District Court Holds Hearing in Case About Kids’ Right to Attorneys in Immigration Court

Written by American Immigration Council Staff

A federal district court in Seattle heard arguments in a lawsuit on Thursday seeking to ensure that all children in immigration court have legal representation. The case received a flurry of attention when press reports revealed that an immigration judge deposed in the case said he had successfully taught three-year-olds immigration law. The focus of the hearing was on who could potentially benefit from the lawsuit and thus whether, regardless of the outcome of the case, thousands of children in immigration courts across the country will continue to face deportation without legal representation.

Attorneys for the 11 child plaintiffs argued that the court should hear the case, F.L.B. v. Lynch (formerly J.E.F.M. v. Holder), as a class action, which would allow the court to consider the claims of all unrepresented children in immigration proceedings who cannot afford to pay for attorneys. Without class certification, children who are not individually named in the case could not benefit if the plaintiffs are successful. This would mean that many children nationwide would have no realistic opportunity to argue for appointed legal representation or to fairly present their cases to an immigration court and that the government would continue to force them to represent themselves against a trained prosecutor seeking their deportation. The government opposes allowing this case to proceed as a class action – and asked the court to dismiss all of the child plaintiffs but one from the case.

During the hearing, Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Leon Fresco, arguing for the federal government, continued to claim that unrepresented children receive sufficient protection in immigration court, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. Notably, Mr. Fresco alleged that 72 percent of children who show up in court “are getting some relief” without legal representation under the current system – a claim that relies upon a misleading interpretation of the government’s data. Indeed, to arrive at this figure, children who are ordered to leave the United States through a process called “voluntary departure” – as well as children who remain in limbo while immigration officials outside of the courts consider their cases – must be counted as having obtained “relief.”

Professor Susan B. Long, Co-Director of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse research center at Syracuse University, analyzed data provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the government agency which includes the immigration courts. She found that, in immigration proceedings completed between July 2014 and August 2015, 44 percent of unrepresented unaccompanied children present in court for their hearings were ordered to leave the United States, as compared to 14 percent of children with legal representation. Of the remaining unrepresented children, half had their cases put on hold through a process called “administrative closure,” and only the remaining 28 percent ended in a decision allowing the child to remain in the United States.

Given that—as has been widely reported over the past few weeks—the government’s own “expert” on vulnerable populations, Judge Weil, believes that three and four year olds can be trained on immigration law, it is not surprising that the government continues to insist that children can obtain a fair hearing without legal representation. In the meantime, courts order thousands of unrepresented children deported each year.

Following the hearing, attorneys for the children told press that they are encouraged that the district court is carefully considering the important issues raised in yesterday’s hearing. The child plaintiffs in F.L.B. are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP.

Photo by Ron Guest.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Proposes Further Criminalizing Migrants

Written by Joshua Breisblatt

At a time when there is a great deal of national attention being placed on criminal-justice reform,  it is troubling that the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) is now proposing, new amendments to Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which could lead to increased sentences for those convicted of “Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States” or “Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien.”

Proposed in January, the USSC just held hearings and solicited comments from the public this week on the new amendments. A number of organizations testified against these changes including the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Their testimony highlighted the negative consequences these changes could have on our nation’s immigration policy and our criminal justice system.

Chris Rickerd from the ACLU testified that prosecutions for illegal reentry are extremely costly and have not been shown to deter unauthorized immigration. He noted:

“The current number of individuals prosecuted and sentenced for illegal reentry comes with staggering costs to the criminal justice system, including a diversion of limited prosecutorial and court resources away from serious offenses, as well as prison overcrowding in substandard private facilities. Moreover, these costs are incurred without any assurance that prosecutions for border crossing actually have a deterrent effect.”

This is supported by the USSC own report, released in April 2015 and titled Illegal Reentry Offenses, which makes clear that the number of people sentenced under the current guideline has increased significantly since 2007. These crimes now constitute a major proportion of the overall federal district-court caseload (26 percent in fiscal year 2013) and is especially pronounced in southwest-border districts.

Jennifer Podkul of WRC and Wendy Young from KIND testified that the proposed changes to the Sentencing Guidelines do not take into account the refugee crisis on our Southern border. Podkul discussed in detail how, since 2012, we have seen a large influx of unaccompanied minors and family units who have arrived in the U.S. fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The rates of violence in these three countries are approaching unprecedented levels as the region grapples with growing instability. As she explained, “The mothers and children fleeing these circumstances are desperate—so are the parents and other family members who are sending them. In their desperation, they turn to smuggling organizations to make the 1400-mile journey to the United States.”

Wendy Young testified that

“KIND has been deeply concerned that the U.S. has addressed this surge in child migration using a primarily law enforcement approach that fails to acknowledge the need to protect vulnerable individuals from rampant and targeted violence in their countries. The outflow of Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemalan families and children is fundamentally a refugee movement. Attempting to address it as an issue of border security will fundamentally lead to ineffective policies that neither curb the migration flow nor provide the necessary protection to those who need it.”

Other organizations, including the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, submitted written comments critical of the proposal as well.

The USSC is set to vote on the recommendations sometime next month. Hopefully, the USSC takes into account the variety of consequences that could result from these increased sentences. Rather than implement the proposed changes, the USSC and other implicated government agencies should reexamine—and reduce—the deleterious impacts of prosecution and overly-punitive sentencing of border-crossers.

Photo by Daniel X. O’Neil.

New Studies Show Refugees are Integrating

Written by Michele Waslin

At a time when politicians and others are expressing concern about the U.S.’s refugee resettlement process, two new studies show that refugees want to integrate and are indeed integrating into the fabric of our country. However, there is much variation depending on the refugees’ country of origin, and there remains room for improved policies aimed at facilitating resettlement in American communities. The U.S. refugee resettlement program remains focused on employment and self-sufficiency. This new research points to policy interventions that could be designed to ensure that refugees fully integrate and contribute to their communities.

A new report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) examines the 941,000 young children of refugee parents, ages zero to 10, living in the U.S. between 2009-13, and a new study from Colorado examines the progress that state’s refugees have made. Both of these reports showed strong indicators of integration yet highlighted that challenges remain.

Because the children of refugees may be particularly vulnerable to poor developmental and academic outcomes, it is critical to examine the characteristics of this group while they are very young if there is a chance for negative outcomes to be avoided. The majority of these children (89 percent) were born in the U.S. and are therefore U.S. citizens, but newer refugee arrivals, such as Burmese and Iraqis, are more likely to be born in the countries of origin.  While their parents have arrived from many different countries, one-third of all young children of refugees are from two countries – Vietnam and Cuba.

Generally, the young children of refugees demonstrate positive indicators of integration. For example, they tend to live in strong family structures. The children of refugees are more likely to live with two parents or with grandparents than either other children of immigrants or children of U.S.-born parents. Overall, their parents were relatively well educated. Thirty-three percent had college educated fathers, and thirty percent had college educated mothers, which is slightly higher than children of other immigrants and slightly lower than the parents of U.S.-born children. However there is large variation by country of origin; Colombian, Russian, and Iranian refugee parents tend to be highly educated, while those from Burma, Somalia, and Laos have lower levels of education.

MPI found that the children of refugees also face risk factors including linguistic isolation, high poverty levels, and low preschool enrollment. Nearly one-third of the children lived in homes where no one age 14 or over spoke English very well, and one-quarter or the children lived in families with incomes below the federal poverty level. However, the children of refugees generally had better access to health coverage and public benefits than the children of other immigrants. Because refugees are immediately eligible for certain public benefits when they arrive, they are more likely to access benefits and services to improve their well-being.

Looking at ten different measures of integration, researchers found that refugees in Colorado moved steadily from low to high integration and showed marked improvement over time. Refugees obtained full-time employment, family income increased, English language ability improved, and they obtained health insurance. A very high percentage expressed a desire to become U.S. citizens. However, as in the MPI report, the researchers identified remaining challenges. For example, older refugees did not integrate as well as those who arrived when they were younger. And while young children showed good progress in school, their parents did not necessarily participate in school-related opportunities to socialize with other parents or further their own education.

The researchers point out that some of these outcomes are susceptible to policy interventions while others are not. For example, the U.S. does not have much control over how much education refugees have prior to their arrival. However, the federal government and states could focus more resources on increasing preschool enrollment rates for refugee children. Research has found that this early intervention pays dividends later in life. Similarly, allocating additional resources to English language acquisition would benefit refugee families in nearly every aspect of integration.

As the U.S. plans to welcome new groups of refugees, policies that anticipate their needs can ensure that they become contributing members of U.S. society just as numerous refugees have done before them.

Photo Courtesy of DFID.

What Does Justice Scalia’s Death Mean for United States v. Texas, the DAPA/DACA Case?

Written by Beth Werlin FEBRUARY 19, 2016

Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away at the age of 79. The unexpected death of the then longest serving member on the Court means there is a vacancy on the nine-member bench. But, it is unlikely that the Senate will confirm another Supreme Court Justice quickly, even if the President promptly nominates one, which means that only eight Justices will hear cases this spring. The question among many in the immigration community is: what does this mean for United States v. Texas, the case challenging the President’s executive actions on immigration, which the Court will hear this spring?

The short answer is: not much.

The fact of the matter is that this case was never about Justice Scalia. The President’s executive actions on immigration are lawful exercises of his discretion, and in adopting these policies, he simply is enforcing existing immigration laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court precedent on this is clear. The Court has repeatedly held that it is well within the executive’s authority to decide how and when to enforce the law and to exercise prosecutorial discretion. As recently as 2012, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme affirmed that the federal government has discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities.

Related Content: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

The expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Deferred Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) fall squarely within such priority setting. With or without Justice Scalia on the Court, it is hard to see how a clear majority of the Justices will not reach this conclusion. (And, of course, that assumes that the Court even gets past the threshold issue and finds that Texas and the other plaintiff-states have standing, or legal capacity to bring this case. If the Court agrees with the federal government’s position that Texas lacks standing, the case may be dismissed without further analysis of the President’s policies.)

Yet, the truth is, nobody who follows the Supreme Court—even casually—was counting on Justice Scalia to vote with the majority in United States v. Texas. As President Obama noted, Justice Scalia “was a larger than life presence on the bench: a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.” But, that doesn’t mean he always voted on the winning side of an issue or that his decisions were friendly to the President’s exercise of discretion in the immigration context.

Tellingly, in his dissent in Arizona v. United States, the case which struck down most of the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, he implied he disagreed with President Obama’s then new DACA program. As the New York Times reported, “Justice Scalia also took the unusual step of raising an issue that had not been part of the case, assailing President Obama’s executive program granting protection from deportation to young undocumented immigrants, citing it as evidence of the administration’s abdication.”

But, again, Justice Scalia was in the minority in Arizona—whereas Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy (who wrote the opinion) sided with the majority in favor of the federal government. In United States v. Texas, it will be hard for the Justices to ignore not onlyArizona and its predecessors, but also the fact that since at least 1956 every U.S. Presidenthas granted temporary immigration relief to one or more groups in need of assistance. Justice Scalia’s absence from the Court doesn’t change that.

Photo by Roger.

Why the DAPA/DACA case is simpler than it seems

Melissa Crow is Legal Director at the American Immigration Council.

 (Photo :Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in United States v. Texas signals an important and hopeful turning point in the case and provides a long-overdue opportunity to set the record straight on the scope of executive authority in the immigration arena. The case concerns a challenge by Texas and twenty-five other states to the lawfulness of President Barack Obama’s deferred action initiatives – Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) – which were announced in November 2014, but enjoined before they could be implemented.

While the twenty-six states challenging the initiatives concede that the secretary of Homeland Security has unreviewable discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities (which the Supreme Court affirmed most recently in Arizona v. United States), they contend that the Obama administration has attempted to “effectively rewrite the laws” through this particular use of its discretion. In particular, they argue that the Obama administration has exceeded the bounds of its authority on the basis that beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA would be lawfully present and eligible for employment authorization while these initiatives are in effect. But the reality is that neither DAPA nor expanded DACA creates or grants legal status, and prospective beneficiaries’ eligibility for employment authorization would derive from longstanding federal law. Simply put: nothing about DAPA or expanded DACA is new or involves unlawful legislating by the executive branch.

Deferred action has long been recognized as a discretionary decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant a temporary, time-limited reprieve from deportation to a non-citizen in the United States without authorization in order to focus limited enforcement resources on higher priority targets. An individual with deferred action is by definition lawfully present in the United States. But just because someone is lawfully present does not mean that he or she has a lawful immigration status – a term of art that refers to being in the United States in a specific immigrant or non-immigrant visa classification and complying with its terms. As the government explained in its petition for certiorari, “lawful presence” is merely a reflection of its decision to grant a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion:

[I]nsofar as deferred action itself is concerned, “lawful presence” is simply the label for the consequence of memorializing a decision to forbear from enforcement action for a designated time: A decision to forbear from removing a person results in “lawful presence” in the sense that DHS has decided to countenance that person’s continued presence in the United States so long as DHS continues to forbear.

Despite the fact that “lawful status” is a distinct concept under our immigration laws, the twenty-six states use the term interchangeably (and incorrectly) with “lawful presence”. They suggest that the intended beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA would acquire a lawful immigration status that would confer certain benefits and negate previous violations of the immigration law. That is simply not true.

A grant of deferred action does not confer any other type of lawful immigration status, enforceable legal rights, or an ability to remain permanently in the United States. Notably, the only reference to “lawful status” in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) appears in 8 U.S.C. § 1255, which provides, among other things, that non-citizens who have failed to continuously maintain a “lawful status” since entering the United States are ineligible to apply for lawful permanent residence from within the United States. By definition, prospective beneficiaries of expanded DACA and DAPA have failed to maintain lawful status and typically would not qualify to apply for permanent residence.

But other, well established legal authority makes eligibility for employment authorization automatic for people who receive deferred action. The states’ argument that the government overstepped its bounds by rendering deferred-action beneficiaries eligible to work ignores the fact that eligibility stems not from DAPA or expanded DACA, but rather from longstanding, independent legal authority. Under a regulation in place when Congress enacted the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), deferred-action beneficiaries are eligible for employment authorization if they can show economic need.

Since the late 1990s, a revised version of that same regulation – 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) – has enabled numerous categories of deferred action beneficiaries under both Republican and Democratic administrations to apply for employment authorization. Those categories include certain victims of domestic violence under the Violence Against Women Act (under President Bill Clinton); victims of human trafficking and certain other crimes who are eligible for “T” and “U” visas, along with their family members (under President George W. Bush); foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina (under President George W. Bush); certain widows and widowers of U.S. citizens (under President Obama); and most recently, beneficiaries of initial DACA (under President Obama). Without employment authorization, such individuals would have no lawful way to support themselves and their families and would be at great risk of exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

Perhaps the most striking historical parallel to DAPA and expanded DACA is the “Family Fairness” policy implemented by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. IRCA provided a path to legal status for up to three million undocumented immigrants who had been continuously present in the United States since January 1, 1982. But it excluded non-qualifying spouses and children who did not independently qualify, prompting harsh criticism from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and immigration advocates. In response, the Reagan administration announced a blanket deferral of deportation for children under eighteen who were living in a two-parent household with both parents legalizing, or living with a single parent who was legalizing. The first Bush administration expanded this program in 1990 to cover all ineligible spouses and children under eighteen of legalizing family members, assuming they met certain criteria. Publicly available estimates at the time were that “Family Fairness” could cover as many as 1.5 million family members, which was approximately forty percent of the then-undocumented population. Beneficiaries of that program were also eligible to apply for employment authorization. Similar generally applicable laws may allow individuals with deferred action and work authorization to qualify for certain federal or state programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Earned Income Tax Credit during the period that deferred action is in effect. Again, the authority for these benefits stems not from DAPA or expanded DACA, but from pre-existing laws and regulations that are not at issue in the case pending before the Court.

The collateral benefits of deferred action to which the twenty-six states object – such as employment authorization – are authorized by statutes and regulations that were promulgated long before DAPA and expanded DACA. These provisions are not being challenged in this case, and they do not affect the government’s well-established authority to set national immigration enforcement priorities and grant deferred action. Nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court found in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee that deferred-action decisions are not subject to judicial review – even though deferred action at that time automatically triggered eligibility for work authorization. The Court should bear that in mind here.

Melissa Crow

Is It Time to Change our Cuban Immigration Policy?

 

Written by Joshua Breisblatt JANUARY 15, 2016

In December of 2014, President Obama restored full diplomatic relations with Cuba and, for the first time since 1961, opened an embassy in Havana.  Many believe that normalizing relations with Cuba may prompt Congress to change the current laws regarding the treatment of Cuban migrants. Perhaps in anticipation of this happening, over the past year, there has been a significant spike in the number of Cubans coming to the United States.

Congress passed the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) in 1966 to address the hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing to the United States after Fidel Castro came to power in January 1959. Under the law and policy currently in place, Cubans who come to the United States, even if they arrive without authorization, can become lawful permanent residents one year after their entry. There are no limits to the number of Cubans that can come in any given year because Cubans are exempt from any numerical caps under the CAA. According to the Migration Policy Institute, “Cubans represent one of the ten largest foreign-born groups in the United States, with an estimated 1.1 million immigrants.” Under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the CAA will sunset once Cuba becomes a democracy.

Since the President’s announcement in December 2014, the number of Cubans entering the United States has risen significantly. According to PEW Research Center, “Overall, 43,159 Cubans entered the U.S. via ports of entry in fiscal year 2015, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data obtained through a public records request. This represents a 78% increase over the previous year, when 24,278 Cubans entered. And those 2013 numbers had already increased dramatically after the Cuban government lifted travel restrictions. By comparison, in fiscal 2011, just 7,759 Cubans came into the U.S.”

Many in Congress now are contemplating ways to change or repeal the CAA. On one side there are members of Congress like Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who introduced legislation in 2015 that currently has 10 congressional co-sponsors to repeal the entire Cuban Adjustment Act. Gosar introduced the legislation in response to the announcement in December 2014, saying, “If President Obama has normalized relations with Cuba, why would we treat illegal immigrants from that nation any different than those from other countries?”

Other members of Congress, including the Florida delegation, which represents a significant number of the Cubans who have immigrated to the United States over the last 55 years, are focused on preventing Cubans immigrants from accessing benefits meant for refugees. Currently all Cuban immigrants, regardless of their reasons for leaving the island, are treated as refugees and asylees, which grants them access to the federal Refugee Resettlement Program.

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) introduced bi-partisan legislation, the Cuban Immigrant Work Opportunity Act, that would allow only people who show they qualify for asylum under the regular asylum provisions to access the Refugee Resettlement Program. As our country moves closer to normalizing relations with Cuba, the calls to re-examine our Cuba policy will only continue to grow. Instead of waiting until the last minute to act, Congress should begin looking at this issue now.

Photo by Amy Goodman.

U.S. Children of Undocumented Immigrants Set up for Failure by Current Policies

 

Written by Guillermo Cantor JANUARY 14, 2016

U.S. children are clearly at a disadvantage if they have at least one undocumented parent. According to a report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) released yesterday, of the estimated 5.1 million U.S. children under age 18 currently living with at least one undocumented parent, 79 percent (4.1 million) are U.S. citizens. The population of U.S. children under age 18 with one undocumented parent represents 30 percent of all children of immigrants and 7 percent of all U.S. children. And compared to all children of immigrants and all U.S. children, both U.S. citizen and noncitizen children are more likely to experience poverty, lower levels of preschool enrollment, linguistic isolation, limited English proficiency, and reduced chances of socioeconomic mobility.

Specifically, about 75 percent of children with an unauthorized parent live in households with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level; whereas 51 children of immigrants overall and 40 percent of all U.S. children live in households with incomes below this level. As the report points out, low income is typically associated with poor health outcomes, developmental delays, and low school achievement. Children ages 3 to 4 with an unauthorized parent are also less likely to be enrolled in preschool (37 percent) than all children of immigrants (45 percent) or all U.S. children (48 percent). As otherresearch has shown, the exposure to preschool education has lasting effects—including long-term school success, higher achievement test scores, lower rates of grade repetition, and higher educational attainment among others. In addition, 43 percent of children with at least one undocumented parent live in families where no member age 14 or older spoke English very well compared to 24 percent of all children of immigrants.

These numbers are alarming. The socioeconomic and educational disadvantage experienced by children of undocumented immigrants today will have an impact in these children’s lives for years to come. According to an earlier study by child development experts Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg Duncan:

“Children who live in extreme poverty or who live below the poverty line for multiple years appear, all other things being equal, to suffer the worst outcomes. The timing of poverty also seems to be important for certain child outcomes. Children who experience poverty during their preschool and early school years have lower rates of school completion than children and adolescents who experience poverty only in later years.”

These children could be in a much better place had Congress succeeded in its attempts to provide a pathway to legal status or citizenship to their parents. Many of them would also be better off had the initiative announced by the Obama administration to provide relief to the parents of U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children (known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) been implemented. Instead, the implementation of DAPA was blocked first by a lower court judge and subsequently by a court of appeals.

In the meantime, a large portion of US children are condemned to live in the margins of prosperity, opportunity, and hope. In a few years, these children will be a significant part of our country’s workforce, community, and electorate. By ignoring this fact today, policy-makers are being shortsighted and are also missing an incredible opportunity. This is yet another reminder that immigration policy is not just about regulating the rights of immigrants; it is also about what kind of country we are designing for years to come.

Photo by Kate Gardiner.

Accountability Continues to Elude the Border Patrol

Written by Walter Ewing NOVEMBER 13, 2015

A startling number of media accounts continue to demonstrate that the Border Patrol is an agency which is unable to control many of its agents and shows little willingness to provide accountability for its actions. Its agents frequently use force—sometimes deadly force—against people who do not represent a serious threat. Their agents are rarely disciplined and it is unlikely that an agent will ever face criminal charges for abusing, injuring, or killing someone. Despite claims to the contrary by leadership, the Border Patrol remains a largely unaccountable agency which acts with impunity in the name of “securing the border.”

Related Content: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse

Two events demonstrate well the extent of Border Patrol unaccountability. The first is thefailure of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring charges against the Border Patrol in the case of Anastasio Hernández Rojas—a man who had lived in the United States for 25 years, was the father of five U.S.-born children, and was caught illegally crossing the border in May 2010 to get back to his family in San Diego. Rojas was beaten and tased, even as he lay on the ground handcuffed, suffered a heart attack, and died. The San Diego coroner’s office classified Anastasio Hernández-Rojas’s death as a homicide, concluding he suffered a heart attack as well as “bruising to his chest, stomach, hips, knees, back, lips, head and eyelids; five broken ribs; and a damaged spine.” Yet, according to DOJ, “there was insufficient evidence for federal criminal civil rights charges, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that government agents violated homicide statutes.” And so the case was closed in November 2015.

The second instance of Border Patrol unaccountability concerns the use of body cameras. In November 2015, after 14 months of tests and a feasibility study, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—the parent agency of the Border Patrol—announced it would not broadly implement body-worn cameras and instead will look to expand its existing camera technologies, while continuing to study whether and where body-worn cameras might be appropriate for agents and officers. The excuses which CBP provides for not moving forward (including cost, morale of the agency, and effectiveness) will only deepen the perception that CBP wants to remain above the law.

The problems within CBP are not isolated; they are systemic. For instance, an October 2015 Los Angeles Times investigation found that, from 2010 to 2013, Border Patrol agents fired their Tasers 70 times “at people who were running away, even though there was no struggle or clear indication that agents were in danger.” In at least six instances, agents used Tasers against “people who were trying to climb over the border fence back into Mexico.” Three people died after being hit by Taser fire. Two people were shocked while they were handcuffed. But agents are rarely called to account for their actions. According to the American Immigration Council, among the 485 abuse complaints made against the agency between January 2009 and January 2012 in which a formal decision was made, “No Action Taken” represented 97 percent of all outcomes.

Clearly, CBP would prefer to quietly sweep its misdeeds under the rug rather than face its problems head-on.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com

Bernie Sanders Immigration Policy Platform, Progressive but Imprecise

 

Written by Wendy Feliz NOVEMBER 12, 2015

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) immigration policy platform was recently released and it showcases his thinking around immigration reform, enforcement and his ideas for protecting workers. Entitled, A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy, the progressive, but clunky and imprecise platform, begins by setting him apart from those candidates calling for mass deportation.

“We cannot and we should not be talking about sweeping up millions of men, women, and children – many of whom have been here for years – and throwing them out of the country. That’s wrong and that type of discussion has got to end.”

Moving on to the specifics, he begins by discussing what pieces of legislation he would be willing to sign as President:

“Sign comprehensive immigration reform into law to bring over 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows. We cannot continue to run an economy where millions are made so vulnerable because of their undocumented status.”

He also stated he would support the DREAM Act, which he voted for in December 2010:

“Sign the DREAM Act into law to offer the opportunity of permanent residency and eventual citizenship to young people who were brought to the United States as children. We must recognize the young men and women who comprise the DREAMers for who they are – American kids who deserve the right to legally be in the country they know as home.”

His promise rings truthful, as Sanders has voted in favor of immigration reform proposals in the past. However, it’s unclear why comprehensive reform wouldn’t already include the DREAM Act provisions, negating the need for both.

Sanders has also been consistent in his criticisms about guest worker programs and in 2007, voted against a comprehensive immigration reform bill due to his concerns around them. His platform demonstrates real concerns with the treatment of guest workers and their potential for exploitation.

He writes:

“Authorize and substantially increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation to provide legal representation to guest workers who have been abused by their employers. Further, employers should be required to reimburse guest workers for housing, transportation expenses and workers’ compensation.”

Additionally, Sanders states that he would require employers to pay higher wages to temporary guest workers:

“Substantially increase prevailing wages that employers are required to pay temporary guest workers. If there is a true labor shortage, employers should be offering higher, not lower wages.”

It’s true the nation’s laws must protect all workers; however he must also balance that with our economy’s need for workers in both high-skilled and service sector industries. Since 1986, the legal immigration system has not been in line with the business cycle, and, therefore, with the country’s labor needs . The rigid structure of the legal immigration system is unable to adjust the number and type of workers admitted either in periods of economic growth or in periods of economic recession. When there is a demand for workers, they will come, and if they are not properly protected they could be exploited.  Sanders platform does not address the real economic demand for workers and how he will balance workers’ rights with business demands.

Sanders also makes an important stand-out point  that reform cannot be tied to elusive goals of border security that change regularly and never seem to satisfy Congress’ insatiable desire for more.

Sanders states:

“Oppose tying immigration reform to the building of a border fence. Undocumented workers come to the United States to escape economic hardship and political persecution. Tying reform to unrealistic and unwise border patrol proposals renders the promise illusory for millions seeking legal status.”

Finally, he promises to use his presidential authority to expand DACA.  He writes:

“Expand President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to include the parents of citizens, parents of legal permanent residents, and the parents of DREAMERs. We need to pursue policies that unite families and does not tear them apart.”

There is not a lot of precision in this part. For example, DAPA is the program already announced by President Obama that could provide deferred action to parents of citizens and legal permanent resident’s—although it’s currently held up in court. Sanders would only be expanding it to include the parents of DREAMers. However, he doesn’t make that clear.

What is clear is that Sanders has a very progressive platform laid out, however it’s a little muddled and still has some details to be worked out if he makes it to the Oval office.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.