Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:39 pm
Time: 9:39 pm
Results for immigrant detention
183 results foundAuthor: Tumlin, Karen Title: A Broken System: Confidential Reports Reveal Failures of U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers Summary: This report presents a system-wide look at the federal governments' compliance with its own standards regulating immigrant detention facilities. Results reveal substantial and pervasive violations of the government's minimum standards for conditions at such facilities. Details: Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, ACLU of Southern California, and Holland & Knight, 2009. 154p. Source: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/A-Broken-System-2009-07.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116205 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Kerwin, Donald Title: Immigrant Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities? Summary: On August 6, 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced plans to revamp its detention system, with the goal of bringing it in line with the agency's civil detention authorities. The initiative is designed to reduce the agency's reliance on local jails and private prisons, address longstanding concerns related to conditions of confinement, and centralize management of its detention system. The subsequent disclosure by ICE that 10 more detainees died in its custody between 2004 and 2007 than it had previously reported underscores the need for detention reform and, in particular, for reform of ICE information systems. This report explores whether the ICE database and case tracking system adequately serve the agency's need to adhere to its legal mandates governing bond and parole, to administer its custody review processes for post-removal order detainees, to assess the eligibility of detainees for alternative programs, and to abide by its national detention standards. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. 37p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116383 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Schriro, Dora Bess Title: Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations Summary: This report provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) system of Immigration Detention. It relies on information gathered during tours of 25 facilities, discussions with detainees and employees, meetings with over 100 non-governmental organizations and federal, state, and local officials, and the review of data and reports from governmental agencies and human rights organizations. The report describes the policy, human capital, informational, and management challenges associated with the rapid expansion of ICE's detention capacity. The report identifies important distinctions between the characteristics of the Immigration Detention population in ICE custody and the administrative purpose of their detention as compared to the punitive purpose of the Criminal Incarceration system. The report provides a seven part framework for meeting the challenge of developing a new system of Immigration Detention. It concludes with concrete recommendations for reform. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009. 35p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117310 Keywords: Alien Detention CentersDeportationIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Seattle University School of Law. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington Summary: This study examined the conditions at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. It found violations of international human rights law, the Constitution and the Refugee Convention, including lack of due process, mistreatment of detainees (including strip searches), insufficient food and medical care and language barriers, among others. Details: Seattle: International Human Rights Clinic, Seattle University School of Law, 2008. 80p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118300 Keywords: Due ProcessHuman Rights ViolationsIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsPrison Conditions |
Author: Baddour, Ann Title: Justice for Immigration's Hidden Population: Protecting the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration Court and Detention System Summary: This report documents the scope of the problems facing immigrants with mental diabilities in the state of Texas. The report presents an analysis and recommendations on five core principles integral to ensuring just treatment and due process for immigrants with mental disabilities. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed, 2010. 88p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118629 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Constitution Project Title: Recommendations for Reforming Our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings Summary: In recent years, the United States has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of non-citizens held in immigration detention. This rapidly increasing population has drawn attention to the poor conditions of the nation's immigration detention facilities and the barriers immigrant detainees face in seeking representation of counsel in removal proceedings. These problems raise a variety of constitutional and policy concerns. This report examines expedited removal, mandatory pre-removal detention, and post-removal detention and suggests much-needed agency-level and congressional reform. Details: Washington, DC: Constitution Project, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118713 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center Title: Dying for Decent Care: Bad Medicine in Immigration Custody Summary: Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC) provides free legal services to immigrants of all nationalities, including many in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Lack of competent medical care is one of the chief complaints of the men, women and children in immigration detention throughout the country. This report documents the concern that medical care for those in immigration custody is woefully inadequate and all too frequently leads to unnecessary suffering and, in some cases, death. Details: Miami: Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, 2009. 78p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113415 Keywords: Health CareImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee Title: Voices of the Disappeared: An Investigative Report of New Jersey Immigrant Detention Summary: This report summarizes the independent findings of a group of citizen activists in New Jersey, the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee (NJCRDC), who organized in early 2003 to expose and prevent the abuse of immigrants via the government's stepped-up immigration detention program after 9/11. Details: Piscataway, NJ: New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee, 2007. 40p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119418 Keywords: IllegalIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: 11 Million Title: The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control: A Report Following the Children's Commissioner for England's Visit to Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: Using the power of entry given by Parliament, the Children’s Commissioner for England, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, visited Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) on 16 May 2008. The purpose of the visit was to see first hand the provision and conditions at Yarl’s Wood, and to hear from children, young people and their families about their experiences of the detention process. The Children’s Commissioner first visited and reported on Yarl’s Wood in 2005, and has remained concerned about the detention of children for administrative purposes and the impact this has on them. There is substantial evidence that detention is harmful and damaging to children and should be used only as a last resort. 11 MILLION believes that depriving children of their liberty and detaining them for administrative convenience without judicial oversight is never in their best interests and does not contribute to meeting the Government’s outcomes for children under the Every Child Matters framework. This report presents the findings of the Children’s Commissioner’s visit, and considers the detention of children at Yarl’s Wood in the light of the Government’s obligations under Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It examines the impact of detention upon children’s mental and physical health; particularly as evidence suggests its duration is lengthening. Details: London: 11 MILLION, 2008. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2010 at http://www.jrseurope.org/publications/di550e08psxhlc9f3mmrlqwd.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.jrseurope.org/publications/di550e08psxhlc9f3mmrlqwd.pdf Shelf Number: 119808 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrationJuvenile DetentionMigrants |
Author: Burnett, Jon Title: State Sponsored Curelty: Children in Immigration Detention Summary: This report presents key findings from the UK’s first large scale investigation into the harms caused by detaining children. Immigration detention is indefinite. In 2001 the New Labour government made a decision to detain families for immigration purposes, in the same way as single adults. This culminated in the detention of as many as 1,000 children a year in three Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs); Yarl’s Wood near Bedford, Tinsley House at Gatwick Airport, and Dungavel near Strathaven, Scotland. In 2010 the coalition government pledged to end the detention of children. Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘after the Labour Government failed to act for so many years, we will end the incarceration of children for immigration purposes once and for all’. However, the power to detain children still remains along with continued ‘dawn raids’, taking children into temporary care, and the separation of family members in order to force them to leave the UK. Details: London: Medical Justice, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/sscfullreport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/sscfullreport.pdf Shelf Number: 119901 Keywords: Child MaltreatmentHuman RightsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: 11 Million Title: The Children's Commissioner for England's Follow Up Report to: The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control Summary: This report concerns the third visit of the Children’s Commissioner to Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre which took place in October 2009. It follows on from our visit in May 2008 and the subsequent report The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control (2009). The aim of this report is to examine the progress made in addressing the concerns raised regarding children’s experience of the immigration removal process and detention. In doing so we are mindful of our statutory duty to promote awareness of the views and interests of children in England and to have awareness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Children Act 2004 also requires the Commissioner to have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known. While we fully acknowledge the Government’s right to determine who is allowed to stay in this country, my contention remains that detention is harmful to children and therefore never likely to be in their best interests, and we continue to argue that the detention of children for immigration control should cease. Details: London: 11 Million, 2010. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/ Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/ Shelf Number: 119938 Keywords: Immigrant ChildrenImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsJuvenile Detention |
Author: Parker, Alison Title: Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Center in the United States Summary: Immigrants who face deportation proceedings in the United States — whether they are legal permanent residents, refugees, or undocumented persons — increasingly are being transferred to remote detention centers by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Many immigrants are first arrested and detained in major cities like Los Angeles or Philadelphia— places where immigrants have lived for decades, and where their family members, employers, and attorneys also live. Days or months later, with no notice, immigrants are loaded onto planes for transport to detention centers in remote corners of states such as Texas or Louisiana. Once transferred, immigrants are so far away from their lawyers, evidence, and witnesses that their ability to defend themselves in deportation proceedings is severely curtailed. Locked Up Far Away shows that such detainee transfers are numerous and rapidly increasing; 1.4 million transfers occurred between 1999 and 2008, and the annual number of transfers increased four-fold during this period. As an agency responsible for the custody and care of hundreds of thousands of people each year, it is clear that ICE will sometimes need to transfer detainees. However, this report asks whether all or most detainee transfers are truly necessary, especially in light of how they interfere with immigrants’ rights to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in their defense, and to fair immigration procedures. Immigrant detainees should not be treated like so many boxes of goods—shipped to the location where it is most convenient for ICE to store them. An agency charged with enforcing the laws of the United States should not need to resort to a chaotic system of moving detainees around the country in order to achieve efficiency. Instead, ICE should allow reasonable and rights-protective checks on its transfer power. Transfers do not need to stop entirely in order for ICE to respect detainees’ rights; they merely need to be reduced through the establishment of reasonable guidelines. The nation’s state and federal prisons operate effectively with such guidelines in place, and ICE should be able to do so as well. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2010 at: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86789 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86789 Shelf Number: 120182 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Ricupero, Isabel Title: Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework Summary: One year ago, in August 2009, the Barack Obama administration announced that it intended to transform the much criticized U.S. immigration detention regime into a “truly civil detention system.” Among the planned changes were reducing the number of jails and prisons used to confined immigration detainees, implementing closer oversight of detention centers, improving the treatment of detainees, and restricting controversial practices like the detention of children. Between then and now, the country has seen the debate over immigration become increasingly heated and divisive, fanned by the passage of contentious state laws like Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” This Global Detention Project working paper, “Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework,” is intended to assist scholars, activists, practitioners, and concerned members of the public in taking stock of the current state of U.S. immigration detention policies. The paper covers everything from the country’s relevant international legal commitments and the grounds for detention provided in domestic law, to recent court rulings on the rights of detainees and the increasing trend in criminalizing immigration violations, particularly at the state and local level. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, The Graduate Institute, 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2010 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/US_Legal_Profile.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/US_Legal_Profile.pdf Shelf Number: 120503 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Silverman, Stephanie J. Title: Immigration Detention in America: A History of its Expansion and a Study of its Significance Summary: This working paper investigates the legislative origins of the US immigration detention system. This critical history is an attempt to broaden the discussion of the place and propriety of immigration detention in the American political landscape. The paper explains who has historically been subject to immigration detention, where and for how long the practice takes place, and what has lead to its rapid enlargement in recent decades. Using historical frames, this paper identifies and traces three key characteristics in the legislative development of the US immigration detention system: firstly, the increasingly restrictive nature of the system; secondly, the fact that the system it is more similar to an ad hoc bricolage of policies and contradictory justifications than a coherent assemblage of policies; and, finally, the criminalization of immigrants and resident non-citizens. What emerges from this narrative is a history of the expansion of the immigration detention system by the executive branch in response to periods of increasing politicization of immigration, particularly concerning the category of resident non-citizens. The paper argues that, in the absence of clear policy objectives, public oversight, and public accountability, government has developed the US immigration detention system without coherence and often hastily in reaction to events in the political sphere. Details: Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 80: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-10-80/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-10-80/ Shelf Number: 120514 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Carey, Emily P. Title: Outsourcing Responsibility: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County Summary: On June 23, 2008, the Otero County Processing Center opened its doors in the rural border community of Chaparral, Otero County, New Mexico. Owned by Otero County and operated by the private prison contractor Management and Training Corporation (MTC), the facility has the capacity to house up to 1,086 immigrants through an exclusive contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As one of the only organizations in New Mexico monitoring civil liberties, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) began receiving phone calls from attorneys and immigrant advocates across the country within days of the start of facility operations. Most of the immigrants in the facility are Mexican and Central American nationals apprehended in the area, while others have been transferred from cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Miami and originated from countries all over the world. The ACLU of New Mexico started to assist immigrants held by ICE far beyond the sixmonth limit established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis after they had been ordered removed by an immigration judge. In the course of this work, advocates, detainees, and family members of detainees approached ACLU representatives with other concerns about the facility including racial and religious discrimination, inadequate medical and mental health care treatment, arbitrary use of segregation, and intimidation and humiliation tactics. The ACLU monitored for patterns of civil and human rights violations and sought resolution in individual cases where abuse was egregious to protect the health and well being of detained immigrants. Local ICE officials were responsive in most of these cases. This report stems from interviews with more than 200 immigrants detained at the Otero County Processing Center from the time the facility became operational. Outside the boundaries of New Mexico, Otero became known in the advocacy communities as “The Hub” because of all of the immigrants arriving from out of state. In New Mexico, however, local, state, and federal elected officials, the general public, and even some immigrant advocates were not aware of the facility’s existence. For many, the Otero County Processing Center represents a national trend in immigration detention that relies on facilities built in remote locations, lacking legal and community resources for informal oversight, and managed by private, for-profit corporations. This report was conceived out of the desire to learn more about what happens inside the walls of the facility and to raise awareness in New Mexico of the role our state now plays in this matter of national concern. Details: Las Cruses, NM: American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, 2011. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2011 at: http://aclu-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/OCPC-Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://aclu-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/OCPC-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 120645 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationPrivatization |
Author: Australian Human Rights Commission Title: Immigration Detention and Offshore Processing on Christmas Island Summary: This report contains a summary of observations by the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) following its July 2009 visit to Australia’s immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. It follows the Commission’s 2006, 2007 and 2008 annual reports on inspections of immigration detention facilities. In early 2008, the Commission commended the Australian Government for ending the so-called ‘Pacific solution’ by closing the offshore immigration detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Since then, the government has initiated further positive reforms, in particular the July 2008 announcement of ‘New Directions’ for Australia’s immigration detention system. However, despite these positive changes, the Commission has ongoing concerns – one of the most critical being the mandatory detention and offshore processing of asylum seekers on Christmas Island. While there are clearly significant efforts being put into the detention and offshore processing system on Christmas Island, those efforts cannot overcome the fundamental problems with the system itself. Details: Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.pdf Shelf Number: 120570 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (Australia)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: Immigration Detention and Proportionality Summary: Immigration detention is characterized by a tension between the prerogatives of sovereignty and the rights of non-citizens. While states have broad discretion over who is allowed to enter and reside within their borders, their decision to detain and deport is constrained by a number of widely accepted norms and principles. One of these is the principle of proportionality, which provides that any decision to deprive a person of his or her liberty must be proportionate to specific ends established in law. Typically, questions of proportionality are raised in the context of individual legal cases to assess the necessity or potential arbitrariness of detention measures. For instance, in a well known case concerning the long-term detention of a Cambodian asylum seeker in Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee1 ruled that Australia failed to provide justification for holding the person in detention for more than four years, arguing that “remand in custody could be considered arbitrary if it is not necessary in all the circumstances of the case, for example to prevent flight or interference with evidence: the element of proportionality becomes relevant in this context” (A v. Australia 1997: para 9.2). This Global Detention Project working paper argues that the proportionality principle, despite its close association to individual legal cases, can also be used as a lens through which to assess the operations of detention centres, as well as overall detention regimes. In particular, the paper focuses on the intimate association between immigration detention and criminal incarceration as well as the institutional framework of detention estates, both of which raise a number questions about whether detention practices are proportionate to the administrative aims of immigration policy. The opening sections of this paper describe its focus—the detention centre itself — and provide a detailed definition of the phenomenon of immigration-related detention. The paper then advances a model for constructing data on detention centres that can assist comparative study of detention estates. It concludes by proposing and carefully characterizing a discrete list of variables that can be used to assess these regimes according to various applications of the proportionality principle. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Global detention Project Working Paper No. 4: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/GDP_detention_and_proportionality_workingpaper.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/GDP_detention_and_proportionality_workingpaper.pdf Shelf Number: 120876 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: The Privatization of Immigration Detention: Towards a Global View Summary: The phrase “private prison” has become a term of opprobrium, and for good reason. There are numerous cases of mistreatment and mismanagement at such institutions. However, in the context of immigration detention, this caricature hides a complex phenomenon that is driven by a number of different factors and involves a diverse array of actors who provide a range of services. This working paper employs research undertaken by the Global Detention Project (GDP) — an inter-disciplinary research project based at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies — to help situate the phenomenon of the privatization of immigration detention within a global perspective. Part of the difficulty in assessing this phenomenon is that our understanding of it is based largely on experiences in English-speaking countries. This working paper endeavors to extend analysis of this phenomenon by demonstrating the broad geographical spread of privatized detention practices across the globe, assessing the differing considerations that arise when states decide to privatize, and comparing the experiences of a sample of lesser known cases. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, The Graduate Institute, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/GDP_PrivatizationPaper_Final5.pdf Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/GDP_PrivatizationPaper_Final5.pdf Shelf Number: 120919 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivatization |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process Summary: The United States hosts the largest number of international immigrants in the world. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), in 2005 the United States had a total of 38.4 million international migrants. Many of those migrants came to the United States through formal and legal channels. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that as of January 2008 there were 12.6 million legal permanent residents (LPRs) in the United States; another 1,107,126 were added in 2008. Every year, many legal permanent residents are granted U.S. citizenship. In 2008, 1,046,539 persons became naturalized citizens. The United States is also one of the leading countries for granting asylum and resettling refugees. In 2008, the United States granted asylum to 22,930 persons and resettled 60,108 refugees. In keeping with Article 58 of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter‐American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter‐American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) is presenting this report as a diagnostic analysis of the human rights situation with respect to immigrant detention and due process in the United States and to make recommendations so that immigration practices in that country conform to international human rights standards. Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2010. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2011 at: http://cidh.org/pdf%20files/ReportOnImmigrationInTheUnited%20States-DetentionAndDueProcess.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cidh.org/pdf%20files/ReportOnImmigrationInTheUnited%20States-DetentionAndDueProcess.pdf Shelf Number: 121092 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal ImmigrationImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: Management of Mental Health Cases in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehends, detains, and removes illegal aliens from the United States. Aliens in custody must be provided with appropriate medical treatment and care. The Health Service Corp serves as the medical authority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and provides direct care or arranges for outside health care services to detained aliens in custody. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Health Service Corps staffs only 18 of the nearly 250 detention centers nationwide and has limited oversight and monitoring for mental health cases across immigration detention centers. As a result, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not fully aware of all detainees with mental health conditions, or the level of care being provided. The Health Service Corps has experienced persistent vacancies in mental health positions which have raised concerns about the effectiveness of provider care. As of August 2010, vacancy rates at 11 of the 18 facilities staffed with Health Service Corps employees were 50% or more. In addition, facilities were not always well-equipped to support the needs of detainees with mental illness or located in areas with access to community mental health care facilities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to (1) establish a staffing plan that aligns staffing with the facilities’ mental health caseload, (2) make appropriate space available to provide needed treatment, (3) develop a classification system for facilities to determine the level of care that can be provided, (4) make timely requests for mental health information, (5) clarify decision-making authorities for detainee transfer decisions, (6) establish protocols for handling mental health information, (7) release guidance on custodians, and (8) develop field guidance for using specialty facilities. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: OIG-11-62: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf Shelf Number: 121475 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMental Health Care |
Author: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Title: Stuck in Jail: Immigration Detention in Hungary (2010) Summary: The Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) is non-governmental organisation, which monitors the enforcement of human rights enshrined in international human rights instruments; provides legal defence to victims of human rights abuses by state authorities and informs the public about rights violations. The HHC strives to ensure that domestic legislation guarantees the consistent implementation of human rights norms. The HHC promotes legal education and training in fields relevant to its activities, both in Hungary and abroad. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has a long-standing experience in monitoring detention facilities in Hungary. It regularly monitors police jails which was made possible by an agreement concluded in 1997 with the National Police Headquarters. The agreement entitles the HHC monitors to: visit any detention facility operated by the Police without preliminary notice; examine the conditions of detention and talk to detainees to this end; request and be provided with official data by the detention staff; report about its findings to the Police, and after consultation with the latter, to the public. This report presents a comprehensive report on Hungarian immigration detention practices based on the findings of monitoring visits to “temporary” immigration jails throughout Hungary in 2010. Details: Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2011 at: http://helsinki.hu/dokumentum/HHC%20immigration%20detention_ENG_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Hungary URL: http://helsinki.hu/dokumentum/HHC%20immigration%20detention_ENG_final.pdf Shelf Number: 121504 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Hungary) |
Author: Youssef, Shlar Title: Immigration Prisons: Brutal, Unlawful and Profitable Summary: The government's decision to end child detention for immigration purposes in 2010 was the result of long years of campaigning by dedicated grassroots activists, as well as detainee support groups, NGOs and mainstream media. The end of this cruel and inhumane practice has, however, served to somehow legitimise the detention of adults. Fewer people now appear to have the political will to argue that immigration detention should be stopped altogether. Using Yarl's Wood, where children and their families were incarcerated, as a case study, this briefing is intended to demonstrate that the impact of immigration prisons on adult refugees and migrants is no less cruel, inhumane and, in many cases, unlawful. The authors of this briefing believe that no matter what findings and recommendations such reports may make, the immigration authorities will not listen, much less act, unless they are compelled to. As the references and sources of this briefing show, there have been tens of similar reports highlighting these same issues. What has come out of these reports? Unfortunately very little, except for superficial 'improvements' here and there, often to make the detention system more efficient. The institutional racism inherent in the immigration and asylum regime, supported by racist political rhetoric and mainstream media coverage and coupled with the cost-cutting policies of the profit-driven contractors running these immigration prisons, often make it difficult for many ordinary people to see what's wrong with this system. But many do and will continue to fight for real justice. Details: London: Corporate Watch, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3930 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3930 Shelf Number: 121564 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.K.) |
Author: Parker, Alison Title: A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in the United States Summary: Detained immigrants facing deportation in the United States, including legal permanent residents, refugees, and undocumented persons, are being transferred, often repeatedly, to remote detention centers by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Transfers separate detained immigrants from the attorneys and evidence they need to defend against deportation, which can violate their right to fair treatment in court, slow asylum or deportation proceedings, and prolong the time immigrants spend in detention. With close to 400,000 immigrants in detention each year, space in US detention centers, especially near cities where immigrants, their families, and attorneys live, has not kept pace. As a result, ICE has built a system of detention—relying on subcontracts with state jails and prisons—that cannot operate without transfers. A Costly Move shows that between 1998 and 2010, 1 million immigrants were transferred 2 million times. Forty-six percent of transferred detainees were moved two or more times: in one egregious case, a detainee was transferred 66 times. On average, each transferred detainee traveled 370 miles, with one frequent transfer pattern (from Pennsylvania to Texas) covering 1,642 miles. Such long-distance and repetitive transfers can render attorney-client relationships unworkable, separate immigrants from evidence they need in court, and make family visits so costly they rarely, if ever, occur. An agency charged with enforcing US laws should not establish a system of detention that is literally inoperable without widespread, multiple, and long-distance transfers. ICE would reduce the chaos and limit harmful human rights abuses if it worked to emulate best practices on inmate transfers set by state and federal prison systems. Transfers do not need to stop entirely in order for ICE to respect detainees’ rights; they merely need to be curtailed through the establishment of enforceable guidelines, regulations, and reasonable legislative restraints. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://www.hrw.org/node/99660 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/node/99660 Shelf Number: 121830 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: Koh, Jennifer Lee Title: Deportation Without Due Process Summary: Over the past decade, the United States government has dramatically expanded its use of a program called “stipulated removal” that has allowed immigration officials to deport over 160,000 non-U.S. citizens without ever giving them their day in court. This report synthesizes information obtained from never-before-released U.S. government documents and data about stipulated removal that became available for analysis as a result of a lawsuit filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to the previously unreleased data, the federal government has used stipulated removal primarily on noncitizens in immigration detention who lack lawyers and are facing deportation due to minor immigration violations. These noncitizens were given a Hobson’s choice: Accept a stipulated removal order and agree to your deportation, or stay in immigration detention to fight your case. Many of these government records reveal that the stipulated removal program has been implemented across the U.S. at the expense of immigrants’ due process rights. Government records obtained through FOIA litigation suggest that government officials offering stipulated removal to immigrant detainees routinely provided them with inaccurate, misleading, and confusing information about the law and removal process. For example, government agents overemphasized the length of time detainees would spend in detention if they chose to fight their cases and see a judge, yet failed to tell detainees that they could secure release from detention on bond while fighting their cases, or that some might win the right to remain legally in the country. In addition, detainees often had no chance to understand the consequences of signing a stipulated removal order due to systemic language barriers and the lack of quality interpretation and translation that are known to plague many immigration detention facilities. The government documents reveal that immigration judges who sign off on stipulated removal orders have expressed serious concerns about whether the stipulated removal program comports with due process. In fact, some immigration judges have refused to sign stipulated removal orders without seeing detainees for brief, in-person hearings. These hearings at least provide immigration judges the opportunity to determine whether immigrant detainees in fact opted for stipulated removal on a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing basis — as required by the current internal rules governing stipulated removal. The government documents summarized in this report present a dismal picture of the stipulated removal program — a program that, until recently, has operated with little public scrutiny. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shone a spotlight on the program when it issued its decision in United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010), a case addressing due process and regulatory violations inherent in the stipulated removal program. The documents analyzed for this report show that the Ramos case was not an aberration, but rather an example of the stipulated removal program’s systemic and pervasive shortcomings. In order to ensure that the stipulated removal program meets the minimum standards of due process and fairness, the federal government should implement the recommendations set forth in this report. These recommendations are geared towards ensuring that immigrants’ due process rights and the rule of law are respected in immigration detention facilities and immigration courts throughout the country. Details: Fullerton, CA: Western State University School of Law; Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School; Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Shelf Number: 122882 Keywords: Due ProcessIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Mann, Itamar Title: The EU’s Dirty Hands: Frontex Involvement in Ill-Treatment of Migrant Detainees in Greece Summary: Between November 2, 2010 and March 2, 2011, nearly 12,000 migrants entering Greece at its land border with Turkey were arrested and detained. The detention facilities where they were held did not meet minimal human rights standards. Though their treatment varied from place to place, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that migrant detention in Greece generally constitutes “inhuman and degrading treatment.” During this same period, the European Union’s (EU) agency for the management of operational cooperation at external borders, Frontex, provided Greece with both manpower and material support, made available by participating states, which facilitated the detention of those migrants in sub-human conditions in Greece’s overcrowded migrant detention centers. This report addresses this disturbing contradiction. Although the ECtHR categorically ruled that the transfer of migrants to detention in Greece would expose them to prohibited abuse, an executive agency of the EU and border guards from EU member states knowingly facilitate such transfers. The focus of this report is the period of Frontex’s “RABIT 2010” deployment in Greece. With RABIT (“Rapid Border Intervention Team”), Frontex deployed 175 border guards contributed by Norway and EU member states to the Greek government’s efforts to manage the influx of migrants into the northeastern region of Greece along the Evros River bordering Turkey. The “guest officers,” chosen from a pool provided by participating EU member states and other non-EU European states, operated in Greece in their respective national uniforms but not under the operational control of their home authorities. Frontex describes its mission as one of coordination, research, and surveillance. But Frontex sent equipment such as vans, buses, patrol cars, and a helicopter, provided by participating states, and covered the expenses incurred by the RABIT operation. Frontex also operated in close proximity to the four detention centers where human rights violations have consistently been recorded. During the RABIT operation, guest officers from participating states who went out on patrols with at least one Greek officer were authorized to apprehend migrants and then transfer them to Greek counterparts who ran the detention facilities. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/greece0911webwcover_0.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Greece URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/greece0911webwcover_0.pdf Shelf Number: 122899 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (Greece)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: Immigration Detention in Switzerland; A Global Detention Project Special Report Summary: This Global Detention Project special report is meant to serve as an overview of and contribute substantively to our current state of knowledge of the Swiss immigration detention estate. In line with the objectives of the GDP, an important aim of the paper is to facilitate transparency with respect to this practice by carefully documenting where detention centres are located, the grounds for which people can be held at these facilities, and the conditions that prevail in some of them. It assesses the various situations that different kinds of migrants confront when they are deprived of their liberty, highlights vulnerabilities faced by particular categories of detainees, and recounts the findings of both national and international rights groups who have investigated Swiss detention practices. Ultimately, the GDP hopes that this report can serve as the basis for a more informed public debate—both in and outside Switzerland—about a practice whose recent growth throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world is matched only by its increasing notoriety. The report is divided into two main sections: a section on policy, which discusses key features of Swiss immigration detention practices, including the reasons people can be detained, lengths of detention, procedural guarantees provided in law, and issues related to vulnerable groups like children and asylum seekers; and a section on detention infrastructure, which details the types of facilities Switzerland uses to confine people for immigration-related reasons and reviews the assessments of these facilities produced by civil society actors and international organizations. The paper concludes with a brief evaluation of how Swiss practices compare to those of its neighbours. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/GDP_Swiss_detention_report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Switzerland URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/GDP_Swiss_detention_report.pdf Shelf Number: 123069 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (Switzerland)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Snyman, Gina Title: Monitoring Immigration Detention in South Africa September 2010 Summary: LHR’s Detention Monitoring Programme has been monitoring the arrest, detention and deportation of foreign nationals at local detention centres, primarily the Lindela Holding Facility and the Musina Detention Centre (SMG), for the past decade. In certain instances, the organisation also intervenes in detentions occurring at police stations, prisons, or at the OR Tambo International Airport. The Detention Monitoring Programme operates mainly from LHR’s Johannesburg and Musina offices. LHR’s law clinics in Pretoria and Durban also assist asylum seekers who are detained at police stations or at the refugee reception offices (RROs). LHR is the only organisation that regularly visits Lindela and provides pro bono legal representation to detainees. Through these consultations, we are able to identify immigration trends and legal issues confronting detainees, as well as shifts in the policies of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the South African Police Services (SAPS). Our consultations with detainees also provide us with information about conditions at the facility and the treatment of detainees — an important window into the detention experience given the lack of any independent monitoring. Details: Pretoria, South Africa: Lawyers for Human Rights, 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.lhr.org.za/sites/lhr.org.za/files/LHR_2010_Detention_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.lhr.org.za/sites/lhr.org.za/files/LHR_2010_Detention_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123207 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (South Africa)Immigrant Detention |
