement in severe human rights abuses and other criminal activities. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/africa/libya Year: 2018 Country: Libya URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-libya-a-human-rights-crisis Shelf Number: 151434 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration DetentionImmigration EnforcementRefugees |
Author: Arriola Vega, Luis Alfredo Title: Policy Adrift: Mexico's Southern Border Program Summary: Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) is the latest in a series of public policy initiatives dealing with one of three aspects (or more commonly, all of them) pertaining to Mexico's southern border: migration matters, border issues, and security concerns. While these three areas are not always and necessarily connected, the significance of the border in U.S. foreign policy strategy and the progressive escalation of a securitization agenda at the southern border have increasingly brought them together, for the most part. Viewed from a historical perspective, PFS shares some of the same features that characterized prior attempts to regulate matters at the border and to manage migration. Despite the fact that PFS was conceived as an instrument of state policy intended to foster development and reinforce border security while mitigating migrants' vulnerability, the program's results so far raise deep concerns as to whether it has complied with its stated spirit. Meant at first as a comprehensive initiative, PFS ended up being merely a program to contain in-transit, undocumented migrants (El Colegio de la Frontera Norte 2015), from a security standpoint. PFS took effect at the same time as - and, in fact, has been a response to - a perceived "crisis." The number of unauthorized Central Americans who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States has slowly but steadily increased in recent years. Statistics on the number of people apprehended by Mexico's National Migration Institute (INM by its acronym in Spanish) provide an approximate measure of this trend. While the number apprehended in 2013 was 79,908, in 2014, it had risen to 118,446; the following year, it climbed to 177,949, showing a twofold increase over 2013 (Unidad de Politica Migratoria Secretaria de Gobernacion 2013, 2014, 2015). In addition to this increased flow, a growing number of individuals and entire families are fleeing from violence in their home countries, making them potential asylum applicants. While the phenomenon is not new per se, the fact that more claims for refugee status are being filed in Mexico is a relatively recent development. Furthermore, there is a substantial increase in the number of minors (accompanied and unaccompanied ) that join the exodus (Carlson and Gallagher 2015). Adolescents, in particular, comprise a significant amount of those seeking asylum as they have become direct targets of gangs' recruitment attempts or directly threatened by these criminal groups. This paper attempts to shed light on the performance and legacy of PFS as a policy instrument meant to deter unauthorized migration to the United States, a common concern of both the United States and Mexico. Research focuses mainly on developments that have taken place along the beginning of the two main migrant routes at Mexico's southern border region; primary field information came from Tapachula (Chiapas) and Tenosique (Tabasco). One route starts at the Ciudad Hidalgo (Chiapas)/Tecun Uman (San Marcos) border crossing and extends all the way to central Mexico via Oaxaca. The other follows the Gulf coastline and begins at the port of entry known as El Ceibo and nearby locations at the Tabasco (Mexico)/Peten (Guatemala) borderline, passes through Veracruz, and on to Tamaulipas. The data gathering process included, on the one hand, interviews with two migrants' rights advocates, a former consular member of the Guatemalan government, a migrant shelter volunteer, a state officer in Chiapas, and an ex-employee from a government-run shelter for minors. Attempts to talk with INM personnel and the former head of the PFS proved unsuccessful.4 On the other hand, the research involved obtaining information from secondary sources, including reports by NGO and advocacy groups, the media, and official government documents. The study addressed a number of different questions. Did PFS contemplate a working strategy to reconcile its dual objective of implementing both protective measures for migrants and enforcement policies? To what extent does PFS embody seemingly conflicting public policy aims? Is Mexico turning into a "migration manager" for its northern neighbor, as suggested by one source (Rietig and Dominguez 2014)? Will Mexico be able to implement an autonomous policy regarding immigration and transmigration, independently from U.S. interests? What are the programs achievements, and what was its overall performance? What have been some of its intended and unintended consequences? In light of the program's assessment, what changes are needed for Mexico's migration policy as a whole? What are appropriate policy recommendations for achieving an orderly and prosperous southern border with a particular focus on public policy toward Central Americans? What are specific suggestions for all governmental parties involved - the United States, Mexico, and migrants' countries of origin? What feedback do civil society actors require to better deal with PFS' outcomes? Details: Houston: Mexico Center, Rice University, Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 3, 2018 at: https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/fa7ac127/MEX-pub-FronteraSur-062317.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/fa7ac127/MEX-pub-FronteraSur-062317.pdf Shelf Number: 151773 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder Security Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants Unauthorized Immigration |
