Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:11 pm
Time: 9:11 pm
Results for immigration detention
8 results foundAuthor: Jones, Jessica Title: Forced From Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America Summary: Beginning as early as October 2011, an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras began migrating to the United States. During the first six months of fiscal year 2012, U.S. immigration agents apprehended almost double the number of children apprehended in previous years. The Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the agency tasked with the care and custody of these children, had a record number of 10,005 in its care by April 2012. In June 2012, the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) conducted field and desk research to look into possible reasons for the influx in the number of children migrating alone, and the government’s response, including conditions and policies affecting unaccompanied children. The WRC interviewed more than 150 detained children and met with government agencies tasked with responding to this influx, including the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ORR and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (DOJ/EOIR), as well as country experts, local service providers and facility staff. Our recommendations include both legislative and administrative solutions for the protection of UACs. Lost Boys and Girls of Central America Most of the children who have been apprehended as part of this influx are from three countries in Central America: Guatemala (35%), El Salvador (27%) and Honduras (25%). The majority of the children the WRC interviewed said that their flight northward had been necessitated by the dramatic and recent increases in violence and poverty in their home countries. The WRC’s independent research on the conditions in these countries corroborated the children’s reports. These increasingly desperate conditions reflect the culmination of several longstanding trends in Central America, including rising crime, systemic state corruption and entrenched economic inequality. Children from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador cited the growing influence of youth gangs and drug cartels as their primary reason for leaving. Not only are they subject to violent attacks by the gangs, they explained, they are also targeted by police, who assume out of hand that all children are gang-affiliated. Girls also face gender-based violence, as rape becomes increasingly a tool of control. Children from Guatemala cited rising poverty, poor harvests and continuing unemployment as reasons for migrating. Almost all of the children’s migration arose out of longstanding, complex problems in their home countries – problems that have no easy or short-term solutions. The title of this report, “The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America,” reflects that violence in Central America is generating “lost” children. Until conditions for children in these countries change substantially, we expect this trend will be the new norm. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://wrc.ms/WuG8lM. Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://wrc.ms/WuG8lM. Shelf Number: 126814 Keywords: Homeless YouthImmigrantsImmigration DetentionJuvenile DetentionUnaccompanied Minors (U.S.) |
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: 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: 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: McKee, Erin Title: Crimmigration in Oregon: Protecting the Rights of Noncitizen Defendants Summary: Several studies show that immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens and rates of violent crime in metropolitan areas fall as the immigrant population rises. Despite this, the specter of the "criminal alien" continues to haunt the popular imagination, aided by lurid media coverage highlighting the few cases of serious or violent crimes committed by immigrants. The Trump administration has greatly expanded the groups of people targeted for removal from the U.S., while severely limiting legal immigration. Enforcement actions are taking place against a broad group of noncitizens, including those who have committed only minor crimes or even no crimes at all. WHAT IS CRIMMIGRATION? Crimmigration broadly refers to the criminalization of migration, increased immigration detention and use of private prisons, the prison-to-deportation pipeline, and a deportation process described by one immigration judge as "what amount to death penalty cases heard in traffic court settings." Viewed narrowly, crimmigration refers to the immediate and long-term immigration consequences of criminal convictions. WHAT CAN OREGON DO TO PROTECT NONCITIZEN OREGONIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES? Crimmigration Report Infographic What Oregon Legislators Can Do.jpg We have developed a report as a resource for legislators and others that provides analysis of the legal steps that can be taken that will help to protect noncitizen Oregonians and their families. Click here to read the report. Legislators can: 1. Create Pre-Plea Diversion. Allow qualified defendants to enter pre-trial diversion or deferred adjudication without a guilty or no-contest plea. 2. Allow prior convictions to fit current law. Oregon has already reduced maximum sentences for Class A misdemeanors from 365 days to 364 and should allow this to apply retroactively. 