Author: Rabin, Nina Title: Disappearing Parents: A Report on Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System Summary: Quiet, slow motion tragedies unfold every day in immigration detention centers throughout the country, as parents caught up in immigration enforcement are separated from their young children and disappear into the detention system. If no relative is identified who can take the children at the time of an immigrant parent's apprehension, the children may be placed in state custody and find themselves in foster homes, abruptly unable to communicate with their parents or even know where their parents are. If parents choose to accept their deportation, they risk being forever separated from their children, since their children will likely be unable to accompany them so long as they remain in state custody. If parents choose instead to fight their deportation, they often remain detained for months or even years, greatly complicating efforts to reunify as a family even if they are eventually successful in their case against deportation. Details: Tucson: Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/disappearing_parents_report_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/disappearing_parents_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 123439 Keywords: Children of Illegal ImmigrantsIllegal Immigrants (Arizona)Immigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Women's Refugee Commission Title: Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention Summary: Approximately 5.5 million children in the United States live with at least one undocumented parent. Three million of them are U.S. citizens. These children are uniquely situated in relation to federal immigration law because immigration enforcement activities against their parents can have a particularly dramatic and disproportionate effect on them. According to a report by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, more than 108,000 alien parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from the United States between 1998 and 2007.4 Deportation forces countless parents to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to do with their children. For some families, however, there is no choice to be made. Immigration apprehension, detention and deportation can trigger a complex series of events that undermine parents’ ability to make decisions about their children’s care, complicate family reunification and can — in some circumstances — lead to the termination of parental rights. With the exception of parents apprehended in large worksite enforcement operations, few parents benefit from time-of-apprehension protocols designed to minimize adverse consequences of detention and deportation on children. There is no guarantee that apprehended parents can make a phone call within a reasonable time of apprehension in order to make care arrangements for children. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) makes efforts to identify and release parents apprehended in large worksite raids, the majority of parents are not subject to any humanitarian protections and immigration officers struggle with how to handle apprehensions where children will be impacted. Many parents are transferred from the area in which they are apprehended to an immigration detention center without knowing what care arrangements have been made for their children and without knowing how to remain in contact with their children. For these parents, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and reunite with their children at the conclusion of their immigration case. The legal systems governing immigration law and family and child welfare law are not well calibrated. The awkward intersection of these two disciplines can create challenges to parental rights and family unity, violations of due process, significant trauma for children and an undue burden for our social services system. Yet adverse effects that arise at the crossroads of the two systems could be reduced or avoided through policies and procedures that are not inconsistent with the enforcement of existing immigration or child welfare laws. Since the Women’s Refugee Commission began focusing on this issue in 2007, we have found that challenges to parental rights are becoming more frequent as immigration enforcement expands. Our interviews with detained parents continue to reveal cases in which parents are unable to locate or communicate with their children, unable to participate in reunification plans and family court proceedings, and unable to make arrangements to take their children with them when they leave the country. With the increased participation of states and localities in immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities and the expansion of this program nationwide by 2013 we can expect the number of parents who are apprehended and deported to remain stable or increase. Unless ICE takes steps to reduce the unnecessary detention of parents, to ensure that detained parents can take steps to protect their parental rights and to facilitate the ability of parents facing deportation to make decisions in the best interest of their children, challenges to parental rights will remain a very real problem for children, families and society. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2010. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: www.womenscommission.org Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 123440 Keywords: Children of Illegal ImmigrantsDeportationIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: National Immigration Forum Title: The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible Policies Summary: One symptom of our broken immigration system is the exorbitant spending wasted on the detention of immigrants. The vast majority of these immigrants, if ever Congress acted to reform our immigration system, would be encouraged to stay and continue contributing to our economy. Even for those who must eventually be removed, billions of dollars could be saved if the government properly allocated resources towards more humane and cost-effective alternative methods of monitoring. Physical detention, as costly as it is, should only be used in limited circumstances, such as for holding immigrants whose release would pose a serious danger to the community. For the majority of immigrants, the government could use less expensive alternatives to detention prior to removal. A cost-effective approach to monitoring immigrants who face removal is unlikely to be implemented as long as Congress continues to throw money at the detention operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), located in the Department of Homeland Security. For the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2011 (Fiscal Year 2012), the House of Representatives has approved a budget of $2.75 billion for Detention and Removal — more than $184 million more than the previous year and enough for ICE to keep 34,000 immigrants detained at any one time. The Obama Administration‘s most recent request to Congress for immigration detention alone amounts to $5.5 million per day spent on immigration detention (the House increased that amount). The current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $166 per day at a capacity of 33,400 detention beds. Less wasteful alternatives to detention range in cost from as low as 30 cents to $14 a day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and the less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the detained population, taxpayers could save more than over $1.6 billion—over an 80% reduction in annual costs. The government should focus on expanding its alternatives to detention program and reforming its immigration laws. An examination of the numbers makes it clear — the dollars spent to detain immigrants do not add up to something that makes sense. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Shelf Number: 123441 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Heartland Alliance. National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Isolated in Detention: Limited Access to Legal Counsel in Immigration Detention Facilities Jeopardizes a Fair Day in Court Summary: U.S. law requires that individuals in immigration proceedings receive a “reasonable opportunity” to present their case in court. But the U.S. government routinely limits this right when it detains thousands of people in immigration detention facilities far from legal service providers, fails to adequately support programs to inform detainees of their rights, and restricts detainees’ phone contact with attorneys. Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) conducted a comprehensive national survey measuring access to counsel in detention facilities and found that the availability of affordable legal services for immigrant detainees is grossly inadequate. The geographic isolation of many detention facilities hinders detainees’ ability to obtain counsel. Policies that restrict detainees from contacting legal counsel by phone further isolate these men, women, and children. NIJC surveyed 150 of the estimated 300 immigration detention facilities in operation between August and December 2009. The survey sample accounted for 31,355 detainee beds, the vast majority of the 32,000 beds available to hold immigrants for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). NIJC then interviewed as many legal aid organizations providing services for detained immigrants as it was able to locate. The scope of NIJC’s survey illustrates a systemic problem facing detainees trying to access counsel: the United States detains nearly 400,000 immigrants per year, yet there are only 102 non-governmental organizations providing legal services to detainees, and the vast majority of those organizations have fewer than five staff members dedicated to detention work. Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2010. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Detention%20Isolation%20Report%20FULL%20REPORT%202010%2009%2023_0.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Detention%20Isolation%20Report%20FULL%20REPORT%202010%2009%2023_0.pdf Shelf Number: 123443 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Siskin, Alison Title: Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues Summary: As Congress considers addressing some of the problems in the nation’s immigration system, the detention of noncitizens in the United States may be an issue as Congress may chose to reevaluate detention priorities (i.e., who should be detained) and resources. Under the law, there is broad authority to detain aliens while awaiting a determination of whether the noncitizen should be removed from the United States. The law also mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention (i.e., the aliens must be detained). Aliens subject to mandatory detention include those arriving without documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are inadmissable or deportable on criminal grounds, those who are inadmissable or deportable on national security grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of deportation. Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be detained, paroled, or released on bond. The priorities for detention of these aliens are specified in statute and regulations. As of December 13, 2011, on an average day in FY2012, 32,953 noncitizens were in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody. There are many policy issues surrounding detention of aliens. The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) increased the number of aliens subject to mandatory detention, and raised concerns about the justness of mandatory detention, especially as it is applied to asylum seekers arriving without proper documentation. Additionally, as DHS increases its ability to identify aliens who are subject to removal from local jails in more remote locations, the nationwide allocation of detention space may become an issue. The 108th Congress passed P.L. 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, directing the Secretary of DHS to increase the amount of detention bed space by not less than 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006 through FY2010; a total of 40,000 beds. Although Congress increased the bed space between FY2006 and FY2010, the number of beds only increased by approximately 12,000. One bill related to immigration detention has received Congressional action in the 112th Congress. H.R. 1932 was placed on the Union Calendar on October 17, 2011. After a removal order has been issued against an alien, the law provides that the alien subject to a final removal order be removed within 90 days, except as otherwise provided in the statute. Certain aliens subject to a removal order “may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” This provision had been interpreted as permitting indefinite detention where removal was not reasonably foreseeable, but in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, interpreted it as only permitting detention for up to six months where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled absent clear guidance from Congress. H.R. 1932 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow DHS to indefinitely detain, subject to six-month reviews, aliens under orders of removal who could not be removed if certain conditions were met. In addition, in the 112th Congress, other bills have been introduced covering a range of provisions and perspectives concerning the detention of noncitizens. Several bills—including H.R. 100 and H.R. 1274—would mandate that DHS increase the amount of detention space. In addition, other bills (e.g., H.R. 933 and S. 1258) would mandate the propagation of regulations concerning detainee care, and expand the alternatives to detention program. Other proposed legislation, such as H.R. 713, would make changes to the mandatory detention provisions, lessening the categories of aliens required to be detained. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: RL32369: Accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32369.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32369.pdf Shelf Number: 124125 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.)Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) Title: Injustice for All: The Rise of the U.S. Immigration Policing Regime Summary: HURRICANE’s 2009-2010 report, Injustice for All: The Rise of the Immigration Policing Regime, finds that the U.S. government has built a brutal system of immigration control and policing that criminalizes immigration status, normalizes the forcible separation of families, destabilizes communities and workplaces, and fuels widespread civil rights violations. This “immigration policing regime” is also fueling racial discrimination and hate violence against immigrants and those perceived to be foreign born or “illegal.” Based on over 100 stories of abuse documented by NNIRR’s initiative, HURRICANE: The Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network, Injustice for All shows how a new dimension of immigration control, ICE-police collaboration and border security, are hurting communities from the rural areas of New Mexico and North Carolina to New York City and the suburbs of Chicago. Injustice for All includes eleven essays by HURRICANE members in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and New York. These reports demonstrate how immigration policing impacts border and rural communities, women, Indigenous people, African and South Asian communities and workers. The report’s findings and testimonial essays bring to light the often tragic consequences of this system of immigration policing and its four identifiable pillars: 1. Relentless criminalization of immigration status and use of incarceration. 2. Persistent linking of immigration to the politics of national security and engaging in policing tactics that rely upon racial, ethnic/nationality and religious profiling. 3. Escalating militarization of immigration control and border communities; reinforcing policies and strategies that deliberately “funnel” migrants to cross through the most dangerous segments of the U.S.-Mexico border and compromise the rights and safety of border residents. 4. Scapegoating immigrants for the economic crisis and leveraging anti-immigrant sentiment to push laws and policies that cut and/or eliminate public services, roll back civil rights, environmental, labor and other social protections. Details: Oakland, CA: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Acccessed March 23, 2012 at http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 124646 Keywords: Border ControlImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Wessler, Seth Freed Title: Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System Summary: This report presents a national investigation on threats to families when immigration enforcement and the child welfare system intersect. It explores the extent to which children in foster care are prevented from uniting with their detained or deported parents and the failures of the child welfare system to adequately work to reunify these families. Immigration policies and laws are based on the assumption that families will, and should, be united, whether or not parents are deported. Similarly, child welfare policy aims to reunify families whenever possible. In practice, however, when mothers and fathers are detained and deported and their children are relegated to foster care, family separation can last for extended periods. Too often, these children lose the opportunity to ever see their parents again when a juvenile dependency court terminates parental rights. In fiscal year 2011, the United States deported a record-breaking 397,000 people and detained nearly that many. According to federal data released to ARC through a Freedom of Information Act request, a growing number and proportion of deportees are parents. In the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 46,000 mothers and fathers of U.S.-citizen children. These deportations shatter families and endanger the children left behind. Details: New York: Applied Research Center, 2011. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2012 at: http://act.colorlines.com/acton/form/1069/0041:d-0001/0/index.htm Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://act.colorlines.com/acton/form/1069/0041:d-0001/0/index.htm Shelf Number: 124753 Keywords: Child WelfareDeportation (U.S.)Foster CareImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Acer, Eleanor Title: U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers Seeking Protection, Finding Prison Summary: In March 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took over responsibility for asylum and immigration matters when the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was abolished. With this transfer, DHS was entrusted with the duty to ensure that the United States lives up to its commitments to those who seek asylum from persecution. These commitments stem from both U.S. law and international treaties with which the United States has pledged to abide. Yet, those who seek asylum—a form of protection extended to victims of political, religious and other forms of persecution—have been swept up in a wave of increased immigration detention, which has left many asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities for months or even years. Six years after DHS and its interior immigration enforcement component, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (known as “ICE”) took over responsibility for immigration detention, the U.S. system for detaining asylum seekers is more flawed than ever. As detailed in this report, thousands of asylum seekers have been detained during these years. In 2007 alone, more than 10,000 asylum seekers were newly detained in the United States. They are held in facilities that are actual jails or are operated like jails. They are often brought in handcuffs and sometimes shackles to these facilities, where they wear prison uniforms, are guarded by officers in prison attire, visit with family and friends only through glass barriers, and have essentially no freedom of movement within the facilities. The cost of detaining these asylum seekers over the past six years has exceeded $300 million. During that time, ICE parole policies have become more restrictive, and parole rates for asylum seekers dropped from 41.3 percent in 2004 to 4.2 percent in 2007. ICE has not provided Congressionally-mandated statistics—detailing the number of asylum seekers detained, the length of their detention, and the rates of their release—in a timely or complete manner. The U.S. detention system for asylum seekers, which lacks crucial safeguards, is inconsistent with international refugee protection and human rights standards. DHS and ICE have increased their use of prison-like facilities by at least 62 percent—with six new megafacilities added in just the last five years. Some of these facilities are located far from legal representation and the immigration courts. More than a third of detained asylum seekers are not represented by legal counsel, even though asylum seekers are much more likely to be granted asylum in immigration court when they are represented. At these remote facilities, detained asylum seekers often see U.S. immigration judges and asylum officers only on television sets, with immigration court asylum hearings and asylum office “credible fear” interviews (which determine whether an individual will even be allowed to apply for asylum or will instead be summarily deported) increasingly conducted by video. In fact, more than 60 percent of credible fear interviews were conducted by video in 2007. A recent study demonstrated that asylum seekers who have their immigration court asylum hearings conducted by video are about half as likely to be granted asylum. Through our pro bono representation work, and in conducting research for this report, we have learned of many refugees who were jailed for many months—and some for years—in these prison-like facilities before being granted asylum in this country. Many asylum seekers could have been released from detention while their cases were pending, either on parole or through an immigration court custody hearing. Providing asylum seekers with access to fair release procedures does not undermine security. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security’s regulations and guidelines on parole expressly prohibit the release of an individual who presents a risk to the community or a flight or security risk. The case law governing immigration court custody hearings also requires that the individual establish that he or she does not present a danger to others, a threat to national security, or a flight risk. In some cases, asylum seekers could have been released, at significant savings, to a supervised release program. In fact, while detention costs $95 each day on average, alternatives to detention cost $10 to $14 for each person each day. Individuals who have been released through these programs have continued to appear for their immigration court hearings at high rates—ranging from 93 to 99 percent. According to ICE, participants in the intensive supervision appearance program (ISAP) demonstrated a 91 percent compliance with removal orders as well. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2009. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2012 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detention-report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detention-report.pdf Shelf Number: 124761 Keywords: Asylum, Right of (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsPolitical Refugees |
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: Corlett, D. Title: Captured Childhood: Introducing a New Model to Ensure the Rights and Liberty of Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Irregular Migrant Children Affected by Immigration Detention Summary: This document explores the treatment of migrant, refugee, and asylum seeking children in detention facilities around the world. It presents the Child-sensitive Community Assessment and Placement model to help countries improve preventative measures against child detention and details good practice examples. This model is a 5-step process to avoid the detention of refugee, asylum seeker and irregular migrant children. It concludes with recommendations which promote the strengthening of community support and protection of migrant children on both national and international levels. Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2012. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2012 at: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/strategies_planning/IDC_CapturedChildhoodImmigrationDetention_2012_EN.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/strategies_planning/IDC_CapturedChildhoodImmigrationDetention_2012_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 125438 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant Detention |
Author: Rabin, Nina Title: At the Border between Public and Private: U.S. Immigration Policy for Victims of Domestic Violence Summary: This paper is an examination of the treatment of women in flight from domestic violence at the U.S. Mexico border. It compares the robust state protections and institutional framework for women victims of domestic violence in the interior of the country with the hostile landscape women encounter at the border. The paper draws on three sources for information about the treatment at the border of domestic violence victims: an in-depth case study of one woman’s experience of domestic violence and flight, a small data set of women who fled domestic violence and were detained in Eloy Detention Center in Arizona during 2010 and 2011, and a detailed analysis of the policies and practices at play when a woman in flight from domestic violence comes to the U.S. border. The case study, data sample, and policy analysis paint a grim picture that may surprise many. Women fleeing violence whose lives entangle with the border confront a bureaucracy and a justice system that harkens back to the time, fifty years ago, when domestic violence was seen as a private matter about which there was little the government could or should do to respond. Most often, women are immediately turned around and sent back to the abuse without any opportunity to explain their terror. If they do voice their fear, they are often locked up in detention centers for months and sometimes years at a time. In the majority of cases, after this prolonged incarceration, they are deported back to the abuse from which they fled. The U.S. immigration policies and practices that lead to these results are not only failing to respond to these victims’ harms; they are actually exacerbating their trauma and isolation, often sending them back to a more dangerous situation than the one they originally fled. Building on this descriptive account, the paper analyzes whether there is sound justification for the differential treatment immigrant women victims of domestic violence receive at the border as compared to in the interior of the country. A closer look at the treatment of immigrant victims of domestic violence in the interior reveals that they receive state protection and assistance so long as they are conceived of solely in terms of their victimization. Inevitably, when their status as victims becomes intertwined with their status as undocumented immigrants, the state’s commitment to robust protection and assistance weakens. What is unique at the geographic border, however, is the ways in which these anxieties about admissions are cloaked in language about the “private” nature of the violence at issue for women in flight from domestic violence. This use of the public/private distinction to express underlying concerns about immigration admissions policies is disturbing on two counts: it fails to discuss transparently the considerations at issue and it minimizes the deep structural roots of domestic violence no matter where it occurs. Details: Tucson, AZ: James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft Paper: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2084363 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2084363 Shelf Number: 125457 Keywords: AsylumDomestic ViolenceDomestic Violence (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsViolence Against Women |
Author: Hiemstra, Nancy Ann Title: The View From Ecuador: Security, Insecurity, and Chaotic Geographies of U.S. Migrant Detention and Deportation Summary: The central argument of this dissertation is that while the immigration enforcement policies of detention and deportation are politically positioned as critical strategies for protecting U.S. homeland security, these policies actually create insecurity at multiple scales. The project, grounded in both critical geopolitics and feminist political geography, endeavors to interrogate the ‗master narratives‘ behind these restrictive policies. First, the dissertation explores the historical, political, and cultural factors behind the United States‘ increased use of detention and deportation, as well as the deepseated structural factors driving Ecuadorian migration to the United States. Then, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Ecuador with deportees and family members of detained migrants, the study seeks to understand ways in which these policies are embodied both within and outside U.S. borders. It is suggested that the detention and deportation system engenders chaos – or the appearance of chaos – in numerous spaces and for various groups of individuals. Three ‗chaotic geographies‘ of the system are explored in order to scrutinize the enactment of immigration policy: the operation of the system itself, detainees‘ experiences, and reverberations of detention and deportation in Ecuador. Data show that inside U.S. borders, these enforcement policies interact recursively with processes of racialization and criminalization to generate insecurity for detained migrants and discipline employees to behave in particular ways. In addition, due to its inherent disorder and confusion, the detention and deportation system projects a cloak of impenetrability that hides the powerful actors behind its expansion, faults, and abuses. The dissertation then investigates how the chaos of detention and deportation extends transnationally to countries of migrant origin to produce insecurity precisely at the scale of the home for migrants‘ families, communities, and for returned migrants. In Ecuador, detention and deportation increase economic and ontological insecurity for family members and returned migrants in ways that spread throughout communities. Moreover, data from Ecuador illustrate that policymakers‘ objectives of deterrence do not play out as anticipated. In this project, the author joins critical scholars in calling for an expanded understanding of the concept of security, one which incorporates multiple scales and operates across political borders. Details: Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 2011. 328p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=geo_etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522the%2520view%2520from%2520ecuador%253A%2520security%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CFMQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsurface.syr.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1068%2526context%253Dgeo_etd%26ei%3DvwsIUOjYOsTr0QGY45XZAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEdrVc4H0guG5jVeq8-VDDaxJvmQA#search=%22view%20from%20ecuador%3A%20security%22 Year: 2011 Country: Ecuador URL: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=geo_etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522the%2520view%2520from%2520ecuador%253A%2520security%2522%26source%3Dw Shelf Number: 125676 Keywords: Border SecurityDeportationIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (Ecuador) |
Author: Mason, Cody Title: Dollars and Detainees: The Growth of For-Profit Detention Summary: The War on Drugs and harsh sentencing laws led to explosive growth in state and federal prison populations in the 1980s. The massive rise in prisoners overwhelmed government budgets and resources, and created opportunities for private prison companies to flourish. In 2010, one in every 13 prisoners in the U.S. was held by for-profit companies, despite evidence that private prisons often provide inadequate levels of service and are no more cost-effective than publicly-run facilities. In addition, private prisons operate on a business model that emphasizes profits over the public good, and benefit from policies that maintain America’s high incarceration rate. Nonetheless, these companies could count on predictable growth in the number of state and federal prisoners until 2008, when budget crises and policy changes led some states to reduce their prison populations and private prison contracts. The resulting losses for private prison companies were more than offset by expansion of their management of federal detainees under the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Marshals Service. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of privately-held inmates decreased by 1,281, while the number of privately-held detainees increased by 3,327. This growth was part of a larger trend that saw the total private detainee population increase by 259 percent between 2002 and 2010; a change largely due to stepped up efforts to find, incarcerate, and deport people who violate immigration laws. There are indications that federal detention will remain a major market for private companies. There are two key concerns about the expansion of private federal detention that need to be addressed. First, many of the problems associated with private corrections appear equally valid in the area of private detention. These include unsubstantiated claims of cost savings, problems with oversight, and high staff turnover. Second, there are considerable concerns regarding transparency in the use of private detention. The way federal agencies report data on privately-held detainees, along with the complex contractual arrangements and tiered layers of bureaucracy that result from privatization, make it difficult to ascertain the full scope of detention privatization at any given time. Without such transparency, policymakers and citizens are inherently limited in their ability to assess the full effects of privatization. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Dollars_and_Detainees.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Dollars_and_Detainees.pdf Shelf Number: 125687 Keywords: Federal DetaineesFederal PrisonsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Kohli, Aarti Title: Borders, Jails, and Jobsites: An Overview Of Federal Immigration Enforcement Programs in the U.S. Summary: This report provides an overview of the current state of immigration enforcement in the United States in order to encourage and facilitate a productive discussion towards reform. The paper summarizes available background information and the latest research on the key components of the enforcement system. It describes the primary actors and programs, presents specific concerns identified by scholars, advocates and researchers, and offers preliminary recommendations. Details: Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/WI_Enforcement_Paper_final_web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/WI_Enforcement_Paper_final_web.pdf Shelf Number: 126372 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Gilman, Denise Title: Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States Summary: This article takes a comprehensive look at the extensive U.S. immigration detention system from a human rights perspective. The article represents a first effort to synthesize and present recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the U.S. immigration detention system. It engages in an in-depth analysis to identify the changes necessary to realign U.S. law and scale back immigration detention in accord with international human rights law. The article proposes that U.S. courts should effect those changes through the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the international human rights law standards. This use of the human rights standards is appropriate, because the standards represent binding obligations for the United States as a matter of international law and closely track U.S. constitutional law principles relating to civil detention in contexts less contentious than immigration. The article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to U.S. immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and U.S. constitutional law. Details: Austin, TX: University of Texas School of Law, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Shelf Number: 126451 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Greene, Judith: Mazon, Alexis Title: Privately Operated Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive. Unsafe. Unnecessary Summary: Presented before a House of Representatives briefing sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado on September 13, 2012, Privately Operated Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive, Unsafe, Unnecessary chronicles the May 2012 Adams County Correctional Center uprising in Natchez, Mississippi, a private for-profit facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America, under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The report details some of the tragic personal consequences for Juan Villanueva, his family, and others caught in the midst of the horrific conditions at the facility, leading to the insurrection. The report weaves into this narrative a look at the rise and fall of the private prison industry, and its resurrection through the benefit of federal contracts to detain and imprison undocumented immigrants, in an atmosphere of moral panic after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/privately-operated-federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-unnecessary Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/privately-operated-federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-unnecessary Shelf Number: 126464 Keywords: Federal PrisonsIllegal Aliens (U.S.)Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Marsh, Kevin Title: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Long-Term Detention Summary: The objective of this research was to determine the cost savings associated with the timely release of migrants pending removal who are currently detained for long periods only to be released back into the community. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) recommends that detention only be used for the shortest period necessary, pending resolution of immigration cases, i.e. removal or the determination of outstanding appeals (Home Office, 2011a). However, in practice, a significant number of individuals are held in detention for long periods before, ultimately, being released back into the community without resolution of their cases (Home Office, 2011b). Around 26,000 migrants enter detention per year. It is estimated that nearly 11 per cent of individuals entering detention spend greater than 3 months in detention, and 2 per cent spend greater than a year (Home Office, 2011b). Almost 40 per cent of detainees who spend more than 3 months in detention are eventually released into the community with their case still outstanding (Home Office, 2011b). The UKBA currently carries out a risk assessment of ex-offenders prior to the decision to detain (UKBA, 2011a). The scope of this risk assessment could be extended in order to identify those individuals who cannot be deported within a reasonable and lawful period of detention, and who will, therefore, eventually be released back into the community. Early identification and timely release of these individuals would save the cost of their protracted and fruitless detention. This more efficient use of detention space would mean that the same numbers of removals could be achieved using a reduced number of detention spaces. The analysis summarised in this report estimates that an improved risk assessment could result in cost savings of £377.4 million over a 5-year time period. This estimate comprises: £344.8 million in detention cost savings over 5 years. £37.5 million in avoided unlawful detention payments over 5 years. Minus £5.0 million in the extra cost of Section 4 support, including housing and living costs, for the additional time that migrants spend in the community. When analysing the savings over time, it is estimated that improved risk assessment could result in cost savings of £71.5 million, £81.2 million, £78.1 million, £74.9 million, and £71.6 million in each of the next 5 years, respectively. This amounts to average savings of £75.5 million per year, which could result in cost savings of £377.4 million over a 5 year time period. To contextualise these savings, it costs roughly £20 million per year to run a detention centre (UKBA, 2011b, Home Office, 2011b). Based on these costs, the analysis indicates that, by providing timely release for migrants, the UKBA could save the equivalent of the cost of running at least three detention centres over the next 5 years. A proportion of the expected savings could be reinvested in more intensive community-based support, which can be expected to generate increased rates of case resolution and voluntary return. For example, in Australia, migrants who would in the past have been detained are provided with case management support to resolve their immigration cases. The evidence from Australia suggests that case management is effective in increasing uptake of voluntary return. Currently in the UK, interventions are being piloted that replicate elements of Australian case management, although they have not been used as alternatives to detention. The analysis suggests that providing case management in the UK to all the migrants who would be released promptly in the above analysis would cost around £164.2 million, about 44 per cent of the savings made as a result of avoided detention. However, as voluntary returns are far cheaper than enforced removals, this could lead to further savings as well as increased overall numbers of returns. Details: London: Matrix Evidence, 2012. 26p, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at:http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Matrix-Detention-Action-Economic-Analysis-0912.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Matrix-Detention-Action-Economic-Analysis-0912.pdf Shelf Number: 126465 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice (U.K.)EconomicsIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Buentello, Tara Title: Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande Summary: Operation Streamline, a policy begun in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ), mandates that nearly all undocumented immigrants apprehended near the southern border in designated areas be detained and prosecuted through the federal criminal justice system, a dramatic departure from previous practices when most immigration cases were handled exclusively within the civil immigration system. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Streamline press release: “Those aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the individual will also be processed for removal from the United States.” Operation Streamline’s key component is that it mandates that immigrants crossing the border in designated areas be arrested, detained while awaiting trial, prosecuted with a misdemeanor or felony charge, incarcerated in the federal justice system, and finally deported. On December 16, 2005, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation Streamline along a section of the Texas-Mexico border near Del Rio, Texas, spanning a total of 210 miles. Operation Streamline has spread to other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, including much of Arizona and Texas. Operation Streamline has exposed undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border to unprecedented rates of incarceration; overburdened the federal criminal justice system in the districts where it has been implemented; and added enormous costs to the American taxpayer while providing a boon to the for-profit private prison industry. The extent of the program is so sweeping that by 2009, 54% of all federal prosecutions nationwide were for immigration offenses. The effect is more pronounced in border districts. In April 2010, prosecutions of 1325 and 1326 alone accounted for 84% of all prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. Since Operation Streamline began in 2005, there has been a 136% in prosecutions for unauthorized entry and an 85% increase in prosecutions for unauthorized re-entry in the Western and Southern Districts of Texas. More than 135,000 migrants have been criminally prosecuted in these two border districts since 2005 under the two sections of the federal code that make unauthorized entry and re-entry a crime. Operation Streamline has funneled more than $1.2 billion into the largely for-profit detention system in Texas, driving the expansion of private prisons along the border. Operation Streamline has significantly increased the caseload of public defenders and federal judges while radically increasing the number of individuals incarcerated for petty immigration violations in for-profit private prisons and county jails throughout Texas. Data in this report show an increase in criminal prosecutions of undocumented border-crossers even as the estimated number of migrants to the United States has dropped. In 2009, two border districts in Texas prosecuted 46,470 immigrants, representing approximately 186 entry and re-entry prosecutions a day for federal courts along the border. Proponents of Operation Streamline argue that it has deterred illegal entry. However, research conducted amongst migrants in the United States indicates that the decreased migration has largely been caused by the economic downturn, while the ironic impact of beefed-up border enforcement has been to deter migrants from returning to their countries of origin during the recession. Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande presents facts, figures, and testimony highlighting the human and financial costs Operation Streamline exacts on migrants, the federal judiciary, and the detention system in Texas. The recommends report recommends the repeal of Operation Streamline. Successor policies to Operation Streamline addressing undocumented border crossers should return jurisdiction over immigration violations to civil immigration authorities, reduce the use of detention for border crossing violations, and promote and promote a pathway for legal and reasonable means for immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Green Paper: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126536 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration Policy |
Author: Robertson, Alistair Graham Title: Operation Streamline: Costs and Consequences Summary: In 2005, the Del Rio sector of the Border Patrol, an agency within the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, faced a peculiar issue. With civil detention facilities at capacity and voluntary return to Mexico available only to Mexican citizens, non-Mexican migrants were given a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge and released in the United States.” In 2004, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 10,000 non-Mexican migrants in the Del Rio sector; just one year later, the figure spiked to 15,000. The solution to this enforcement issue, Border Patrol decided, was to circumvent the civil immigration system by turning non-Mexican migrants over for criminal prosecution, a practice until then relegated almost exclusively to cases of violent criminal history or numerous reentries. Upon considering the proposition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas responded with one caveat: in order to avoid an equal protection violation, the courts would have to criminally prosecute all migrants within a designated area, not just those from countries other than Mexico. With the signature of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, it was decided to do just that. Starting in December of 2005, “Operation Streamline” required all undocumented border-crossers in the Eagle Pass area of the Del Rio Border Patrol sector to be funneled into the criminal justice system and charged with unlawful entry or re-entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325 or 1326). Those charged with improper entry usually face a sentence of up to 180 days, and a judge may impose a sentence of over ten years dependent upon criminal history. Re-entry offenders also face tough sentences, including a felony charge that places up to a ten-year bar on legal immigration. The Department of Homeland Security since has drastically expanded the criminal referral model through similar programs in the Yuma sector in 2006, the Laredo sector in 2007, and the Tucson sector in 2008. By 2010, every U.S.-Mexico border sector except California had implemented a “zero-tolerance” program of some sort, the whole of which are commonly referred to by the moniker of the original program— Operation Streamline. Depending upon the sector, the degree of implementation may vary significantly. For example, according to Federal Public Defenders in the Yuma and Del Rio sectors, Border Patrol refers nearly 100% of apprehended immigrants in those areas for criminal prosecution. In the Tucson sector, where greater migrant volume renders such high referral rates logistically unfeasible, the percentage on immigrants “Streamlined” may be closer to 10%, or about 70 of the 800 migrants apprehended each day. The resulting prisoner volume has led the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice to depend upon private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. Through increased facility use and contracts for other services, CCA and GEO have enjoyed a combined $780 million increase in annual federal revenues since 2005. In FY2011, the federal government paid immense sums of taxpayer money to private prison companies, $744 million and $640 million to CCA and GEO Group, respectively. Much of this revenue derives from contracts for Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons, where federal immigrant prisoners are segregated in privately owned, privately operated prisons contracted by the Bureau of Prisons. The terms of CAR contracts include incentives (and sometimes guarantees) to fill facilities near capacity with immigrant prisoners. Each year, these companies dedicate millions of dollars to lobbying and campaign contributions. The federal dollars behind immigrant incarceration come at a significant cost to the taxpayer, climbing in 2011 to an estimated $1.02 billion annually. Before the announcement of Operation Streamline in 2005, the federal government annually committed about 58% of that total, or $591 million toward incarcerating immigrants. In 1994, the amount was about $72 million, 7% of its current level. Recent budget proposals indicate that federal spending on 2 Operation Streamline: Costs and Consquences prosecution and incarceration will likely increase, as Congress recently stated an ambition to “expand Operation Streamline to additional Border Patrol sectors” alongside a record-setting DHS budget request of $45.2 billion. The sheer volume of immigration cases has also severely burdened the courts in border districts, which have been forced to handle a near 350% increase of petty immigration cases from 12,411 in 2002 to 55,604 in 2010. In Tucson, courts may see as many as 200 immigrants lined up for prosecution in a single morning. To handle the expanded caseload, the Department of Justice has pursued a combination of resource-intensive options, including privately contracting with defense attorneys, deputizing Border Patrol agents as special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and bringing several magistrate judges out of retirement. Furthermore, Operation Streamline strips Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the power to prosecute the crimes they deem pressing. Immigration cases made up 36% of all criminal prosecutions nationwide in 2011, surpassing drug and fraud prosecutions combined. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 1, 2012 at: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 126537 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationOperation Streamline (U.S.)Private Prisons |
Author: Lydgate, Joanna Title: Assembly-Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline Summary: The current administration is committed to combating the drug and weapon trafficking and human smuggling at the root of violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. But a Bush-era immigration enforcement program called Operation Streamline threatens to undermine that effort. Operation Streamline requires the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all unlawful border crossers. The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border. This Warren Institute study demonstrates that Operation Streamline diverts crucial law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime along the border, fails to effectively reduce undocumented immigration, and violates the U.S. Constitution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began implementing Operation Streamline along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2005. The program has fundamentally transformed DHS’s border enforcement practices. Before Operation Streamline began, DHS Border Patrol agents voluntarily returned first-time border crossers to their home countries or detained them and formally removed them from the United States through the civil immigration system. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reserved criminal prosecution for migrants with criminal records and for those who made repeated attempts to cross the border. Operation Streamline removed that prosecutorial discretion, requiring the criminal prosecution of all undocumented border crossers, regardless of their history. Operation Streamline has generated unprecedented caseloads in eight of the eleven federal district courts along the border, straining the resources of judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and court personnel. The program’s voluminous prosecutions have forced many courts to cut procedural corners. Magistrate judges conduct en masse hearings, during which as many as 80 defendants plead guilty at a time, depriving migrants of due process. Indeed, in December 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona violate federal law. By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence. To examine Operation Streamline’s effects, the Warren Institute observed Operation Streamline court proceedings and conducted interviews with judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, Border Patrol representatives, and immigration lawyers in four border cities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This report outlines the Warren Institute’s findings. It concludes that Operation Streamline is not an effective means of improving border security or reducing undocumented immigration. Furthermore, Operation Streamline has unacceptable consequences for the agencies tasked with implementing the program, for the migrants it targets, and for the rule of law in this country. The administration should therefore eliminate Operation Streamline and restore U.S. attorneys’ discretion to prosecute serious crimes along the border. If the administration seeks to punish first-time border crossers, it need look no further than the civil system. Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Operation_Streamline_Policy_Brief.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Operation_Streamline_Policy_Brief.pdf Shelf Number: 126538 Keywords: Border SecurityHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyOperation StreamlinePrison Prisons |
Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Not Too Late for Reform: A Call for President Obama to Close Failed Immigration Detention Facilities, Halt Costly Privatization & Restore Basic Human Rights Summary: The report details ongoing abuses at county jails holding immigrants in the Midwest and calls on the Obama administration to end the expansion and privatization of the abusive immigration detention system. The report focuses on three county jails — Jefferson County Jail and Tri-County Detention Center in Illinois and Boone County Jail in Kentucky — where the deplorable conditions of confinement are typical of immigration detention facilities across the United States. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center and the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, 2011. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 126548 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons |
Author: Cole, Alexandra (Sachi) Title: Prisoners of Profit: Immigrants and Detention in Georgia Summary: As the number of immigrants detained annually approaches half a million, the prison-like conditions of immigration detention facilities and the substandard treatment afforded to the detainees are an area of increasing concern. Georgia is home to four immigration detention facilities: Stewart Detention Center (Stewart), North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC), Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin), and Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). Stewart is the largest detention facility in the U.S. It has become common practice for ICE to contract with private companies to operate detention facilities; indeed, private companies run three of the four detention facilities in Georgia documented in this report. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the U.S., whose annual revenue in 2010 was $1.7 billion, runs two of those facilities. Although it has been claimed that privatization of detention facilities is cost-effective, this proposition has been cast into serious doubt. What has been confirmed is the systemic violation of immigrant detainees’ civil and human rights while detained in substandard prison-like conditions ill suited for civil detainees. The ACLU of Georgia has documented the current landscape of immigration detention in Georgia. The following methods were used for documentation: · Interviews with 68 detainees from all four detention facilities · Interviews with detainees’ family members · Interviews with immigration attorneys · Detention center tours · Reviews of responses from officials · Review of grievances filed by detainees Findings from these diverse sources raise serious concerns about violations of detainees’ due process rights, inadequate living conditions, inadequate medical and mental health care, and abuse of power by those in charge. Details: Atlanta: ACLU of Georgia, 2012. 184p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Shelf Number: 127005 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Georgia, U.S.)Private PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Title: Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy Summary: In a country that honors due process, and during a time when most are calling for reduced federal spending, locking people up should be the exception to the rule. Yet immigrant detention is the fastest growing, least scrutinized form of incarceration in the United States. On any given day, the U.S. government imprisons more than 33,000 immigrants—many of whom are refugees or survivors of torture or human trafficking—in a vast national network of about 250 federal, private, state, and local jails. The cost to U.S. taxpayers is $122 per detainee per day. These figures, however, fail to account for the human costs. It is well documented that detention has negative long-term consequences for immigrants’ mental and physical health and negatively impacts their ability to integrate into society upon release. All of these costs must necessarily be borne by the public for those granted relief in their removal cases and permitted to stay in the United States. In contrast, alternatives to detention (ATDs) are cheaper—they cost only $22 or less per person per day—and are more humane. An effective use of a broad continuum of alternatives to detention would allow the federal government to meet its responsibility to enforce compliance with U.S. immigration laws, meet its humanitarian obligations, and significantly reduce the financial burden to U.S. taxpayers. Alternatives that utilize case management for those released from custody have a number of benefits: • respect for and fulfillment of human rights, • higher rates of compliance and appearance, • reduced costs, • improved integration outcomes for individuals granted relief from removal, and • improved client health and welfare. The record is clear. Since the 1980s, projects operated by nonprofit organizations in the United States and abroad that have provided tailored supervision, case management, and social services have consistently produced high appearance rates for much less money than detention. Recognizing the successes of these models, Congress provided U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, with funding to initiate a holistic alternative for noncitizens who did not need to be detained. Unfortunately, the U.S. government’s approach has focused on security at the expense of other goals, casting shadows on the program’s operations. Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy, reviews the U.S. government’s attempts to implement ATD programs and reveals five overarching structural challenges that must be overcome: • an overreliance on detention as an approach to immigration enforcement, • the lack of individualized risk assessments to determine who needs to be detained or otherwise supervised to ensure appearance and removal, • absence of necessary data indicators and the mechanisms to collect and report those indicators to evaluate the use of detention and alternatives, • absence of a robust case management system with referrals to appropriate social services, and • insufficient access to legal and social services. To better control the immigrant removal process, reduce costs, and meet human rights obligations under domestic and international law, three critical reforms are needed to U.S. immigration enforcement policies: an individualized assessment and process to challenge all custody decisions, robust case management tailored to individual needs, and access to legal and support services. Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Shelf Number: 127006 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: Coolman, Alex Title: No Refuge Here: A First Look at Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention Summary: This report calls attention to the problem of sexual abuse in immigration detention centers in the United States, focusing on three central issues: (1) the considerable and troubling reported record of sexual abuse of detainees, (2) the lack of substantive policies and procedures in place to address such abuse, and (3) immigration officials' refusal to allow independent monitoring of conditions for detainees. Through this report, Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR) calls on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement more detailed and comprehensive standards for the prevention and treatment of sexual assault in facilities that hold immigration detainees. No systematic research has ever been undertaken to examine sexual abuse in immigration detention centers, and no statistics about its frequency have been collected. Compiled in these pages, however, are accounts that attest to ongoing abuse, including cases in which detainees have been raped, sexually assaulted, forced to trade sex for favors, and sexually harassed. SPR reviews the most well known of these cases, and discusses a number of additional abusive situations discovered through contacts with detainees and with other nonprofit agencies. Second, this report documents SPR's efforts to speak directly with detainees about their experiences and the distressing stonewalling from immigration officials that was the response to these efforts. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the ICE's policy on the handling of detainees. The analysis concludes that there are serious shortcomings in the agency's approach to sexual assault and sexual misconduct. SPR suggests specific policy changes that can help the ICE create safer, more humane facilities for detainees. Throughout the report, presented as case studies, are the stories of individual detainees' encounters with forms of sexual violence. SPR hopes that this publication will serve as a first step toward acknowledging and addressing sexual abuse in immigration detention, a problem that, whatever its scope, shatters the lives of those who endure it. Details: Los Angeles, CA: Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Shelf Number: 127025 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrison Rape (U.S.)Sexual Abuse |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Summary: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to examine the Department of Justice’s (Department) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) processing and management of immigration cases and appeals involving foreign-born individuals (aliens) charged with violating immigration laws. Among other duties, EOIR courts are responsible for determining whether aliens charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with immigration violations should be ordered removed from the United States or be granted relief from removal, which would allow them to remain in this country. The OIG found that immigration court performance reports are incomplete and overstate the actual accomplishments of these courts. These flaws in EOIR’s performance reporting preclude the Department from accurately assessing the courts’ progress in processing immigration cases or identifying needed improvements. For example, administrative events such as changes of venue and transfers are reported as completions even though the immigration courts have made no decisions on whether to remove aliens from the United States. As a result, a case may be “completed” multiple times. In our sample of 1,785 closed cases, 484 administrative events were counted as completions by EOIR. Reporting these administrative actions as completions overstates the accomplishments of the immigration courts. Similarly, those same administrative events result in a case being reported as a “receipt” when the case is opened at the receiving court. As a result, the same case may be reported as a “receipt” multiple times, thereby overstating the total number of cases opened by the immigration courts during a particular period. Further, for those cases where EOIR has put in place a timeliness goal for handling a case, EOIR does not report the total time it takes to complete the case. Instead, EOIR tracks case processing time by court. As a result, a case with a timeliness goal of 60 days that spent 50 days at one court and was then transferred to another court, where it spent another 50 days, would be reported by EOIR as two cases that were each completed within the 60-day timeliness goal. In actuality, there was only one case, and that case took EOIR 100 days to reach a decision on whether the alien should be removed, thereby exceeding the 60-day goal. This practice makes it appear that more cases meet the completion goals than actually do. Additionally, in January 2010, EOIR abandoned completion goals for cases involving non-detained aliens who do not file asylum applications, which make up about 46 percent of the courts’ completions. EOIR made this decision to prioritize and focus on the completion of detained cases, in which aliens are deprived of their liberty and housed at taxpayer expense. While the OIG recognizes the importance of the timely completion of cases involving detained aliens, EOIR also should have goals for the timely processing of non-detained cases. Despite overstating case receipts and completions, EOIR’s immigration court data still showed that it was not able to process the volume of work. From FY 2006 through FY 2010, the overall efficiency of the courts did not improve even though there was an increase in the number of judges. In 4 of those 5 years, the number of proceedings received was greater than the number of proceedings completed. As a result, the number of pending cases increased. Our analysis of a sample of closed cases showed that cases involving non-detained aliens and those with applications for relief from removal can take long periods to complete. This results in crowded court calendars and delayed processing of new cases. For example, cases for non-detained aliens took on average 17½ months to adjudicate, with some cases taking more than 5 years to complete. In addition to the volume of new cases, the number and length of continuances immigration judges granted was a significant contributing factor to case processing times. In the 1,785 closed cases we examined, 953 cases (53 percent) had one or more continuances. Each of these cases averaged four continuances. The average amount of time granted for each continuance was 92 days (about 3 months), which results in an average of 368 days for continuances per case. In contrast, the EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) completed more appeals of immigration court decisions than it received from FY 2006 through FY 2010. Appeals involving non-detained aliens, however, still took long periods to complete. In our sample, the BIA averaged more than 16 months to render decisions on cases involving non-detained aliens, as compared to 3½ months for cases involving detained aliens. However, EOIR’s performance reporting does not reflect the actual length of time to review and decide those appeals because EOIR does not count processing time for one- and three-member reviews from the date the appeal was filed. Rather, EOIR begins the counting process once certain work is completed by the BIA and/or its staff. As a result, EOIR’s performance reporting data underreports actual processing time, which undermines EOIR’s ability to identify appeal processing problems and take corrective actions. In this report, we make nine recommendations to help EOIR improve its case processing and provide accurate and complete information on case completions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 1, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Shelf Number: 127090 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: National People's Action Title: Jails Fargo: Banking on Immigrant Detention, Wells Fargo's Ties to the Private Prison Industry Summary: Private prison operators are profiting from the deepening immigration crisis in the United States. Companies like CCA and GEO Group have seen steady growth due to the countryʼs policy of locking up immigrants in privately-managed detention facilities. These companies have spent millions to shape this policy, win contracts, and ensure that the rules are fixed in their favor – all at the expense of some of the countryʼs most vulnerable people. These companies would not be positioned to profit from the countryʼs immigration crisis without the help of prominent Wall Street banks. The industry is capital-intensive and requires enormous amounts of financing from banks that sit at the countryʼs financial and economic crossroads. One bank, in particular, has distinguished itself from the competition as an investor in and lender to the industry: Wells Fargo. This report details the financial ties between Wells Fargo and the top private prison operators in the country: Corrections Corp of America (CCA), GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp (MTC). The information compiled in the report shows that as a lender and investor, Wells Fargo has provided critical support for the private prison industry. This report is the first in a series. A future report will detail other aspects and consequences of Wells Fargoʼs support for the private prison industry, and will raise further questions about the bankʼs role in the private prison industry and the vicious cycle of imprisonment and detention, profit, and political influence it facilitates. Details: Chicago, IL: National People's Action, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2012 at http://www.npa-us.org/files/wells_fargo_-_banking_on_immigrant_detention_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.npa-us.org/files/wells_fargo_-_banking_on_immigrant_detention_0.pdf Shelf Number: 127247 Keywords: Banking IndustryDetention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrationPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk Summary: This report addresses the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decisionmaking process on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility or place them in supervised release. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission is to protect the security of the American people by enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws. This includes the identification, apprehension, detention, and removal of deportable aliens from the United States. Aliens undergoing removal proceedings are either held in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility or placed in one of five supervised release options. On September 30, 2009, 31,306 aliens were in detention facilities, an estimated 153,000 were incarcerated in federal prisons or state and local jails, and 1.5 million were released through a variety of supervision options. Our audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decisionmaking process on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility or place them in supervised release. Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally has an effectively designed decisionmaking process for determining whether to detain or release aliens. In most of the cases we assessed, officers made reasonable decisions and complied with requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Supreme Court decisions, and prescribed policies and procedures. However, personnel could not always provide evidence that all aliens were screened against the Terrorist Watchlist; current policy for screening aliens from specially designated countries is not effective; and personnel did not always maintain accurate and up-to-date information in the case management system. The agency has taken action to correct deficiencies in its data quality. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials concurred with two of our three recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-81_Dec11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-81_Dec11.pdf Shelf Number: 127268 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionRisk ManagementSupervised Release |
Author: Meissner, Doris Title: Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery Summary: The US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, and has allocated nearly $187 billion for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration detention. The report traces the evolution of the immigration enforcement system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology – analyzing how individual programs and policies have resulted in a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Shelf Number: 127284 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Enforcement |
Author: Phillips, Susan D. Title: Children in Harm's Way: Criminal Justice, Immigration Enforcement, and Child Welfare Reports Summary: 1998, the Child Welfare League of America published a seminal issue of Child Welfare describing the needs of children with parents in prison. It marked a milestone in what has become an ongoing effort to influence how the child welfare system responds to children whose parents are arrested and the support available to relatives caring for children whose parents are incarcerated. It pointed to policies and practices that either ignored the needs of this group of vulnerable children and their families, or created impediments to reunifying children with parents who had been incarcerated. This publication, produced jointly by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, introduces readers to concerns about a subgroup of this vulnerable group of children: children whose parents are affected by the interplay of the criminal justice, child welfare, and immigration enforcement systems. In the past decade, the federal government dramatically changed its approach to enforcing federal immigration laws and the scale of its efforts. As a result, a growing number of parents are being apprehended by local and state police (often for relatively minor offenses), turned over to federal immigration authorities, held in federal detention centers, and then returned to their home countries. In many cases, their children are U.S. citizens who are forced to leave their homes to be with their parents, or who remain in the United States permanently separated from their parents. Others end up in the foster care system where they may be placed for adoption. The number of people being held in immigration detention centers while waiting for their cases to be heard in administrative immigration proceedings has reached a historic high at a time when prison growth is otherwise beginning to slow. For-profit prison companies are poised to seize on this opportunity to bolster their profit margins. This became most evident in 2010 when Arizona legislators adopted the notorious S.B. 1070 law, perceived by many as an open invitation for law enforcement agencies to engage in racial profiling. Not long after the enactment of S.B. 1070, it became clear that the legislation was based on a blueprint that had been handed out by representatives of the private prison industry at a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Like an echo from the past, the questions being raised about children whose parents are targets of stepped-up immigration enforcement are similar to those that were first raised nearly 20 years ago about children whose parents were then being sent to jails and prisons in record numbers. Those questions include: What happens to children in the wake of authorities taking their parents into custody?; How do children of color view the legal system after seeing so many members of their communities being taken away by police?; And how are communities changed when arrests or immigration enforcement actions can happen at any time? And, a central issue in the articles assembled here: How does the child welfare system help or hinder families in the wake of criminal or immigration court actions against parents? Details: Washington, D.C.: Jointly published by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, 2013. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf Shelf Number: 127648 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WelfareIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Danielson, Michael S. Title: Documented Failures: the Consequences of Immigration Policy on the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: This report presents systematic documentation of the experiences of migrant women, men and children repatriated from the United States to cities along Mexico's northern border, with particular emphasis on the Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Sonora, Mexico area. The report addresses five common problems experienced by Mexican and Central American migrants before and during migration and upon apprehension, detention and deportation by U.S. migration authorities. The areas of investigation are: 1. The separation of migrants from family members they were traveling with when apprehended and deported by the U.S. Border Patrol. Migrants are often separated from their families, friends and loved ones during the process of deportation. This separation places migrants—the great majority of whom are from parts of Mexico very far from the northern border or Central American countries—in situations of unwarranted vulnerability in an increasingly dangerous region of Mexico. 2. Family separation as a driver of migration and a continuing complication for families of mixed-legal status. As the number of mixed immigration status families is steadily increasing, mothers, fathers, and guardians who are deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are often separated from their citizen children, who remain in the U.S. with their other parent, guardians, other family members, or in foster care. This section also examines how many of those deported by U.S. migration authorities were attempting to reunite with immediate family members already living in the United States. 3. Violence as a cause of migration and abuses and physical security threats experienced by migrants during northward journeys, border crossing, and after deportation from the United States. As levels of violence directly and indirectly related to drug trafficking have increased throughout Mexico and Central America in recent years, violence has become an increasingly common cause of migration. Furthermore, the growing prevalence of violence along the border means migrants are often the victims of theft and physical, verbal and sexual abuse at the hands of criminal gangs, human smugglers, human traffickers and thieves, risks that ought to be taken into consideration by U.S. migration authorities when deporting unauthorized immigrants to northern Mexico border towns. 4. Abuses and misconduct committed by the U.S. Border Patrol and other U.S.migration authorities. Based on multiple data sources, the report demonstrates that there is systematic abuse and misconduct in the process of apprehending, detaining and deporting undocumented migrants. One in four migrants surveyed (24.8%) reported being abused in some way by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and data show that Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and particularly the Border Patrol, systematically deny Mexican migrants the right to contact their consulate. 5. Abuses and misconduct committed by local police in Mexico.When traveling north, as well as after deportation, migrants are in a particularly vulnerable position and can be taken advantage of by local, state, and federal authorities in Mexico.This section provides estimates of the extent of these abuses, finding that men are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than women, and Central Americans are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than their Mexican migrant counterparts. Exploration of the five themes above reveals a complex set of distinct, but interrelated problems. The final section of the report provides a list of recommendations that, if implemented, would begin to address the most pressing problems faced by immigrants and their families. Details: Washington, DC: Jesuit Refugee Services, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Report prepared for the Kino Border Initiative Nogales, Arizona, U.S.A. and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico with funding from Catholic Relief Services of Mexico: Accessed February 19, 2013 at: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf Shelf Number: 127652 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman RightsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Policy |
Author: American Immigration Council Title: Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice Summary: There is a growing consensus that our immigration system is broken. Severe visa backlogs hurt U.S. businesses, undocumented workers are frequently exploited, and record levels of deportations tear families apart. While much energy is now focused on addressing these problems, one issue that is frequently overlooked is the structure and quality of justice accorded immigrants who are caught in the enforcement net. In reforming our immigration system, we must not forget that the immigration removal system—from arrest to hearing to deportation and beyond—does not reflect American values of due process and fundamental fairness. The failure to provide a fair process to those facing expulsion from the United States is all the more disturbing given the increasing “criminalization” of the immigration enforcement system. Although immigration law is formally termed “civil,” Congress has progressively expanded the number of crimes that may render an individual deportable, and immigration law violations often lead to criminal prosecutions. Further, local police now play an increasingly active role in immigration enforcement. Consequently, even relatively minor offenses can result in a person being detained in immigration custody and deported, often with no hope of ever returning to the United States. This special report is a product of the Immigration Policy Center and the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council. It lays out the the incongruency of America's criminal justice system and its immigration justice system, and provides recommendations for how these problems could be fixed. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2013. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/two-systems-justice-how-immigration-system-falls-short-american-ideals-justice Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/two-systems-justice-how-immigration-system-falls-short-american-ideals-justice Shelf Number: 128116 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.) |
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: Fugio, Christy Title: Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in the US Detention System Summary: Solitary confinement is a generic term used to describe a form of segregation or isolation in which people are held in total or near-total isolation. People in solitary confinement are generally held in small cells for 23 hours a day and rarely have contact with other people. Solitary confinement has historically been used to control and discipline detainees in a variety of settings, including federal and state prisons, local jails, and immigration and national security detention facilities. Unlike incarcerated prisoners, immigration and national security detainees are held not as punishment for a crime but as a preventive measure. Indeed, it is unlikely that these detainees will ever be charged with a crime. For these people, solitary confinement then becomes entirely punitive, with dire consequences for their mental and physical health. For these people, solitary confinement then becomes entirely punitive, with dire consequences for their mental and physical health. Immigration and national security detainees are particularly likely to be held in isolation for prolonged periods because their precarious legal status makes them less able to challenge their conditions of confinement, including placement in isolation. A review of the medical literature on solitary confinement provides convincing evidence that isolation has severe psychological and physical effects. These effects are exacerbated if the person has previously been subject to torture and abuse, as is often the case with many immigration and national security detainees. Even relatively short periods in solitary confinement can cause severe and lasting physiological and psychological harm. Moreover, in many cases, the resulting harm rises to the level of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, in violation of domestic and international law. The unequivocal position of Physicians for Human Rights is that solitary confinement should not be used at all in immigration and national security detention. Details: Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Solitary-Confinement-April-2013-full.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Solitary-Confinement-April-2013-full.pdf Shelf Number: 128356 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionSolitary Confinement (U.S.) |
Author: Trude, Adeline Title: The Liberty Deficit: Long-term detention & bail decision-making A study of immigration bail hearings in the First Tier Tribunal Summary: Over 5 months in 2011-12 and with the assistance of pro bono counsel and trained observers from The Law School at City University , BID carried out observations and detailed analysis of 80 immigration bail hearings. In half of these cases the applicant's case was prepared by BID as their legal representative, and they had the benefit of pro bono counsel. The other cases were brought by detainees preparing their application and representing themselves. The research sought to examine whether the immigration bail system serves the needs of the long term detainees who form the majority of BID’s clients. We take ‘long-term’ in this report to mean continuous administrative detention of a period of 6 months or more, in line with the guidance to First Tier judges on bail (2012) which states: “The senior courts have been reluctant to specify a period of time after which the length of detention will be deemed excessive and as a result that bail should be granted. Each case turns on its own facts and must be decided in light of its particular circumstances. However, it is generally accepted that detention for three months would be considered a substantial period of time and six months a long period. Imperative considerations of public safety may be necessary to justify detention in excess of six months” (HMCTS, 2012: para 19) Our research suggests that the First Tier Tribunal Immigration & Asylum Chamber is not equipped to deal with matters of criminal risk and release, which have come increasingly to the fore since the foreign national prisoner scandal and the introduction of ‘automatic’ deportation. There is an overwhelming failure on the part of the UK Border Agency to substantiate assertions made before the Tribunal in relation to the risk of re-offending, serious harm, or absconding, matched by a failure of the Tribunal to seek this evidence from the Border Agency. The amount of time made available by the Tribunals Service for barristers to take instructions, for the hearings themselves, and for comprehensive interpretation has not responded to the increasing number of detainees with complex and lengthy immigration histories. We believe that the First Tier Tribunal IAC is not using its powers sufficiently to ensure that detention does not become unnecessarily prolonged; for example to adjourn with directions to parties to avoid the need for a further bail application. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2012. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: http://www.biduk.org/817/news/new-bid-research-report-on-bail-decision-making-and-longterm-detention-the-liberty-deficit-longterm-detention-and-bail-decisionmaking.html Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.biduk.org/817/news/new-bid-research-report-on-bail-decision-making-and-longterm-detention-the-liberty-deficit-longterm-detention-and-bail-decisionmaking.html Shelf Number: 128491 Keywords: BailIllegal Immigrants (U.K.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Medical Justice Title: Expecting Change: The case for ending the detention of pregnant women Summary: This report presents an analysis of the immigration detention of pregnant women. The results show that the current policy of detaining pregnant women is ineffective, unworkable and damaging. The Home Offce does not know how many pregnant women are detained. Without knowing or recording how many are detained, it is diffcult to see how the Home Offce is able to implement its own policy of detaining pregnant women in only very exceptional circumstances. The primary purpose of detention is removal, yet this research and a previous Medical Justice audit show that only around 5% of pregnant women were successfully removed. This is because in the majority of cases, there is no medically safe way to return them. Following the case of Chen earlier this year, the Home Offce is now unable to use force on pregnant women, save to prevent harm to the woman herself. Given that the use of force, which the Home O"ce had deemed essential, is now unlawful, pregnant women should no longer be detained as there is now an even smaller prospect of removal. Experts agree that travel to malarious areas should be avoided because pregnant women have an increased risk of developing severe malaria and a higher risk of fatality compared to non-pregnant women. Home O"ce policy outlines that women should be o!ered malaria prophylaxis prior to their removal. In all the cases where anti-malarials were o!ered, Yarl’s Wood healthcare team failed to follow the relevant medical guidance. The data results show that the healthcare pregnant women receive is inadequate. There is evidence that the level of care falls short of NHS equivalence and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standards. Immigration detention introduces discontinuity in women’s care and the stress of detention can impact on their mental health and their pregnancy. Asylum seeking women have poorer maternity outcomes than the general population. Many women in the sample were victims of rape, torture and tra"cking. However, there appeared to be no appreciation by Yarl’s Wood healthcare sta! that even without complications, this is a group of vulnerable women who need to be managed as complex cases. People can be held in immigration detention inde#nitely and the decision to detain is not subject to automatic judicial oversight. Self-harm, hunger strikes and reports of assault and racism are common. In four separate cases in the past two years, the High Court has ruled that the care of four detainees amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Detention is no place for a pregnant woman. According to the Independent Monitoring Board, 93 pregnant women were held in Yarl’s Wood in 2011. With limited prospects of removal, it is our recommendation that the government should stop detaining them. Detention is not serving any purpose: the costs are great and the damage to women’s health can be dramatic. This recommendation is in line with Asylum Aid’s Charter of Rights of Women Seeking Asylum that is supported by 337 organisations, including the Royal College of Midwives. Details: London: Medical Justice, 2013. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/expectingchange.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/expectingchange.pdf Shelf Number: 129031 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale PrisonersImmigrant DetentionPregnant Inmates (U.K.) |
Author: Costello, Cathryn Title: Building Empirical Research into Alternatives to Detention: Perceptions of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in Toronto and Geneva Summary: 5 Executive Summary This research study examines the workings of ‘alternatives to detention’ (ATDs) through empirical research in two contexts, Toronto, Canada, and Geneva, Switzerland. Relying on a detailed literature review, and qualitative research carried out in summer 2012 in Toronto and Geneva, the report attempts to capture the workings of ATDs in particular from the perspective of the asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants they most closely affect. The study identifies the cooperative predisposition of asylum-seekers, which seems to be rooted in four subjective factors, namely: (1) the refugee predicament and fear of return; (2) inclination towards lawabidingness and commitment to obey the law; (3) trust and perceptions of fairness of the host state, in particular in its Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process; and (4) the desire to avoid irregular residence, in particular the attendant hardship and vulnerability. The report crucially identifies the conditions that foster cooperation, by assessing the interviewees' experiences of the divergent reception conditions available in Toronto and Geneva. ATDs seem more likely to encourage this cooperative disposition if they entail and are perceived to entail suitable reception conditions; fair RSD and other legal processes; and holistic support to navigate legal processes and life in the host country. Perceptions of RSD fairness seemed to depend on (1) being afforded a proper hearing; (2) consistency of decision-making; and (3) taking decisions promptly. The single most important institutional feature that fostered trust was (4) access to early reliable legal advice and assistance. The report also addresses the processes for securing release from immigration detention in Toronto and Geneva, namely detention reviews, to the extent that these procedures determine access to some ATDs. In Toronto, the work of the Toronto Bail Program (TBP) in the context of conditional release is examined. While accepting that some limitations exist in the TBP system, it is concluded that the TBP provides a potential model for supervised release of some asylum-seekers from detention. Details: Geneva, SWIT: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/51a6fec84.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/51a6fec84.pdf Shelf Number: 129283 Keywords: Asylum, Right of (Canada, Switzerland)Immigrant DetentionPolitical Refugees |
Author: Di Martino, Alberto Title: The Criminalization of Irregular Immigration: Law and Practice in Italy Summary: The report presents the main findings of a research project on criminalization of irregular immigration and on the law and practice on expulsion and return of irregular immigrants. The core purpose is not just to analyze existing legislation – an already difficult task, given its complexity and incoherence due to the frequent changes introduced by the legislator and by decisions of the Constitutional Court – but to focus on everyday practice of Italian enforcement authorities. Our aim was to evaluate whether both legislation and practice comply with constitutional, European, and international law requirements. Moreover, in spite of the difficulty in gathering accessible data on the management of the Centers for Identification and Expulsion, this report attempts to evaluate the costs of management of irregular immigration. The system appears, even from a strictly economical point of view, both ineffective and inefficient. Last but not least, we sketch possible advocacy actions on specific issues. Details: Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2013. 176p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2013 at: http://www.wiss-lab.dirpolis.sssup.it/files/2013/05/Libro-dirpolis-1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Italy URL: http://www.wiss-lab.dirpolis.sssup.it/files/2013/05/Libro-dirpolis-1.pdf Shelf Number: 129418 Keywords: Illegal Migration (Italy)Immigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Are Immigration Detainer Practices Rational? Summary: As public safety resources become more limited, justice administrators across California have begun to scrutinize the wisdom of immigration detainer programs (Gascon, 2013). Holding people in local jails for federal civil immigration purposes occupies valuable resources that could be used to address violent and serious criminal activity. Instead, these detainers are often enforced against people with minimal and nonviolent criminal histories without the due process afforded them under the criminal justice system. CJCJ has produced several publications analyzing data on California's ICE hold requests from October 2009 to February 2013. The series demonstrated that many ICE holds were being requested for people with no documented criminal histories or who were arrested for low priority marijuana offenses (CJCJ, 2013, 2013a). CJCJ has suggested limiting county compliance with these requests in order to better manage already strained jail capacities (CJCJ, 2013b). Additionally, ICE continues to request holds for individuals detained in youth detention facilities despite the de-prioritization of immigration enforcement for youth (CJCJ, 2013c). The cost of incarceration is high, averaging $114 per day per person in California jails (BSCC, 2012). Therefore, best correctional practices differentiate between low-risk and high-risk offenders and place them in the least restrictive settings necessary to protect public safety. Similarly, immigration enforcement and detention under the Secure Communities Program "prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators" (ICE, 2013). This final publication in the series examines a sample of the data set to determine whether stated criminal justice and immigration priorities are upheld in the practice of detaining suspected undocumented immigrants who have committed criminal offenses. Both systems have expressly stated the need to reserve custodial resources only for those who pose a danger to public safety. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf Shelf Number: 131818 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Anderson, Victoria Title: Second Chances for All. Why Orange County Probation Should Stop Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant youth Summary: In recent years, the Orange County Probation Department (OCPD) has adopted a policy of referring immigrant children in its care to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In so doing, OCPD has violated confidentiality laws, undermined the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, impeded community policing efforts, unlawfully entangled its officers in federal immigration enforcement, and diverted county resources. This report was undertaken by the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic to analyze OCPD's referral policy, document some of these harms, and recommend possible solutions to address those harms. As a result of OCPD's referral policy, Orange County has led the state in juvenile immigration referrals. From December 2010 to November 2012, the OCPD Procedure Manual instructed probation officers to proactively investigate the immigration status of youth and granted OCPD's ICE Liaison Officer discretion to refer practically any child with "questionable immigration status" to ICE. Pursuant to this policy, OCPD referred approximately 170 youth to immigration authorities in the year 2011 alone. Between October 1, 2009 and February 10, 2013, ICE issued immigration detainer requests for numerous youth detained in Orange County Juvenile Hall; Orange County accounted for approximately 43% of all ICE detainer requests issued to juvenile facilities in the state. In November 2012, OCPD revised its referral policy; however, key problematic aspects of the policy were left unchanged. In the months following the policy change, OCPD has made a steady, if reduced, number of referrals. Approximately 24 youth were referred between December 2012 and September 2013. OCPD's referral policy violates state confidentiality law and undermines OCPD's mission to rehabilitate juveniles. The policy violates California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827, which strictly limits access to juvenile case files, by requiring employees to provide ICE with "all pertinent information" to assist ICE's investigation of referred juveniles. Juvenile referrals also cause both children and their families to distrust the probation department, hindering cooperation necessary for rehabilitation. Furthermore, many juveniles referred to ICE are detained in federal custody for an indefinite period awaiting immigration court proceedings, separating them from their families and subjecting them to physical and mental hardships that increase their risk of recidivism. In cases where children are deported, they experience long-term separation from family and friends, and may be left to fend for themselves in countries where they have no support system. Juvenile referrals do not benefit public safety, and may even hinder policing efforts. Studies have repeatedly found that immigration status does not shape future delinquency. Also, OCPD's own studies indicate that as few as 8% of youth who come into contact with OCPD qualify as "chronic recidivists." Thus, targeting immigrant youth for deportation is unlikely to make Orange County safer. In fact, juvenile referrals can harm public safety because they foster distrust between immigrant communities and local police generally. Surveys show that approximately 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police officers when they fear police officers will investigate their immigration status or that of their loved ones. OCPD's involvement in federal immigration enforcement exceeds its authority under the Constitution and can lead to illegal detention, deportation, and profiling. Under the Constitution, immigration status may only be determined by federal officers and classified according to federal standards, but OCPD's referral policy directs county officers to independently ascertain juveniles' immigration status, according to a local scheme inconsistent with federal standards. The Constitution also guarantees juveniles the right to be free from unlawful detention, but the referral policy violates that right with its blanket directive to detain juveniles subject to ICE detainers for up to five days past their scheduled release dates. Furthermore, officers untrained in the complexities of immigration status are likely to rely on apparent race and ethnicity in selecting juveniles for immigration investigations, exacerbating risks of illegal racial profiling. Finally, OCPD officers may erroneously refer U.S. citizens or other lawfully present youth to ICE, potentially leading to their unlawful detention and deportation. OCPD's referral policy involves the unnecessary expenditure of county resources to subsidize federal immigration enforcement. OCPD employees - including a dedicated ICE Liaison - spend time on the county payroll investigating juveniles' immigration status and communicating with ICE, and the county incurs additional detention costs when OCPD denies out-of-home placement to juveniles subject to ICE detainers and detains such juveniles past their release dates. Further costs may result from lawsuits filed by those affected by OCPD's referral policy or by civil rights organizations, challenging violations of confidentiality laws, the detention of juveniles on the basis of ICE detainers, racial profiling by OCPD officers, or the erroneous referral and resulting detention or deportation of lawfully present juveniles. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, School of Law, immigrant Rights Clinic, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131887 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrant EnforcementImmigrationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRehabilitation |
Author: Vanderbruggen, Maaike Title: Point of No Return: The Futile Detention of Unreturnable Migrants Summary: This paper is an outcome of the awareness-raising project "A Face to the Story: The issue of unreturnable migrants in detention", which has been made possible by the support of EPIM, the European Programme on Integration and Migration. The project runs from September 2012 to February 2014, and involves qualitative research based on the stories of 39 unreturnable migrants with experiences of detention in Belgium, France, Hungary or the United Kingdom. The report is the result of a collaboration of Flemish Refugee Action (Belgium), Detention Action (UK), France terre d'asile (France), Menedek - Hungarian Association for Migrants, and The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), which aims to increase public debate on the detention of unreturnable migrants and to put pressure on governments to use detention only as a last resort. With this report and the related campaign, we hope to increase momentum amongst policy-makers at national and EU levels to reduce detention and find solutions for unreturnable migrants. Besides informing decision-makers, this report is also intended to stimulate civil societies to give special attention to this group of migrants, who are often living under the radar. Details: Point of No Return, 2014. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2014 at: http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/bestanden/publicaties/PONR_report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/bestanden/publicaties/PONR_report.pdf Shelf Number: 132169 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: How and Why Immigration Detention Crossed the Globe Summary: Today in countries across the globe, immigration-related detention has become an established policy apparatus that counts on dedicated facilities and burgeoning institutional bureaucracies. Before the decade of the 1980s, however, detention appears to have been largely an ad hoc tool, employed mainly by wealthy states in exigent circumstances. This paper details the history of key policy events that led to the diffusion of detention practices during the last 30 years and assesses some of the motives that appear to have encouraged this phenomenon. The paper also endeavors to place the United States at the center of this story because its policy decisions were instrumental in initiating the process of policy innovation, imitation, and - in many cases - imposition that has helped give rise to today's global immigration detention phenomenon. More broadly, in telling this story, this paper seeks to flesh out some of the larger policy implications of beyond-the-borders immigration control regimes. Just as offshore interdiction and detention schemes raise important questions about custody, accountability, and sovereignty, they should also spur questions over where responsibility for the wellbeing of migrants begins and ends. As this paper demonstrates, when it comes to immigration detention, all the answers cannot be found just at home. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 8: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 132215 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Immigrant Detention Immigrants ImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Martinez, Daniel E. Title: Bordering on Criminal: The Routine Abuse of Migrants in the Removal System. Part II: Possessions Taken and Not Returned Summary: This report focuses on the issue of repatriated migrants' belongings being taken and not returned by U.S. authorities. Overall, we find that the taking of belongings and the failure to return them is not a random, sporadic occurrence, but a systematic practice. One indication of this is that just over one-third of deportees report having belongings taken and not returned. Perhaps one of the most alarming findings is that, among deportees who were carrying Mexican identification cards, 1 out of every 4 had their card taken and not returned. The taking of possessions, particularly identity documents, can have serious consequences and is an expression of how dysfunctional the deportation system is. Our study finds that migrants processed through Operation Streamline, or held in detention for a week or longer, are most likely to have their possessions taken and not returned. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Possessions%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Possessions%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132341 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Immigration EnforcementOperation StreamlineUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues Summary: An "immigration detainer" is a document by which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) advises other law enforcement agencies of its interest in individual aliens whom these agencies are detaining. ICE and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), have used detainers as one means of obtaining custody of aliens for removal proceedings since at least 1950. However, the nationwide implementation of the Secure Communities program between 2008 and 2013 has prompted numerous questions about detainers. This program relies upon information sharing between various levels and agencies of government to identify potentially removable aliens. Detainers may then be issued for these aliens. Prior to 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) did not explicitly address detainers, and the INS appears to have issued detainers pursuant to its "general authority" to guard U.S. borders and boundaries against the illegal entry of aliens, among other things. However, in 1986, Congress amended the INA to address the issuance of detainers for aliens arrested for controlled substance offenses. After the 1986 amendments, INS promulgated two regulations, one addressing the issuance of detainers for controlled substance offenses and the other addressing detainers for other offenses. These regulations were merged in 1997 and currently address various topics, including who may issue detainers and the temporary detention of aliens by other law enforcement agencies. There is also a standard detainer form (Form I-247) that allows ICE to indicate that it has taken actions that could lead to the alien's removal, and request that another agency take actions that could facilitate such removal (e.g., notify ICE before the alien's release). Some commentators and advocates for immigrants' rights have asserted that, because the INA addresses only detainers for controlled substance offenses, ICE's detainer regulations and practices are beyond its statutory authority insofar as detainers are used for other offenses. A federal district court in California found otherwise in its 2009 decision in Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County v. County of Sonoma. However, subsequent litigation has raised the issue anew in other jurisdictions. Some have also suggested that a federal regulation - which provides that law enforcement agencies receiving immigration detainers "shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours" - means that states and localities are required to hold aliens for ICE. Prior versions of Form I-247 may also have been construed as requiring compliance with detainers. However, in its recent decision in Galarza v. Szalczyk, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected this view. Instead, it adopted the same interpretation of the regulation that DHS has advanced, construing it as prescribing the maximum period of any detention pursuant to a detainer, rather than mandating detention. However, district courts in other jurisdictions have indicated that they view the regulation as requiring states and localities to hold aliens for ICE. In addition, questions have been raised about who has custody of aliens subject to detainers, and whether the detainer practices of state, local, and/or federal governments impinge upon aliens' constitutional rights. Answers to these questions may depend upon the facts and circumstances of particular cases. For example, courts have found that the filing of a detainer, in itself, does not result in an alien being in federal custody, although aliens could be found to be in federal custody if they are subject to final orders of removal. Similarly, courts may be less likely to find that the issuance of a particular detainer violates an alien's constitutional rights if a warrant of arrest in removal proceedings is attached to the detainer, than if the alien is held after he or she would have been released because ICE has reason to believe he or she is removable. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: R42690: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf Shelf Number: 132374 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped in Our Shadow Private Prison System Summary: In rural Texas, 3,000 men are locked inside a "tent city," sleeping in bunk beds spaced only a few feet apart. The tents are crawling with insects and the smell of broken, overflowing toilets. This is Willacy County Correctional Center: a physical symbol of everything that is wrong with enriching the private prison industry and criminalizing immigration. More than 25,000 low-security non-U.S. citizens languish at thirteen private prisons like Willacy under Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) contracts. For years, these for-profit prisons have been able to operate in the shadows, effectively free from public scrutiny. That ends now. Our report documents the ACLU's multi-year investigation into the five CAR facilities in Texas. We uncovered evidence of shocking abuse and mistreatment, families torn apart, and the excessive use of solitary confinement. The second-class prisoners in CAR facilities are trapped at the intersection of three disturbing trends: the national mass incarceration crisis, prison privatization, and the criminalization of immigration. This is the story of how and why things have gotten so bad. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Shelf Number: 132496 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrison ConditionsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Martinez, Daniel E. Title: No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse Summary: Data obtained by the American Immigration Council shine a light on the lack of accountability and transparency which afflicts the U.S. Border Patrol and its parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The data, which the Immigration Council acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, covers 809 complaints of alleged abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between January 2009 and January 2012. These cases run the gamut of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse. Although it is not possible to determine which cases had merit and which did not, it is astonishing that, among those cases in which a formal decision was issued, 97 percent resulted in "No Action Taken." On average, CBP took 122 days to arrive at a decision when one was made. Moreover, among all complaints, 40 percent were still "pending investigation" when the complaint data were provided to the Immigration Council. The data indicate that "physical abuse" was the most prevalent reason for a complaint, occurring in 40 percent of all cases, followed by "excessive use of force" (38 percent). Not surprisingly, more complaints were filed in sectors with higher levels of unauthorized immigration. During the time period studied, more than one in three complaints filed against Border Patrol agents were directed at agents in the Tucson Sector. After accounting for the different numbers of Border Patrol agents in each sector, the complaint rate remained the highest in the Tucson Sector, with the Rio Grande Valley Sector a close second. Complaint rates as measured in terms of numbers of apprehensions were highest in Del Rio, Rio Grande Valley, and San Diego. Taken as a whole, the data indicate the need for a stronger system of incentives (both positive and negative) for Border Patrol agents to abide by the law, respect legal rights, and refrain from abusive conduct. In order to do that, complaints should be processed more quickly and should be carefully reviewed. Furthermore, the seriousness of the complaints demands an external review. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132573 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrisoner Abuse |
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: End Immigrant Detention Network Title: Indefinite, Arbitrary and Unfair: The Truth About Immigration Detention in Canada Summary: Today, more migrants enter Canada on temporary permits than as permanent residents. Though this has been the case with economic immigrants versus migrant workers since 1993, Canadian policies over the last decade have accelerated this trend. The Federal skilled workers program is limited to 50 occupations requiring advanced degrees (an increase from 24 since April 2014), along with years of work experience. As a result, most low-income and racialized migrants can only come to Canada under various categories of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP). The move from permanent status towards temporary status is occurring in all aspects of the immigration system. Today, many parents and grandparents enter Canada as temporary migrants under the so-called 'Super Visa' - and only if strict income requirements are met. Many spouses and common-law partners arrive in Canada with "conditional" permanent residence, which is a temporary permit that may force some women to remain in abusive situations rather than risk revocation of status on separation. Refugee applications have dropped in half just over the last year. All of these changes disproportionately impact women, and low-income and racialized families. The Federal government has enacted increasingly harsh measures to remove people's permanent residence, particularly from those who have already served a sentence for a crime, resulting in a 'double punishment'. In the last few years, over 3,000 people have had their citizenship revoked. With more people in Canada in precarious immigration status, many migrants have to choose between living without full status in Canada or returning to places they may not want or be able to return. As a result, there are approximately 500,0005 undocumented migrants in Canada, while an unknown number of migrants on temporary visas are also engaged in unauthorized work. The legislated shift towards temporariness has been accompanied by an increase in immigration enforcement. As more people lose immigration status and become undocumented, immigration detention and deportation grows at an unprecedented rate. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), established in December 2003, and overseen by the Ministry of Public Safety has seen its immigration enforcement budget balloon in recent years, rising from $91 million in 2010-2011, to over $198 million in 2012-2013. Though latest data on specific expenditure on immigration detention is not available, in 2008-09, when CBSA enforcement budget was $92 million, immigration detention costs were $45.7million. In 2009, immigration detention cost an average of $3,185 per detained case. In the same year, CBSA was paying between $120 and $207 to jail migrants in provincial facilities per day. By mid-2013, approximately 80,000 immigrants had been detained under the current government. In 2013 alone, between 7,373 and 9,932 immigrants spent a total of 183,928 days in immigration hold. This is a combined total of 504 years in prison. Over the past seven years, the number of detained children has fluctuated between 807 children per year in 2008 to 205 in 2013. The actual number is higher as many children are not tracked as detainees but as "accompanying their parents," or are themselves Canadian citizens and thus "not subject to" immigration detention. Advocates point to the particularly severe impacts of incarceration on women and mothers due to the lack of medical facilities for pregnancies and neo-natal care. Migrants in detention thus include those facing deportation; children 'accompanying' their parents; migrant workers who have acted outside the terms of their visas; detention upon arrival in Canada while applications are processed; those held on security grounds such as the Security Certificate detainees and others. Details: s.l.: End Immigration Detention Network, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: www.truthaboutdetention.com Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: www.truthaboutdetention.com Shelf Number: 132792 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrants (Canada)ImmigrationImmigration EnforcementRefugees |
Author: Migreurop Title: Europe's Murderous Borders Summary: Born in 2002, the Migreurop network brings together activists and over forty associations from thirteen countries both north and south of the Mediterranean. Its goal is to collect information to reveal and denounce the effects of the European Union's migration policies insofar as human rights violations are concerned, particularly in places of detention. The map of camps for foreigners in Europe and in Mediterranean countries drawn up by Migreurop, which is regularly updated, has become a reference in this field. Since 2008, the Migreurop network's work has taken on the form, in particular, of a Borders Observatory that rests upon a number of tools: apart from the divulging of information on human rights violations at borders through its e-mail list and website, Migreurop has launched a campaign for a 'Right of access in the places of detention for migrants', and has set up a working group on the consequences of readmission agreements reached between the European Union and its neighbours. In September 2009, Migreurop published an 'Atlas of migrants in Europe', which aims to be a work of critical geography of border controls. Migreurop releases this report on the violation of human rights at borders, 'Murderous Borders', within the framework of the Borders Observatory. For this first edition, Migreurop has chosen to focus on four symbolic poles of the misdeeds of the policies enacted by the European Union: the Greek-Turkish border, the Calais region in northwestern France, that of Oujda, in eastern Morocco, and the island of Lampedusa in the far south of Italy. They represent as many stops, of varying length and too often tragic, in the odyssey of thousands of people who, every year, seek to flee persecutions through chosen or obligatory exile, or simply to escape the fate that is reserved to them, by attempting to reach Europe. Details: Paris: Migreurop, 2009. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport-Migreurop-nov2009-en-final.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport-Migreurop-nov2009-en-final.pdf Shelf Number: 132903 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman Rights (Europe)Immigrant DetentionImmigrationMigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Migreurop Title: European Borders: Controls, detention and deportations Summary: Abbiamo fermato l'invasione: "We have stopped the invasion", a Northern League poster boasted in March 2010 before the regional elections in Italy. The press could rejoice about seeing "Lampedusa returned to the fishermen", since the identification and expulsion centre on the island, which had seen over 30,000 "illegals" disembark in 2008, and still 1,220 in February 2009, was henceforth empty since October. In turn, the Italian government was trumpeting the fact that, against "illegal" immigration, firmness had ended up paying off. From the other islands in the Sicily Channel to Malta, to the Canary islands, and to the coasts of Andalusia in Spain, the same fact could be noted: unwanted arrivals on the coasts had ended, at least on that side of Europe. Moreover, at a time when Migreurop is completing its second annual report, it has even been stated that Libya has closed its detention centres - those camps that were hastily created following great inputs of "aid" from north of the Mediterranean. Readers should read this report with caution, because, in the field of migration, the gateways and routes open up and close down very quickly, in accordance with the deals between European Union member states and those between the latter and so-called "third" countries, in spite of the strong trends that we denounce here. Details: Paris: Migreurop, 2010. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-migreurop-2010-en_-_2-121110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-migreurop-2010-en_-_2-121110.pdf Shelf Number: 132972 Keywords: Border Control Border Security Human Rights (Europe) Immigrant Detention Immigration Migrant Detention Migrants |
Author: No More Deaths Title: A Culture of Cruelty: Abuse and Impunity in Short-Term U.S. Border Patrol Custody Summary: In 2006, in the midst of humanitarian work with people recently deported from the United States to Nogales, Sonora, No More Deaths began to document abuses endured by individuals in the custody of U.S. immigration authorities, and in particular the U.S. Border Patrol. In September 2008 No More Deaths published Crossing the Line in collaboration with partners in Naco and Agua Prieta, Sonora. The report included hundreds of individual accounts of Border Patrol abuse, as well as recommendations for clear, enforceable custody standards with community oversight to ensure compliance. Almost three years later, A Culture of Cruelty is a follow-up to that report-now with 12 times as many interviews detailing more than 30,000 incidents of abuse and mistreatment, newly obtained information on the Border Patrol's existing custody standards, and more specific recommendations to stop the abuse of individuals in Border Patrol custody. The abuses individuals report have remained alarmingly consistent for years, from interviewer to interviewer and across interview sites: individuals suffering severe dehydration are deprived of water; people with life-threatening medical conditions are denied treatment; children and adults are beaten during apprehensions and in custody; family members are separated, their belongings confiscated and not returned; many are crammed into cells and subjected to extreme temperatures, deprived of sleep, and threatened with death by Border Patrol agents. By this point, the overwhelming weight of the corroborated evidence should eliminate any doubt that Border Patrol abuse is widespread. Still the Border Patrol's consistent response has been flat denial, and calls for reform have been ignored. We have entitled our report "A Culture of Cruelty" because we believe our findings demonstrate that the abuse, neglect, and dehumanization of migrants is part of the institutional culture of the Border Patrol, reinforced by an absence of meaningful accountability mechanisms. This systemic abuse must be confronted aggressively at the institutional level, not denied or dismissed as a series of aberrational incidents attributable to a few rogue agents. Until then we can expect this culture of cruelty to continue to deprive individuals in Border Patrol custody of their most fundamental human rights. Details: Tucson, AZ: No More Deaths, 2010. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.nomoredeathsvolunteers.org/Print%20Resources/Abuse%20Doc%20Reports/Culture%20of%20Cruelty/CultureofCrueltyFinal.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nomoredeathsvolunteers.org/Print%20Resources/Abuse%20Doc%20Reports/Culture%20of%20Cruelty/CultureofCrueltyFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 133123 Keywords: Border Patrol (U.S.)Border SecurityHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationPrisoner AbuseUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Holper, Mary Title: Confronting Cops in Immigration Court Summary: Immigration judges routinely use police reports to make life-altering decisions in noncitizens' lives. The word of the police officer prevents a detainee from being released on bond, leads to negative discretionary decisions in relief from removal, and can prove that a past crime fits within a ground of removability. Yet the police officers who write these reports rarely step foot in immigration court; immigration judges rely on the hearsay document to make such critical decisions. This practice is especially troubling when the same police reports cannot be used against the noncitizen in a criminal case without the officer testifying, due to both the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and Federal Rules of Evidence, neither of which apply in immigration court. In these days of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and prioritization of deporting so-called "criminal aliens," the police report problem is salient, and impacts thousands of noncitizens every year. This article argues for a right to confront police officers in immigration court by examining three different ways to conceptualize removal proceedings: (1) in light of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, deportation should be considered punishment, thus guaranteeing all of the protections of a criminal trial, including the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; (2) under the Mathews v. Eldridge case-by-case balancing test of the due process clause, courts should balance the interests at stake and adopt a right to confrontation and cross-examination of police officers in immigration court; and (3) if deportation is conceptualized as "quasi-criminal" and thus deserving of some, but not all, of the protections guaranteed at a criminal trial, one of those protections should be the right to confront one's accuser, especially when the accuser is a police officer. The scholarship has focused on why other rights guaranteed in a criminal trial - court-appointed counsel, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom from double jeopardy, proportionality principles, and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule - should apply to removal proceedings. An overlooked criminal protection is the right to confront one's accuser in immigration court. Details: Boston: Boston College - Law School, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 333 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Shelf Number: 133286 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Courts |
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: American Immigration Council Title: The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine: More Immigrants are being "Removed" from the United States than Ever Before Summary: Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States. In fact, the U.S. deportation machine has grown larger in recent years, indiscriminately consuming criminals and non-criminals alike, be they unauthorized immigrants or long-time legal permanent residents (LPRs). Deportations under the Obama administration alone are now approaching the two-million mark. But the deportation frenzy began long before this milestone. The federal government has, for nearly two decades, been pursuing an enforcement-first approach to immigration control that favors mandatory detention and deportation over the traditional discretion of a judge to consider the unique circumstances of every case. The end result has been a relentless campaign of imprisonment and expulsion aimed at noncitizens - a campaign authorized by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. While this campaign precedes the Obama administration by many years, it has grown immensely during his tenure in the White House. In part, this is the result of laws which have put the expansion of deportations on automatic. But the continued growth of deportations also reflects the policy choices of the Obama administration. Rather than putting the brakes on this non-stop drive to deport more and more people, the administration chose to add fuel to the fire. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Shelf Number: 133554 Keywords: DeportationsIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Two Years with No Moon: Immigration Detention of Children in Thailand Summary: Every year, Thailand arbitrarily detains thousands of children, including infants and toddlers, in squalid immigration facilities and police lock-ups. About 100 children each year - primarily from countries that do not border Thailand - may be held for months or years, due to their immigration status or that of their parents. Thousands more children - from Thailand's neighboring countries - are summarily deported with their families to their home countries within days or weeks. But no matter how long the period of detention, these facilities are no place for children. Two Years With No Moon describes the needless suffering and permanent harm that migrant children experience in Thai immigration detention. It examines the abusive conditions children endure in detention centers, particularly in the Bangkok immigration detention center, one of the most heavily used facilities, where children are held in filthy, overcrowded cells without adequate nutrition, education, or exercise space. Thailand's use of immigration detention violates children's rights under international law, risks their health and wellbeing, and imperils their capacity to mentally and physically grow and thrive. Children should not lose any of their childhood in immigration detention. Alternatives to detention exist and are used effectively in other countries, such as open reception centers and conditional release programs. Such programs, generally a cheaper option, respect children's rights and protect their future. Given the serious risks of permanent harm from depriving children of liberty, Thailand should immediately cease detention of children because of their immigration status. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0914_ForUpload_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Thailand URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0914_ForUpload_0.pdf Shelf Number: 133594 Keywords: Immigrant Children (Thailand)Immigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Parker, Christina Title: For-Profit Family Detention: Meet the Private Prison Corporations Making Millions by Locking Up Refugee Families Summary: In this joint report by Grassroots Leadership and Justice Strategies, we review the history of charges of sexual abuse and neglect of children, indifference to medical needs, inadequate and unsanitary food, and brutal treatment by staff, levied in lawsuits, government investigations, and allegations by those held in family detention facilities operated by private, for-profit, prison corporations. These same corporations are now being contracted by the federal government to detain refugee families arriving at our southern border after fleeing the violence in Central America. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership; Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/For%20Profit%20Family%20Detention%20Oct%202014_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/For%20Profit%20Family%20Detention%20Oct%202014_0.pdf Shelf Number: 133907 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant DetentionPrison Privatization (U.S.)Private PrisonsRefugees |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "You Don't Have Rights Here". US Border Screening and Returns of Central Americans to Risk of Serious Harm Summary: In recent years, the United States has apprehended growing numbers of Central Americans crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. These migrants have left their countries for many reasons, including fleeing rising violence by gangs involved in the drug trade. US Customs and Border Protection deports the overwhelming majority of migrants it apprehends from Central America in accelerated processes known as "expedited removal" or "reinstatement of removal." These processes include rapid-fire screening for a migrant's fear of persecution or torture upon return to their home country. "You Don't Have Rights Here" details how summary screening at the US border is failing to identify people fleeing serious risks to their lives and safety. It is based primarily on the accounts of migrants sent back to Honduras or in detention in US migrant detention facilities. An analysis of US government deportation data shows that the Border Patrol flags only a tiny minority of Central Americans for a more extended interview to determine if they have a "credible" fear of returning home. Migrants said that Border Patrol officers seemed singularly focused on deporting them and their families despite their fear of return. Some said that after their deportation they went into hiding, fearful for their lives. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to ensure that immigration authorities give the cases of Central American migrants sufficient scrutiny before returning them to risk of serious harm. It also urges US authorities to stop detaining migrant children, and to improve migrants' access to lawyers. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Central America URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Shelf Number: 133732 Keywords: Border SecurityDeportationHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Title: Locking Up Family Values, Again Summary: 2009, the Obama Administration closed what then was the United States largest family immigration detention facility after years of controversy, media exposure, and a lawsuit. Conditions at T. Don Hutto Family Detention Facility, and the impact of detention on families and children, proved that family detention could not be carried out humanely. In the summer of 2014, with an increase in the number of mothers and children fleeing violence and persecution in Central America, the Administration has returned to this widely discredited and costly practice. Part of a strategy to stem the flow through detention and expedited removal, the expansion of family detention continues even with a high percentage of families seeking protection and posing no flight or security risks. With the conversion of existing detention facilities and plans for an additional facility, the United States will soon have roughly 40 times as many family detention beds as there were in spring 2014. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) and the Womens Refugee Commission (WRC), leading experts on the intersection of families and immigration, have collaborated to show the harm family detention causes and outline sensible alternatives. The findings in Locking Up Family Values, Again are informed by our tours of the Artesia and Karnes facilities as well as interviews with facility and government officials, detained families, and legal and social service providers. Much like in our 2007 report, Locking Up Family Values, our findings again illustrate that large-scale family detention results in egregious violations of our countrys obligations under international law, undercuts individual due process rights, and sets a poor example for the rest of the world. Locking Up Family Values, Again documents that most of the families detained such as 98% at the Karnes facility based on September 2014 statistics are seeking protection in the United States. The average age of children in the governments Artesia facility as of October 2014 was six years old, and more than half of all children who entered family detention in Fiscal Year 2014 were six years or younger. Infants, pregnant women, and toddlers are detained at both locations. Families are detained on a no bond, no release policy. Thousands of women and children fleeing violence are at risk of permanent psychological trauma and return to persecution if these policies continue. In addition to inadequate access to child care, medical and mental health care, and legal assistance, we find that family detention remains as rife for abuse especially given the vulnerability of this population as we observed with Hutto. In October 2014, the Karnes facility was at the center of allegations of sexual assault by guards threatening or bribing detained women. In another example, a detained young mother at a family facility was suddenly accused of abuse, torn apart from her two small children and transferred to an adult facility without explanation or information on her childrens welfare or whereabouts. Our conclusion is simple: there is no way to humanely detain families. This report recommends that the government close Artesia and Karnes and halt plans for opening a new facility, improve its screening procedures, and revise its policy of no or high bonds for families. The report calls on the government to implement the vast array of cost-effective alternatives to detention that are successful in ensuring participants appear for scheduled court hearings. Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2014 at: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf Shelf Number: 133966 Keywords: FamiliesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.)Immigration Policy |
Author: International Commission of Jurists Title: "Undocumented": Justice for Migrants in Italy: A mission report Summary: The objective of protecting human rights and upholding the rule of law in the context of migration has grown ever more challenging and in the face of burgeoning migration to the European Union (EU). In this regard, there is no doubt that Italy is now one of the most important gateways to the EU. In recent years, the central Mediterranean route has reclaimed its central role for migration travels to mainland EU countries, as appears clear from graph no. 1 comparing the number of transits through the different entry routes to the EU. The situation has been exacerbated in 2014, when, according to UNHCR, by 14 August 2014 the number of arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers had reached around 100,000 persons, more than double the total numbers of 2013 (see, graph no. 1). At least since 2008, the response of Italy to the increased numbers of migrant arrivals to its shores had been one of rejection, an approach best exemplified by the policy of push-backs on the high seas designed and implemented through the infamous 2008 Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation with Libya during the reign of Muammar Gadaffi. Pursuant to that treaty, the Italian authorities began a practice of push-backs to Libya that was ultimately condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy as a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion, of the principle of non-refoulement and of the right to an effective remedy. Recently, fortunately, the situation on the high seas seemed to have improved. On 18 October 2013, Italy unilaterally activated the operation Mare Nostrum, through which the Italian military navy and aviation, the Carabinieri, the Guardia di Finanza, the Police, coastguard and the military personnel of the Italian Red Cross have been patrolling the high seas, but this time in order to rescue migrants in distress and to bring them ashore on Italian territory. Although the conduct of this ongoing operation is outside the scope of this report, the ICJ welcomes the efforts of Italy to save lives in the Mediterranean Sea under operation Mare Nostrum. Nonetheless, this laudable effort has naturally strained Italy's resources more than in the past. At its meeting with representatives of the Directorates of Civil Liberties and Immigration and of Public Security of the Italian Ministry of Interior, the mission heard that, at the time of the visit, there were some 47,000 persons held in reception centres and that the overall reception capacity of the country was overstretched. Details: Geneva, SWIT: International Commission of Jurists, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5452554a4.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Italy URL: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5452554a4.pdf Shelf Number: 134493 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionMigrantsMigration (Italy)Undocumented Immigrants |
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: Grimshaw, Roger Title: Institutional care and poverty: evidence and policy review Summary: Five institutional care settings were covered: prisons; immigration detention centres; mental health placements including psychiatric secure hospitals and centres; placements for children being looked after including homes, residential schools and units for children; and placements for people with disabilities. In an increasingly globalised world the task of collating international evidence becomes more important and the review focused on more than 500 studies drawn from North America, Europe, and Australasia, in addition to the UK. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Institutional%20Care%20and%20Poverty%20Report%20August%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Institutional%20Care%20and%20Poverty%20Report%20August%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 134982 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionJuvenile DetentionMental HealthPoverty (U.K.)Prisons |
Author: Athwal, Harmit, Bourne, Jenny Title: Dying for Justice Summary: Dying for Justice which gives the background on 509 people (an average of twenty-two per year) from BAME, refugee and migrant communities who have died between 1991-2014 in suspicious circumstances in which the police, prison authorities or immigration detention officers have been implicated. It concludes that: - a large proportion of these deaths have involved undue force and many more a culpable lack of care; - despite critical narrative verdicts warning of dangerous procedures and the proliferation of guidelines, lessons are not being learnt; people die in similar ways year on year; - although inquest juries have delivered verdicts of unlawful killing in at least twelve cases, no one has been convicted for their part in these deaths over the two and a half decades of the research; - privatisation and sub-contracting of custodial, health and other services compounds concerns and makes it harder to call agencies to account; - Family and community campaigns have been crucial in bringing about any change in institutions and procedures Details: London: Institute for Race Relations, 2015. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dying_for_Justice_web.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dying_for_Justice_web.pdf Shelf Number: 135063 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyImmigrant DetentionMigrantsPolice Use of ForcePrisoners, Foreign (U.K.)Refugees |
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: 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: Carson, Bethany Title: Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota Summary: In 2009, in the midst of a multi-year decline in the undocumented immigrant population, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), then Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, inserted the following language regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) detention budget into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010:"...funding made available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds." This directive established what would become a controversial policy interpreted by ICE as a mandate to contract for and fill 33,400 (increased in 2013 to 34,000) detention beds on a daily basis. The directive would come to be known as the "immigrant detention quota" or "bed mandate." The immigration detention quota is unprecedented; no other law enforcement agency operates under a detention quota mandated by Congress. Since its implementation, the quota has become a driver of an increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement strategy. The immigrant detention system has expanded significantly since the implementation of the quota, and the percent of the detained population held in private facilities has increased even more dramatically. Two major private prison corporations have emerged as the main corporate beneficiaries of immigrant detention policies: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. This report provides an in-depth assessment of the inception and implementation of the quota, with a specific focus on the role played by for-profit, private prison corporations. These companies have profited handsomely from the artificial stability provided by the quota while contributing millions of dollars in federal lobbying expenditures and in campaign contributions to ensure their interests are met. This report also features testimony from people directly impacted by detention and deportation, revealing the momentous human cost of the quota. Key Findings: 1.Private prison corporations have increased their share of the immigrant detention industry. Since just before the onset of the quota, the private prison industry has increased its share of immigrant detention beds by 13 percent. Sixty-two percent of all ICE immigration detention beds in the United States are now operated by for-profit prison corporations, up from 49 percent in 2009. Nine of the ten largest ICE detention centers are private. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the expansion of the entire ICE detention system by nearly 47 percent in the last decade. 2.Private prison corporations lobby on immigration and immigrant detention issues that affect their bottom line. Contrary to private prison corporation claims that they do not lobby on issues related to immigration policy, between 2008 and 2014, CCA spent $10,560,000 in quarters where they lobbied on issues related to immigrant detention and immigration reform. Of that amount, CCA spent $9,760,000, - 61 percent of total private prison lobbying expenditures - in quarters where they directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, which maintains the immigrant detention quota language and shapes the way in which it is interpreted. Lobbying disclosure forms reveal spending on: "Issues related to comprehensive immigration reform", and "FY 2014 and FY 2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations - provisions related to privately-operated ICE detention facilities". Since 2010, CCA has spent at least 75 percent of its lobbying expenditures in quarters where it has lobbied directly on the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee. Though GEO Group has not directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, the company recently began lobbying on immigration and immigrant detention issues, spending $460,000 between 2011 and 2014 in quarters when they lobbied on these issues. 3.Two private prison corporations - CCA and GEO Group - dominate the immigration detention industry. Together, they operate eight of the ten largest immigrant detention centers. GEO and CCA combined operate 72 percent of the privately contracted ICE immigrant detention beds. In the years following the implementation of the immigrant detention quota, CCA and GEO expanded their share of the total ICE immigrant detention system from 37 percent in 2010 to 45 percent in 2014. GEO Group in particular has increased its share of the total ICE immigrant detention system to 25 percent in FY14 from 15 percent in FY10. Both companies have significantly augmented their profits since the implementation of the quota, CCA from $133,373,000 in 2007 to $195,022,000 in 2014. GEO experienced an even more dramatic profit increase from $41,845,000 in 2007 to $143,840,000 in 2014, a 244 percent increase. 4.CCA and GEO have recently expanded their immigrant detention capacity, including new contracts for detaining asylum-seeking families. Since FY2014, the most recent numbers released by ICE, both CCA and GEO have both expanded their capacity for detaining women and children in new family detention centers[22] in South Texas. The CCA-operated South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley opened in December 2014 and currently holds about 480 women and children. It is under expansion to grow to an expected capacity of 2,400 by May 2015. If this expansion proceeds, Dilley will be the largest immigrant detention center in the U.S. The GEO-run Karnes County Residential Center opened in June 2014 and now holds around 600 women and children, but will expand to a capacity of 1,200. Additionally, in January 2015, GEO acquired LCS Corrections, which owns several large immigrant detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana, further increasing its share of the immigrant detention business. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Shelf Number: 135261 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Vaughan, Jessica M. Title: Catch and Release: Interior immigration enforcement in 2013 Summary: A review of internal ICE metrics for 2013 reveals that hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens who were identified in the interior of the country were released instead of removed under the administration's sweeping "prosecutorial discretion" guidelines. In 2013, ICE reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens, only about one-fourth. According to ICE personnel, the vast majority of these releases occurred because of current policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement, not because the aliens turned out to have legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States. Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals. In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims. These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration's pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration's abuse of "prosecutorial discretion". Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of "prosecutorial discretion" policies in 2011.1 Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president's policies. Key Findings - In 2013, ICE charged only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE's attention after incarceration for a local arrest. - ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable. - ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation from the interior in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs. - Every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity, with the largest decline in the Atlanta field office, which covers Georgia and the Carolinas. - ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law. - Under current policies, an alien's family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case. - Less than 2 percent of ICE's caseload was in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013. - About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute. This suggests the need for more detention capacity, so ICE can avoid releasing so many deportable criminal aliens. Unless otherwise noted, the data for this report are from the 2013 fiscal year-end edition of ICE's "Weekly Departures and Detention Report" (WRD), which is prepared by the Information Resource Management Unit of ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).2 This report compiles a variety of ICE caseload statistics, including encounters, arrests, detention, and removal of aliens. The tables in this report use data taken directly from the WRD. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Shelf Number: 135405 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigration (U.S.)Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Grassroots Leadership Title: The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, Summary: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's oldest and largest for-profit private prison corporation, is commemorating its 30th anniversary throughout 2013 with a series of birthday celebrations at its facilities around the country. Over the last 30 years, CCA has benefited from the dramatic rise in incarceration and detention in the United States. Since the company's founding in 1983, the incarcerated population has risen by more than 500 percent to more than 2.2 million people. Meanwhile, the number of people held in immigration detention centers has exploded from an average daily population of 131 people to over 32,000 people on any given day.[ CCA has made profits from, and at times contributed to, the expansion of tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant policies that have driven prison expansion. Now a multi-billion dollar corporation, CCA manages more than 65 correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The company's revenue in 2012 exceeded more than $1.7 billion. While the company has become a multibillion dollar corporation, it has also become exceedingly controversial, with a record of prisoner abuse, poor pay and benefits to employees, scandals, escapes, riots, and lawsuits marking its history. Faith denominations, civil rights groups, criminal justice reform organizations, and immigrant rights advocates have repeatedly argued that adding the profit motive to the prison and immigrant detention systems provides perverse incentives to keep incarceration rates high. To mark the company's milestone anniversary, Grassroots Leadership and the Public Safety and Justice Campaign have sought to highlight why there is nothing to celebrate about 30 years of for-profit incarceration. This report highlights just some of the shameful incidents that litter CCA's history. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2013. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Shelf Number: 135436 Keywords: Corrections Corporation of AmericaIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Title: Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention Systems Summary: The US immigrant detention system grew more than fivefold between 1994 and 2013. During these years, the average daily detained population rose from 6,785 to 34,260 (Figure 1). The number of persons detained annually increased from roughly 85,000 persons in 1995 to 440,557 in 2013 (Kerwin 1996, 1; Simansky 2014, 6). Since the beginning of the Obama administration's detention reform initiative in 2009, annual detention numbers have reached record levels (Figure 2). More persons pass through the U.S. immigrant detention system each year than through federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities (Meissner et al. 2013, 131). This growth has occurred in what may be the most troubled institution in the vast U.S. immigration enforcement system. The numbers only hint at the toll that this system exacts in despair, fractured families, human rights violations, abandoned legal claims, and diminished national prestige. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks the authority to imprison criminals and does not hold anybody awaiting trial or serving a criminal sentence. Congress and DHS use the anodyne language of "processing" and "detention" to describe this system. Yet each year DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) holds hundreds of thousands of non-citizens and the occasional U.S. citizen (Carcamo 2014), many for extended periods, in prisons, jails, and other secure facilities where their lives are governed by standards designed for criminal defendants. Detention brands immigrants as criminals in the public's eye and contributes to the sense that they deserve to be treated as such. In many respects, immigrant detainees are treated less favorably than criminal defendants. U.S. mandatory detention laws cover broad categories of non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), asylum-seekers, petty offenders, and persons with U.S. families and other strong and longstanding ties to the United States. Sixty percent of the unauthorized have resided in the United States for 10 years or more and 17 percent for at least 20 years (Warren and Kerwin 2015, 86-87, 99). Moreover, DHS has interpreted the laws to preclude the release of mandatory detainees, even release coupled with the most intensive restrictions and monitoring. By way of contrast, most criminal defendants receive custody hearings by judicial officers shortly after their apprehension and they can be released subject to conditions that will reasonably ensure their court appearance and protect the public. Detention is treated as a pillar of the U.S. immigration enforcement system akin to border control or removal, but in fact it is a means to an end that would be far better served by a more humane, less costly system. Its purpose is to ensure that non-citizens in removal proceedings appear for their hearings and, if they are removable and lack legal relief, that their removal can be effected. Detention is also justified as a tool to protect others, although this consideration is more relevant to the criminal justice system. In fact, there are tested, effective, and humane ways to accomplish these goals short of detention. Supervised or conditional release programs have long been a mainstay of the criminal justice system, but have only recently begun to gain traction in the immigration context. Moreover, detention makes it far less likely that indigent and low-income immigrants will be able to secure legal counsel and, thus, to present their claims for relief and protection. Details: Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf Shelf Number: 135887 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
