Sometimes the Stars Align

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????After two years as an observer in immigration court, it is almost possible to get desensitized to the constant inhumanity of our deportation machinery. Every new executive order that limits the numbers of refugees, allows humans to be caged, deports people without access to a hearing, abolishes long standing grounds for asylum, and sends people back to countries where they face certain death, makes me despair that change will ever come.

As court observers with the Human Rights Defender Project, we observe hearings in immigration court as moral witnesses. We aim to bring transparency and accountability to hearings that have historically taken place out of the public view.  We observe and document to shed light, to motivate ourselves through our informed moral outrage, and ultimately, we aim to help create an immigration system that upholds the dignity of all people and that is built on international principles of human rights.  At times, through the relentless march of five-minute hearings, it can all seem futile.

But sometimes the stars align and the impact is measurable.

Last week I observed a hearing where a person gave up his asylum claim and asked to be deported. Yesterday I posted his bond and he is back living with his good friend and working on his asylum case.

It was the man’s second hearing. He had been given time to find an attorney but explained to the judge that he simply couldn’t afford one.  He asked to be deported, stating that he found prolonged detention at the Sherburne County Jail, the largest ICE detention facility in Minnesota, to be intolerable.

“I don’t like how I am treated there. I can’t stay there any longer.”

The judge, noting the man’s previous statement on record, asked if he feared for his life if he returned to his country of birth. “Yes,” he replied, speaking through the interpreter.  The judge encouraged him to fight for asylum and suggested he request, in writing, a bond hearing. He repeated his hopelessness and his lack of funds. But a friend in the courtroom for the hearing stood and said he would try to help with paperwork to try to support a motion for bond and for asylum.  Both of these things are daunting to do from detention, where communication is costly and onerous, where everything needs to be translated with the help of fellow detainees if one doesn’t have English fluency, and where it is nearly impossible to get ahold of evidence needed to support the case.

The Court Observer Project has a process for referring unique cases for pro bono representation, but there are limited resources to take the cases. The need is vast, the timelines are short, and the available attorneys are stretched thin. I had no idea of the merits of his potential asylum claim, but I felt he had a strong case for bond. He has lived in the United States for nearly twenty years, has a support system, and had no criminal history whatsoever.

I referred the case to the Pro Bono Bond Project, a small but vital part of the collaboration between The Advocates for Human Rights, the Binger Center for New Americans, and Robins Kaplan. A week later, with pro bono counsel from Robins Kaplan at his side, the man appeared for his bond hearing. After hearing his case, the immigration judge set a reasonable bond. His volunteer attorney then made a referral to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a nonprofit with a rotating fund for criminal and immigration bonds. They have very limited capacity, but almost immediately, Minnesota Freedom Fund responded that it could pay the bond for this case. I’m a volunteer with MFF, so I jumped at the chance to go to the ICE office myself to post the bond.

As I left the Whipple Building that beautiful sunny day, I knew that in this instance someone was gaining a measure of freedom and was having a bit of dignity restored.  After watching countless cases of replete with sorrow and injustice, I took comfort in knowing that sometimes we can make a difference.

By Amy Lange, the Immigration Court Observer Project Coordinator at The Advocates for Human Rights.

Advertisements

My Dad Is A “Buddhist Dictator”?

12279188_10153648095531011_703417067293205352_n
As a child, author Rosalyn Park was also told to “go back” to where she came from. 

When President Trump recently tweeted that Rep. Ilhan Omar (my representative) and three other congresswomen of color should “go back” to where they came from, empowering others to parrot him, I felt that hate personally. Those are words that I, and so many others, hear because we’re “different.” It reminded me of the racism my dad faced when he first came here and reinforced that, even though discrimination is illegal, it’s up to each of us to respect and make that a reality.

My dad immigrated to the United States more than 50 years ago from South Korea. He came for the “American Dream.” Carrying a suitcase containing his beloved judo uniform, he hoped for a good education and a new life – not unlike many of the immigrants who come to the U.S. today. He arrived with little resources: just $20 and an alarm clock in his pocket. My dad was fortunate that the university kindly let him stay in a basement office of the Dairy Science Building. He didn’t have any blankets, so he used his judo uniform as a blanket. For six months, all he could afford to eat was peanut butter sandwiches.