3. Define the prosecutor's duty. Require prosecutors to consider avoiding adverse immigration consequences in plea negotiations. 4. Improve the effectiveness of the court's admonishment. Warn every defendant much earlier in the legal process that if they are a noncitizen that a conviction may have serious immigration consequences so they have time to seek appropriate help. 5. Prohibit disclosure of immigration status in court. No one should be forced to disclose their immigration status in court because it creates unnecessary risk of immigration enforcement and discrimination. 6. Define defense counsel's duty. Require defense counsel to ensure clients understand potential outcomes of their cases and the immigration consequences so they can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. 7. Expand post-conviction relief. Allow defendants to apply for relief within a reasonable period of discovering they received bad advice about the immigration consequences of a plea or conviction. Oregon can also: Crimmigration Report Infographic What Else Oregon Can Do.jpg 1. Uphold the "sanctuary state" law. State and local employees should be reminded of their duty to uphold the law by not using public resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is being present in the U.S. contrary to federal immigration law and should receive training about this. Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors should investigate violations of the "sanctuary state" law and prosecute offenders for official misconduct. Information about violations and training employees have received should be public. 2. End "broken windows" policing targeting low-level offenders. Stop bringing people to the courts for minor offenses where they become vulnerable to aggressive ICE enforcement. 3. Limit information sharing. Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, probation offices, and others should create policies that make it clear to staff where contacting ICE would go beyond the scope of their duties and punish violations. 4. End local jail contracts with ICE. Oregons jails should immediately stop contracting with ICE to detain noncitizens so that counties no longer profit from deportation. Details: Portland, Oregon: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: January 9, 2019 at: https://ojrc.info/crimmigration-in-oregon/ Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5b353c3503ce6435b6aa1026/1530215484282/Crimmigration+Report+June+2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154021 Keywords: Broken Windows PolicingCriminal AlienCrimmigrationDeportationImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration DetentionImmigration StatusLaw EnforcementMigrationNative-Born Citizens NoncitizensPre-Trial DiversionSanctuary StateViolent Crime |
Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: The Police Immigration Detention Centre at Trandem 19-21 May 2015 Summary: The NPM visited the police immigration detention centre at Trandum in the period 19-21 May 2015. The visit was unannounced. The detention centre has the capacity to hold 140 detainees, and the plan is to extend the capacity to include another 90 places in 2016. The detainees do not have legal residence in Norway and have been detained on grounds of suspicion that they have given a false identity or to prevent them from evading the enforcement of a final decision requiring them to leave the country. Being detained at Trandum is not the consequence of a criminal offence and does not therefore constitute punishment. During the visit, an inspection was carried out of the detention centre's premises, meetings were held with the administration, union representatives, lawyers and medical personnel, and necessary documentation was obtained. The most important part of the visit was to conduct private interviews with detainees. The NPM interviewed a total of 60 of the 100 detainees. The NPM was accompanied by two government authorised interpreters (Russian and Arabic/French). Telephone interpreting was also used. The administration and staff at the detention centre provided good assistance during the visit, by obtaining the requested information and providing free access to all areas of the detention centre. The NPM's right to conduct private interviews with the detainees was adequately provided for. In the early hours of 21 May, the NPM also observed an escorted deportation of eleven individuals from the time that they left the detention centre until they boarded a chartered flight from Gardermoen airport. The NPM emphasises as a positive factor that the detainees mostly had positive things to say about the detention centre staff. Many of them stated that they were treated with respect and received the necessary assistance in their day-to-day pursuits. Another positive finding was that, according to the NPM's observations, the deportation on 21 May was performed in a dignified and professional manner. One of the main findings during the visit was excessive attention to control and security at the expense of the individual detainee's integrity. This has also been pointed out by the Parliamentary Ombudsman after previous visits. Many of the detainees felt that they were treated as criminals, even though they had not been convicted of a crime. Several described the humiliation of undergoing a body search on arrival and after all visits. The body search entailed the removal of all clothing and that the detainee had to squat over a mirror on the floor so that the staff could check whether they had concealed items in their rectum or genital area. The detainees