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: United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: Actions Needed to Ensure Children Receive Required Care in DHS Custody Summary: From fiscal years 2009 through 2014, DHS apprehended more than 200,000 UAC, and the number of UAC apprehended in fiscal year 2014 (about 74,000) was more than four times larger than that for fiscal year 2011 (about 17,000). On the journey to the United States, many UAC have traveled thousands of miles under dangerous conditions. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 included a provision for GAO to, among other things, review how DHS cares for UAC. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which DHS has developed policies and procedures to (1) screen all UAC as required and (2) care for all UAC as required. GAO reviewed TVPRA and other legal requirements, DHS policies for screening and caring for UAC, fiscal year 2009 through 2014 apprehension data on UAC, and 2014 Border Patrol UAC care data. GAO also randomly sampled and analyzed case files of Mexican UAC whom Border Patrol apprehended in fiscal year 2014. GAO interviewed DHS and HHS officials in Washington, D.C., and at Border Patrol and OFO facilities in Arizona, California, and Texas selected on the basis of UAC apprehension data. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS, among other things, provide guidance on how agents and officers are to apply UAC screening criteria, ensure that screening decisions are documented, develop processes to record reliable data on UAC care, and document the interagency process to transfer UAC from DHS to HHS. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-521: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://gao.gov/assets/680/671393.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://gao.gov/assets/680/671393.pdf Shelf Number: 136062 Keywords: Child ProtectionIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationImmigrant DetentionUnaccompanied Alien Children |
Author: Flynn, Matthew Title: Bureaucratic Capitalism and the Immigration Detention Complex Summary: The work of post-structuralist political philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998,2005) has had a major influence on the study of immigration detention in Europe and elsewhere. In particular, his concepts homo sacer ("bare life") and "zones of exemption" depict the growth of immigration detention practices as an expression of sovereign power through inclusive exclusion. In other words, states demonstrate their power to confer rights upon their citizens by denying those rights to others. This paper argues that post-structuralist approaches to the study of immigration detention present a number of theoretical and conceptual problems. Post-structuralist analyses focusing on discourses divorced from actors present teleological problems in terms of theory. Additionally, poststructural accounts of detention centres using concepts such as homo sacer and Banoptican (see Bigo 2007) tend to conflate human rights and citizenship rights, which does not hold up empirically because many asylum seekers and irregular migrants still have access to legal redress. In contrast to post-structural accounts, the notion of "bureaucratic capitalism" developed by sociologist Gideon Sjoberg (1999) provides an analytical framework that is both critical and non-deterministic in explaining the motives of many actors involved in detention regimes. Specifically, immigration detention can be explained by employing conceptual frameworks used to assess the corporate-state nexus; human agency; rationalization processes like specialization and division of labour; hierarchy, responsibility, and blameability; and secrecy systems. Sjoberg's meso-level theory provides critical insights into detention regimes in the United States and Europe as well as the role of private- and public-sector interests seeking rents. Moreover, focusing on the organization of detention helps reveal the causes of human rights violations as well as their possible redress Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 9: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Matt_Flynn_GDP_Paper_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Matt_Flynn_GDP_Paper_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136065 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionUndocumented Citizens |
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: Martinez, Daniel E. Title: Bordering on Criminal: The Routine Abuse of Migrants in the Removal System. Part I: Migrant Mistreatment While in U.S. Custody Summary: This is the first in a series of three reports we will be releasing that highlight findings from the second wave of the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS). Wave II of the MBCS, currently housed in the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Arizona and the Department of Sociology at George Washington University, is a binational, multiinstitution study of 1,110 randomly selected, recently repatriated migrants1 surveyed in six Mexican cities between 2009 and 2012. This report focuses on the mistreatment of unauthorized migrants while in U.S. custody. Overall, we find that the physical and verbal mistreatment of migrants is not a random, sporadic occurrence but, rather, a systematic practice. One indication of this is that 11% of deportees report some form of physical abuse and 23% report verbal mistreatment while in U.S. custody - a finding that is supported by other academic studies and reports from nongovernmental organizations. Another highly disturbing finding is that migrants often note they are the targets for nationalistic and racist remarks - something that in no way is integral to U.S. officials' ability to function in an effective capacity on a day-to-day basis. We find that, when they occur, physical and verbal abuses are usually perpetrated during the apprehension process. When taken in the context of prior studies, it appears that the abuse of migrants while in U.S. custody is a systemic problem and points to an organizational subculture stemming from a lack of transparency and accountability in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These patterns of abuse have brought scrutiny to the Border Patrol's use-of-force policies and created tension in border communities. Future research should examine the longer-term social and psychological consequences of these types of abuse for migrants and their loved ones. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2013. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Abuses%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Abuses%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132197 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Operation StreamlineUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Parkin, Joanna Title: The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe: A State-of-the-Art of the Academic Literature and Research Summary: In the last 30 years, a clear trend has come to define modern immigration law and policy. A set of seemingly disparate developments concerning the constant reinforcement of border controls, tightening of conditions of entry, expanding capacities for detention and deportation and the proliferation of criminal sanctions for migration offences, accompanied by an anxiety on the part of the press, public and political establishment regarding migrant criminality can now be seen to form a definitive shift in the European Union towards the so-called 'criminalisation of migration'. This paper aims to provide an overview of the 'state-of-the-art' in the academic literature and EU research on criminalisation of migration in Europe. It analyses three key manifestations of the socalled 'crimmigration' trend: discursive criminalisation; the use of criminal law for migration management; and immigrant detention, focusing both on developments in domestic legislation of EU member states but also the increasing conflation of mobility, crime and security which has accompanied EU integration. By identifying the trends, synergies and gaps in the scholarly approaches dealing with the criminalisation of migration, the paper seeks to provide a framework for on-going research under Work Package 8 of the FIDUCIA project. Details: Brussels: Center for European Policy Studies, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe, no. 61: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Migration%20in%20Europe%20J%20Parkin%20FIDUCIA%20final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Migration%20in%20Europe%20J%20Parkin%20FIDUCIA%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 131704 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrationImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMigrants |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: A Survey of Private Contractor Involvement in U.S. Facilities Used to Confine People for Immigration-related Reasons Summary: The private prison industry in the United States has grown significantly during the last several decades and along with it there has been an apparent increase in the outsourcing of services at facilities used for immigration detention purposes. However, while much has been written about private ownership and management of detention facilities, the phenomenon of non-state-actor involvement in immigration detention extends beyond these activities. For instance, while private contractors are responsible for overall management of some two dozen immigration-related detention facilities in the United States, this report demonstrates that private contractors provide a range additional services at nearly 100 prisons, shelters, and detention centers across the United States that have been used to hold migrants and asylum seekers. Part of the difficulty in investigating this phenomenon is that the U.S. immigration detention estate is massive (involving several hundred facilities) and employs numerous types of institutions, from local jails and federal prisons to juvenile detention centers and dedicated immigration detention centers. Thus, to accurately document the extent of non-state-actor involvement in the U.S. immigration detention regime it is necessary to look at all these different types of facilities and assess the role played by different actors in them. This survey represents an initial, modest attempt to begin to fill some of the gaps in our understanding of this phenomenon. The information included in the following charts has been compiled based on an extensive search of available websites provided by facilities in the United States that have been used for the purpose of migration detention or by service providers active in those facilities. Based solely on this review of online information, the Global Detention Project was able to determine that of the hundreds of facilities that have been used in recent years to hold immigration detainees, no less than 83 explicitly mention on their websites some form of privatization. In addition, of the two dozen dedicated immigration facilities, all but one report outsourcing services to private contractors. The most common form of private involvement in these facilities is management. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), one of the largest private prison companies, manages seven of the 24 dedicated facilities. However, private companies offer a range of other services at detention sites and a narrow focus on specialized immigration facilities fails to capture the full range of involvement of non-state entities in migration-related detention. In fact, one of the more notable outcomes of this limited research project has been to demonstrate the multifaceted nature of the outsourcing of responsibilities at U.S. detention centers. Private actors provide food services, security, healthcare, among a host of other services. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 20, 2015 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Survey_of_US_contractors_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Survey_of_US_contractors_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 136511 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: International Detention Coalition Title: Does Detention Deter? Summary: This briefing paper reviews the international research literature on the effectiveness of border control policies - particularly immigration detention - in reducing irregular migration. The brief argues that detention is not only ineffective at reducing irregular migration to desired levels, but also weakens other migration management outcomes such as case resolution, departure for refused cases and integration for approved cases. Given these weaknesses, governments would be better placed prioritizing alternatives to detention. The brief further shows policy development and targeted resource allocation could improve the prospects of migrants by increasing avenues for legal migration and improving life chances in countries of origin and transit. The brief shows destination countries must consider big picture, multi-layered responses to address root causes of irregular movement and reduce the pressures on migrants to undertake risky journeys in an irregular manner. Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalitions, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/ Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/ Shelf Number: 136615 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementMigrants |
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: American Bar Association. Commission on Immigration Title: Family Immigration Detention: Why the Past Cannot Be Prologue Summary: The report, developed by the ABA Commission on Immigration with the assistance of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, focuses on the government's response to the 2014 influx in arrivals of Central American mothers with young children to the southwestern U.S. border. It finds that the government's buildup of family detention centers and the practice of detaining families in jail-like settings are at odds with the presumption of liberty and impinge on the families' due process right to legal counsel. The report urges the government and the Department of Homeland Security to anticipate and prepare for periodic increases in the migration of individuals and families seeking asylum without resorting to detention. The report also recommends several specific reforms, including: - releasing families held in detention facilities; - adopting a policy of dealing with families seeking asylum within the community instead of through detention; - employing the least restrictive means of ensuring appearance at hearings and protection of the community; - developing standards for families and children that do not follow a penal model; and - ensuring access to legal information and representation for all families subjected to detention at every stage of their immigration proceedings Details: Chicago: American Bar Association, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 136708 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
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: Soni, Saket Title: The Criminal Alien Removal Initiative in New Orleans: The Obama Administration's Brutal New Frontier in Immigration Enforcement Summary: As 2013 draws to a close, members of Congress are home for the holidays without having passed immigration reform. Meanwhile, immigrants across the United States continue to live under siege. The Obama Administration continues to deport immigrants at the blistering rate of 1,100 a day, separating people from their families and uprooting them from their communities. At the current rate, 20,900 more will be deported by the time Congress returns on January 7. By this time next year, 401,500 more will be deported. Immigrants in New Orleans are already facing the new frontier of immigration enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Orleans is piloting a brutal program of race-based community raids that will become the new normal all across the country - unless we stop it. The program, called the Criminal Alien Removal Initiative (CARI), involves indiscriminate community raids at apartment complexes, grocery stores, laundromats, Bible study groups, and parks based purely on racial profiling. Often working with local law enforcement, New Orleans ICE arrests people who appear Latino and uses high-tech mobile biometric devices, first created for U.S. military use in Iraq and Afghanistan, to conduct immediate biometric record checks. Most people are handcuffed before the fingerprinting begins, and based on the results, many are immediately separated from their families and transported to ICE detention centers for deportation. Details: New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 131799 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire held 354 detainees at the time of this inspection. Most of those held were single women but the centre also held a small number of adult families and there was a short-term holding facility for single men. The centre has been controversial since it opened in 2001 and in recent months it has been the subject of new allegations about the treatment of women held there and the conduct of staff. We last inspected the centre in June 2013 and at that time concluded that the centre was improving, although significant concerns remained and for the most vulnerable women we found the decision to detain was much too casual. This inspection found that in some important areas the treatment and conditions of those held at the centre had deteriorated significantly, the main concerns we had in 2013 had not been resolved and there was greater evidence of the distress caused to vulnerable women by their detention. We did not find evidence of a widespread abusive or hostile culture among staff - although there were some matters of concern. Women told us about, and we observed, positive attempts by staff to ameliorate the impact of detention for those in their care, although staff numbers and training gaps limited what they could do. We made some adjustments to our normal inspection methodology for this inspection. We amended our inspection criteria to reflect our new expectations for women's prisons, which incorporate the requirements of the UN 'Bangkok Rules' for the treatment of women prisoners. In addition to our normal confidential detainee survey, we asked specific survey questions to address particular issues of concern, such as inappropriate sexual behaviour. We also offered every woman in Yarl's Wood a confidential interview with a female inspector, using interpretation where necessary, and carried out confidential interviews with a sample of staff. We interviewed 92 women detainees in Yarl's Wood and a further eight who had recently been released, as well as 39 staff. The inspection was conducted over three weeks and included intelligence gathered from a variety of voluntary and community groups. Yarl's Wood is a complex and challenging place to manage and in which to work - and had become more so since the last inspection. About 12% of detainees were ex-prisoners, an increase since the previous inspection. Many women told us harrowing stories about their histories of abuse, rape, trafficking and other victimisation. At best, they were distressed and anxious about their detention and the uncertainty surrounding their possible deportation. In our survey, a disturbing 54% of the women held told us they felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived. A new contract with reduced staffing levels was being introduced as the inspection took place and we were concerned that staffing levels were insufficient. We found that many women were relieved to have someone to listen to them while they described, in often distressing detail, what had happened to them in the past and their anxieties about the future. Staff rarely had time to do this and there was no counselling service. On top of all this, the allegations that had been made about the centre had clearly shocked staff and lowered morale, and both staff and detainees told us about a loss of mutual trust that had occurred since recent news reports. The needs of the men held on the Bunting Unit, the short-term holding facility, needed close attention in their own right. Most of the men had been detained after being found in or disembarking from lorries. Most had endured hazardous and arduous journeys and were grateful for the good care they received in Yarl's Wood. The unit was decent and clean, staff were professional and most of the men only stayed a few days. The experience of the women held was less positive. Forty-five per cent said they felt unsafe at the centre. They told us their fears arose from the uncertainty of their status in the country, a poor introduction to the centre, very poor health care and having too few visible staff on the units. Many women said that past histories of abuse affected their current feelings. The number of violent incidents had increased, albeit from a low base, and both staff and detainees thought the increase was due to the higher number of former prisoners and women with serious mental health problems. In both surveys and interviews, we asked current detainees, former detainees and staff about sexually inappropriate behaviour between staff and detainees. In our confidential survey, four women reported instances of sexually inappropriate comments from staff, one woman reported sexual contact from staff, and one reported comments, contact and abuse. None of these responses gave further details of the incidents concerned. In our interviews, no women said they were aware of staff involved in any illegal activity or sexual abuse of detainees. Three women were aware of an incident some years previously when a detainee became pregnant by an officer. Staff were emphatic they had not witnessed any rogue behaviour by colleagues and would report it if they did. Nevertheless, the whistle-blowing procedure was not sufficiently clear and some staff were not confident about using it. We did not find evidence of widespread abuse in the centre but the vulnerability of the women held, the closed nature of the institution and the power imbalance between the staff and detainees - common to any prison - made individual instances an ever-present risk. Constant vigilance was required to protect women from this risk. Given the very vulnerable and anxious state in which so many women arrived at the centre, early days processes were weak. An unacceptable 38% of detainees (excluding the Bunting unit) arrived at the centre between 10pm and 6am. The reception area was welcoming but the process took too long. Health care screening, which involved asking intimate questions, was sometimes carried out by a male nurse. Not all women received an induction briefing and the briefing did not contain all that women needed to know. Detainee 'greeters' provided positive support to most new arrivals. Levels of self-harm were high but a small number of women accounted for a significant proportion of the incidents. Women on assessment, care in detention and teamwork (ACDT - casework management for detainees at risk of suicide or self-harm) praised the support they received from staff, but other forms of support, such as links with the Samaritans, peer support and counseling were absent. Constant supervision was used for women in the most acute crisis but the use of male staff to do this when women were sleeping was inappropriate. Two detainees had died from natural causes since the last inspection, one of these during this inspection. Security was generally thoughtful and proportionate and some of the most intrusive elements of physical security had been removed. Most use of force was well managed, but we were very concerned about one incident in which an officer appeared to use excessive force. He was rightly suspended. The amount of separation had increased since the last inspection. Some but not all of this could be explained by the difficulties in managing ex-prisoners and women with acute mental health needs. The separation unit was not an appropriate therapeutic environment for women who were eventually transferred to a secure hospital and work to develop a care suite was welcome. Immediate physical safety issues were much less a concern for the women held than uncertainty about their immigration cases and the length of detention. We were particularly concerned about the length of time some women were detained and the detention of the most vulnerable women without clear reason. In the six months prior to the inspection, more than double the number of women who were removed (443) were released back into the community (894), which raises questions about the validity of their detention in the first place. A few detainees were held for very long periods. At the time of the inspection, 15 detainees had been held for between six months and a year and four for more than a year. The longest had been held for 17 months. The Home Office's own policy states pregnant women should not normally be detained, but 99 had been held in 2014. Only nine of these women had eventually been removed from the UK. Rule 35 reports should protect detainees who have been tortured or who are extremely vulnerable in other ways from being detained. The Rule 35 reports we examined at Yarl's Wood were among the worst we have seen. All were handwritten and many were difficult to read, lacked detail and were perfunctory. Some responses were dismissive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136816 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
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: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Title: With Liberty and Justice for All: The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention Facilities Summary: The purpose of this report is to comprehensively examine the U.S. Government's compliance with federal immigration laws and detention policies, and also detail evidence regarding possible infringement upon the constitutional rights afforded to detained immigrants. More specifically, this report examines the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component agencies' treatment of detained immigrants in immigration holding, processing, and detention centers throughout the United States. Prior to writing this report, the Commission gathered facts and data to analyze whether DHS, its component agencies, and private detention corporations with whom the federal government contracts to detain immigrants were complying with the Performance Based National Detention Standards, Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards, the Flores Settlement Agreement and other related immigrant child detention policies, and the United States Constitution. During the Commission's January 30, 2015, briefing, the Commission received written and oral testimony from DHS immigration detention officials and advocates detailing the strengths, weaknesses, and constitutional and civil rights implications of the U.S. immigration detention system. In May 2015, the Commission visited Karnes Family Detention Center and Port Isabel Detention Centers - both located in Texas - to corroborate the written and oral evidence the Commission gathered. Based upon an analysis of data gathered from the Commission's fact-gathering visit, evidence collected during panelists' briefing presentations and additional research, the Commission makes numerous findings and recommendations. The Commission's complete findings and recommendations are contained in the report, however the following bear special attention: The Commission recommends that DHS act immediately to release families from detention. The Commission also recommends that Congress should no longer fund family detention and should reduce its funding for immigration detention generally, in favor of alternatives to detention. The Commission found, among other issues, that several DHS immigration detention facilities were not complying with federal mandates and agency policies regarding the treatment of detained immigrants and detained unaccompanied immigrant children. Moreover, the Commission found evidence, both anecdotal and eyewitness that the U.S. Government was interfering with the constitutional rights afforded to detained immigrants. While the U.S. Government made improvements to the U.S. immigration detention system, the Commission, among other numerous suggestions, recommends that the government convene an intergovernmental compliance task force to investigate, analyze, and strengthen compliance regiments carried out by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Removal Operations' Detention Standards Compliance Unit. Moreover, the Commission recommends that the U.S. Government work harder to ensure detainees' access to due process and the right to assistance of counsel under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2015. 276p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136891 Keywords: Homeland SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Lyubarsky, Andrew Title: 23 Hours in the Box: Solitary Confinement in New Jersey Immigration Detention Summary: While solitary confinement is a practice widely used in both civil detention and criminal incarceration, current practices by state and federal facilities have received significant criticism for over reliance on solitary confinement and excessive disciplinary sanctions. The State of New Jersey has a long history of using solitary confinement in its state prisons as a system of control and intimidation. In 1975, after the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the prisoners' rights movement, Trenton State Prison (now New Jersey State Prison) established an administrative isolation unit for politically dissident prisoners. Management Control Units (MCUs), which were characterized by "no-touch isolation" and severe restrictions on visits and telephone contact with family members, recreation, as well as the denial of work, education, law library access, and collective religious practice - imposed nearly complete sensory deprivation on those subjected to it. Individuals who had not broken institutional rules were isolated because they belonged to radical political groups, particularly Afro-American nationalist organizations. Some people were subject to this treatment for years; Ojore Lutalo, a member of one such group, was held in isolation for 16 years. The American Friends Service Committee and other New Jersey civil society groups have actively monitored the use of isolated confinement in the state for decades, and fought to secure dignity for many of those subjected to prolonged isolated confinement. The present report continues this tradition of advocacy by focusing exclusively on immigration detainees in civil detention. Though the deprivations immigrant detainees subject to solitary confinement in New Jersey county institutions may not be as prolonged, they are a particularly vulnerable population which suffers lasting psychological damage from isolation. Though such conditions are extremely troubling in the case of confined individuals generally, these problems are of special concern in the context of immigrant detainees. Although immigration detention has always been characterized as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, this report finds that immigrant detainees are subject to an unnecessarily harsh system that applies the drastic punishment of solitary confinement too often and for too long. Because immigrants are held in penal facilities they are subjected to the same heavy-handed tactics as criminal inmates, and minor incidents which could easily be handled with non-punitive conflict resolution techniques or, if needed, less restrictive sanctions, immediately trigger solitary confinement. Detainees are confined, often for prolonged periods of time, even when no threat exists to the safety or the functioning of the facilities. Moreover, the current system raises serious due process concerns regarding the policies and practices of disciplinary systems and non-compliance with state regulations in several important respects. Our focus on disciplinary systems and sanctions proceeds from an increased clinical consensus about the severe effects of prolonged solitary confinement on an individual's psychological and physical well-being. Studies have cataloged a series of unique psychiatric symptoms commonly associated with solitary confinement. Taken together, these symptoms rise to the level of a formal psychiatric diagnosis of trauma referred to as "prison psychosis." These harmful effects can be compounded by pre-existing mental health problems that the detainee may have experienced prior to his or her solitary confinement. Since many individuals in immigration detention are likely to have been the victims of life traumas, such as human trafficking, domestic violence, torture, and persecution, solitary confinement poses a unique threat to this population. Details: New York: New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf Shelf Number: 137052 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementIsolationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Gros, Hanna Title: Summary: Every year thousands of non-citizens ("migrants") are detained in Canada; in 2013, for example, over 7300 migrants were detained. Nearly one third of all detention occurs in a facility intended for a criminal population. Migrants detained in provincial jails are not currently serving a criminal sentence, but are effectively serving hard time. Our research indicates that detention is sometimes prolonged, and can drag on for years. Imprisonment exacerbates existing mental health issues and often creates new ones, including suicidal ideation. Nearly one third of all detention occurs in a facility intended for a criminal population, while the remaining occurs in dedicated immigration holding centres (IHCs) in Toronto (195 beds), Montreal (150 beds), and Vancouver (24 beds, for short stays of less than 72 hours). Nearly 60% of all detention occurs in Ontario. A Canadian Red Cross Society report notes that, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) held 2247 migrants in detention in Ontario provincial jails in 2012. Unfortunately, more up-to-date statistics are not publicly available. Immigration detention is costly. In 2011-2012, the last year for which there is publicly - available information, CBSA spent nearly $50,000,000 on detention - related activities. In 2013, CBSA paid the provinces over $26,000,000 to detain migrants in provincial jails - over $20,000,000 of that was paid to the province of Ontario. CBSA states that detention in a provincial jail costs $259 per day, per detainee. This report finds that Canada's detention of migrants with mental health issues in provincial jails is a violation of binding international human rights law and constitutes arbitrary detention; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; discrimination on the basis of disability; violates the right to health; and violates the right to an effective remedy. We find that migrants with mental health issues are routinely detained despite their vulnerable status. Some detainees have no past criminal record, but are detained on the basis that they are a flight risk, or because their identity cannot be confirmed. Due to the overrepresentation of people with mental health issues in Canada's criminal justice system, some migrants with mental health issues are detained on the basis of past criminality - this is after serving their criminal sentence, however minor the underlying offence. Some spend more time in jail on account of their immigration status than the underlying criminal conviction. Despite Canada's strong commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities, migrants with serious mental health issues are routinely imprisoned in maximum-security provincial jails (as opposed to dedicated, medium-security IHCs). Indeed, the Canadian government publicly states that one of the factors it considers in deciding to transfer a detainee from an IHC to a provincial jail is the existence of a mental health issue. Counsel and jail staff we spoke to noted that migrants are often held in provincial jails on the basis of pre-existing mental health issues (including suicidal ideation), medical issues, or because they are deemed 'problematic' or uncooperative by CBSA. The government claims that detainees can better access health care services in jail, even though all our research indicates that mental health care in provincial jails is woefully inadequate and has been the subject of recent reports and human rights complaints. Alarmingly, we could find no established criteria in law to determine when a detainee can or should be transferred from an IHC to a provincial jail - the decision is at the whim of CBSA. Detainees' counsel are not notified of the transfer in advance and do not have the right to make submissions to challenge it. Of course, outside of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, all detainees are held in jails since there are no dedicated facilities to house migrants. Once a detainee finds him or herself in provincial jail, they fall into a legal black hole where neither CBSA nor the provincial jail has clear authority over their conditions of confinement. This is especially problematic since, in Ontario at least, there is no regular, independent monitoring of provincial jails that house immigration detainees. Unfortunately, while the laws and policies on their face pay lip service to the importance of exploring alternatives to detention, the numerous counsel and experts we interviewed all identified the lack of meaningful or viable alternatives to detention for those with mental health issues due to ingrained biases of government officials and quasi-judicial decision-makers who review continued detention. In practice, the detention review process, which is meant to mitigate the risk of indefinite detention, actually facilitates it. Ontario counsel we spoke to uniformly expressed frustration with the futility of the reviews, where a string of lay decision-makers preside over hearings that last a matter of minutes, lack due process, and presume continued detention absent "clear and compelling reasons" to depart from past decisions. It is an exercise in smoke and mirrors. The immigration detainees we profile spent between two months and eight years imprisoned in maximum-security provincial jails, and each had a diagnosed mental health issue and/or expressed serious anxiety or suicidal ideation. Without exception, detention in a provincial jail, even for a short period, exacerbated their mental health issues, or created new ones. This is, of course, unsurprising given the overwhelming evidence that immigration detention is devastating for those with mental health issues. Without exception, the immigration detainees we spoke to communicated incredible despair and anxiety - over their immigration status, their seemingly indefinite detention, their lack of legal rights, their conditions of confinement, and the lack of adequate mental health resources to allow them to get better. They are treated like "garbage," "animals," or something less than human. The detention of migrants with mental health issues in provincial jails violates the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society. It violates numerous human rights treaties to which Canada is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as jus cogens norms of customary international law. Details: Toronto: International Human Rights Program (IHRP) University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 2015. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/IHRP%20We%20Have%20No%20Rights%20Report%20web%20170615.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/IHRP%20We%20Have%20No%20Rights%20Report%20web%20170615.pdf Shelf Number: 137152 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionMental Health ServicesMigrantsUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Lives in Peril: How Ineffective Inspections Make ICE Complicit in Immigration Detention Abuse Summary: The report draws on information from ICE inspections documents for 105 immigration detention facilities and features focused analyses of inspections for detention centers in Arizona, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia and Illinois. NIJC obtained the inspections through a federal court order resulting from three years of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. NIJC and DWN's review of the documents reveals fundamental inconsistencies within and between inspection reports for individual detention centers which suggests that the immigration detention inspection process is a sham - designed to perpetuate a broken and abusive system. Toplines from the report include: ◾ICE has kept the detention inspections process centralized under its own authority and has hidden the system from the eyes of U.S. taxpayers. ◾ICE's inspection regime fails to provide an accurate assessment of the conditions immigrants experience in detention, holds most facilities to weak and outdated human rights standards, and often fails to acknowledge publicly reported abuses. ◾Numerous inconsistencies within and between inspection reports raise serious questions about the validity of ICE inspections and imply that the inspection process is designed to facilitate passing ratings so that local governments and private prison companies can maintain their contracts. This report makes it obvious that ICE cannot police itself. ◾A robust and legitimate inspection process would find that detention facilities around the country fail to meet basic minimum standards, and require ICE to discontinue contracts with facilities that fail to uphold basic human rights protections. Details: Chicago: NIJC, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/THR-Inspections-FOIA-Report-October-2015-FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/THR-Inspections-FOIA-Report-October-2015-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 137154 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Enforcement Overdrive: A Comprehensive Assessment of ICE's Criminal Alien Program Summary: The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a massive enforcement program administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has become the primary channel through which interior immigration enforcement takes place. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of individuals removed from the interior of the United States are removed through CAP. Each year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to fund this program. Until now, however, little has been known about how CAP works, whom CAP deports, and whether CAP has been effective in meeting its goals. Based on government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), this report examines CAP's evolution, operations, and outcomes between fiscal years 2010 and 2013. That data shows that through CAP's enormous web, ICE has encountered millions and removed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet, CAP is not narrowly tailored to focus enforcement efforts on the most serious security or safety threats - in part because CAP uses criminal arrest as a proxy for dangerousness and because the agency's own priorities have been drawn more broadly than those threats. As a result, the program removed mainly people with no criminal convictions, and people who have not been convicted of violent crimes or crimes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies as serious. CAP also has resulted in several anomalies, including that it appears biased against Mexican and Central American nationals. Moreover, the number of CAP removals differs significantly from state to state. ICE's reliance on CAP to achieve its goals will likely continue as ICE further narrows its focus on removing noncitizens with criminal convictions and continues to seek partnerships with state and local law enforcement to find them. This examination of CAP's outcomes from fiscal years 2010 to 2013 offers important insights into CAP's operations over time and its potential impact on communities moving forward. In particular, it raises questions about the ability of a broad "jail check" program to effectively remove serious public safety threats without resulting in serious unintended consequences, such as those described in this report Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137194 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Harris, Kristine Title: 'A Secret Punishment' - the misuse of segregation in immigration detention Summary: This report reveals that a disturbing number of sick immigration detainees are put in segregation indiscriminately. Medical Justice are calling for an immediate halt to the use of segregation in immigration detention. Immigration detainees may be detained indefinitely despite not having committed any crime - putting them in segregation adds to their trauma. Between 1,200 and 4,800 detainees are segregated each year in immigration detention. Alarmingly there is little central monitoring of the use of segregation. This dossier draws on the cases of 15 detainees assisted by Medical Justice. One woman became mentally ill as a result of being detained for 17 months. During this time she was handcuffed and held in segregation on many occasions to prevent her self-harming. The High Court found her detention amounted to 'inhuman and degrading treatment'. This dossier reveals that the damaging physical and psychological impact of segregation is widely recognised. Its misuse has been repeatedly criticised by official inspectorates yet the abuses continue. It is overused, applied inappropriately and often contravenes the rules. Findings include: - One detainee held in segregation for 22 months - One schizophrenic detainee died in segregation - One person was segregated eight times during 800 days of detention - One detainee was segregated for nine days purely because they were a child - One woman was assaulted with a riot shield while being taken to segregation Details: London: Medical Justice, 2015. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf Shelf Number: 137197 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementIsolationMental Health ServicesMentally IllSegregationSolitary Confinement |
Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Hieleras (Iceboxes) in the Rio Grande Valley Sector: Lengthy Detention, Deplorable Conditions, and Abuse in CBP Holding Cells Summary: Each year, the Border Patrol-a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - holds hundreds of thousands of individuals in detention facilities near the U.S. southern border. These facilities are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Until recently, CBP policy was clear that these facilities were to serve exclusively as short-term holding cells-meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours. Evidence presented in this report, which pertains to Border Patrol holding cells in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, reveals that, instead, individuals are routinely held for days. In October 2015, CBP updated its guidance on how long it may detain individuals. The new guidance states that "short-term" detention generally should last no longer than 72 hours. Notably, however, no structural changes have been made to the facilities. These facilities, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible, even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, and medical care. Recent accounts from families held in short-term facilities also demonstrate that Border Patrol officers harass and ridicule individuals in their custody and separate mothers from their minor children. This report focuses on two aspects of detention in CBP facilities in RGV. First, based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it examines length of detention. Second, analyzing new survey data from the Binational Defense and Advocacy Program (in Spanish, Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional, or PDIB), as well as declarations from a sample of women who were recently detained in RGV facilities, it sheds light on the conditions of detention that are prevalent in Border Patrol holding cells in the RGV sector. Government data show that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, on average, 1173 individuals were detained in RGV facilities at any given time. Also, on average, 212 individuals were held in custody for over 72 hours at any given time. The share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. A significant number of individuals were held in detention even after their CBP "processing" was completed - meaning that these individuals were ready to be released or transferred to another federal agency. These data reveal that the Border Patrol regularly uses holding cells to detain people for prolonged periods, forcing men, women, and children to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that have no beds and are not equipped for sleeping. Additionally, our analysis of the PDIB survey data collected between June and November 2015 reveals that previously reported issues such as extreme temperatures, overcrowding, and inadequate food are routine. Three out of every four individuals detained in the RGV sectors reported having been exposed to extremely cold temperatures. Everyone who was held in detention in the RGV sector agreed that there was not enough space in the holding cell to lie down, and all but one indicated that there was not enough space for people to sit down. Almost all of the interviewees who were detained in RGV asserted that the food they received while detained was insufficient. In an effort to better illustrate the conditions individuals experience while in detention, the report also analyzes personal accounts of women who were held in CBP facilities in the Border Patrol RGV Sector. These accounts, shared by women who were held in Border Patrol cells in October or November 2015, reveal the markedly dehumanizing conditions to which these women were subjected while in Border Patrol custody. Recurring themes include overcrowding, separation of mothers from their children, inadequate access to medication and/or medical care, extreme temperature, lack of access to showers, food insufficiency, and sleep deprivation. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf Shelf Number: 137460 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: Immigration Detention in the Gulf Summary: Labour migrants are a backbone of the economies of all the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council--Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. While much has been reported on the abuses these workers often suffer, very little is known about what happens to them when they are arrested and detained. This GDP Special Report helps fill this gap. Based on a two-year investigation, this report shows that while all the Gulf states provide constitutional guarantees against arbitrary or unlawful arrest and imprisonment, they all make widespread use of forms of immigration-related detention for the purposes of punishing or deporting foreigners, often in situations that may be considered arbitrary or otherwise contrary to human rights norms. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2015. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2016 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/sites/default/files/Immigration_Detention_in_the_Gulf_GDP_Version001.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/sites/default/files/Immigration_Detention_in_the_Gulf_GDP_Version001.pdf Shelf Number: 137725 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Family Unity, Family Health. How Family-Focused Immigration Reform Will Mean Better Health for Children and Families Summary: A sense of safety is critical to a child's health and well-being. Constant fear and anxiety harm a child's physical growth and development, emotional stability, self-confidence, social skills and ability to learn. Yet for millions of children in America, fear is a constant companion. The lives of children with undocumented immigrant parents or guardians in the United States are saturated with fear - fear that the people they love and depend on will be arrested and taken away from them at any moment without warning. Many of these children were born here and are U.S. citizens. But under current immigration policy, their families can be torn apart with an arrest and deportation with little regard for their well-being or futures. This important and timely report documents the profound and unjust impacts of deportation - and fear of deportation - on the children of undocumented immigrants. These children didn't choose their circumstance. But our misguided policies leave these children more likely to suffer from mental health issues and post-traumatic stress disorder than the children of documented immigrant parents. These children are more likely to experience aggression, anxiety and withdrawal and less likely to do well in school. If a parent is deported, they are at increased risk of going hungry, falling into poverty and dropping out of school. When one fifth of our nation's children are poor, the last thing we need are policies that will push more children into poverty and lives of despair without hope and opportunity. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2013. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: http://www.familyunityfamilyhealth.org/uploads/images/FamilyUnityFamilyHealth.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.familyunityfamilyhealth.org/uploads/images/FamilyUnityFamilyHealth.pdf Shelf Number: 137830 Keywords: Children of ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention Summary: Egregious violations of ICE medical care standards played a prominent role in eight deaths in immigration detention facilities from 2010 to 2012. Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, a report jointly produced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, and National Immigrant Justice Center, examines these deaths and the agency's response to them. Our research shows that even though ICE conducted reviews that identified violations of medical standards as contributing factors in these deaths, routine ICE detention facility inspections before and after the deaths failed to acknowledge - or at times dismissed - these violations. Instead of forcing changes in culture, systems, and processes that could reduce future deaths, ICE's deficient inspections system essentially swept the agency's own death review findings under the rug. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fatal_neglect_acludwnnijc.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fatal_neglect_acludwnnijc.pdf Shelf Number: 137986 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyHealth CareIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre - Harmondsworth site Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest immigration detention facility, holding up to 661 male detainees. It is located a few hundred metres from Heathrow Airport and is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since the start of a new contract in September 2014, both Harmondsworth and the adjacent Colnbrook IRC have been under the same management. The centres are now known collectively as Heathrow IRC but are not yet integrated to the extent that they can be inspected as a single entity. Harmondsworth was last inspected in August 2013, when it was run by the GEO Group. At that time, we were concerned to find that uncertainty about the future of the contract had undermined progress and created an atmosphere of drift which was having a tangible negative impact on the treatment of and conditions for detainees. Many of the concerns that we identified in 2013 have not been rectified and in some respects matters have deteriorated. The lack of investment in the last stages of the previous contract was evidenced in particular by the appalling state of some of the residential units. While the decline had been arrested by the time of this inspection, the centre had not yet recovered and we identified substantial concerns in a number of areas. The vulnerability of the detainee population appeared to have increased since the last inspection. In our survey, 80% of men said that they had had problems on arrival and nearly half said they had felt depressed or suicidal. However, despite an improved reception environment, early days risk assessment processes were not good enough and the complex mix of detainees on the first night unit made it impossible for staff to provide a calm and supportive environment for people undergoing one of the most stressful periods of their lives. More detainees than at the last inspection also reported feeling unsafe or victimised, but safer custody structures to help managers to interrogate and address such concerns were underdeveloped. While use of force was not high and subject to good governance, some detainees were segregated for too long, and we were not assured that this serious measure was always justified or properly authorised. Many men were held for short periods but well over half were detained in the centre for over a month and some for very long periods. Eighteen detainees had been held for over a year and one man had been detained on separate occasions adding up to a total of five years. The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable but nearly a fifth of these reports had identified illnesses, suicidal intentions and/or experiences of torture that contributed to the Home Office concluding that detention could not be justified. This unusually large number reflects the vulnerabilities identified in our survey. The centre has a mix of older and newer, prison-like accommodation. Some of the newer accommodation was dirty and run down but the condition of some parts of the older units was among the worst in the detention estate; many toilets and showers were in a seriously insanitary condition and many rooms were overcrowded and poorly ventilated. An extensive programme of refurbishment was underway, the impact of which we will report on in future inspections. The centre should never have been allowed to reach this state. We saw little positive engagement between staff and detainees, and staff had too little understanding of the backgrounds and needs of the people in their care. There has been little discernible change in this finding over the course of the previous three inspections, suggesting a need to address the issue through concerted long-term work. Equality and diversity work was improving but outcomes were still poor overall. Detainees had very little faith in the complaints procedure. Health care was recovering from a low base but substantial concerns remained - for example, over medicines management. The chaplaincy provided valued support for detainees and the cultural kitchen was a positive development. Given the importance of constructive activity to detainees' mental health and well-being, it was surprising that activity places were underused. Despite some improvements in access to activities, movements were still too restricted which affected detainees' ability to reach the available resources. There was less work available and poor use was made of some recreational facilities. Only a third of detainees said they could fill their time at the centre. By contrast, the centre had substantially improved preparation for release and removal, and had engaged particularly well with some third-sector agencies. Welfare work had improved and Hibiscus Initiatives offered practical assistance in preparing detainees for discharge. Visits provision was generally good and many detainees received support from the local visitors group, Detention Action. Overall, while this report describes some good work, it highlights substantial concerns in most of our tests of a healthy custodial establishment. While the state of drift that we described in our last report has been arrested and the direction of travel is now positive, it is unacceptable that conditions were allowed to decline so much towards the end of the last contract. The Home Office and its contractors have a responsibility to ensure that this is not allowed to happen again. Following the inspection, we were informed by the Home office that lessons had been learned and that a new set of principles were established to prevent a recurrence of this situation. We will assess the success of these measurements in due course. Details: London: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2016. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138041 Keywords: Detention CentersIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Kandel, William A. Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration Summary: Since FY2008, the growth in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras seeking to enter the United States has increased substantially. Total unaccompanied child apprehensions increased from about 8,000 in FY2008 to 52,000 in the first 8 1/2 months of FY2014. Since 2012, children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Central America's "northern triangle") account for almost all of this increase. Apprehension trends for these three countries are similar and diverge sharply from those for Mexican children. Unaccompanied child migrants' motives for migrating to the United States are often multifaceted and difficult to measure analytically. Four recent out-migration-related factors distinguishing northern triangle Central American countries are high violent crime rates, poor economic conditions fueled by relatively low economic growth rates, high rates of poverty, and the presence of transnational gangs. In 2012, the homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants stood at 90.4 in Honduras (the highest in the world), 41.2 in El Salvador, and 39.9 in Guatemala. International Monetary Fund reports show economic growth rates in the northern triangle countries in 2013 ranging from 1.6% to 3.5%, relatively low compared with other Central American countries. About 45% of Salvadorans, 55% of Guatemalans, and 67% of Hondurans live in poverty. Surveys in 2013 indicate that almost half of all unaccompanied children experienced serious harm or threats by organized criminal groups or state actors, and one-fifth experienced domestic abuse. In 2011, Mexico passed legislation to improve migration management and ensure the rights of migrants transiting the country. According to many migration experts, implementation of the laws has been uneven. Some have questioned whether passage of such legislation has affected in some way the recent flows of unaccompanied children. However, the impact of such laws remains unclear. Although economic opportunity may motivate some unaccompanied children to migrate to the United States, labor market conditions for low-skilled minority youth have worsened in recent years, even as industrial sectors employing low-skilled workers enjoy improved economic prospects. Educational opportunities may also provide a motivating factor to migration as perceptions of free and safe education may be widespread among the young. Family reunification is reported to be one of the key motives of unaccompanied children. Many have family members among the sizable Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran foreign-born populations residing in the United States. While the impacts of actual and perceived U.S. immigration policies have been widely debated, it remains unclear if, and how, specific immigration policies have motivated children to migrate to the United States. Misperceptions about U.S. policies may be a contributing factor. The existence of long-standing humanitarian relief policies confounds causal links between them and the recent surge in unaccompanied children. A notable and recent exception is revised humanitarian relief provisions for unaccompanied children included in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, which affects asylum claims, trafficking victim protections, and eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Some argue that unaccompanied children and their families falsely believe they would be covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative and legalization provisions in proposed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: R43628: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf Shelf Number: 138183 Keywords: AsylumChild Protection Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigrant Detention ImmigrationUnaccompanied Alien Children |
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: Baird, Theodore Title: Who Is Responsible for Harm in Immigration Detention? Models of Accountability for Private Corporations Summary: This paper argues that private corporations can and should be held responsible for structural injustices that take place in immigration detention regimes in which they operate. It draws on literature from business ethics to evaluate various ethical arguments for assessing corporate responsibility, emphasising models that may lead to the prevention of harm and suffering. In particular, the paper employs a social connection model of ethics as well as evidence of detention practices in Europe, the United States, and Australia to address a number of inter-related questions: How is immigration detention harmful? Who is responsible for this harm? How can responsible institutions reduce harm? The paper concludes by arguing that in addition to corporations and states, citizens and non-citizens have obligations to share in efforts to reduce the harm of immigration-related detention. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 11: Accessed March 31, 2016 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/who-responsible-harm-immigration-detention-models-accountability-private-corporations Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/who-responsible-harm-immigration-detention-models-accountability-private-corporations Shelf Number: 138510 Keywords: Illegal Immigration Illegal Migrants Immigrant Detention |
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: 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: European Migration Network Title: Synthesis Report - The Use of Detention and Alternatives to Detention in the Context of Immigration Policies Summary: The Synthesis Report was prepared on the basis of National Contributions from 26EMN NCPs (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and Norway) according to a Common Template developed by the EMN and followed by EMN NCPs to ensure, to the extent possible, comparability. National contributions were based on desk analysis of existing legislation and policy documents, reports, academic literature, internet resources and reports as well as information collected from national authorities. Statistics were sourced from national authorities and other (national) databases. The listing of Member States in the Synthesis Report results from the availability of information provided by the EMN NCPs in the National Contributions. It is important to note that the information contained in this Report refers to the situation in the above-mentioned (Member) States up to and including 2014 and specifically the contributions from their EMN National Contact Points. More detailed information on the topics addressed here may be found in the available National Contributions on the EMN web-site and it is strongly recommended that these are consulted as well. EMN NCPs from other Member States could not, for various reasons, participate on this occasion in this Study, but have done so for other EMN activities and reports. Details: Brussels: European Migration Network, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2016 at: .http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/emn_study_detention_alternatives_to_detention_synthesis_report_en.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/emn_study_detention_alternatives_to_detention_synthesis_report_en.pdf Shelf Number: 138680 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigration PoliciesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants Title: Prisoners in a Foreign Land: Migrant Workers in Jail Summary: PRISONERS IN A FOREIGN LAND: Migrant Workers in Jail is an exploration of the vulnerability of migrant workers to imprisonment and detention on the context of existing policies and practices both in the host and sending countries; the condition of migrant workers in jail and in detention centers; and the response of grassroots migrant organizations, various civil society organizations (CSOs), and the governments of sending and receiving countries. Through a study of the human rights concerns of migrants in jail and in detention in major migrant destination countries in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East regions - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea - the research shows that human rights of migrants in jail and detention centers are routinely violated. The crisis situation of migrants serves as the context that put them in a condition where their rights are violated even before their deployment overseas and during the period of their employment. While the research focuses on host countries, it also expounds on the response, or the lack thereof, of sending governments to the plight of their nationals in jails and in detention. It also explores the actual experiences of migrant workers organizations and advocates in addressing the concerns of migrants in jail and in detention. To make more concrete the issue tackled by the research, various case studies of migrants who have been or are currently in detention and jail are presented. Through this research, the APMM hopes to shed more light on the conditions of migrants in jail and help in addressing and resolving their concerns. Details: Hong Kong SAR: APMM, 2012. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2016 at: http://www.apmigrants.org/articles/researches/MIJ%20Research.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Asia URL: http://www.apmigrants.org/articles/researches/MIJ%20Research.pdf Shelf Number: 138681 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionMigrant WorkersMigration PolicyUndocumented Migrants |
Author: National Immigration Law Center Title: Blazing a Trail: The Fight for Right to Counsel in Detention and Beyond Summary: The federal government has long interpreted the immigration laws to mean that immigrants have a right to be represented by counsel in their deportation proceedings, but not at government expense. Making the right to counsel a reality is an imperative for all immigrants in removal proceedings, but the situation is even more critical for detained immigrants. As this report shows, the very circumstances of detention make that right a legal fiction for almost all detained immigrants. Mounting empirical data show that having a lawyer to help navigate the complex maze of the immigration detention and court systems makes a profound difference in a person's ability to gain release from detention, challenge the government's grounds for seeking their deportation, and present and win a defense that allows the person to remain in the U.S. Innovative projects in New York and New Jersey have begun to provide what we are calling in this report "universal representation," i.e., representation to any detained immigrant within the jurisdiction of a particular immigration court who does not have a private lawyer and who meets certain income requirements. Inspired by these examples, other localities across the country are examining how they can develop similar programs. Details: Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf Shelf Number: 138782 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration EnforcementLegal AidRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in the United States Summary: The United States operates the world's largest immigration detention system. On any given day, the country has some 30,000 people in administrative immigration detention at an estimated cost of nearly $150 a day. In 2016, the combined budget of enforcement agencies was $19 billion. The country's sprawling detention estate counts on some 200 facilities, including privately operated detention facilities, local jails, juvenile detention centres, field offices, and euphemistically named "family residential centres." The country has also supported the detention of migrants and asylum seekers in neighbouring countries. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/immigration-detention-united-states Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/immigration-detention-united-states Shelf Number: 138908 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementMigrantsUndocumented Migrants |
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: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Detained, Deceived, and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported Central American Families Summary: Over the last few years, the escalation of violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (collectively known as the Northern Triangle of Central America) has reached dramatic levels. Thousands of women and their children have fled and arrived in the United States with the hope of finding protection. But for many of them, their attempts to escape merely resulted in detention, deportation, and extremely difficult reintegration in Central America. In fact, for some, the conditions they face upon being repatriated are worse than those they tried to escape in the first place. Between February and May, 2016, the American Immigration Council interviewed eight individuals who were deported (or whose partners were deported) from the United States after being detained in family detention facilities, during which time they came into contact with the CARA Pro Bono Project. These women (or in two of the cases, their partners) shared their experiences - both describing what has happened to them and their children since returning to their country and recounting the detention and deportation process from the United States. First-hand accounts from Central American women and their family members interviewed for this project reveal the dangerous and bleak circumstances of life these women and their children faced upon return to their home countries, as well as serious problems in the deportation process. The testimonies describe how women are living in hiding, fear for their own and their children's lives, have minimal protection options, and suffer the consequences of state weakness and inability to ensure their safety in the Northern Triangle. The stories presented in this report are those of a fraction of the women and children who navigate a formidable emigration-detention-deportation process in their pursuit of safety. The process and systems through which they passed only contribute to the trauma, violence, and desolation that many Central American families already endured in their home country. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/detained_deceived_deported_experiences_of_recently_deported_central_american_families.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/detained_deceived_deported_experiences_of_recently_deported_central_american_families.pdf Shelf Number: 139086 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen DHS Management of Short-Term Holding Facilities Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained aliens who may be subject to removal or have been ordered removed from the United States. For example, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. GAO was asked to examine DHS's management and oversight of holding facilities. This report examines the extent to which DHS has (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities. GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on time in custody and complaints. GAO also interviewed agency officials and visited 32 holding facilities selected based on geographical location and facility type, among other factors. The visit results are not generalizable, but provided insight to the oversight of holding facilities and management of complaints. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS establish a process to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities; issue guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in short-term custody; include a classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities; and develop a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-514: Accessed May 27, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf Shelf Number: 139230 Keywords: Homeland SecurityIllegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration PolicyUndocumented 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: New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees Title: Isolated in Essex: Punishing Immigrants through Solitary Confinement Summary: Immigration detention is intended to ensure the appearance of immigrants at removal proceedings and is meant to be civil and non-punitive, yet immigrant detainees are held in penal facilities and subjected to the same conditions as individuals accused or convicted of crimes, including solitary confinement. The troublesome use of solitary confinement in state and federal penal institutions and its severe mental health consequences are often the focus of national discourse, but the specific impact of solitary confinement on immigrant detainee populations has received less attention. In 2015, the New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees (NJAID) and the New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (IRC) published a report describing the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in two of the three New Jersey county jails that house immigrant detainees. This report completes the picture by presenting an analysis of previously unavailable data regarding the use of disciplinary solitary confinement ("disciplinary segregation") against immigrant detainees in Essex County Correctional Facility (Essex), the third and largest immigration detention facility in New Jersey. Essex produced 446 incident reports for the period covering 2013, 2014, and 2015. An analysis of these reports reveals that the use of solitary confinement in Essex is excessive and disproportionate, implemented in an arbitrary fashion, and lacking in adequate due process and transparency. Essex routinely "stacks" charges, meaning it charges a detainee with multiple offenses for a single incident, thus circumventing New Jersey's 15-day limit on a solitary confinement sentence for a single charge, intended to be for clearly separate discrete acts. Furthermore, detainees regularly face solitary confinement during pre-hearing detention before there has been any finding of guilt. The data also demonstrates that many of the incidents leading to solitary confinement in Essex are related to frustration over the jail's conditions. The conditions in a detention center are inherently stressful for detainees and staff alike, and the data shows that allowing officers the authority to mete out solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in that context results in excessive and arbitrary punishments. Details: Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2016 at: https://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Isolated%20in%20Essex%20Full%20Report%202016_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Isolated%20in%20Essex%20Full%20Report%202016_1.pdf Shelf Number: 139641 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionSegregationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Greene, Judith Title: Indefensible: A Decade of Mass Incarceration of Migrants Prosecuted for Crossing the Border Summary: December 2015 marked the 10th anniversary of the launch of a program to target for criminal prosecution migrants who had crossed the border without authorization. It was named "Operation Streamline." It is known for the mass hearings (often lasting less than two hours) in which up to 80 migrants are arraigned, found guilty, convicted and sentenced for 8 USC 1325 (improper entry, a misdemeanor) simultaneously. The policy has long been decried by immigrant rights advocates. However, the mass hearings of Operation Streamline, as shocking as they are, are only the tip of the iceberg. Lesser known by the general public, media, and even some immigrant rights and criminal justice reform advocates, is the widespread expansion of 8 USC 1326 (re-entry, a felony) prosecutions over the past decade that came with the Streamline program. Though border officials in some sectors say that Operation Streamline has ended, the numbers of migrants prosecuted in federal courts is still massive in sheer numbers. The criminal prosecution of migrants crossing our southern border has had profound impacts on the federal courts and federal prisons over the last decade. In 2015, improper entry and re-entry prosecutions accounted for almost half of all federal prosecutions (49 percent). Improper entry is punishable by up to 180 days in federal jail while improper re-entry is punishable by up to two years. And if the migrant has a serious prior criminal history, many more years may be added to the sentence. Almost a quarter of those in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) prison population are non-citizens (23 percent). Using the data available, we conservatively estimate the incarceration costs for those convicted of improper entry and re-entry at more than $7 billion since the start of Operation Streamline in 2005. This book provides an oral history of the evolution of Operation Streamline over 10 years and its legacy today. We document the beginnings Operation Streamline and the evolution of targeted migrant prosecutions. We explore how the program took hold across border districts in distinct ways. We examine how an already politicized issue collided with media hype and, "moral panic" over immigration levels. We describe how ambitious and powerful individuals and agencies within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security launched this huge, targeted prosecution program. We interviewed more than three dozen people who work inside the federal criminal justice system, or who have been impacted by it, for this book. We have attempted to amplify their voices by using their own words as often as possible. In looking back at 10 years of mass prosecution of migrants, we have an opportunity to examine how and why the program emerged. We can also examine the harm it has caused against the scant evidence that it has achieved the stated goal of deterring migration at the southern border. There exists in the story of migrant prosecutions an intersection where those working for immigrant rights and for criminal justice reform can join hands to work together. Finally, we can find inspiration in the ample opportunities for resistance and in this book we highlight the efforts of those who are organizing to bring an end to prosecution of migrants at the border. Details: Austin, TX: Grassroots Leadership; New York: Justice Strategies, 2016. 181p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/indefensible_book_web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/indefensible_book_web.pdf Shelf Number: 139655 Keywords: Border SecurityImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsOperation StreamlineUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Bhui, Hindpal Singh Title: Can Inspection Produce Meaningful Change in Immigration Detention? Summary: Although prison inspection in the United Kingdom has a long history, inspection of immigration detention was properly established only in 2004. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), a government-appointed independent human rights-based monitoring institution, holds this responsibility. In this GDP Working Paper, a lead HMIP inspector discusses the nature and impact of the Inspectorate's work, examining both the theory and practice of inspection. The paper places the discussion in the broader context of prison reform and debates on migration and border controls. The author argues that in liberal-democratic societies there are two broad approaches to promoting human rights reforms and challenging abuses: working from the inside to achieve progress with the risk that principles may be compromised and good intentions confounded; or promoting change from the outside, which is more uncompromising but less influential, at least in the short-term. This is a dilemma that confronts human rights based inspection of immigration detention in the UK. The main focus of HMIP is on improving the treatment of detainees and conditions in detention, not challenging the system of detention, even if immigration detention policy arguably lacks legitimacy in a way that criminal imprisonment does not. The author explores the "effectiveness" of detention inspection and whether inspection can be said to have promoted meaningful change. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 12: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139833 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationMigrants |
Author: Bruce, Katie Title: Evaluation Report: Community Exchange project between detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre and young people at West London YMCA Summary: The report explores the project's impacts on participants' well-being and resilience, awareness and understanding, and musical skills. Based on observations, questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, it contains a wealth of detail about the creative process and the experience of participants. The report also looks at the project as an example of inclusive practice, examining what made it succeed and what could be done to improve outcomes further. It puts forward a number of recommendations for Music In Detention and the wider sector, broken down into three categories: concept, planning and delivery. This report follows a community exchange that took place during the months of March and April 2015 between detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, Heathrow and young people at West London YMCA in Hayes. The musicians facilitating this project were: - Yiannis Zaronis, an experienced MID musician originally from Greece. Yiannis is a multi-instrumentalist who specialises in a variety of instruments, including guitar, mandolin, bouzouki and darbuka. - Yiannis was joined for four out of the six sessions by Oliver Seager, a new artist to MID on his first community exchange project. Oliver is a singer songwriter, rapper and producer releasing his own material under his stage name, Kotchin. - For the other two sessions Yiannis was joined by MID musicians Tea Hodzic and Shammi Pithia. This report seeks to profile Music in Detention's approach to working in detention centres and with vulnerable young people; assess the works' musical and social outcomes; and evaluate how this work supports inclusivity in the borough of Hillingdon, including recommendations relevant to the wider arts sector. Details: Bedford, UK: Music in Detention and Sound Connections , 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://www.artsevidence.org.uk/media/uploads/mid-sc-evaluation-report-final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.artsevidence.org.uk/media/uploads/mid-sc-evaluation-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 139906 Keywords: Arts in PrisonsArts ProgramsAt-Risk YouthDetention CentersImmigrant DetentionMusic ProgramsRehabilitation Programs |
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: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Detained Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest Border Summary: For some time now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been in the spotlight for its questionable practices regarding the treatment of migrants. One such practice concerns the manner in which the Border Patrol-a component of CBP-operates its holding facilities near the U.S.' southern border. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are held in these facilities, which are meant to hold individuals for a short time while they undergo initial processing and until a decision is made about the appropriate next step in their case. The holding cells, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), are typically small concrete rooms with concrete benches and no beds. They are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Government records analyzed in this report, which contain information on length of detention for all Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.' southwest border, reveal that individuals are frequently held for days and sometimes even months in such facilities. As numerous reports, media accounts, and documented complaints of former detainees have previously shown, these facilities remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible-as consistently reported by many who were held in them-even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lack adequate food, water, and medical care. This report, which is based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), examines length of detention in nine Border Patrol sectors: Big Bend, Texas; Del Rio, Texas; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Rio Grande Valley, Texas; San Diego, California; Tucson, Arizona; and Yuma, Arizona. Between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015, 326,881 individuals were held in CBP facilities across the southwest border. Of the cases analyzed, which include only cases with complete data (326,728), 69,016 (21.1 percent) were women. Mexican nationals represent the largest share (57.1 percent) of those detained in CBP facilities during this period, followed by Guatemalans (16.9 percent), Salvadorans (12.7 percent), and Hondurans (9.8 percent). Looking at all sectors combined, the data reveals that a shocking 217,485 individuals (or 67 percent of the total number detained during this period) were held in CBP facilities for 24 hours or more; 93,566 (29 percent) for 48 hours or more; and 44,202 (14 percent) for 72 hours or more. The average number of hours that individuals were detained shows some variation, ranging from 65 hours at its lowest point in July 2015 to 104 hours at its peak in October 2014. Length of detention varies considerably across border sectors. For example, lengthy detention is remarkably frequent in the Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, Yuma, and El Centro sectors. Laredo in particular shows the most disturbing numbers; 54 percent (19,000) of the 35,494 individuals held in detention facilities in Laredo were detained for at least 72 hours. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) raises questions about the possible existence of irregularities in the way Border Patrol officers capture information on length of detention. Consequently, the data presented here should be interpreted with caution. However, the findings of our analysis are consistent with those reported in previous publications by the American Immigration Council. For example, according to a report released in May 2015, 58,083 individuals-or over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013-were held for over 24 hours, and 10.9 percent (7,839 individuals) were held for 72 hours or more. Another report which focused on the Rio Grande Valley Sector showed that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, the share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. Lengthy detention is especially problematic given the inhumane conditions that characterize these holding facilities. The findings presented in this report document a troublesome reality: lengthy detention is not just a random occurrence that happens to a few individuals in one or two Border Patrol sectors; it is, instead, a systemic practice that affects, to varying degrees, all the sectors along the southwest border. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf Shelf Number: 146113 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