Author: Rutter, Jill Title: National Conversation on Immigration: Final report Summary: Coordinated by British Future and HOPE not hate, the National Conversation engaged 19,951 people, with more than 130 meetings in 60 locations across every nation and region of the UK. Citizens' panels in each place were recruited to be representative of the local population and researchers also met local government, businesses, faith and civil society representatives. In addition to nationally representative research by ICM, an open online survey was completed by nearly 10,000 people. The approach builds on a model used by the Canadian Government to help shape its own approach to immigration. One thing we'll be calling for is that the UK Government follows their example and does more to engage the public on this important issue. The report provides a comprehensive evidence base of public views on immigration, including reports from each of the 60 locations visited and over 40 recommendations to national and local government, business and civil society. Some of the issues on which we make proposals for change include: What are the common issues raised across the UK? What are the local differences and place-specific concerns? How should Britain approach migration for work after Brexit? How do we build public confidence in the immigration system? International student migration and universities; Protecting refugees; Improving Home Office performance; How do we address prejudice, resentment and hate? How can we make integration work better? How are face-to-face discussions about immigration different to those online? Can we find consensus on immigration and, if so, how? Details: London: British Future; HOPE not hate, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2018 at: http://nationalconversation.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINAL-2-national-conversation-september-report-2018-09-final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://nationalconversation.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINAL-2-national-conversation-september-report-2018-09-final.pdf Shelf Number: 153511 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration PolicyMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Leutert, Stephanie Title: Asylum Processing tne Waitlists at the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: "For more than two years, CBP has implemented "metering" procedures for asylum seekers in multiple ports of entry across the U.S.-Mexico border. However, over the past six months, these practices have become institutionalized and have been extended across the entire southern border. Currently, CBP officers are stationed at the international dividing line between the United States and Mexico at all ports of entry and provide a similar message" there is currently no processing capacity"-to arriving asylum seekers. Instead, each port of entry coordinates with Mexican officials to accept a certain number of asylum seekers every day. These shifts in CBP procedures have left lines of asylum seekers waiting in almost every major Mexican border city. Yet while CBP officers have standardized their practices, there is no set process for asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the border. While almost all border cities now have a "list" that functions as a virtual line for asylum seekers-for example, the infamous "notebook" in Tijuana-the list management and logistics vary significantly by city. For example, the actual list managers have ranged from Grupo Beta (the Mexican government agency in charge of humanitarian assistance for migrants) to civil society organizations to municipal governments, and the processing steps may entail providing asylum seekers with bracelets or taking their photos after they arrive to the U.S.-Mexico border. There are also a range of practices and dynamics in Mexican border cities that block asylum seekers from accessing U.S. ports of entry. In Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexican migration officials stationed near the international bridges have stopped all asylum seekers from crossing during the past three months. In Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas and Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Central Americans cannot access the international border bridges without temporary transit permits. In Matamoros, Tamaulipas there are allegations of asylum seekers having to pay a fee in order to get on the waiting list, and in Tijuana, Baja California asylum seekers currently face a three month wait time in order to make their claim. This report provides a snapshot of the asylum processing system at the U.S.-Mexico border, with particular attention to asylum seekers waiting in Mexico. The report compiles fieldwork carried out in eight cities along the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. It draws on in-person and phone interviews with government officials, law enforcement officers, representatives from civil society organizations, journalists, and members of the public on both sides of the border. The report also relies on observations carried out at ports of entry and neighboring areas, and draws from government and legal documents, and news articles to detail current asylum processing dynamics." Details: Austin, TX: Robert Strauss Center, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Migration Policy Centre, 2018. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 11, 2018 at: https://www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/AsylumReport_MSI.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/AsylumReport_MSI.pdf Shelf Number: 153958 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityImmigrantsImmigration PolicyRefugees |
Author: Kandel, William A. Title: The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy Summary: For the last several years, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S. ports of entry, others do so after entering the United States "without inspection" (i.e., illegally) between U.S. ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a zero tolerance policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials contend are often fraudulent. Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecutes all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ's policy represents a change in the level of enforcement for an existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation. Prior Administrations prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently. Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015 judicial ruling held that children remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20 days. If parents cannot be released with them, children are treated as unaccompanied alien children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody. The widely publicized family separations are a consequence of the Trump Administration's 100 percent prosecution policy, not the result of any family separation policy. Since that policy was implemented, up to 3,000 children may have been separated from their parents. Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump ordered DHS to maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration proceedings. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most illegal border crossers to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all separated children be promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ's request to modify the FSA to extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some prior immigration enforcement policies. Family unit apprehensions, which increased from just over 11,000 in FY2012 to 68,560 in the first nine months of FY2018, are occurring within relatively low historical levels of total alien apprehensions. The national origin of recently apprehended aliens and families has shifted from mostly Mexican to mostly Central American. Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argue that measures like the zero tolerance policy are necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States and submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintain that alien family separation resulting from the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrors that occurring under the U.S. criminal justice system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with a crime and held in jail, effectively separating them from their children. Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing legitimate threats from countries with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance policy are cruel and violate fundamental human rights - such as the ability to request asylum. They maintain that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers question the Trump Administration's capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border crossers without additional resources. Others criticize the family separation policy in light of less expensive alternatives to detention. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018, 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2019: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=814001 Shelf Number: 154108 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder SecurityCustoms and Border ProtectionFamily SeparationHomeland Security Act of 2002Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementMigrantsTrafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in France: Longer, More Widespread, and Harder to Contest Summary: France has one of Europe's oldest - and largest - administrative immigration detention regimes. Since 1981, the year it adopted its first law explicitly providing for immigration detention, the country has passed some 30 immigration laws. In 2017, the country placed 46,857 people in immigration detention, 42 percent of whom were held in overseas territories (by way of comparison, in the United Kingdom, during the year ending in March 2018, approximately 29,000 people "entered detention"). Detainees in France spent on average 12.8 days in detention, far below the 45 days legal limit in place at that time. France operates 24 long-term immigration detention centres, euphemistically labelled centres de retention administrative ("administrative retention centres"), which have a total capacity of 1,543 beds. The country also operates 26 short-term administrative detention facilities called locaux de retention administrative. In 2018, the Interior Ministry announced plans to boost bed space in CRAs by 450 during 2019. Although European Union (EU) law allows member states to detain migrants for up to 18 months for deportation purposes, France retained - until recently - one of the lowest limits among EU member states (along with Iceland [42 days] and Spain [60 days]). In 2018, however, the situation changed significantly - prompted by Europe's "migration crisis" - with the adoption of controversial new legislation which, inter alia, doubles the detention limit to 90 days and reduces the time frame to apply for asylum from 120 days to 90 days. Many civil society organisations and national human rights institutions challenged the new law, with some critics calling it the Code de la honte ("code of shame"). The French ombudsman said, "Contrary to the discourse that everything should be done in favour of asylum seekers, they are in fact badly treated by this project." According to the ombudsman, the accelerated asylum procedures will "impose impossible deadlines on asylum seekers - which risks causing asylum seekers to lose their rights to appeal." Another recently adopted law, the March 2018 asylum bill, also came under sharp criticism because of fears that it may lead to widespread detention of asylum seekers who are awaiting transfer to another EU country under the Dublin III procedure. The law, which allows for the detention of people who have not yet been served an expulsion order, represents a major departure from previous French asylum protection policies. French NGOs are present on a daily basis inside the centres de retention administrative (CRAs) to provide legal and other forms of advice to detainees. Each year, they publish joint authoritative analyses of laws, policies, and practices, as well as detailed information on every detention facility. While having a permanent civil society presence in immigration detention centres is not wholly unique to France (in Lebanon, for instance, Caritas has had an office in the countrys main immigration detention centre), the French system seems to stand apart from others in the breadth of involvement of NGOs inside its 24 long-term facilities. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of readily available information about operations at detention centres, which is exceedingly rare. In the French overseas territory of Mayotte (part of the Comoros archipelago in the Indian Ocean), the French Constitution and successive immigration laws authorise important derogations to the application of immigration law. Local authorities expelled some 60 people a day from Mayotte during 2016 (with most denied access to a lawyer or judge before their expulsion)11 in defiance of the French ombudsman's recommendations as well as the European Court of Human rights' jurisprudence on the right to access an effective remedy. Although it has a population of less than 250,000, Mayotte manages to deport nearly 20,000 people each year: 17,934 in 2017 and 19,488 in 2016. In many countries the language of immigration detention can appear to be opaque or misleading. In the case of France, it crafted the terminology retention administrative ("administrative retention") as early as 1981, when it adopted its first immigration detention provisions. While some countries, including Argentina, have adopted this language, French-speaking countries like Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland continue to employ the word detention. A joint ministerial audit in 2005 found that this language created a "paradoxical" situation because "the alien placed in retention remains a free person, against whom no charge has been laid; he is only momentarily 'retained,' for the time required for organising his return. The whole paradox of retention lies in this principle. Before the judge of liberty and detention (JLD) the procedure is civil even if it borrows aspects of criminal law, in particular because the JLD can challenge the conditions of the arrest and the regularity of the custody." While many leading French advocates and academics have argued that detention centres should be called "camps" and denounced the use of euphemistic language when referring to places of deprivation of liberty, French civil society for the most part seems not to have specifically challenged the use of the word retention. However, the impact of this "paradoxical" phrasing is often clear in public and official discourse. For instance, during the debate over the 2018 legislation, the Minister of Justice misleadingly characterised the detention of families as allowing "children to be in an administrative centre with their parents." Civil society protest against immigration detention is common. Non-violent silence protests (cercles de silences) have been regularly held in many French cities since 2011. Many NGOs have argued that detention is a disproportionate response to irregular migration and that it largely fails in its stated purpose of enabling removal since less than half of the country's detainees are expelled following detention (40 percent of immigration detainees in mainland France were expelled in 2017, 42 percent of whom were expelled to another EU country). In contrast, officials bemoan that the high proportion of expulsion orders cancelled by judges creates obstacles, even though these judgments are based on respect for the rule of law. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: https://reliefweb.int/report/france/immigration-detention-france-longer-more-widespread-and-harder-contest Year: 2018 Country: France URL: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Immigration-Detention-in-France-October-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154243 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeportationHuman Rights AbusesImmigrationImmigration DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrationRefugees |
Author: Congressional Research Service Title: Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy Summary: Asylum is a complex area of immigration law and policy. While much of the recent debate surrounding asylum has focused on efforts by the Trump Administration to address asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border, U.S. asylum policies have long been a subject of discussion. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as originally enacted, did not contain any language on asylum. Asylum provisions were added and then revised by a series of subsequent laws. Currently, the INA provides for the granting of asylum to an alien who applies for such relief in accordance with applicable requirements and is determined to be a refugee. The INA defines a refugee, in general, as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Under current law and regulations, aliens who are in the United States or who arrive in the United States, regardless of immigration status, may apply for asylum (with exceptions). An asylum application is affirmative if an alien who is physically present in the United States (and is not in removal proceedings) submits an application to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). An asylum application is defensive when the applicant is in standard removal proceedings with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and requests asylum as a defense against removal. An asylum applicant may receive employment authorization 180 days after the application filing date. Special asylum provisions apply to aliens who are subject to a streamlined removal process known as expedited removal. To be considered for asylum, these aliens must first be determined by a USCIS asylum officer to have a credible fear of persecution. Under the INA, credible fear of persecution means that "there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum." Individuals determined to have a credible fear may apply for asylum during standard removal proceedings. Asylum may be granted by USCIS or EOIR. There are no numerical limitations on asylum grants. If an alien is granted asylum, his or her spouse and children may also be granted asylum, as dependents. A grant of asylum does not expire, but it may be terminated under certain circumstances. After one year of physical presence in the United States as asylees, an alien and his or her spouse and children may be granted lawful permanent resident status, subject to certain requirements. The Trump Administration has taken a variety of steps that would limit eligibility for asylum. As of the date of this report, legal challenges to these actions are ongoing. For its part, the 115th Congress considered asylum-related legislation, which generally would have tightened the asylum system. Several bills contained provisions that, among other things, would have amended INA provisions on termination of asylum, credible fear of persecution, frivolous asylum applications, and the definition of a refugee. Key policy considerations about asylum include the asylum application backlog, the grounds for granting asylum, the credible fear of persecution threshold, frivolous asylum applications, employment authorization, variation in immigration judges' asylum decisions, and safe third country agreements Details: Washington, DC: CRS, 2019. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: R45539: Accessed February 28, 2019 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45539.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45539.pdf Shelf Number: 154787 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Greek Council for Refugees Title: Human Cargo. Arbitrary readmissions from the Italian sea ports to Greece Summary: Every year, thousands of refugees and migrants hide in passenger ships, traveling in high-speed inflatable boats or in any other maritime transport, in an attempt, to cross the Adriatic Sea. These crossborder movements on this internal EU-border, in most of the cases, concern people in need of international protection. These people are trying to escape from Greece, their first European country of entry, which has been condemned by the European Court of Human rights (ECHtR) in the case of MSS v Belgium and Greece as not being safe for people in need of international protection. Apparently, the research findings clearly indicate that in the majority, people in need of international protection and unaccompanied minors who are detected and apprehended in the Italian ports and in the southern coasts of Italy, are either refused entry to the Italian territory or are readmitted back to Greece, without being granted any access to international protection, to any sort of registration of their claim, identification and individual evaluation of their case and/or vulnerability. Details: Frankfurt, Germany: Pro Asyl, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2019 at: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Human_Cargo_Arbitrary_Readmissions_from_Italy_to_Greece_July_2013.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Greece URL: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Human_Cargo_Arbitrary_Readmissions_from_Italy_to_Greece_July_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 155008 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder Security Human Rights Abuses Maritime Security Unaccompanied Minors |
Author: Fekete, Liz Title: When witnesses won't be silenced: citizens' solidarity and criminalisation Summary: Chronicling 17 cases involving 99 people in 2018 and the first months of 2019, this second report [1] on the criminalisation of humanitarian actors, shows the expansion and escalation of states' prosecutions during the 'migrant crisis'. For example, 2018 saw charges include: Membership of a criminal network or gang as well as, in the Stansted 15 case, terrorism-related offences In some cases, individuals and organisations have had phones tapped and bank accounts frozen In the case of search and rescue NGOs investigation and/or prosecution has been accompanied by 'smear campaigns' which seem to be spearheaded by the Italian government to delegitimize, slander and obstruct aid associations Details: London: Institute of Race Relations. 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 13: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2019/04/24131900/When-witnesses-wont-be-silenced-FINAL.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Europe URL: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2019/04/24131900/When-witnesses-wont-be-silenced-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 155555 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Human Rights Humanitarian Aid Immigration EnforcementImmigration Policy Migrants |