Dad Pic 2

 

A fellow student approached my dad with a request. He was going to serve in Vietnam and wanted to hire my dad for judo lessons. As poor as my dad was, he refused payment. My dad told him, “This country welcomed me in, and I want to give back for what the United States has done for me.” He agreed to teach the classes for free and open it up to interested students.

 

 

Three days before my dad’s first judo class, the local news ran a story about a woman with a judo black belt who fended off three attackers. The story received a lot of attention. When my dad arrived at the gym, he found 200 students waiting to learn judo. He didn’t turn any of them away. Instead, he divided them into two classes a night and taught six nights a week on top of his full-time student schedule. He was so tired some nights, he would get nosebleeds or come close to fainting. Still, he refused to take any money and continued teaching.

The local paper found out about his judo classes and ran a story about my dad. But it wasn’t to recognize him for volunteering his time and skills. Instead, they called him the “Buddhist Dictator” and accused him of using judo to convert students to Buddhism (my dad is Catholic, by the way). It was classic racism – uninformed, prejudiced, and intolerant of those who are “different.”

Dad judo

My dad’s experience happened a long time ago in the 1960s. But racism does not end with time. When I was in elementary school in the 1980s, other kids told me to “go back to where I came from.” This confused and crushed me. I was born in Minnesota. The only language I spoke was English. This was my country. Where was I supposed to go? What really hurt was how I was treated differently from our classmate, “Christine.” Like me, “Christine’s” parents immigrated to the U.S, but from Western Europe. She never got called names like “chink” or was told to “go home.” The only difference I could see between us was that she had brown hair and blue eyes. I am Asian.

My dad earned his Ph.D., worked 27 years at the same company, and became a U.S. citizen. But racism doesn’t go away with degrees, a job, or citizenship. And my own personal experience tells me racism doesn’t go away with years or generations. Racism lives because people are fearful or ignorant about who or what is different from them. And to me and others who are “different,” that translates into hatred.

Time does not defeat racism. People do. It’s 2019. And it’s time for each of us to stand up against racism and stand up for human rights.

To learn more about The Advocates for Human Rights’ work or to volunteer, visit: http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/volunteer

By Rosalyn Park, Director of The Advocates’ Women’s Human Rights Program.

 

Turkey in Danger of Returning to the Death Penalty

flag of turkey
Photo by Engin Akyurt on Pexels.com

On the heels of the July 2016 attempted coup, Turkish officials expressed their intention to reinstate the death penalty for “child killers” and terrorists. The Deputy of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) threatened that the government would introduce a bill calling for the execution of rebel soldiers involved in the coup. President Erdogan stated that he would approve any legislation brought forth by the government to restore the death penalty. The following month, far-right leader of the Great Unity Party, Mustafa Destici, announced that a proposal to reinstate the death penalty would be introduced to Turkey’s parliament in October of that year.

Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2004 and made abolition permanent in March 2006 when it ratified the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OP2-ICCPR). The Protocol states that “[n]o one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed” and “[e]ach State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.” OP2-ICCPR does not authorize a State Party to subsequently withdraw ratification.

Reinstating the death penalty contradicts Turkey’s obligation to abolish capital punishment as a State Party to OP2-ICCPR. What’s deeply troubling is not just that Turkey would renege on its international human rights obligations and resume the use of a cruel and dehumanizing penalty, but that the Turkish government has major motivation to do so in an effort to silence its political opposition and marginalized groups.

Remember how Turkish officials pushed to assign the death penalty specifically to “terrorists” in the wake of the attempted coup in 2016? Terrorist, in this context, seems to be code for dissident. Since 2016, the Turkish Government has used counter-terrorism efforts as a means of cracking down on political opposition. Charges of “terrorism,” “terrorist sympathy,” and “terrorist propaganda” are levied against journalists, academics, and activists who oppose the Turkish Government’s actions and policies. In addition to stifling opposition voices, the government regularly uses charges of terrorism to further persecute the already vulnerable Kurdish community. The Turkish government has historically targeted the Kurdish people; Turkish nationalism promotes both the assimilation and the elimination of non-Turkish minority groups, such as Kurds and Armenians.