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: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Access to Counsel in Immigration Court Summary: It has long been the case that immigrants have a right to counsel in immigration court, but that expense has generally been borne by the non-citizen. Because deportation is classified as a civil rather than a criminal sanction, immigrants facing removal are not afforded the constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment that are provided to criminal defendants. Whereas in the criminal justice system, all defendants facing even one day in jail are provided an attorney if they cannot afford one, immigrants facing deportation generally do not have that opportunity. Detained immigrants, particularly those held in remote locations, face the additional obstacle of accessing counsel from behind bars. Yet, in every immigration case, the government is represented by a trained attorney who can argue for deportation, regardless of whether the immigrant is represented. The lack of appointed counsel may have a profound impact on immigrants' ability to receive a fair hearing. Past research has highlighted the importance of counsel for asylum seekers, and regional studies have highlighted the important role attorneys play for immigrants navigating immigration courts in New York and San Francisco. Yet, up to now, the debate about access to counsel has proceeded with little reliable national information on how many immigrants facing deportation obtain attorneys, the barriers to accessing representation, and how such representation impacts the outcomes of their cases. This report presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in U.S. immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, the report provides much-needed information about the scope and impact of attorney representation in U.S. immigration courts. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Shelf Number: 140826 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration CourtsImmigration EnforcementRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Gros, Hanna Title: "No Life for a Child": A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation Summary: Canada should urgently implement alternatives to detaining children rather than housing them in immigration detention facilities or separating them from their detained parents, the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program (IHRP) said in a report released today. In failing to do so, Canada is violating its international legal obligations. Over the past several years, Canada has held hundreds of children in immigration detention, including children from Syria and other war-torn regions. According to figures obtained by the IHRP through access to information requests, an average of 242 children were detained each year between 2010 and 2014. These figures are an underestimate because they do not account for all children living with their parents in detention as 'guests, who were not subject to formal detention orders. Some of these include children with Canadian citizenship. The 70-page report, "'No Life for a Child': A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation," uncovers the deficient legal underpinnings and detrimental practical implications of Canadian immigration detention for children. The report makes 11 recommendations to ensure that Canada complies with its international human rights obligations, and analyzes various international models of alternatives to detention and family separation. The report concludes that children and families with children should be released from detention outright or given access to community-based alternatives to detention, such as reporting obligations, financial deposits, guarantors, and electronic monitoring. 'No Life for a Child' is based on IHRP interviews with detained mothers and children, as well as mental health experts, social workers, child rights activists, and legal professionals. The report profiles children, including infants, who lived in detention or were separated from their families. The report finds that conditions of detention are woefully unsuited for children. Immigration Holding Centres resemble medium-security prisons, with significant restrictions on privacy and liberty, inadequate access to education, insufficient recreational opportunities and poor nutrition. One of the children profiled in the report, Michel (not his real name), spent the first 28 months of his life living under these conditions in a Toronto detention facility. Michel’s mother was detained when she was two-months pregnant, because Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) suspected that she was a flight risk. After giving birth to Michel, the two continued to be detained for nearly three years before they were deported in late 2015. According to Michel’s mother, although Michel was a Canadian citizen, 'he lives the same life as a detained child.' According to medical experts, immigration detention causes serious and lasting psychological harm to children, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal ideation. The report finds that it is the fact of detention — not just the conditions of detention — that is fundamentally harmful to children’s well-being. The report also finds that family separation is not an adequate alternative to child detention because it causes significant psychological distress, and may expose children to the hardships of the child welfare system. Instead, the report recommends that families should be given access to community-based alternatives to detention. The report builds upon years of advocacy by refugee and child rights groups in Canada that have called on the government to ensure that children’s best interests are a primary consideration in decisions affecting them, and ultimately, to end child detention and family separation. International bodies have also repeatedly criticized Canada for its immigration detention practices. The report notes recent initiatives by Canada's federal government and CBSA indicating a strong willingness to reform the immigration detention regime, with a particular view to protecting children and addressing mental health issues. The government has also expressed an intention to engage extensively with non-governmental organizations and other civil society stakeholders in the process of revising relevant policy and designing new programs. Details: Toronto: International Human Rights Program (IHRP) University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 2016. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2016 at: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf Shelf Number: 145777 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Child DetentionImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Mendez, Juan E. Title: Seeing into Solitary: A Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations Regarding Solitary Confinement of Detainees Summary: The report, Seeing into Solitary: A Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations Regarding Solitary Confinement of Detainees was the subject of a UN event on October 17 featuring speakers from the ACLU, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and Vance Center for International Justice, among others. The report includes within its scope 35 jurisdictions, including eight U.S. states (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas) and twenty-six countries, including the U.S. federal prison system and immigration detention system. Seeing into Solitary builds on a prior groundbreaking report by Mendez, presented to the UN in 2011, that for the first time declared that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and in some cases torture, and may thus, under certain conditions, be prohibited under international law. In that 2011 report, Mendez further called for a categorical ban on subjecting juveniles and people with mental illness to solitary confinement, and to end the practice of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement. The 2016 report contains six substantive areas of focus: - the ostensible purposes of solitary confinement across jurisdictions, - how the practice is authorized, - whether and how its imposition can be challenged or appealed legally, - what limits are in place, - regulations pertaining to physical conditions such as the use of restraints, and - general trends or developments toward reform. Purpose The report found that seven of the thirty-five jurisdictions analyzed allow for solitary confinement to be used only for disciplinary purposes, one of which is the U.S. state of Colorado. It further found that solitary confinement is often imposed in response to remarkably minor offenses. According to research from the Vera Institute of Justice cited in the report, 85 percent of people held in solitary confinement in Illinois' state prison system were sent there "as punishment for minor infractions, such as abusive language." Mendez has long opposed the use of even short-term solitary for punishment, as opposed to safety reasons. The other thirty-two jurisdictions claim other justifications, usually in addition to discipline, for using solitary confinement. The most common, according to the report, are for "protection of vulnerable people," to maintain security, or"as a method of prison administration and managing cell space." However, consideration of specific policies, many from the United States, prove that these justifications are similarly disproportionate or arbitrary. In both the U.S. immigration detention and federal prison systems, for example, people can be held in solitary confinement for the sole reason that they will be released, removed, or transferred within 24 hours. Also under U.S. federal law, people can be held in solitary confinement if they are HIV-positive and there is "reliable evidence" that they may "pose a health risk" to others. In California, people may be subject to isolation just because they are "a relative or associate of a staff member." In Pennsylvania, people may be subject to solitary confinement, against their will and consent, because they are "at a high risk of sexual victimization" if there exists no "alternative means of separation from the likely abuser." Also in Pennsylvania, people may be subject to solitary confinement simply because "there is no other appropriate bed space." Details: Vienna: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2016. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/2016/un_special_report_solitary_confinement.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/2016/un_special_report_solitary_confinement.pdf Shelf Number: 144849 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionIsolationPunishmentSolitary Confinement |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Shadow Prisons: Immigrant Detention in the South Summary: Just days after winning election, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to round up and deport up to 3 million immigrants. Such a plan, if carried out immediately, would require a massive – and costly – expansion of America's prison and detention infrastructure at a time when politicians and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are working to reduce the nation’s prison population, the world's largest. And it would likely be a major boost to the fortunes of private prison companies that profit from incarceration – even though most studies show that privately operated prisons are generally more dangerous, less effective and no less expensive than government-run facilities. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to add 10,000 beds to its immigrant detention system, increasing the capacity to 45,000 immigrants per day. But, as a result of Trump's proposed deportation plan, the DHS could need many thousands more. Unsurprisingly, private prison stocks have soared since Trump's election. An expansion of the immigrant detention system threatens to greatly exacerbate the mass incarceration crisis in America. And it would violate our nation's basic values and cement our reputation as a country intolerant of immigrants. The findings of this study demonstrate that the immigrant detention system is already rife with civil rights violations and poor conditions that call into question the DHS’s commitment to the due process rights and safety of detainees. Many of these detainees have lived here for years; others recently fled violence in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States. This report is the result of a seven-month investigation of six detention centers in the South, a region where tens of thousands of people are locked up for months, sometimes even years, as they await hearings or deportation. The South is a leader in immigration detention, holding one out of every six detainees in the United States. A closer look makes it clear why it holds this distinction. Detained immigrants in the South are frequently denied the opportunity of a bond hearing that would free them until their cases are adjudicated. The region's immigration courts, which are often inaccessible to the public, are hostile to immigrants not fortunate enough to have an attorney. And so they wait behind bars in remote Southern facilities virtually indistinguishable from prisons. Many of the facilities are former jails or prisons that were shut down after civil rights investigations and lawsuits revealed poor conditions and abuse. Now, it’s the detainees who face abusive and dangerous conditions at these facilities, which fail to meet basic legal and regulatory standards. And it's the detainees who often find there is little hope for release as their due process rights are denied. The investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Adelante Alabama Worker Center focuses on detention centers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. Three are operated by private companies and three by county sheriffs. All are paid by the DHS on a per diem basis. The report is based on tours of each facility and more than 300 in-person interviews with detainees. They represent more than 5 percent of the average daily population of the detention centers studied. From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied – symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation's immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Shelf Number: 147908 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrationPrivate Prisons |
Author: De Genova, Nicholas Title: Detention, Deportation, and Waiting: Toward a Theory of Migrant Detainability Summary: The global expansion of deportation regimes has spurred an analogous expansion of migrant detention. Arguably even more than the onerous punitive power of deportation, detention imposes the sovereign power of a state on to the lives of non-citizens in a manner that transmutes their status into de facto legal non-personhood. That is to say, with detention, the condition of deportable migrants culminates in summary (and sometimes indefinite) incarceration on the basis of little more than their sheer existential predicament as “undesirable” non-citizens, often with little or no recourse to any form of legal remedy or appeal, and frequently no semblance to due process. Castigated to a station outside the law, their detention leaves them at the mercy of the caprices of authorities. The author argues that to adequately comprehend the productivity of this power to detain migrants, we must have recourse to a concept of detainability, the possibility of being detained. The paper situates the analysis of immigration detention in the framework of contemporary critical theory, interrogating the economy of different conditionalities and contingencies that undergird various degrees by which distinct categories of migrants are subjected to detention power. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Shelf Number: 147936 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat Title: Behind Bars: The detention of migrants in and from the East & Horn of Africa Summary: Regional Focus This study focuses on immigration detention in the East and Horn of Africa, as well as Yemen, Israel and Saudi Arabia which are countries where a significant number of migrants from this region migrate to. The report also includes a short section on the use of immigration detention in Italy and Malta, the first points of entry in Europe for Horn of Africa migrants (mainly Eritreans and Somalis) travelling the north-western route out of the region to Europe. The use of immigration detention The use of immigration detention is widespread in the main destination and transit countries affecting migrants in and from East Africa and Horn of Africa countries. Instead of being a measure of last resort, detention of migrants is a routine practice in some of these countries (Djibouti, Israel Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Yemen). In 2013 and 2014 for example, several countries, such as Kenya, Saudi Arabia and Tanzania carried out mass operations during which thousands of migrants were detained. In most countries, irregular migrants are generally detained, either by law or as a de facto policy. Immigration detention is used for a variety of reasons, which commonly includes: controlling migration flows, as a deterrence measure for future migrants, security reasons (such as identity and health checks) or protection of the labour market. The detention of migrants can also be the result of chaotic or dysfunctional processes. For example, when migrants are detained because there are no resources (financial, transport) available for deportation; when a detention centre is full but the local prison has space; or when the local police demand bribes from migrants and detain them until they pay for their release. In short, migrants are detained for a variety of reasons, including more ad hoc, informal reasons that are not captured in formal immigration policy. International legislation Although most countries have ratified a range of relevant international conventions that regulate the detention of all persons, including migrants, states in the region frequently act in violation of their international obligations: t 5IF International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, which is legally binding on all countries that are part of this research except Saudi Arabia, states among other things that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention”, that “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. Nevertheless, arbitrary arrests are common in all countries and migrants are often not informed (or at least do not understand) the charges against them. t 5IFInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) guarantees the “right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State”. Yet, the country sections provide examples of operations during which large numbers of migrants and urban refugees were detained and certain nationalities were specifically targeted, such as Somalis during operation ‘Usalama Watch’ in Kenya or Sub-Saharan African migrants in Israel. t In most countries, children (under the age of eighteen years), both accompanied and unaccompanied, are detained, sometimes together with other adults, which violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). t 5IFSFIBWFCFFOTFWFSBMFYBNQMFTPG refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers, for example of Eritreans and Sudanese by Israeli authorities and Somalis by Saudi authorities, which violates the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Arbitrary detention The country sections of this report describe how arbitrary detention is common in every country in the region. Especially, but not exclusively, during mass operations as referred to above. On these occasions, authorities did not carry out individual determinations to assess whether detention is reasonable, necessary and proportional, but instead migrants were detained in large groups without individual consideration. Periodic reviews are often not carried out and detained migrants are not always – or only after many days – brought before a judge or into a court. Migrants in Israel can be detained indefinitely, which by definition classifies as arbitrary detention. Details: Nairobi, Kenya: RMMS, 2015. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: http://www.regionalmms.org/images/ResearchInitiatives/Behind_Bars_the_detention_of_migrants_in_and_from_the_East___Horn_of_Africa_2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://www.regionalmms.org/images/ResearchInitiatives/Behind_Bars_the_detention_of_migrants_in_and_from_the_East___Horn_of_Africa_2.pdf Shelf Number: 147786 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Durcan, Graham Title: Immigration Removal Centres in England: A mental health needs analysis Summary: Between March 2015 and March 2016, over 30,000 people were held in UK immigration detention. Many of these people had experienced torture, trauma and oppression in their countries of origin. In response to the Shaw Report (2016) which highlighted the poor mental wellbeing of people detained in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs), Centre for Mental Health was commissioned by NHS England to conduct a rapid mental health needs analysis of IRCs in England. The resulting review aims to support NHS England and the Home Office in planning to meet the wellbeing and mental health needs of people held in IRCs. To gain a full oversight of mental health needs in IRCs, we conducted interviews with staff and detainees, asked managers to complete a survey, and conducted observations of each IRC. Ten IRCs (or 'holding facilities') were included in the needs analysis. Mental health and immigration detention Research into the impact of detention has consistently highlighted that: • Immigration detention has a negative impact on mental health • The longer someone spends in detention, the more negative an impact it has upon their mental health • Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are the most common mental health problems A study conducted across four UK IRCs in 2009 found that four out of five detainees met a clinical threshold for depression. Mental wellbeing in IRCs All immigration detainees will face challenges to their wellbeing during their stay. Even if they do not reach a clinical threshold, the distress they experience is still disabling and even life-threatening. Across the IRCs in our needs analysis, the most commonly reported problem was depressed mood and anxiety problems, and the most severe reported problems were hallucinations or delusions. Most of the detainees we interviewed had experienced some form of trauma in their life before detention, e.g. fleeing a country where they were being persecuted; witnessing loved ones being killed; experiencing domestic violence, sex trafficking or female genital mutilation; or fleeing a death sentence. They also highlighted issues of mental health stigma and language barriers in discussing wellbeing. Impact of detention on mental wellbeing Detainees and staff both described the impact of detention on people's wellbeing. The challenges to wellbeing were partly caused by loss of liberty, the feeling of staying in a prison-like regime, and uncertainty about their future. Additionally, confusion about the legal procedures caused a huge amount of distress to detainees. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/immigration-removal-centres Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/immigration-removal-centres Shelf Number: 145100 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionMental Health Services |
Author: Schriro, Dora Bess Title: Obstacles to Reforming Family Detention in the United States Summary: The prospect of ending the detention of immigrant families in the United States appears more remote than ever as the new president begins implementing his immigration agenda. This paper, authored by the former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Detention Policy and Planning, provides an inside look at how policymakers early in the Obama administration sought to roll back family detention and the fate of those efforts. It examines ambitious early reform proposals and subsequent challenges that spurred officials to significantly ramp up family detention. The author concludes with a series of recommendations and urges renewed calls for reforms in the face of the Trump administration's intended immigration crackdown Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2017. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 20: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20 Shelf Number: 144826 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Grange, Mariette Title: When Is Immigration Detention Lawful? The Monitoring Practices of UN Human Rights Mechanisms Summary: his Global Detention Project Working Paper details how the banalisation of immigration detention is contested by international human rights mechanisms. Since the creation of the United Nations, the global human rights regime has provided a framework for the protection of all people, including those living in foreign countries. This paper assesses how national sovereignty and access to territory is mitigated by the universal nature and applicability of human rights and refugee protection standards. The authors comprehensively describe the normative framework governing immigration detention established in core international treaties and discuss how human rights bodies apply this framework when reviewing states' policies and practices. Their assessment of the impact and implementation of fundamental norms reveals gaps in the international protection regime and highlights how states' responses to this regime have shaped contemporary immigration detention systems. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 21: Accessed February 24, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms Shelf Number: 141214 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Meyer, Maureen Title: Not a National Security Crisis: The U.S.-Mexico Border and Humanitarian Concerns, Seen from El Paso Summary: Contrary to popular and political rhetoric about a national security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, evidence suggests a potential humanitarian—not security—emergency. This report, based on research and a field visit to El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico in April 2016, provides a dose of reality by examining one of the most emblematic of the U.S.-Mexico border's nine sectors, one that falls within the middle of the rankings on migration, drug seizures, violence, and human rights abuses. At a time when calls for beefing up border infrastructure and implementing costly policies regularly make headlines, our visit to the El Paso sector made clear that what is needed at the border are practical, evidence-based adjustments to border security policy, improved responses to the growing number of Central American migrants and potential refugees, and strengthened collaboration and communication on both sides of the border. • WITH 408,870 MIGRANT APPREHENSIONS AT THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER IN FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2016, OVERALL UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION IS AT LEVELS SIMILAR TO THE EARLY 1970S. Apprehensions of migrants per Border Patrol agent are less than one-tenth what they were in the 1990s. With 19 apprehensions per agent, FY2015 had the second-lowest rate of the available data. It makes sense that staffing has leveled off since the 2005-2011 buildup that doubled the size of Border Patrol. • THE NUMBER OF MEXICAN MIGRANTS HAS FALLEN TO LEVELS NOT SEEN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, AND DECLINES HAVE BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT. Between FY2004 and FY2015 there were fewer apprehensions of Mexican citizens each year than in the previous year. Apprehensions of Mexicans in FY2016 increased by 2.5 percent. Even though the nearest third country is over 800 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, Mexicans comprised less than half of migrants apprehended there in FY2014, and again in FY2016. • OF THE MIGRANTS ARRIVING AT THE BORDER, MANY ARE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FROM CENTRAL AMERICA WHO COULD QUALIFY AS REFUGEES IN NEED OF PROTECTION. A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) analysis of credible fear screenings carried out by U.S. asylum officers revealed that in FY2015, 82 percent of women from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, as well as Mexico, who were screened on arrival at the U.S. border "were found to have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the Convention against Torture." This phenomenon is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it illegal to flee one's country if one's life is at risk. Most Central American families and children do not try to evade U.S. authorities when they cross: they seek them out, requesting international protection out of fear to return to their countries. • VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN U.S. BORDER COMMUNITIES REMAIN AMONG THE LOWEST IN THE NATION, AND VIOLENCE HAS LARGELY DECREASED ON THE MEXICAN SIDE AS WELL. The El Paso crime rate in 2015 was below the U.S. national average. Although homicides have increased in Ciudad Juárez during 2016, the security situation has dramatically improved from when the city was considered the murder capital in the world in 2010. • SEIZURES OF CANNABIS, WHICH IS MOSTLY SMUGGLED BETWEEN OFFICIAL PORTS OF ENTRY, ARE DOWN AT THE BORDER. However, seizures of methamphetamine and heroin have increased, indicating that more drugs are probably getting across and, in the case of heroin, feeding U.S. demand that has risen to public-health crisis levels. Meth, heroin, and cocaine are very small in volume and are mostly smuggled at official border crossings. Building higher walls in wilderness areas along the border would make no difference in detecting and stopping these drugs from entering the country. • PORTS OF ENTRY ALONG THE BORDER ARE UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDER- EQUIPPED. As evidenced by the El Paso sector’s continued long wait times, ports of entry remain understaffed and under-equipped for dealing with small-volume, high-potency drug shipments, and for dealing more generally with large amounts of travelers and cargo. Much of the delay in hiring results from heightened screening procedures for prospective Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to guard against corruption and abuse, an important effort in need of additional resources. Screening delays are also the principal reason for a slight recent reduction in Border Patrol staffing. • ALTHOUGH NEW LOCAL REPATRIATION ARRANGEMENTS (LRAS) BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO ARE A STEP FORWARD IN PROTECTING MEXICAN MIGRANTS RETURNED AT THE BORDER, SOME CHALLENGES STILL REMAIN IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. Both governments announced in February 2016 the finalization of new LRAs to regulate the return of Mexican migrants at nine points of entry along the border. The agreements represent important efforts of both governments to curtail many of the practices that negatively affect this vulnerable population, such as nighttime deportation. In the El Paso sector, however, repatriated migrants are often returned without their belongings, such as cell phones, identification documents, and money, presenting them with challenges in accessing funds, communicating with family, and traveling in the country. • THERE ARE FEWER COMPLAINTS ABOUT BORDER PATROL DETENTION CONDITIONS AND ABUSE BY AGENTS IN THE EL PASO SECTOR COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE BORDER. However, there are concerning reports about abuses by CBP agents at El Paso's ports of entry. A May 2016 complaint lodged by several border organizations points to troubling incidents of excessive force, verbal abuse, humiliating searches, and intimidation by agents at the ports of entry in El Paso and southern New Mexico that must be investigated and addressed. • STRONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN EL PASO HAVE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN MAKING IT ONE OF THE SAFEST U.S.-MEXICO BORDER CITIES. Consistently ranked one of the country’s safest cities of its size, El Paso demonstrates the importance of communication and constructive relationships between communities and border law enforcement agencies. Local and federal authorities and social service organizations interviewed noted interagency coordination, open lines of communication, and strong working relationships throughout the sector. The local policy of exempting offenders of Class C misdemeanors from federal immigration status checks does much to ensure community members' willingness to cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. However, reports of racial profiling do exist, and state-level policy proposals against “sanctuary cities,” if passed, could threaten this trust. • MEXICAN FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY PROVIDE IMPORTANT SERVICES FOR REPATRIATED MIGRANTS, AND COULD BE A MODEL FOR OTHER MEXICAN BORDER CITIES. Mexico’s National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración, INM) works in close coordination with the one-of-its-kind Juárez municipal government’s office to provide important basic services to repatriated migrants and assist them with legal services, recovering belongings left in the United States, and transportation to the interior of the country. Civil society organizations also provide similar important services to migrants and document abuses by U.S. and Mexican officials. • U.S.-MEXICO SECURITY COOPERATION IS INCREASINGLY FOCUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL REFORM ISSUES AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS. U.S. agencies provide support for violence reduction efforts in Ciudad Juárez, as well as support for police training and judicial reform for state and federal agents in Chihuahua. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America: Mexico, 2016. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/not-national-security-crisis-u-s-mexico-border-humanitarian-concerns-seen-el-paso/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/not-national-security-crisis-u-s-mexico-border-humanitarian-concerns-seen-el-paso/ Shelf Number: 141369 Keywords: Border SecurityHumanitarian AidImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration and CrimeImmigration EnforcementMigrants and CrimeNational Security |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: Management Alert on Issues Requiring Immediate Action at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange, California Summary: A November 16, 2016 unannounced Office of Inspector General (OIG) inspection of the Theo Lacy Facility (TLF) in Orange, California, raised serious concerns, some that pose health risks and others that violate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and result in potentially unsafe conditions at the facility. Because of concerns raised during the inspection, we recommended that ICE take immediate action to ensure compliance with the 2008 PBNDS and strengthen its oversight of TLF. Specifically, we expressed the following concerns about: • Food handling at TLF poses health risks. Detainees were being served, and reported being regularly served, meat that appeared to be spoiled. Orange County Sheriffs Department (OCSD) staff members are not handling meat safely, including meat being sent to other ICE detention facilities. • Unsatisfactory conditions and services at the facility, including moldy and mildewed shower stalls, refuse in cells, and inoperable phones. • Some "high-risk" detainees are in less restrictive barracks-style housing and some "low-risk" detainees are in more restrictive housing modules; the basis for housing decisions is not adequately documented. • Contrary to ICE detention standards, inspectors observed high-risk detainees and low-risk detainees together in parts of TLF. Although detainees were purportedly identified by classification level, this was not apparent to the inspectors. • Moves from less restrictive barracks to more restrictive housing modules are not explained to detainees, nor are detainees given the opportunity to appeal changes, as required by ICE detention standards. Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: OIG-17-43-MA: Accessed march 10, 2017 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mga/OIG-mga-030617.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mga/OIG-mga-030617.pdf Shelf Number: 144440 Keywords: Correctional Administration Immigrant DetentionPrison Conditions Prison Management |
Author: Stepick, Alex Title: False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County Summary: This report addresses the impact on Miami-Dade County of the Secure Communities program, currently one of the primary federal immigration enforcement programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). DHS claims that the program prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety, repeat violators who game the immigration system, those who fail to appear at immigration hearings, and fugitives who have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge. Contrary to these policy goals, we found that 61% of individuals ordered for removal from Miami-Dade County are either low level offenders or not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested. By ICE's standards only 18% of the individuals ordered for removal represent high priority public safety risks, and that number drops to a mere 6% when we apply local standards suggested by Miami-Dade County's Public Defender. Interviews with detainees also reveal that often residents are stopped by police for no apparent reason and subjected to detention and deportation. Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County also has a disproportionately negative impact on Mexicans and Central Americans who constitute a relatively low percentage of the local population but a high percentage of those whom Secure Communities detained and removed. For this report, the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP) of the Center for Labor Research and Studies at Florida International University analyzed twelve months of arrest records, and the detentions and subsequent dispositions of all 1,790 individuals held in Miami-Dade County Corrections' jails for the Secure Communities program. RISEP complemented this analysis with interviews of individual Miami-Dade County residents who were directly affected by Secure Communities and interviews with local government officials in the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County. We also conducted a thorough analysis of DHS and ICE documents that guide Secure Communities. Our analysis of these documents demonstrates that the program is based on internally ambiguous priorities and directives that result in contradictory guidelines. Accordingly, Secure Communities has become a program that in essence removes virtually all undocumented migrants who are identified through Secure Communities, in spite of DHS Secretary Napolitano calling for ICE to use prosecutorial discretion. The program's guidelines bear the signs of a centrally devised policy created without consideration for the complex criminal justice landscapes of the thousands of jurisdictions where the program is implemented. The implications and effects of enforcing Secure Communities are far reaching. It disrupts and tears apart honest and hardworking families and makes Miami-Dade less secure for everyone as it discourages immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement. ICE's detention and deportation of immigrants for minor crimes, ordinary misdemeanors, and non-offense incidents reduces trust of law enforcement. This is especially dangerous in Miami-Dade County where the majority of the population is immigrants and approximately three-fourths are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Miami's Mayor and Police Chief both expressed their belief that the reduced trust that Secure Communities produces will make protecting all communities more difficult - the opposite of what DHS and ICE claim is their goal. When community trust in law enforcement decreases, residents are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with police in the investigation of crimes. When serious crimes do occur, the reduced trust engendered by ICE's Secure Communities program makes it more difficult for local law enforcement to do its job, undermining the security of all county residents. We strongly recommend that Miami-Dade leaders form a broad-based task force to review the impact of Secure Communities. We urge Miami-Dade County residents, elected officials, law enforcement leadership, and representatives of the criminal justice system to carefully and conscientiously evaluate and determine which aspects of this federal program are in the best interests of Miami-Dade County and adjust their cooperation accordingly. The task force should be charged with carefully defining those aspects of Secure Communities that, in fact, help protect public safety and the parts of the program that contradict local law and enforcement policy. This evaluation should include a meticulous cost analysis. Without this knowledge, Secure Communities has the potential for creating long-term damage and problems that will persist long after reform of the country's current federal immigration law. We suggest that Miami-Dade County and its municipalities follow the lead of numerous other state and local governments and not honor ICE detainer requests unless an immigrant has been convicted of a serious crime. Details: Miami, FL; Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, Center for Labor Research & Studies. Florida International University' Miami: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Shelf Number: 145258 Keywords: Community PolicingIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement Sanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
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: Human Rights Watch Title: Systemic Indifference: Dangerous and Substandard Medical Care in US Immigration Detention Summary: On April 6, 2015, Raul Ernesto Morales-Ramos, a 44-year-old citizen of El Salvador, died at Palmdale Regional Medical Center in Palmdale, California, of organ failure, with signs of widespread cancer. He had entered immigration custody four years earlier in March 2011. He was first detained at Theo Lacy Facility, operated by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and then at Adelanto Detention Facility, operated by the private company Geo Group, both of which had contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to hold non-citizens for immigration purposes. An ICE investigation into the death of Morales-Ramos found that the medical care he received at both facilities failed to meet applicable standards of care in numerous ways. Two independent medical experts, analyzing ICE's investigation for Human Rights Watch, agreed that he likely suffered from symptoms of cancer starting in 2013, but that the symptoms essentially went unaddressed for two years, until a month before he died. Details: New York: HRW, 2017. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2017 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usimmigration0517_web_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usimmigration0517_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 145479 Keywords: Health CareIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionMedical Care |
Author: Small, Mary Title: A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention Summary: A new report, A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention, by Detention Watch Network (DWN) builds on the overwhelming evidence that the privatization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention exacerbates due process violations, egregious conditions and transparency concerns that are endemic to the immigration detention system. In addition, the report amplifies the experiences of 42 individuals who were or are held in privately-run detention centers. The report comes as the Homeland Security Advisory Council subcommittee presents its findings later today from an investigation into the use of private prisons for ICE detention. Regardless of the subcommittee's findings, A Toxic Relationship shows that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, Jeh Johnson already has the evidence he needs to severe ties with private prison companies, a crucial step that the Department of Justice announced it is taking earlier this year. Over 73 percent of immigrants held in ICE custody are incarcerated in facilities operated by private companies. The two largest and most notorious companies, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is currently attempting a re-brand, have well documented track records of abuse, mismanagement and neglect. Both companies are heavily lobbying the federal government in the hopes of increasing their bottom line as detention numbers climb to over 40,000 people behind bars. In 2015, CCA and GEO received $765 million for immigration detention - more than double the $307 million they received in 2008. The report details four fundamental problems with the use of privately-run detention centers, as our research indicates that private contractors: Seek to maximize profits by cutting costs -- and subsequently critical services -- at the expense of people's health, safety and overall well-being; Are not accountable, and often do not bear any consequences when they fail to meet the terms of their contracts; Exert undue influence over government officials, and push to maintain and expand the immigration detention system; Are not transparent, and in fact, fight hard to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public. The issues of cost-cutting and indifference towards immigrant lives was reaffirmed just this week as news broke of two more deaths at privately-run detention centers over Thanksgiving weekend, bringing this year's total to 12. Raquel Calderon de Hildago died at the CCA operated Eloy Detention Center in Arizona on November 27th and Esmerio Campos died at the GEO operated South Texas Detention Complex (Pearsall) in Texas on November 25th. Recent investigations into deaths in immigration detention have found that inadequate medical care at detention centers has contributed to numerous deaths, and shine a particular spotlight on Eloy - the deadliest detention center in the country. The lack of transparency is clearly demonstrated by DWN and the Center for Constitutional Rights' ongoing Freedom of Information Lawsuit with the federal government. In July, a federal judge ruled that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the government must release details of its contracts with private prison companies. The government chose not to appeal, but the private prison companies intervened to stop the release and filed an appeal of their own. This latest tactic by GEO and CCA to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public demonstrates the dangerous degree to which they feel entitled to influence the government and block public's right to know what their government is doing. Details: Washington, DC: Detention Watch Network, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2017 at: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf Shelf Number: 145811 Keywords: Detention CentersImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
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: Goldstein, Brian Title: The Effect of Immigration Detainers in a Post-Relignment California Summary: On October 1, 2011, California implemented AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, which transferred state responsibility for individuals who commit non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenses to the 58 counties and their local jurisdictions. Since then, each county has responded differently to Realignment, with some seizing on this unique opportunity to adopt innovative community corrections programming and rehabilitative services. Other counties continue to depend on the state system to manage individuals who have committed low-level offenses (CJCJ, 2013). Some counties struggle with jail capacity issues while failing to adopt necessary alternative sentencing practices (PPIC, 2013). On August 2, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied Governor Jerry Brown's attempt to delay reducing the state prison system by approximately 10,000 individuals, as required by federal litigation that resulted in AB 109. The state must now work diligently to deemphasize the unnecessary use of incarceration in order to preserve resources for more crucial priorities. Amid varying county responses to Realignment, fiscal constraints, and capacity issues, county jail facilities also hold significant numbers of undocumented immigrants who do not have serious criminal histories, other than potentially violating federal civil immigration laws. For ease of reference, these individuals are here termed "non-criminal ICE holds" given that they have no recorded criminal history. These non-criminal ICE holds are held under ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), an umbrella encompassing enforcement programs that specifically target immigrants who make contact with the criminal justice system including the Secure Communities and Criminal Alien Program (ICE, 2008). After identifying individuals under ACCESS, ICE can issue an immigration detainer to law enforcement agencies, which is a non-binding request that an immigrant of interest be detained for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and federal holidays, so that ICE can assume federal custody to initiate deportation proceedings. This publication studies the impact of non-criminal ICE holds on California's criminal justice system, specifically the effect on county jail capacity, including the significant fiscal cost. It concludes that 89 percent of said detentions in California are held in local jails and facilities. These detentions cost taxpayers approximately $16.3 million for local jail holds during the 30-month period studied. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Shelf Number: 130014 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementJail InmatesPublic Safety AlignmentUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Gruberg, Sharita Title: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention Summary: As Congress debates immigration reform, a common refrain from congressional Republicans is the call for increased border security and increased resources for enforcement of immigration laws. While it is in the interest of national sovereignty and security to track those who come into and leave the United States, we cannot permit enforcement of immigration laws to trample immigrants' basic human rights. We must ensure that immigration enforcement is conducted in a humane manner that respects human dignity. Unfortunately, the current immigration enforcement system falls short of this goal, particularly in regard to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, immigrants. While the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, does not keep data on the sexual orientation or gender identity of people in its custody, reports of treatment of LGBT detainees obtained through Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests and through complaints filed by immigrant rights groups reveal that much like in the general prison population - where LGBT inmates are 15 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the general population -LGBT immigrants in immigration detention facilities face an increased risk of abuse in detention. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment went as far as finding the treatment of LGBT immigrants in U.S. detention facilities in violation of the Convention Against Torture after it received information on gay and transgender individuals who had been subjected to solitary confinement, torture, and ill-treatment - including sexual assault - while detained in U.S. immigration facilities. This report will examine the mistreatment LGBT immigrants face in immigration detention; the steps that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has taken in an attempt to address these issues; the impact that legislation pending before Congress would have on immigration enforcement; and recommendations for how to ensure enforcement of immigration laws is conducted in a manner that is effective and humane. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 25, 2017 at: https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 131703 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionImmigration DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyLGBT Individuals |
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: Provera, Mark Title: The Criminalisation of Irregular Migration in the European Union Summary: This paper offers an academic examination of the legal regimes surrounding the criminalisation of irregular migrants in the EU and of acts of solidarity with irregular migrants, such as assisting irregular migrants to enter or remain in the EU, and other behaviour that is motivated by humanitarian instincts. The research analyses EU law and its relationship with national provisions regarding the criminalisation of irregular migration and of acts of solidarity vis-a-vis irregular migrants. A comparative analysis was made of the laws of the UK, France and Italy, supplemented by an analysis of the laws of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. By considering the role of public trust in fostering compliance with the law, the paper explores the impact of criminalisation measures on institutions' authority to compel individuals to comply with the law (institutional legitimacy). The study finds that certain indicators question institutional legitimacy and reveals the varied nature and extent of penalties imposed by different member states. The paper concludes that there is an important role for public trust in immigration law compliance, not just in measures directed towards irregular migrants but also towards those acting in solidarity with irregular migrants. Details: Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, no. 80: Accessed March 15, 2018 at: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf Shelf Number: 149478 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrants |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells Summary: Migrant women and children detained along the US border with Mexico usually spend one to three nights, and sometimes longer, in frigid holding cells, sleeping on floors or concrete benches before immigration authorities transfer them to other detention facilities. These holding cells are so notorious for their uncomfortably low temperatures that migrants and border agents alike refer to them as hieleras ("freezers"). Women and children are usually not allowed to shower and often have no access to soap, meaning that they are not able to wash their hands with soap before and after eating or feeding infants, after using the toilet, and after changing diapers. Families are often separated while in immigration holding cells, a practice that harms women and children's mental well-being and may complicate their efforts to seek asylum. All immigration detainees have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity, and children, unaccompanied or with family members, are entitled to additional safeguards. Conditions in immigration holding cells do not meet these standards, and the shortcomings identified in this report in many respects match those that US courts have found to violate immigration authorities' obligations. To address these serious concerns, immigration holding cells should be used for very short periods of confinement only. Detention overnight in holding cells should be employed only when it is unavoidable, and never for children. Those who are held overnight should receive sleeping mats, blankets, hygiene materials, and access to showers. Temperatures in holding cells should be set at reasonable and comfortable levels. US immigration authorities should also avoid splitting up families. Instead, authorities should identify and implement alternatives to detention that keep families together. Details: New York; HRW, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf Shelf Number: 149484 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyMigrantsViolence Against Women, Children |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre Harmondsworth Site Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest detention facility, holding up to 676 male detainees, close to Heathrow Airport. The centre is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since 2014, Harmondsworth has been under the same management as the neighbouring Colnbrook IRC, and the two centres are collectively known as the Heathrow IRC. However, they remain discrete sites and, in light of their size and complexity, we are continuing to inspect them separately. In addition to our normal methodology, we employed an enhanced methodology at this inspection which included hundreds of interviews and surveys. The main objectives were to give detainees and staff an opportunity to tell inspectors, in confidence, about any incidents or concerns relating to the safe and decent treatment of detainees; to identify cultural or structural issues affecting outcomes; and to identify areas of positive and progressive work. The last inspection of Harmondsworth in 2015 highlighted concerns in relation to safety, respect and provision of activities. This report describes a centre that had made some improvements, but not of the scale or speed that were required. In some areas, there had been a deterioration. The centre's task in caring for detainees was not made any easier by the profile of those who were held. There was a very high level of mental health need and nearly a third of the population was considered by the Home Office to be vulnerable under its at risk in detention policy. The continuing lack of a time limit on detention meant that some men had been held for excessively long periods: 23 men had been detained for over a year and one man had been held for over 4.5 years, which was unacceptable. Processes for safeguarding detainees were not good enough. Detention Centre Rule 35 reports, which are intended to give some protection to the most vulnerable detainees, lacked rigour. Worryingly, in nearly all of the cases we examined, the Home Office accepted evidence that detainees had been tortured, but maintained detention regardless. Insufficient attention was given to post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems. There were delays in referring potential trafficking victims to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and our staff interviews confirmed widespread ignorance of the NRM. The first night unit had been relocated since our last visit and now provided a much calmer environment for newly arrived detainees. However, reception and first night processes were superficial and left many detainees feeling anxious and ill-informed. Violence was not high but violence management processes were weak and a high number of detainees felt unsafe. Detainees told us this was because of the uncertainty associated with their cases, but also because a large number of their fellow detainees seemed mentally unwell, frustrated or angry. Many detainees on the newer and more prison-like units found being locked into their cells at night upsetting and stressful, and drug use was becoming an increasing problem. Self-harm was low compared with other centres and detainees at risk of self-harm were often positive about staff efforts to support them, although those who spoke little English were less well served. The governance of use of force was generally good and we noted that managers had identified an illegitimate use of force by a member of staff on CCTV cameras and dismissed the person concerned. Neither detainees nor staff told us of a pernicious or violent subculture, but some aspects of security would have been disproportionate in a prison and were not acceptable in an IRC. For example, detainees taken to the separation unit were routinely handcuffed and then strip-searched, regardless of individual risk. Harmondsworth is the centre where, in 2013, we identified the disgraceful treatment of an ill and elderly man who was kept in handcuffs as he died in hospital. A more proportionate approach to handcuffing was subsequently put in place by the Home Office and followed by the centre contractor. It is with concern, therefore, that at this inspection we found detainees once again being routinely handcuffed when attending outside appointments without evidence of risk. Only 58% of detainees in our survey said that most staff treated them with respect, well below the average figure for IRCs. Staffing levels were low and neither staff nor detainees felt that there were enough officers to effectively support detainees. Around a third of staff told us themselves that they did not have sufficient training to do their jobs well. Few had an adequate understanding of whistleblowing procedures. Physical conditions had improved since our last inspection, but the environment remained below acceptable standards in much of the centre. Many areas were dirty and bedrooms, showers and toilets were poorly ventilated. It was particularly unacceptable that two years after we raised bed bugs as a serious concern, they remained endemic in the centre and continued to affect detainees' physical and mental well-being. Detainees were often critical of health services, but we found generally adequate health care provision. A significant exception was the inability of health services to meet the very high level of mental health need. Communication with detainees by health care staff was also weak but starting to improve. An important aspect of well-being is activity, but only 29% of detainees in our survey said they could fill their time while in the centre and many described a sense of purposelessness and boredom. Few detainees were able to work, and the education provision was underused and did not meet the needs of detainees. There were a number of positive areas of work. For example, the on-site immigration team made considerable efforts to engage with detainees, faith provision was good and complaints were managed well. The dedicated and well-organised welfare services were impressive and there was positive engagement with third sector groups. The charity Hibiscus Initiatives provided support to many detainees before release or removal and the local visitors' group was active and well supported. However, our overall finding was that the centre had failed to progress significantly since our last visit in 2015. For the third consecutive inspection, we found considerable failings in the areas of safety and respect. Detainees, many identified as vulnerable, were not being adequately safeguarded. Some were held for unacceptably long periods. Mental health needs were often not met. Detainees were subject to some disproportionate security restrictions and living conditions were below decent standards. It is time for the Home Office and contractors to think again about how to ensure that more substantial progress is made by the time that we return. Details: London: HMIP, 2018. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149878 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyPrison Conditions |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates Summary: Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2017, ICE operated on a budget of nearly $3 billion to manage the U.S. immigration detention system, which houses foreign nationals whose immigration cases are pending or who have been ordered removed from the country. In recent years, ICE has consistently had to reprogram and transfer millions of dollars into, out of, and within its account used to fund its detention system. The explanatory statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2017, includes a provision for GAO to review ICE's methodologies for determining detention resource requirements. This report examines (1) how ICE formulates its budget request for detention resources, (2) how ICE develops bed rates and determines ADP for use in its budget process, and (3) to what extent ICE's methods for estimating detention costs follow best practices. GAO analyzed ICE's budget documents, including CBJs, for fiscal years 2014 to 2018, examined ICE's models for projecting ADP and bed rates, and evaluated ICE's cost estimating process against best practices. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the Director of ICE: (1) document and implement its review process to ensure accuracy in its budget documents; (2) assess ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (3) update ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (4) document the methodology and rationale behind the ADP projection used in budget requests; and (5) take steps to ensure that ICE's detention cost estimate more fully addresses best practices. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-343: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Shelf Number: 149880 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: PICUM, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants Title: Untold Stories: immigration Detention and Deportation Summary: In recent years, European migration policy area has undergone a significant shift in political narrative and priorities. The presence of undocumented migrants has been perceived as an innate risk to Europe's common asylum system, the security of Europe's citizens, and even the stability of the European Union itself. Decision makers have been spurred on to appear tough on migration, and have responded by fixing an objective of increasing deportations and stopping certain migratory movements. Seen as a benchmark of success in migration management, the focus on fast-track deportations may lead to a weakening of procedural safeguards, increasing the likelihood of human rights violations and abuse. As a network of civil society organizations working directly with undocumented migrants, PICUM members are confronted daily with individual cases of migrants who are detained and deported from the EU. Through the stories and testimonies that migrants have conveyed about their individual experiences of detention and deportation - which by no means are an exhaustive overview of the situation - six major areas of concern have emerged. Issues around the futility and extreme harmfulness of immigration detention have come strongly to the fore, especially in cases in which children and families are detained. Immigration detention of children is still a reality in Europe, despite the fact that the Committee on the Rights of the Child and other UN experts4 have held that states cannot justify detaining migrant children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has been ratified by all EU member states. The consequences of auctioning off migration management tasks to third countries that systematically abuse and harm migrants on their territories are also highlighted. These stories depict cases of extreme violence, torture, humiliation and abuse of power in the deportation process, as well as the more subtle but equally devastating act of separating families through detention and deportation. Asylum seekers and other migrants who are returned to countries that are labelled as "safe" can face disastrous consequences when they are deported. A complete disregard for the risks of deporting people to unsafe situations coupled with the lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms for governments who deport them are among the key concerns that have emerged through this collection of stories. This booklet sets out each of these areas of concern, and presents them in a succinct way to contextualize them within on-going policy debates. It is intended that the stories can illustrate how certain policy initiatives, existing laws and their implementation (or lack thereof) are responsible for creating conditions which may lead to violations of human rights, suffering and injustice. Details: Brussels: PICUM, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2018 at: http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Deportation_Stories_EN.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Deportation_Stories_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 150371 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementUndocumented ImmigrantsUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Title: Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers Summary: Project South and the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic (on its behalf) have released a report titled "Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigration Detention Centers." The report is focused on the Stewart Detention Center and the Irwin County Detention Center and is based on interviews with scores of detained immigrants as well as immigration attorneys, tours of both facilities, and review of contracts and other relevant documents. The investigation was completed over the course of one year. Stewart and Irwin had previously been identified in national reports as among the worst in the country. "As the accounts in the report demonstrate, little has changed at Stewart and Irwin. Life at these facilities for detained immigrants is still a living nightmare," said Azadeh Shahshahani. "It is high time for Stewart and Irwin to be shut down." As detailed in the report, the conditions in these detention facilities are deplorable and include: threats of force-feeding for participation in hunger strikes, sexual abuse, lack of clean drinking water, lack of adequate access to legal materials or attorneys, and labor for just $1 per day. Additionally, detained immigrants report they are served rotten and spoiled food with occasional foreign particles inside. Further, detained immigrants at both facilities lack adequate medical care and mental health services are minimal. Some detained immigrants also complained of not receiving dietary accommodations for religious beliefs and practices or health concerns. The use of solitary is also rampant. Several detained immigrants reported being put in segregation for expressing suicidal thoughts or as retaliation for complaining about detention conditions. As described by one detained immigrant at Stewart who suffers from mental health issues: "Segregation is like hell. It is total isolation." Details: Atlanta: Project South, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2018 at: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 151137 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants Solitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Bier, David J. Title: U.S. Citizens Targeted by ICE: U.S. Citizens Targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas Summary: Texas law SB 4 imposes jail time on local police who fail to detain anyone whom federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Data from Travis County, Texas, show that ICE targets large numbers of U.S. citizens. From October 2005 to August 2017, 814 targets of ICE detainers in Travis County-3.3 percent of all requests-claimed U.S. citizenship and presented officers with a Social Security number (SSN). ICE subsequently canceled or declined to execute about a quarter of those detainer requests. Based on statements from ICE officials, the best explanation for not executing these detainers is that ICE targeted at least 228 U.S. citizens in the county before canceling or declining to execute those detainers. SB 4 will likely increase the detention of U.S. citizens for supposed violations of immigration law by preventing local police from releasing them. Applying the rate of wrongful detainers in Travis County to all detainers in the state of Texas from 2006 to 2017 implies that ICE wrongfully placed detainers on at least 3,506 U.S. citizens statewide. Other evidence shows that ICE regularly releases U.S. citizens after it executes a detainer, meaning that the true number of U.S. citizens initially targeted is likely even higher than that estimate. The fact that ICE often discovers its own mistakes only mitigates the harm inflicted on U.S. citizens wrongfully detained under the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants-and does not protect these jurisdictions from lawsuits under SB 4. Local law enforcement in Texas needs the flexibility to sort through these citizenship claims without the threat of jail time imposed by SB 4. Details: Washington, CA: CATO Institute, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Shelf Number: 151327 Keywords: Customs EnforcementIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Finland: Limited Use of "Alternatives," Restrictive Detention Review, Divisive Political Debate Summary: Finland does not detain as many migrants and asylum seekers as do neighbouring Sweden and other nearby European countries. However, the country's authorities rarely grant "alternatives to detention," instead deeming detention to be the most efficient and cost-effective method for removing non-citizens from the country. District court detention decisions tend to be very brief, and hearings often last less than ten minutes. Although conditions in the country's two specialised immigration detention centres are generally adequate, Finland continues to use police and border guard stations for immigration detention purposes. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-finland-limited-use-of-alternatives-restrictive-detention-review-divisive-political-debate Year: 2018 Country: Finland URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GDP-Immigration-Detention-in-Finland-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 151433 Keywords: Border GuardsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
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: European Council on Refugees and Exiles Title: Boundaries of Liberty: Asylum and de facto detention in Europe Summary: The detention of persons seeking protection is a frequent component of asylum systems, despite well-established evidence of its damaging effects on individuals and limited efficiency in regulating the movement of people. More critically, however, it remains a highly opaque phenomenon. Places of confinement are underpinned by varying and creative terminology from one country to another, while data on the scale of detention remain scarce, complex and in constant need of qualification and explanation. Practices which allow states to circumvent their international and European Union (EU) law duties stem from ambiguities in legal frameworks, often driven by deliberate policy choices. States may have different reasons for maintaining the obfuscation between reception and detention. They may seek to circumvent the prescriptive standards stemming from refugee and human rights law when depriving those seeking asylum of their liberty to expose them to particularly precarious situations, or for reasons of simple administrative convenience. States may also see an interest in downplaying the scale of coercive measures in their asylum systems through inaccuracy or misrepresentation in statistics. Drawing on a comparative analysis of national legal frameworks and practice in the 23 European countries covered by AIDA, ECRE makes the following recommendations: European countries should eliminate any fictitious designation of transit zones or other facilities at the border as not being part of their national territory according to their national law, in line with ECtHR jurisprudence and the territorial scope of the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives. Where they prevent asylum seekers from leaving the transit zones or other border facilities to access other parts of their territory, European countries should legally qualify those measures as deprivation of liberty. The Council and European Parliament should clarify in the reform of the recast Reception Conditions Directive that stay in a transit zone or a border facility amounts to deprivation of liberty where the applicant is not allowed to freely enter and exit the facility into the territory. Where European countries resort to restrictions on freedom of movement or deprivation of liberty, in accordance with domestic law and human rights law requirements, they should inter alia: (a) conduct an individualised assessment of each case to establish necessity and proportionality; (b) consider the application of alternatives to detention; (c) communicate a duly motivated detention decision to the individual concerned; (d) specify the modalities of effective remedy before a court; (e) eliminate restrictions imposed upon access of legal representatives, UNHCR and specialised civil society organisations, including by guaranteeing access to phones and other communication methods and by respecting confidentiality of contacts. Details: Brussels: ECRE, 2018. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Asylum Information Database: Accessed September 18, 2018 at: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/shadow-reports/boundariesliberty.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/shadow-reports/boundariesliberty.pdf Shelf Number: 151565 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Immigrant Detention |
Author: Rivera, Laura Title: No End in Sight: Why Migrants Give Up on Their U.S. Immigration Cases Summary: When the Trump administration began separating children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border, it exposed the horrific conditions within the nation's immigrant detention centers: people locked in cages, sleeping on floors and denied their basic humanity. But harsh detention conditions are nothing new. Every day, thousands of people are locked away in these detention centers - essentially prisons - as they pursue their immigration cases and the hope of a new life in the United States. Many have fled violence and bodily harm in their home countries. But all too often, detained immigrants, particularly in the Deep South, give up on their cases because their conditions of confinement are too crushing to bear. As this report demonstrates, these prisons and immigration courts are part of a system seemingly designed to make immigrants give up. They face courts - many without counse - where relief is not only a long shot but may be a virtual impossibility as some judges deny asylum at rates nearing 100 percent. And, in the meantime, they may be held on civil immigration charges for months, even years, before their cases are resolved. It's a situation that leaves them feeling as if there's no end in sight to their oppression. "In jail, you get your sentence and you know when you are free, but detention is endless," said one man who was detained for more than 800 days. Belief in the immigration courts also fades for the detained as their cases - and their confinement - drag on. "I have no trust that there will be justice in my case," one detained immigrant said. The goal of the system seemed clear through his eyes: "[The judges'] work is to deny everything. This journey [to the United States] was about saving my life. Three or six months in detention, I can take, but one-and-a-half years in detention is too unjust." At the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia, where many of the people sharing their stories for this report were held, 93.8 percent of detained immigrants were deported or gave up on their cases and left the country. At the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Louisiana, the rate was 93.5 percent. Both rates far exceed the national average of 67.5 percent - evidence of how immigrants detained in the Deep South face especially long odds in a system already stacked against them. The stories and findings presented in this report reflect more than a year of work by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI), a project launched in 2017 to ensure detained immigrants have access to pro bono counsel. Though President Trump has greatly exacerbated the situation, the issues encountered by immigrants and the advocates who try to assist them are not solely the result of one president who has relentlessly demonized immigrants. They are the result of a detention and deportation machine built by decades of increasingly harsh immigration policy. This punitive approach to immigration policy effectively mirrors the failed "War on Drugs" that propelled the United States to become the world's leader in incarceration. Details: Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_no_end_in_sight_2018_final_web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_no_end_in_sight_2018_final_web.pdf Shelf Number: 152905 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrantsUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Ramon, Cristobal Title: Police, Jails, and Immigrants: How Do Immigrants and the Immigration Enforcement System Interact with Local Law Enforcement? Summary: In recent years, one contentious component of the immigration debate has been that of so-called sanctuary cities, which are municipalities, or local law enforcement jurisdictions that have adopted policies that limit their cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration authorities due to concerns that this cooperation limits their ability to provide public safety in immigrant communities. Critics of sanctuary cities, including the Trump administration, have countered that sanctuary city policies prevent ICE from detaining and deporting criminal non-citizens who present a threat to communities. This debate has placed the roles and responsibilities of state and local law enforcement agencies center-stage in the immigration debate. However, two misconceptions about these agencies' operations and their interaction with the immigration enforcement system persist in the debate. First, many participants in the sanctuary cities debate fail to recognize the complexity of overlapping law enforcement agency jurisdictions in many areas, where different agencies may adopt conflicting policies regarding cooperation with immigration enforcement. Second, a particular focus on whether or not a law enforcement agency honors ICE requests to keep individuals in custody until they can be transferred to ICE, known as "detainers," often conflates the roles of local police forces that conduct local arrests and counties, which generally operate local jails and detention facilities. Simply labeling a geographic area as a "sanctuary city" misrepresents these realities. The actual operation of local law enforcement agencies and their work with immigration enforcement agencies is more complex and nuanced than is often reported in the public debate. A review of the local law enforcement agencies in Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Denver, and Los Angeles shows that: 1. The term "local law enforcement" in these areas involves a range of law enforcement agencies that operate in multilateral territorial jurisdictions established by their respective state's constitution. 2. The city and local police departments in Los Angeles and Charlotte have or had sanctuary policies while their sheriff's departments actively worked with ICE, showing that "sanctuary jurisdictions" can consist of local authorities with conflicting policies. 3. The sheriff's offices in these areas operate their jails and respond to ICE requests rather than officers who work for the city's local police departments. Although these examples represent a small sample of the local law enforcement jurisdictions in the United States, they show the importance of using a fact-based understanding of local enforcement to develop a more robust debate-and effective policies-on the role that local law enforcement officers play in enforcing the nation's immigration laws. Details: Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2018 at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BPC-Immigration-Local-Law-Enforcement.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BPC-Immigration-Local-Law-Enforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 153082 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Communities Immigrant DetentionImmigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Cities |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Harm Reduction in Immigration Detention: A Comparative Study of Detention Centres in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland Summary: It seems to be an inexorable quality of immigration detention that it causes the individual to experience pain or injury. From a human rights perspective, is it possible to talk about "best practices"? This Global Detention Project Special Report systematically compares conditions and operations at detention centres in five European countries-Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland-to identify practices that may be used to develop "harm reducing" strategies in detention. Commissioned by the Norwegian Red Cross as part of its efforts to promote reforms of Norway's detention practices, the report addresses several key questions: In what ways has the Norwegian system met or exceeded internationally recognised standards? In what ways has it fallen short, especially when compared to detention practices of peer countries? And what are the key reform priorities going forward that may help reduce the harmful impact of detention? In Norway's Trandum Detention Centre, multiple reports have highlighted an overzealously punitive and restrictive detention regime where detainees consider themselves to be "treated as criminals" even though they are not serving criminal prison sentences. Despite repeated recommendations from relevant experts, including the country's Parliamentary Ombudsman, many important reforms have not been implemented. To complete the study, GDP researchers sought to assess Trandum in a comparative context that would highlight conditions and procedures in other European countries. The analysis of centres in Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland reveals that Trandum has embraced a carceral model for immigration detention to a much greater extent than centres elsewhere in Europe, falling short of standards provided in international law and promoted by national and regional human rights bodies. The report highlights several key areas for promoting reforms, both at Trandum and in other facilities across Europe, including: placing immigration detainees in the custody of social welfare institutions rather than public security agencies; reforming operating rules on everything from food preparation to electronic communications; and shedding detention centres of carceral elements, including the aspect of guards and staff members and the internal layout and regime of detention centres. Many of these suggestions have been highlighted by the Norwegian Red Cross in a statement urging the country's authorities to reform its immigration detention system. Details: Geneva, SWIT: GDP, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/harm-reduction-immigration-detention Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 153146 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: No Escape from Hell: EU Policies Contribute to Abuse of Migrants in Libya Summary: European Union policies are contributing to a cycle of extreme abuse against migrants and asylum seekers in Libya. Through their support, the EU, Italy and other member states are enabling the Libyan Coast Guard, under the Government of National Accord, to intercept boats leaving Libya knowing all migrants and asylum seekers are then detained in arbitrary, indefinite, and abusive detention. No Escape from Hell: EU Policies Contribute to Abuse of Migrants in Libya, is based on visits to four Libyan migrant detention centers where Human Rights Watch spoke with over 100 detained migrants and asylum seekers and documented severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, lack of adequate healthcare as well as violent abuse by guards including beatings, whippings, and other violence. The EU and member states' efforts to alleviate the suffering of migrants have had negligible impact on the ground. Libyan authorities should end arbitrary immigration detention and bring abusive guards to justice. EU governments should condition coastguard cooperation with Libya on concrete reforms and improvements and increase safe pathways for migrants and asylum seekers out of Libya. Details: New York: HRW, 2019. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2019 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/eu0119_web2.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Libya URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/eu0119_web2.pdf Shelf Number: 154409 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Human Rights Abuses Immigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Immigrant Defense Project Title: The Courthouse Trap: How ICE Operations Impacted New York's Courts in 2018 Summary: In 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) substantially expanded arrest and surveillance operations in New York's courts, continuing a disturbing trend that began with the inauguration of President Donald Trump. ICE operations increased not only in absolute number but grew in brutality and geographic scope. Agents, disguised in plainclothes, used intrusive surveillance and violent force to execute arrests. They also reached into many new areas of the state, conducting arrests in several upstate counties that were previously untouched. And ICE agents pursued New Yorkers in a broader range of courts-conducting operations in civil and criminal courts and in courts designed to be rehabilitative instead of punitive. All of these changes underline ICE's increasing reliance on the state's court system as a place to trap and detain immigrant New Yorkers. Details: New York: The Author, 2019. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2019 at: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/TheCourthouseTrap.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/TheCourthouseTrap.pdf Shelf Number: 154534 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrant EnforcementImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)Immigration Court |
Author: Peck, Sarah Herman Title: The "Flores Settlement" and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions Summary: Reports of alien minors being separated from their parents at the U.S. border have raised questions about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) authority to detain alien families together pending the aliens' removal proceedings, which may include consideration of claims for asylum and other forms of relief from removal. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes-and in some case requires-DHS to detain aliens pending removal proceedings. However, neither the INA nor other federal laws specifically address when or whether alien family members must be detained together. DHS's options regarding the detention or release of alien families are significantly restricted by a binding settlement agreement from a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California now called Flores v. Sessions. The "Flores Settlement" establishes a policy favoring the release of alien minors, including accompanied alien minors, and requires that those alien minors who are not released from government custody be transferred within a brief period to non-secure, state-licensed facilities. DHS indicates that few such facilities exist that can house adults and children together. Accordingly, under the Flores Settlement and current circumstances, DHS asserts that it generally cannot detain alien children and their parents together for more than brief periods. Following an executive order President Trump issued that addressed alien family separation, the Department of Justice filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement to allow for the detention of alien families in unlicensed facilities for longer periods. The district court overseeing the settlement rejected that motion, much as it has rejected similar motions to modify the settlement filed by the government in recent years. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the earlier rulings but has not yet reviewed the most recent ruling.) In its most recent motion, the government has argued, among other things, that a preliminary injunction entered in a separate litigation, Ms. L v. ICE, which generally requires the government to reunite separated alien families and refrain from separating families going forward, supports a modification of the Flores Settlement to allow indefinite detention of alien minors alongside their parents. On a separate track, DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have announced that they intend to seek termination of the Flores Settlement through the promulgation of new regulations that, according to the agencies, would adopt the substantive terms of the agreement with certain modifications. Significantly, the proposed regulations would allow DHS to detain families together until immigration proceedings were completed by creating an alternative federal licensing scheme for family residential centers. That federal scheme would impose facility standards that purport to mimic the standards set forth in the Flores Settlement, which calls for the exclusive use of state-licensed facilities for the detention of minors. A legal dispute seems likely to arise over whether the proposed regulations adequately implement the Flores Settlement, including whether the regulations are consistent with the agreement's general policy favoring the release of minors from immigration custody. Congress, for its part, could largely override the Flores Settlement legislatively, although constitutional considerations relating to the rights of aliens in immigration custody may inform the permissible scope and effect of such legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: R45297: Accessed March 7, 2019 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45297.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45297.pdf Shelf Number: 154839 Keywords: Detained Children Flores Settlement Immigrant Detention Immigration EnforcementImmigration Policy Migrant Children Unaccompanied Migrant Children |
Author: Pro Asyl Title: Walls of Shame: Accounts from the Inside: The Detention Centres of Evros Summary: What we have observed in Evros area is a multilevel deterrence system implemented by the Greek police and Frontex. The detention of refugees and migrants in Evros is synonimous with brutality, despair and dehumanisation. In this case, calling an emergency of mass-immigration has given the Greek government and the EU an excuse for violating human dignity. Greece has been repeatedly criticised for its human rights violations, specifically for the appalling detention conditions for immigrants in the border region Evros. Following this harsh criticism, the Greek government declared its commitment to improve the asylum and reception system and therefore announced a national Action Plan 2010. However, so far there have been almost no improvements. Human rights violations continue. Details: Berlin: Pro Asyl, 2012. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2019 at: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Walls_of_Shame_Accounts_From_The_Inside_Detention_Centers_of_Evros_April_2012-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Greece URL: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Walls_of_Shame_Accounts_From_The_Inside_Detention_Centers_of_Evros_April_2012-1.pdf Shelf Number: 154885 Keywords: Detention CentersHuman Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Women's Refugee Commission Title: Betraying Family Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States Border is Separating Families Summary: Over the past five years, the United States has seen a shift in the demographics of migrants encountered at our borders-from a majority of adult males, often from Mexico, seeking employment, to families, children, grandparents, aunts, and uncles fleeing together, seeking protection in the United States, coming mostly from Central America. Tragically, U.S. immigration enforcement policies, instead of shifting to adapt to this significant change, have continued to try forcing a square peg into a round hole, and in doing so have compounded the vulnerabilities of families and protection-seeking migrants. Instead of promoting family unity, we as a nation are breaking families apart. This report documents the ways in which family separation is caused, both intentionally and unintentionally, by the U.S. governments immigration custody and enforcement decisions. It explains how the government's lack of consistent mechanisms for identifying and tracking family members result in family members being detained or removed separately and often losing contact with each other. Because the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies currently have little policy guidance on humanitarian considerations during enforcement actions, many families are needlessly torn apart. This report demonstrates how the process of enforcement along the border subjects families to separation, how children, even when accompanied by a parent, can be rendered unaccompanied, and how such separation impacts the family's well-being and access to due process. Finally, this report explains how family separation through the deportation process is dangerous and impedes safe repatriation and reintegration. Our findings of policies and practices in this report have been informed in part from our discussions and interviews with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DHS Policy, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS Office of Inspector General, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Family unity is important not only to maintain the integrity of the family unit, but also because its destruction has a detrimental impact on liberty, access to justice, and protection. It also negatively impacts emotional and psychological development and well-being, creates security and economic difficulties, and strips the dignity of an individual and their family as a whole. In addition, it is a fundamental human right enshrined in international and U.S. child welfare law. The federal government should prioritize liberty and family unity in its immigration policy, including enforcement actions. Government agencies with enforcement and custody responsibilities should have mechanisms to identify family members, and to prevent, mitigate, and track family separation in all cases. Instead of pursuing policies of deterrence and detention, family unity, the right to liberty, and reunification must become presumptive principles. Ensuring family unity does not require legislation, but can be achieved with administrative changes. These changes include: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should consider family unity as a primary factor in all charging and detention decisions. DHS agents should receive training and guidance on identification, documentation, processing, and placement decisions for families. A continuum of alternatives to detention should be utilized instead of traditional institutional detention to avoid separating families and unnecessary detention causing trauma and due process complications. DHS and its component agencies should document and trace all family relationships. Family separation should be recorded and justified in writing. Such information should also be collected, analyzed, and reported regularly to Congress. Information should be accessible to ORR and to family members and their attorneys. This should also permit families to trace other family members, file complaints about family separation, and seek family reunification. DHS should consider the best interests of the child in all processing, custody, and removal and repatriation decisions. DHS should avoid placing family members, whether a mother with a minor child or others arriving together, into expedited or reinstatement of removal. For decisions impacting a child, their best interests should always be of primary consideration and family relationships should be vetted whenever possible. DHS should consider ORR's best interest recommendation as well as recommendations by the DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers in release decisions regarding detained family members. This should include decisions impacting the custody, release or removal of their family members. During removal and repatriation, children should be protected from family separation to ensure children are returned safely without causing undue trauma. DHS should require the hiring of child welfare professionals at the border to supervise the protection of children and families and oversee instances of family separation. DHS should coordinate among its components and with HHS to identify family separation and facilitate release and reunification. DHS and its components, including ICE, CBP, and the Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), should work with HHS and ORR to ensure an inter-agency process to help separated family members be released and/or reunited. This should include mechanisms to help detained family members locate and connect with separated loved ones. DHS and the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should ensure separated children who have been designated as unaccompanied children retain their designation for the duration of their removal proceedings. DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) should investigate cases of family separation to identify trends, provide oversight and accountability, and report findings to Congress and the public. DHS agencies should also work with DHS CRCL to improve documentation, reporting, and policies on family separation. While it is not yet clear how the Trump Administration will implement the border enforcement policies laid out in the President's recent executive order, it is clear that the needless separation of families during immigration enforcement along the southern border will not only continue, but worsen. The Administration's elimination of existing prosecutorial discretion and parole policies, and plans to prosecute parents, combined with its goal of universal detention will break even more families apart and leave even more parents to make the heart-wrenching choice between family separation and return to a country where their and their children's lives are at risk. The consequences of family separation are clear and the urgency for policy change cannot be dismissed. As families continue to seek protection at our borders, KIND, LIRS, and WRC hope that this report will inform policymakers, legislators, and the public of how border enforcement policies have long failed families, and of the increased risks and costs of indiscriminate enforcement and detention on family unity and child well-being. Details: New York: The Authors, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2019 at: https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/1450-betraying-family-values Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/1450-betraying-family-values Shelf Number: 155259 Keywords: Child Welfare Family Separation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant DetentionImmigrant Families Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrant Families Migrants |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Global Detention Project Annual Report 2018 Summary: As representatives from countries around the world prepared to meet in Marrakesh to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in December 2018, a first-of-its-kind global agreement for humanely managing migration, negotiations became overshadowed by the news that a handful of states-including, notably, the United States, Australia, and a host of European countries-would refuse to sign it. The naysayers worried that the agreement would threaten their sovereignty and that its mention of the human rights of migrants would limit their ability to ramp up border security. "No to Marrakesh! - The UN's Sinister Blueprint for Globalist Migration Hell," clamoured the headline of one widely circulated oped in the United States. Although the compact was approved by the vast majority of states, the widespread fear-mongering spurred by the non-binding agreement reveals the hostility that migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees continue to face across the globe, even as many "crises" have faded. States continue to rely heavily on detention and deportation in their response to irregular migration, including using detention as a deterrent, despite a lack of evidence showing its effectiveness. From the de facto detention centres in Hungary's transit zones and Malaysia's grim migration "depots" where hundreds have died of preventable diseases in recent years, to Libya's nightmarish EU-financed migrant prisons and Mexico's burgeoning network of estaciones migratorias, countless thousands are locked behind bars and placed in extreme vulnerability every day across our planet solely because of their immigration status. Consider this: As of 21 December 2018, Saudi Arabia had arrested 1,996,069 people during the year as part of its "Homeland Without Illegals Campaign." Who knows about this? All too often, authorities fail to disclose information and statistics concerning their detention operations, and facilities are operated under deceptive forms and guises-they can be called "residential centres," "guesthouses," "hotspots," "shelters." This lack of transparency shields states from scrutiny and reforms. The need for detailed, systematic information about who is being deprived of their liberty, where they are locked up, and the conditions they face in detention are greater than ever. And the Global Detention Project's work holding governments to account and promoting effective, meaningful reforms remains pivotal. It was the recognition of these needs more than a decade ago that spurred the founding of the Global Detention 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. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Author, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf Year: 2019 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf Shelf Number: 155558 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration PolicyMigrationRefugees |
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 |