perceived it as especially upsetting that a full body search was conducted after all visits, even when staff members had been present in the room during the visit. Many were also frustrated that they were not given access to their mobile phone and that they were locked in their rooms during evenings, at night and for shorter periods during the day. The detention centre uses largely the same security procedures as the correctional services, including procedures for locking detainees in and out of their rooms, the use of security cells and solitary confinement, and room searches. In some respects, as in the case of full body searches after visits, the procedures appear to be more intrusive than in many prisons. In addition to concerns about the overall control regime, it should be noted that all these control measures can result in more unrest and undesirable incidents rather than a sense of security. The immigration detention centre does not appear to be a suitable place for children. In 2014, 330 children were detained, 10 of them without adult guardians. There were no children at the detention centre at the time of the NPM's visit. The atmosphere at the detention centre appears to be characterised by stress and unrest. Several incidents have taken place at the detention centre in 2014 and 2015, including major rebellions. The incidents have included breaking of furniture and fixtures, self-harm, suicide attempts and use of force. This is not deemed to be a satisfactory psychosocial environment for children. In two instances, children have also witnessed parental self-harm. Several weaknesses were also found to exist in the delivery of health services. A clear majority of the detainees were critical of the health services offered by the detention centre. Among other things, the criticism concerned factors such as a lack of confidentiality, availability and follow-up. The immigration detention centre purchases health services from a private health enterprise based on a contract between the enterprise and the National Police Immigration Service (NPIS). The contractual relationship between the health enterprise's doctors and the NPIS raises questions about the health services professional independence. This may undermine the relationship of trust between patients and medical personnel and may weaken the health service's assessments. The health service also includes two nurses. They are temporarily employed by the police. This arrangement may also give rise to doubt about the health service's professional independence. Health interviews with newly arrived detainees were not conducted as a matter of routine, despite clear recommendations from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Detainees are often particularly at risk of poor somatic and mental health. A medical examination on arrival can provide an overview of the detainee's immediate medical needs, document any physical injuries and detect infectious diseases and suicide risk. The detainees also did not have access to mental health care over and above emergency assistance, among other things because of a lack of rights. In addition, the health department lacked procedures for systematic follow-up of persons who are particularly vulnerable as a result of long-term detention. Other findings during the visit include shortcomings in administrative decisions on the use of isolation and security cells, few organised activities, unclear legal authority for locking detainees in their rooms, lack of information on arrival, whether the food that is served is sufficiently nutritious, routine visit control and lack of access to mobile phones. Details: Oslo, Norway: Parliamentary Ombudsmen, 2015. 44 p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2015-Rapport-Police-immigration-detention-centre-Visit-report-EN.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2015-Rapport-Police-immigration-detention-centre-Visit-report-EN.pdf Shelf Number: 154083 Keywords: European Committee for the Prevention of Torture Immigrant DetaineesImmigrantsImmigration DetentionNational Prevention Mechanism against Torture and |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in France: Longer, More Widespread, and Harder to Contest Summary: France has one of Europe's oldest - and largest - administrative immigration detention regimes. Since 1981, the year it adopted its first law explicitly providing for immigration detention, the country has passed some 30 immigration laws. In 2017, the country placed 46,857 people in immigration detention, 42 percent of whom were held in overseas territories (by way of comparison, in the United Kingdom, during the year ending in March 2018, approximately 29,000 people "entered detention"). Detainees in France spent on average 12.8 days in detention, far below the 45 days legal limit in place at that time. France operates 24 long-term immigration detention centres, euphemistically labelled centres de retention administrative ("administrative retention centres"), which have a total capacity of 1,543 beds. The country also operates 26 short-term administrative detention facilities called locaux de retention administrative. In 2018, the Interior Ministry announced plans to boost bed space in CRAs by 450 during 2019. Although European Union (EU) law allows member states to detain migrants for up to 18 months for deportation purposes, France retained - until recently - one of the lowest limits among EU member states (along with Iceland [42 days] and Spain [60 days]). In 2018, however, the situation