In the defense of human rights, it is critical that we say the quiet part out loud: if Turkey reinstates the death penalty under the pretext of using it as a means to combat vaguely defined “terrorism,” Turkish authorities will wield it unjustly to permanently rid Turkish authorities of political opponents. As Turkey’s government institutions are characterized by weak separation of powers, compromising the independence of the judiciary, reinstatement of the death penalty would place even more power in the hands of the executive branch. Reinstatement of the death penalty is a threat not only to journalists and human rights defenders, but also to the Kurdish community, which already faces ethnically motivated persecution and violence at the hands of the Turkish state.

The Advocates for Human Rights frequently collaborates with the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, serving on its Steering Committee and leading the Coalition’s advocacy at the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a mechanism during which each nation reports on the state of human rights within its jurisdiction and receives recommendations from its peers—other nations around the world. It is an opportunity for The Advocates and other civil society organizations to lobby UN member states on issues like the death penalty. Often we urge governments to adopt best practices and ratify treaties, usually in response to reports of human rights violations.

Turkey’s third UPR is scheduled for January 28, 2020. Turkey has signed and ratified the relevant treaties, the death penalty has been struck from the law. To defend the Turkish people’s right to life, freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression, The Advocates will lobby governments to press the Turkish Government to make further commitments to uphold the country’s international human rights obligations.

As an intern in the International Justice Program at The Advocates for Human Rights, my work focuses on preparing for and evaluating the success of our lobbying efforts at the UN. Researching the death penalty in Turkey feels like a departure from the norm; past lobbying efforts have been successful and the death penalty was abolished officially, and yet the threat remains. In instances like these, The Advocates and its partners recognize how vital it is to act and advocate proactively to prevent future human rights violations. It is a reminder that even in countries and regions where we can celebrate progress, the protection and maintenance of human rights is ongoing and critical work, whether across the globe or in our own backyards.

You have the power to take action in the face of human rights violations. Learn what you can do to assist The Advocates for Human Rights in our work here. Learn more about our work to end the death penalty here.

By Grace Curtiss, rising junior at the University of Minnesota and summer 2019 intern with The Advocates’ International Justice Program. 

A Delightful Evening at The Advocates’ Human Rights Awards Dinner

img1561120991661
Intern Jessica Hammond with Andrés Cediel, the recipient of The Advocates’ 2019 Don and Arvonne Fraser Human Rights Award

The scene that unfolded on the evening of June 20, 2019 had been in preparation for months. Excitement filled the air as staffers and volunteers, each assigned a list of duties to fulfill, quickly moved past each other in The Depot – a Minneapolis historic venue chosen as the site for the 2019 Human Rights Awards Dinner and, from what I learnt that evening, a former train station serving as a stopping point for the Orphan Trains.

Our keynote speaker, guest of honor, and recipient of the 2019 Don and Arvonne Fraser Human Rights Award, Andrés Cediel, gave an engaging speech. His qualifications as professor of visual journalism at the University of California Berkeley, investigative journalist, and accomplished documentarian had the guests attentively following along as he took us down his trail of professional experiences. He opened his speech with a statement acknowledging the lands on which we were, paying respect to the Anishinaabe people as traditional stewards of the land and recognizing the relationship that continues to exist between them and their traditional territories. He reminded attendees of the history of Indigenous people in Minnesota, some of whom had been held in detention camps at Fort Snelling, an area not far from where we sat.

Orphan Trains

Cediel then segued into a discussion about the Orphan Trains in the late 1800s. Orphan trains? I asked myself while trying to catch his explanation of their presence in Minneapolis. I searched the room of the almost 700 dinner guests – mainly legal professionals, advocates, and donors from varying professions – to find that most shared the same look of curiosity. It turned to horror when we learned about the system in which an estimated 150,000-250,000 allegedly orphaned and abandoned children from the East Coast were relocated to new homes in Minnesota and across the American Plains. Sadly, the Milwaukee Road Depot building had also once been a station where children were displayed and given away. Essentially, they were placed on auction blocks and sold to the highest bidder – some of whom, having ill motives, bought them as cheap farm laborers, partaking in what we’d now recognize as labor trafficking. Despicable, I thought. Yet I appreciated the progress made from that dark part of America’s history to now where such trains couldn’t be fathomed.

Human Rights Violations at Home

Cediel pointed out that human rights violations take place everywhere, including here at home. This is illustrated in his documentary films “Rape on the Night Shift,” “Trafficked in America,” and “Rape in the Fields,” which were featured in the PBS Frontline Series and which he created with his collaborator Daffodil Altan. [As an aside, earlier in the week the first two films had been the focus of two very well attended Continuing Legal Education events facilitated by The Advocates.] Cediel’s film, “Rape on the Night Shift,” documents the story of custodial workers sexually assaulted by their supervisor. Cediel told us of the heavy emotions he experienced from listening to the women’s stories and of secondhand trauma – a parting gift I suppose would be inevitable in his line of work. I felt similar emotions watching the films and again listening to his speech.

Award Recipients of the Evening 

But the night was also about other awards – the Volunteer Awards recognize the importance of volunteers to The Advocates’ work and certain outstanding volunteers in particular. Staff members of The Advocates took their turn on stage to distribute awards to volunteers who had made great contributions to the Advocates. Among the list of recipients were Dr. Charlayne Myers and Steve Woldum, Charles Weed, Judi Corradi, Zonta Club of Minneapolis, Alena Levina, and the Somali 92 Team. The Somali 92 team is a collection of lawyers, paralegals, and other staff who represented deportees on a December 2017 Customs and Immigration Enforcement chartered flight that had gone horribly wrong.

Following this was the announcement that Minneapolis-based Women at the Court House (WATCH), an organization that works to make the justice system more effective and responsive for victimized women and children in domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking cases, would become part of The Advocates’ Women’s Rights program. I smiled to hear the news, which I think is a positive step for the human rights work here in Minnesota and beyond.

Funding for The Advocates

The evening would not have been complete without professional auctioneer and award recipient, Pat Brenna, who, with great ease and skill, drew enthusiasm and laughter from guests as she tugged at their purse strings to fund the work of The Advocates. It was a great success! Many guests happily waved their donation envelopes in the air at Pat’s call for takers to fund projects ranging in value from $100 to $10,000. Pat, never shy, informed guests of The Advocates’ goal to raise $270,000 from the event to help fund The Advocates’ various human rights projects. And, from the looks of the unofficial numbers, that announcement paid off – and yes, that pun was intended.

Earlier in the evening there had been a silent auction. Many items were auctioned off – imported wines rich in vibrant flavor and aromatic notes guaranteeing to leave the consumer more than satisfied, trips abroad including accommodations for a stay in a beautiful home in Italy, and fine hand-made jewelry and clothing among many other tempting indulgences for the guests. All in all, The Advocates raised close to $300,000 from this year’s event – a record-setting amount in the 15+ year history since this event has been held.

Lingering Thoughts

Just as I, staffers, and volunteers made a concerted effort in setting up for the event, we also pitched in during the take-down process. I watched as guests, gleaming with smiles and uttering thank-yous to members of The Advocates, filed out of The Depot. Despite my tired eyes caused by the toll of the day’s activities, I reflected on the sentiment that Andrés Cediel departed onto us during his keynote address. He stated, as Martin Luther King Jr. had popularized, that

“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

While Cediel believes this to be true – that good ultimately prevails despite the evil and tragedy around us – he added that it requires a proactive effort made every day by people who care about human rights and dignity. And this is exactly what The Advocates do. During my time with The Advocates, I have had the pleasure of joining this effort at the international level, where The Advocates fight for justice and to bring to surface human rights violations happening around the world.

Though The Advocates has had many victories, Cediel reminds us that the fight for good is an ongoing process. And with the continued support from staff members, volunteers, interns, and community donors, I believe that The Advocates will be able to remain in this fight to bend the moral arc of the universe towards justice.

To learn more on how to be a guest or a sponsor for The Advocates’ Human Rights Award Dinner, please visit the link at: http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/hrad.

By Jessica Hammond, a summer intern with The Advocates’ International Justice Program and second-year law student at the University of Windsor.

 

Absence of Justice for Women in Mexico

woman-embracing-sky-3During my time interning with the International Justice Program at The Advocates for Human Rights, I conducted research on violence against women in Mexico. What I learned through my research represents one of the most troubling cases of human rights infringements, as the State condones impunity for perpetrators.

In 2007, the government of Mexico passed a promising law regarding femicide, physical and sexual violence, as well as “violence against the woman’s dignity, integrity or freedom.” While the aim of this law is to combat the violence women suffer, the perpetrators are often government officials or public defenders themselves. Accusations made against public authorities intertwine with the ongoing relationship between drug cartels and the government, as it is reported that the cartels control the police. There have been numerous accounts of women filing claims with officers only to be sexually harassed and/or threatened in return. This, in turn, allows for the continuation of corruption and absence of justice.

The research I conducted on violence against women in Mexico was for The Advocates’ report to the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) for their review of Mexico’s compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The Advocates’ report revealed how violence against women and impunity violates Arts. 1, 2, 4(1), 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. By comparing Mexico’s State Party Report and the CAT’s List of Issues Prior to Reporting and Recommendations from the prior review, we were able to identify he gaps between the government’s stated commitments and its actual implementation of reform to protect women.

Along with two other interns, I then analyzed information (used with permission) about human rights abuses experienced by The Advocates’ asylum clients from Mexico. The experience of these clients illustrated the Mexican government’s failure to protect women from violence.  These women reported not only experiencing violence, but also threats from the police, lack of action, and even accounts of stalking after reporting domestic violence.

One client, for example, fled to the United States out of fear of being killed by her former partner, a member of a Mexican drug cartel. The police told her that they were unable to do anything about her partner’s violent abuse and his threats to her family—the cartel “had the police,” is what she told The Advocates. The client fled to another Mexican state, but her former partner made threats on social media and left messages on her phone, saying that he would find her, kill her and chop her up. Additionally, another client was sexually harassed by a police captain when she filed a case regarding her kidnapped brother. He threatened her with further violence and following the incident, he and fellow officers frequently harassed and threatened her when patrolling her neighborhood.

In addition to sharing the firsthand experience of The Advocates’ clients with the UN Committee Against Torture, we also made recommendations for measures the Mexican government should adopt to protect women from violence. First, Mexico should establish oversight bodies and accountability processes to ensure the full implementation of the General Law on Women’s Access to a Life Free of Violence. In tandem to this, we recommend that the government of Mexico create training programs, in consultation with or led by NGOs serving victims, for their law enforcement and judiciary to be better informed on the dynamics of domestic and gender-based violence against women, including responses that follow best practice standards and international legal norms.

The slow progress toward equality and justice for women in Mexico reflects a number of discriminatory factors that allow inequality to prevail. For example, women are under-represented in governance positions in Mexico, although it is recognized that women in these positions are more inclined to “advocate for social issues that benefit all.”  Greater female representation in decision-making roles may help foster efforts to promote gender equality or focus greater attention on violence against women issues, including femicide.

Widespread violence against women and anti-feminist sentiment are embedded in other aspects of life in Mexico, including the continuation of child marriage and barriers to female education.  A study out of Mexico City revealed that 25,000 girls between 12 and 14 years of age were already married. Forced and early marriage has an impact on girls’ education, and 83% of married girls do not attend school. When girls do not complete their education, studies show that poverty increases in tandem to domestic and gender-based violence against women, unplanned or early pregnancy, and other female health issues.

When the government fails to hold offenders accountable, it sends a message that violence against women will be tolerated. Furthermore, impunity for violence against women not only perpetuates these violations, but encourages negative rhetoric concerning gender roles. The Advocates’ asylum clients’ experiences reveal that much of the violence against women involves sexual violence. Abuse, harassment, and threats against women often sexually objectify or reflect harmful misperceptions that women are a weaker sex.

Without accountability in her country, no woman is truly safe. The international community has called on Mexico to better protect women through the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, as well as other treaty body reviews. To date, however, Mexico’s stated commitments have not been implemented.  Pledges made to the international community mean almost nothing to those individual survivors of  violence, especially when these commitments are being made by those who have the power to rectify but merely perpetuate the situation. Many women have lost faith in the State’s ability and willingness to protect them, leading to the difficult choice to leave home and seek asylum in the United States. Until the government finds a way to create accountability and effectively combat on violence against women, Mexico will continue to be unsafe for women and girls.

I’ve learned a lot about violence against women while working with The Advocates, globally as well as domestically. Their website www.stopvaw.org offers information, tools and legal advocacy to inform the world about these injustices. Raising international awareness and advocating for international law is an exemplary tool for attempting to bring justice to women survivors of intimate partner violence when their governments cannot or will not protect them.

By Sydney Shelstad, rising University of Minnesota senior majoring in Political Science and Global Studies with a concentration in Human Rights and Social Justice. She was a spring 2019 intern with The Advocates’ International Justice Program. 

 

 

 

Capital punishment: victims and their families deserve better

WDADP 2019 posterIn announcing the Justice Department’s decision to resume executions for people sentenced to death under federal law last Thursday, Attorney General William Barr said, “We owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”

Barr’s words reflect a common misunderstanding about justice and the interests of family members of people who have been killed in horrific crimes.

People often assume that after execution, family members will be able to “move on” or achieve some kind of “closure.” But not all family members share those sentiments. Research confirms that often after the execution family members realize that state-sanctioned killing did not bring them peace. In fact, prosecutors and officials like Barr who want to seem “tough on crime” too often use victims and their family members as pawns.

Tsarnaev jurors kept in the dark about family members’ wishes

One of the people most recently sentenced to death under federal law was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of crimes related to the Boston Marathon bombing. Bill and Denise Richard, whose 8-year-old son Martin was one of three people killed near the finish line, had urged federal authorities not to pursue the death penalty for Tsarnaev:

We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring.

For us, the story of Marathon Monday 2013 should not be defined by the actions or beliefs of the defendant, but by the resiliency of the human spirit and the rallying cries of this great city. We can never replace what was taken from us, but we can continue to get up every morning and fight another day. As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.

The sister of police officer Sean Collier, another person Tsarnaev and his brother killed, also spoke out against the death penalty, as did two people who lost limbs in the bombing.

Yet despite these sentiments, prosecutors kept the Tsarnaev jury in the dark. When Bill Richard delivered his victim impact statement to the jury, he was not allowed to disclose his opposition to the death penalty.

Prosecutors not only benefit from but also perpetuate the misplaced assumption that all family members of victims want the death penalty. At least one juror in the Tsarnaev trial, Kevan Fagan, said knowing the Richards’ views probably would have changed his vote at the sentencing phase.

Victims’ families are organizing against the death penalty

Victims’ family members like Bill and Denise Richard who oppose the death penalty are often marginalized and mistreated in the criminal justice system. Renny Cushing, who opposed the death penalty long before his father’s murder, recognized that the structures that are designed to benefit victims and survivors are often reserved for people who support capital punishment:

These hard-won benefits are too often unavailable to victims if they oppose the death penalty. Whether this is because victim’s advocacy offices operate under the auspices of the prosecutor or because an assumption exists among advocates that all family members of murder victims will want the perpetrator executed, the result is the same. Too often, family members who oppose the death penalty are silenced, marginalized, and abandoned, even by the people who are theoretically charged with helping them.

(Earlier this year Cushing, who now serves in the New Hampshire legislature, successfully pushed for that state’s repeal of the death penalty.)

Several organizations organized by and for the families of murder victims are speaking out against the death penalty. Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, an organization of victims’ family members who oppose the death penalty, has a mission to challenge the assumption that all families of murder victims support the death penalty. MVFHR plays an important role in educating the public and amplifying the voices of victims’ family members who oppose the death penalty, and its website includes a gallery of stories from victims’ family members who oppose the death penalty. Similarly, murder victim family members lead an organization called Journey of Hope . . . From Violence to Healing, a group that conducts public education speaking tours to address alternatives to the death penalty.  They testify side by side with family members of people on death row, family members of people who have been executed, and people who have been exonerated from death row.

Victims’ family members are better off without the death penalty

The President of Journey of Hope, Bill Pelke, co-founded the organization after four teenage girls murdered his grandmother. Pelke originally supported the death penalty for Paula Cooper, who was characterized as the girls’ ring-leader. But he “went through a spiritual transformation in 1986 after praying for love and compassion for Paula Cooper and her family.” He then championed an international crusade and ultimately helped get Cooper’s sentence commuted from death to sixty years in prison. In Pelke’s words, “The death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with healing. [It] just continues the cycle of violence and creates more murder victims family members. We become what we hate.  We become killers.” Research backs up his words.

Dr. Marilyn Armour at the University of Texas and Dr. Mark Umbreit at the University of Minnesota conducted research comparing outcomes for family members of murder victims in Minnesota (which does not have the death penalty) and Texas (which does). Their interviews with family members of murder victims demonstrated that the death penalty results in more negative outcomes:

Although the [death penalty] is promulgated as the ultimate justice, this Study found that the critical dynamic was the control survivors felt they had over the process of getting to the end. In Minnesota, survivors had greater control, likely because the appeals process was successful, predictable, and completed within two years after conviction; whereas, the finality of the appeals process in Texas was drawn out, elusive, delayed, and unpredictable. It generated layers of injustice, powerlessness, and in some instances, despair. Although the grief and sorrow remained high for Minnesotans, no longer having to deal with the murderer, his outcome, or the criminal justice system allowed survivors’ control and energy to be put into the present to be used for personal healing.

These conclusions echo and reinforce the reasons the Richards gave in asking that prosecutors not seek the death penalty for Tsarnaev.

A University of Minnesota study found that just 2.5% of family members reported achieving closure after the execution of the perpetrator, while 20.1% said the execution did not help them heal. Lula Redmond, a therapist who works with victims’ family members in Florida, observed: “More often than not, families of murder victims do not experience the relief they expected to feel at the execution. Taking a life doesn’t fill that void, but it’s generally not until after the execution that families realize this.”

Family members of murder victims deserve support and assistance.

As studies confirm, capital punishment is no panacea to “heal” family members of murder victims. Rather, true healing comes through support, assistance, and restorative justice. Instead of plowing scarce federal and state funds into costly death penalty cases, we would better spend our dollars on improving the scope and quality of victim services. Victoria Coward, whose son Tyler was murdered in 2007, remarked:

If we are serious about helping surviving victims — all of us — we need to see the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the death penalty is given in fewer than 1 percent of cases, yet it sucks up millions and millions of dollars that could be put toward crime prevention or victims’ services. What I wouldn’t give for a tiny slice of those millions to give my grieving daughters some professional help to process the death of their brother.

Take action

On July 25, the same day as Barr’s announcement, Representative Ayanna Pressley introduced H.R. 4052, a bill to prohibit imposition of the death penalty for any violation of federal law. The bill currently has 12 cosponsors, including independent Rep. Justin Amash.

In introducing the bill, Rep. Pressley said, “It was wrong then and it’s wrong now and I am proud to introduce a bill that completely abolishes the use of capital punishment as a punitive measure. The cruelty is the point – this is by design.”

Encourage your Representative in Washington to cosponsor H.R. 4052 and contact your Senators and ask them to sponsor a companion bill in the Senate. If you live in a state that still has the death penalty, invite speakers from MVFHR, Journey of Hope, or Witness to Innocence to meet with your state elected officials.

The Advocates for Human Rights is proud to join with Journey of Hope, MVFHR, and Witness to Innocence as a member of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. Learn more about our work to abolish the death penalty here.

By Amy Bergquist. Amy is a Senior Staff Attorney with the International Justice Program at The Advocates for Human Rights and she currently serves as Vice President of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

Understanding the Expansion of Expedited Removal

statue 2 web largeThe long-expected announcement of the expansion of expedited removal authority throughout the United States, just a week after the administration rewrote the rules on establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture, is like a 1-2 punch for due process and the right to seek asylum.

Expedited removal, a product of the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, gives low-level immigration officials the power of judge, jury, and executioner of deportation orders. This is particularly disturbing given the record of misconduct and lack of accountability that permeates federal immigration enforcement. Expedited removal authorizes immigration officers to summarily arrest, detain, and deport people believed to be in violation of two provisions of immigration laws. The American Immigration Council has a good primer on expedited removal here.

These provisions – INA 212(a)(6)(C) and (a)(7) – render people “inadmissible” to the United States based on misrepresentation or failure to have required documents for entry.

No actual proof of these violations is needed. There’s no appeal. The penalty: a five-year bar to returning to the United States on a visa.

These provisions are slippery creatures. Here’s how these laws work in practice.

A political dissident escapes their country after spending weeks in jail for attending a political rally. They have a visitor visa to the United States, granted to them so they can travel to this country for a conference of democracy activists, so they buy a plane ticket and head for safety. When they finally arrive at the U.S. airport, exhausted from a long flight and worn out after weeks of imprisonment and torture, they present their lawfully obtained visa to the immigration official. But, when they tell the officer that they want asylum, they invalidate their visitor visa because they say they want asylum, not just to visit. They have violated INA 212(a)(6)(C). Immigration officials arrest, detain, and interrogate them. They sit for hours without food or access to a phone. An immigration agent with little training on the political situation unfolding in this far-flung nation has the power to return them on the spot. No judge. No lawyer. No hearing.

Years ago, one of our volunteer attorneys called for help finding out what had happened to friend’s mother. The elderly grandmother had come to the U.S. for her annual visit. Her flight arrived, but she never came out of immigration control. Days later the woman made contact with her frantic children. She had been deported under the expedited removal laws. Apparently immigration officials saw other travelers with a similar last name on the flight who did not have visas. They accused her of being in cahoots with them. Eventually, after spending the night in an interrogation room at the airport, she was sent home with an expedited removal order. Five years of missed school plays and family celebrations were the result.

For years this extraordinary authority was limited to people arriving at airports and sea ports. Then the power expanded to people found within 100 miles of a U.S. border who couldn’t prove they had been in the country at least 14 days. (For my Minnesota friends, that meant that a visit to the North Shore could result in being pulled over, questioned by Border Patrol, and followed to your campsite – at least if you don’t “look Minnesotan” – as we documented in our 2014 report on immigration in Minnesota).

Now the Department of Homeland Security has expanded this sweeping power with plans to apply it to anyone, anywhere in the United States who cannot prove they have been here at least two years. Having lawful immigration status – or even being a U.S. citizen – is no guarantee that you won’t be questioned about your status or your documents. According to an NPR report, hundreds of U.S. citizens each year face detention and deportation. (And, let’s not forget, the United States has engaged in mass deportation of U.S. citizens to Mexico during the Depression, when “up to 1.8 million people of Mexican descent – most of them American-born – were rounded up in informal raids and deported in an effort to reserve jobs for white people.”)

The law treats people at the border differently. And bit by bit the “border” has expanded so that race-based traffic stops, document checks on trains and buses travelling in the northern part of the country, and roadblock checkpoints throughout the southwest all have become routine.

But the immigration law cannot override foundational constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, disappearance, and torture.

So what should people do?

#1 Know your rights. Throughout the past weeks, as threatened ICE raids put communities on high alert, we saw examples of how making ICE play by the rules works to protect people. If you want a good overview of the constitutional limits on search and seizure, check out ICE’s own training on the Fourth Amendment. (Thanks Mijente and Detention Watch Network for forcing ICE to turn over it’s 2017 Operation Mega documents).

You have the right to remain silent. Immigration officials like to rely on people’s admissions of unlawful presence.

You have the right to refuse to let ICE into your home unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. ICE likes to show up with administrative warrants of arrest or removal, which are not enough to authorize them to enter your home.

Remember that even the draconian expedited removal procedures have a review process. People who fear persecution or torture have a right to a review of their claim. People who claim U.S. citizenship, lawful permanent residence, or refugee or asylum status have a right to a “claimed status review” before being deported under expedited removal laws.

#2 Plan ahead. You don’t have to carry a giant folder of documents with you, but gathering your important papers together and storing them in a safe place where a trusted person can access them is a smart move. Help people who may have trouble explaining or even knowing their status know what to do if ICE asks them questions.

#3 Sue. Seriously. Immigrant rights organizations around the country are planning litigation, but individuals whose rights are violated need to step forward. Violations need to be documented and accountability demanded.

#4 Speak out. The expansion of expedited removal was announced in the Federal Register on July 23, 2019. Public comments will be taken for 90 days. You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number DHS-2019-0036 using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.

Call your congressional representatives at 202-224-3121 and ask them to restore due process by repealing the expedited removal laws.

By Michele Garnett McKenzie, Deputy Director of The Advocates for Human Rights