Author: Hampton, Kathryn Title: Zero Protection: How U.S. Border Enforcement Harms Migrant Safety and Health Summary: Over the past three decades, U.S. administrations from both parties have introduced border enforcement strategies that have led to the deaths or injuries of a growing number of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Public health research has documented widening racial and ethnic health disparities as a result of punitive and discriminatory immigration enforcement practices within the militarized border zone. This policy brief provides an analysis of current concerns at the border, including ways that health professionals are implicated in human rights violations, and provides recommendations for the U.S. government and for health systems to protect the rights and health of migrants. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) analyzed documentation with respect to several ongoing areas of harmful practices arising from border enforcement activities and found numerous human rights violations, including that: 1. Despite the existence of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Use of Force Policy, Guidelines and Procedures Handbook, migrants are still being injured and killed in the course of enforcement activities; 2. CBP officials impede and criminalize volunteer first responders who are providing lifesaving assistance to migrants in the field by arresting them and filing federal charges against them; 3. CBP officials have been documented destroying humanitarian assistance; 4. CBP officials have used medical personnel to conduct body searches without warrants or consent; 5. In violation of U.S. asylum law, CBP is preventing asylum seekers from crossing legally at ports of entry, and deporting individuals with medical conditions through official ports of entry without having secured safe medical release; and 6. CBP's law enforcement arm, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), conducts enforcement actions in and around hospitals, in violation of the Sensitive Locations policy, and violates U.S. and international law by using hospitals as de facto detention centers where patients are denied access to legal counsel and contact with family members. In summary, CBP officials regularly misinterpret or even disregard the limits of their legal authority while conducting border enforcement activities, constituting human rights violations and resulting in harms to health. PHR calls on the CBP to improve staff compliance with existing border enforcement guidelines by clarifying guidelines and improving training, as well as investigating and sanctioning all violations committed by personnel. CBP must also work with civil society groups operating at the border in order to prevent fatalities and decrease health risks. The U.S. Congress can support rights-respecting border management by codifying existing CBP operational guidelines into law, and exercising oversight over the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies in regard to compliance with legal obligations. Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2019. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PHR_Zero-Protection_How-US-Border-Enforcement-Harms-Migrant-Safety-and-Health_Jan-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PHR_Zero-Protection_How-US-Border-Enforcement-Harms-Migrant-Safety-and-Health_Jan-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 155569 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder Enforcement Human Rights Abuses Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants |
Author: Blanchard, Daphne N. Title: .Immigration and National Security: An Empirical Assessment of Central American Immigration and Violent Crime in the United States Summary: Executive Summary - The arrival of the October 2018 Central American caravan became a flashpoint in the immigration debate between human rights and national security. Thousands of migrants traveled in a caravan from Central America's Northern Triangle to the United States in October of 2018. President Trump called on Mexico to stop the influx, sent troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, and threatened to cut aid to the Central American country. While several hundred returned on Honduran-sponsored busses and roughly 2,000 people applied for asylum in southern Mexico, the group totaled 6,500 migrants when they arrived at the wall lining the San Ysidro-Tijuana border. Conflicts between the migrants, Mexican police, citizens of Tijuana and U.S. protesters made national headlines. Meanwhile, international aid groups offered makeshift housing, basic necessities, and legal representation for the asylum seekers. Immigration was central to the November mid-term election debates. - Central American immigration has risen significantly over the last few decades. Presently 3.4 million people born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are living in the United States, more than double the estimated 1.5 million people in 2000, with half of them undocumented. In the time period between 2011 and 2017, the number of Northern Triangle immigrants rose approximately 400,000 which indicated a growth of 0.1 percent of the foreign-born population. The number of Northern Triangle migrant arrivals nearly quadrupled in 2014, with the arrival of approximately 131,000 migrants. El Salvador is the largest sending country from the region, with 1.4 million immigrants in the United States, a 112- fold increase since 1970. Guatemala is second with 815,000, followed by Honduras with 623,000. - The number of unaccompanied minors (also known as UACs) crossing the U.S.- Mexico border has dramatically increased since 2008. Between 2008 and the first eight months of 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors that crossed the U.S. southern border each year jumped from about 8,000 to 52,000, prompting the U.S. Congress to request further research and a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations. The year 2014 was dubbed the Central America migration crisis due to the 90 percent increase in UACs between 2013 and 2014. The composition of the recent caravans that arrived in April and October of 2018 suggest that child and family migration from the Northern Triangle is an enduring phenomenon. - The root causes of the flows are pervasive violence and systematic persecution in the Northern Triangle region. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are consistently ranked among the world's most violent countries not at war due to their exceptionally high rates of homicide, extortion, gang proliferation, narcotics trafficking, weak rule of law, and official corruption. Many migrants reported fleeing systematic persecution from authorities, pervasive violence from organized criminal organizations, and forced gang recruitment. - Northern Triangle migrants make up less than one percent of the U.S. population. To put the increases in immigrant population in perspective and understand the scope of Central American migration, it is important to note that in 2017 the Northern Triangle subset of immigrants constitute 0.9% of the share of overall population, of which by far the largest percentage is attributed to those with El Salvadoran origins. Asian foreign-born are the most prevalent with 4.3 percent of the share, which consists of Eastern, South Central, and South Eastern Asian immigrants. Those born in Mexico are second with 3.4 percent; while European and African foreign-born make up 1.2 and 0.7 percent respectively. - Public anxiety over Central American migrants stalls immigration reform. The tension at the U.S.-Mexico border due to Central American asylum seekers has reached a fever pitch, polarizing views on how to deal with ever increasing immigration. Although seven percent of Northern Triangle refugees were granted asylum the year after the 2014 surge in migration, compared to 24 percent of refugees from China, the continual flow of Central American migrants to the United States' southern border elicits anxiety, protests, and much public debate. As rhetoric from high-level politicians and news media make connections between violent crime and immigration, political parties' stances on immigration become more divergent -- leading to the inability to agree on comprehensive immigration reform. The difference in opinion between Democrats and Republicans has grown over time with 42 percent of Republicans, compared to 84 percent of Democrats, saying that immigrants strengthen the country, the largest partisan gap on openness to immigrants since 1994. Democrats triple the share of Republicans with the opinion that the nation has a responsibility to care for refugees. - The internet and social media have heightened the risk of mass manipulation and emotional decision-making in immigration policy. Although the Trump administration and news outlets of today are not the first to make a public connection between crime and immigration - the debate has been ongoing for decades - changes in media technology have exacerbated the issue. The internet and social media platforms have significantly increased the scope and reach of consumers at hyper speed without third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgement to add context to complex issues. This is evident in a Republican-sponsored political commercial that connected an undocumented Mexican cop-killer with the tagline: "Stop the caravan. Vote Republican." Although widely rejected by major television and news outlets on both sides of the aisle for being misleading, the ad was seen approximately 6.5 million times while featured atop Trump's Twitter page. Studies have shown how elite discourse shapes mass opinion and action on immigration policy without necessarily tying the rhetoric to empirical data of the actual threat posed by the group. - Studies show that as immigration levels have risen in the United States, overall violent crime rates have reduced. The relationship between immigration and crime in the United States has been studied at length by scholars whose findings convey a similar conclusion: that immigration does not increase crime and violence, in fact, in the first generation it seems to reduce it. Since 1970 to today, the share and number of immigrants in the United States have increased rapidly while violent crime has been trending in the opposite direction to a level below what it was in 1980. Even as the U.S. undocumented population doubled to 12 million between 1994 and 2005, the violent crime rate in the United States declined 34.2 percent. In addition, cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami also experienced declining crime rates during that period. - Evidence does not support the notion that increases in Central American immigrant populations lead to increases in violent crime rates. Although Northern Triangle immigration has surged over the past several years, the evidence does not support the claim that they are posing a U.S. national security threat. Not only did overall U.S. violent crime rates descend as Central American migration share rose; but the influx of these foreigners in 27 metro areas showed no correlation when compared to the violent crime rate changes of each one during 2012 to 2017. When compared to homicide rate changes, there is no correlation between the changes in the immigrant population from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; in fact, the vast majority of cases demonstrate a reduction in crime. Not one of the 27 metros with high concentration of immigrants from that region is within the top ten of the most violent metros in the United States. The violence that Northern Triangle migrants are fleeing is not translating into more violence in American communities, as the public discourse seems to suggest. The Central American migration threat has been hyper-inflated in scope and potential for insecurity. - The scope of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang is narrow by comparison. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), approximately ten thousand MS-13 members inhabit the United States, amounting to 0.3 percent of the overall U.S. population. By comparison, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in the United States that make up more than 33,000 gangs. Of the 45,400 UACs apprehended at the border in the five-year period of 2012 and 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) apprehended 159 UACs with confirmed or suspected gang affiliations, 56 of which were suspected or confirmed to be affiliated with MS-13. The Cato Institute reports that 0.1 percent of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol arrests were MS-13 gang members at the border midyear in 2018, similar to the statistics from prior years. - The brutality of MS-13 has the potential to disrupt neighborhoods, but not the United States as a whole. The threat of the MS-13 gang is far smaller in scope and reach than high-profile dialogue suggests, and it is given disproportionate attention in the public discourse considering the levels of crime. Of the 1.2 million violent crime offenses committed in the United States between 2012 and 2017, 345 were committed by members of the MS-13 gang. Although spread throughout cities in the United States and a legitimate concern for the communities which they inhabit, the members of this murderous gang do not demonstrate an ability to disrupt the stability and security of the entire nation and show no sign of expansion. Containing the threat of this violent criminal organization is best left to local authorities with local solutions. This research does not advocate ceasing to address the root causes of MS-13 criminal activity, only to keep the risk in perspective to reduce the negative consequences of fear-based decision-making. - The conflating of MS-13 with all immigrants in public discourse is unfounded and problematic. Connecting all immigrants with the violent acts of the few stalls progress on immigration reform, influences public opinion and immigration policy decisions without data to support the level of threat, creates an atmosphere of conflict surrounding those requesting asylum and settling in American neighborhoods, and is counterproductive to keeping Americans safe. Anxiety-inducing messaging from elite levels slows productive, compromise-driven dialogue that is necessary for immigration reform and effective allocation of finite resources. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource:JUSTICE IN MEXICO WORKING PAPER SERIES Volume 16, Number 1: Accessed May 9, 2019 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BLANCHARD_Immigration-and-National-Security.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BLANCHARD_Immigration-and-National-Security.pdf Shelf Number: 155705 Keywords: Asylum SeekersGang ViolenceImmigrants and CrimeImmigration and CrimeImmigration PolicyMS-13 - Mara SalvatruchaNational SecurityNorthern TriangleSocial MediaUnaccompanied MinorsUndocumented MigrantsViolent Crime |
Author: Secor, David Title: A Better Way: Community-Based Programming as an Alternative to Immigrant Incarceration Summary: Human rights norms and international law demand that immigrants benefit from a presumption of liberty during case adjudication. The use of immigration detention has been repeatedly proven inefficient, ineffective, and at odds with human welfare and dignity. Throughout the world, governments and non-governmental organizations are operating a growing variety of alternatives to detention. Evidence-based studies consistently prove community-based programs to be safer than a detention-based approach, vastly less expensive, and far more effective at ensuring compliance with government-imposed requirements. Most importantly, community-based alternatives offer a framework for refugee and migrant processing that is welcoming and allows families and communities to remain together. Instead of pursuing alternatives, the United States has dramatically expanded its reliance on immigration detention in recent decades. Prior to the 1980s, the United States government rarely jailed individuals for alleged violations of the civil immigration code. This changed in the late 1980s, and the use of detention increased significantly after the government authorized the indefinite detention of Haitian asylum seekers at Guantanamo Bay in 1991, claiming a need to control the movement of arriving refugees and migrants. Using many of the same structures that were fueling mass incarceration of communities of color across America, the United States started locking up immigrants at unprecedented levels. The immigration detention system quickly metastasized, fueled by profit and fear. Today it is a sprawling network of wasteful prisons operated by for-profit companies, county jails, and a small number of processing centers owned by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that are interchangeable from jails in structure and practice.5 The number of individuals locked in immigration detention skyrocketed from an average of 7,000 per day in 1994 to more than 50,000 in 2019. The Trump administration is demanding even more funds to open more immigrant jails and expand those already in operation, beyond spending levels approved by Congress. Human rights violations are rampant throughout United States immigration jails. Those who leave the system carry psychological and physical scars. Asylum seekers and immigrants should be welcomed to the United States, not greeted by a jail cell. A transformative approach to migration management, developed in reliance on evidence-based analysis and comparative models, could support immigrants and their families in a manner that invests in all communities. Details: Chicago, Illinois: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2019. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2019 at: https://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-files/no-content-type/2019-04/A-Better-Way-report-April2019-FINAL-full.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.immigrantjustice.org/research-items/report-better-way-community-based-programming-alternative-immigrant-incarceration Shelf Number: 156523 Keywords: Asylum SeekersCommunity-Based ProgramsEvidence-Based ApproachHuman RightsHuman WelfareImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration and Customs EnforcementMigrantsRefugee |