changed significantly - prompted by Europe's "migration crisis" - with the adoption of controversial new legislation which, inter alia, doubles the detention limit to 90 days and reduces the time frame to apply for asylum from 120 days to 90 days. Many civil society organisations and national human rights institutions challenged the new law, with some critics calling it the Code de la honte ("code of shame"). The French ombudsman said, "Contrary to the discourse that everything should be done in favour of asylum seekers, they are in fact badly treated by this project." According to the ombudsman, the accelerated asylum procedures will "impose impossible deadlines on asylum seekers - which risks causing asylum seekers to lose their rights to appeal." Another recently adopted law, the March 2018 asylum bill, also came under sharp criticism because of fears that it may lead to widespread detention of asylum seekers who are awaiting transfer to another EU country under the Dublin III procedure. The law, which allows for the detention of people who have not yet been served an expulsion order, represents a major departure from previous French asylum protection policies. French NGOs are present on a daily basis inside the centres de retention administrative (CRAs) to provide legal and other forms of advice to detainees. Each year, they publish joint authoritative analyses of laws, policies, and practices, as well as detailed information on every detention facility. While having a permanent civil society presence in immigration detention centres is not wholly unique to France (in Lebanon, for instance, Caritas has had an office in the countrys main immigration detention centre), the French system seems to stand apart from others in the breadth of involvement of NGOs inside its 24 long-term facilities. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of readily available information about operations at detention centres, which is exceedingly rare. In the French overseas territory of Mayotte (part of the Comoros archipelago in the Indian Ocean), the French Constitution and successive immigration laws authorise important derogations to the application of immigration law. Local authorities expelled some 60 people a day from Mayotte during 2016 (with most denied access to a lawyer or judge before their expulsion)11 in defiance of the French ombudsman's recommendations as well as the European Court of Human rights' jurisprudence on the right to access an effective remedy. Although it has a population of less than 250,000, Mayotte manages to deport nearly 20,000 people each year: 17,934 in 2017 and 19,488 in 2016. In many countries the language of immigration detention can appear to be opaque or misleading. In the case of France, it crafted the terminology retention administrative ("administrative retention") as early as 1981, when it adopted its first immigration detention provisions. While some countries, including Argentina, have adopted this language, French-speaking countries like Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland continue to employ the word detention. A joint ministerial audit in 2005 found that this language created a "paradoxical" situation because "the alien placed in retention remains a free person, against whom no charge has been laid; he is only momentarily 'retained,' for the time required for organising his return. The whole paradox of retention lies in this principle. Before the judge of liberty and detention (JLD) the procedure is civil even if it borrows aspects of criminal law, in particular because the JLD can challenge the conditions of the arrest and the regularity of the custody." While many leading French advocates and academics have argued that detention centres should be called "camps" and denounced the use of euphemistic language when referring to places of deprivation of liberty, French civil society for the most part seems not to have specifically challenged the use of the word retention. However, the impact of this "paradoxical" phrasing is often clear in public and official discourse. For instance, during the debate over the 2018 legislation, the Minister of Justice misleadingly characterised the detention of families as allowing "children to be in an administrative centre with their parents." Civil society protest against immigration detention is common. Non-violent silence protests (cercles de silences) have been regularly held in many French cities since 2011. Many NGOs have argued that detention is a disproportionate response to irregular migration and that it largely fails in its stated purpose of enabling removal since less than half of the country's detainees are expelled following detention (40 percent of immigration detainees in mainland France were expelled in 2017, 42 percent of whom were expelled to another EU country). In contrast, officials bemoan that the high proportion of expulsion orders cancelled by judges creates obstacles, even though these judgments are based on respect for the rule of law. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: https://reliefweb.int/report/france/immigration-detention-france-longer-more-widespread-and-harder-contest Year: 2018 Country: France URL: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Immigration-Detention-in-France-October-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154243 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeportationHuman Rights AbusesImmigrationImmigration DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrationRefugees |