People are breaking U.S. immigration law at the border, but it’s not asylum seekers – it’s the U.S. government.

FeaturedPeople are breaking U.S. immigration law at the border, but it’s not asylum seekers – it’s the U.S. government.

The effects of the administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy have been immediate and tragic. Just two months after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy for people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border and a month after he made clear this would mean parents arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border would be prosecuted for illegal entry and their children taken away, story after story of separated families have appeared. Mr. Sessions also made clear that this zero-tolerance policy applies even to those seeking asylum.

So it’s no surprise that reports of U.S. border guards refusing to allow asylum seekers to make their claims continue to emerge.

People seeking asylum are following the law, not breaking it.

Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution. This is the law – both under international law and federal statute. Recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and spelled out in the 1951 Refugee Convention , the United States made good on its commitment to the this principle in 1980 when the Refugee Act was signed into law.

This right ensures that people fleeing persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group have a chance to make their claim before being returned to death, torture, imprisonment, or other human rights violations.

The moral and human cost of ignoring this fundamental human right is high. Witness the voyage of the St. Louis in 1939, when U.S. immigration law’s restrictive immigration quotas resulted in the return of 532 passengers to continental Europe, 254 of whom died during the Holocaust.

U.S. border officials violate the law when they turn back asylum seekers without a hearing.

In the aftermath of World War II, the world community recognized that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.[1] That principle, known to refugee policy wonks as “non-refoulement,” is now a rule of customary international law.[2]

Refusing to allow people to make their asylum claims, as U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials reportedly did this week in El Paso, violates U.S. law and violates U.S. treaty obligations. These complaints are not new or isolated: last summer, for example, the American Immigration Council challenged CBP’s unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers arriving in California. The case remains pending.

The administration’s efforts to prosecute of asylum seekers who appear at ports-of-entry and separate them from their children also violate international law. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani rebuked the U.S. in a June 5 statement:

“The current policy in the United States of separating ‘extremely young children’ from their asylum-seeker or migrant parents along the country’s southern border ‘always constitutes a child rights violation.’” [3]

A federal judge agrees that the administration’s practice may violate the U.S. Constitution. In a ruling earlier this week, the judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the practice.

While the administration claims it wants immigrants to “follow the law,” it seems blind to the fact that people who appear at ports-of-entry and claim asylum In addition to The Refugee Convention also prohibits the U.S. from imposing penalties on asylum seekers on account of their illegal entry or presence.[4] In order to deter asylum seekers from coming to the United States.

We need zero tolerance for human rights violations, not for people seeking asylum.

We need zero tolerance for public policy based on hate, racism, and xenophobia. While the administration’s new policies are ripping families apart and denying people their fundamental right to seek asylum, the policies have not slowed the arrival of people seeking protection. More than 50,000 people were arrested crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in May, the third month in a row with more than 50,000 arrests. A report by the Vera Institute of Justice released this week found no evidence that criminal prosecutions led to a decline in apprehensions along the Southwest border.

This is hardly surprising. People fleeing for their lives don’t consult presidential Twitter feeds or check Justice Department press releases. Like good parents everywhere, they go where they hope their children will be able to grow up in safety, protected by the rule of law and the principles of human rights.

[1] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33(1).

[2] Customary international law is

[3] While the United States stands alone among the world’s nations as the only country not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, international law is clear that the family is entitled to respect and protection. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, article 16(3), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, article 23(1), and American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, article 17(1) each state that ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’.  European Social Charter, 1961, article 16, ‘With a view to ensuring the necessary conditions for the full development of the family, which is a fundamental unit of society, the Contracting Parties undertake to promote the economic, legal and social protection of family life ….’ African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, article 18(1) ‘The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society.  It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical and moral health.’

[4] 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31 (1).

Advertisements

Take Action to End the Separation of Immigrant Families

FeaturedTake Action to End the Separation of Immigrant Families

As #WhereAreTheChildren trended over the Memorial Day weekend, many people asked what they can do to protect children who have fled to the United States. Here are 5 things to know and do.

Number 1: Demand the end of family separation as a weapon to deter people from seeking asylum. In early April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance policy” for illegal entry into the United States, taking away prosecutorial discretion from U.S. attorneys Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas by mandating criminal prosecution of anyone who attempts to enter the United States without authorization including – and in violation of Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention – asylum seekers. A month later, Sessions, along with the Department of Homeland Security, spelled out the impact of that policy: “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law.” Call your congressional representatives to urge Congress to take action to end this practice.

Number 2: Take part in the #FamiliesBelongTogether National Day of Action . Actions are being organized around the country. (If you’re in the Twin Cities, lawyers are organizing a meet-up at the Hennepin County Government Center fountain on Friday at noon. Bring your friends. Bring a sign. Bring a lunch. Consider wearing white. There won’t be any program. We just want to gather a big group to show that the community believes America must treat every person with respect.)

Number 3: Don’t call for more surveillance and tracking of immigrant children. The “missing” children are not missing. These children’s adult sponsors – family members or others with whom they had a preexisting relationship – may not have answered the phone when the federal government called. As The New York Times, in one of the many attempts to make sense of the story, reported over the weekend:

“Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees refugee resettlement, began making calls last year to determine what had happened to 7,635 children the government had helped place between last October and the end of the year.

From these calls, officials learned that 6,075 children remained with their sponsors. Twenty-eight had run away, five had been removed from the United States and 52 had relocated to live with a nonsponsor. The rest were unaccounted for, giving rise to the 1,475 number. It is possible that some of the adult sponsors simply chose not to respond to the agency.”

Number 4: Urge Congress to pass the HELP Separated Children Act. Led by Senator Tina Smith and Rep. Roybal-Allard, the HELP Separated Children Act would provide basic protection to children whose parents are facing deportation. Learn more about the bill here.

Number 5: Demand that children seeking safety in our country are treated humanely. A new ACLU report based on thousands of pages of documents show “breathtaking” misconduct, abuse, and neglect of children coupled with a reprehensible failure of accountability. These documents cover 2009-2014, showing that the Obama administration bears the blame for creating the system being deployed against families today. You can sign the ACLU petition calling on U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to stop subjecting children in its custody to physical, sexual, and verbal abuse, hold responsible agents accountable, and create safeguards against future abuses.

By: Michele Garnett McKenzie, deputy director of The Advocates for Human Rights

Featured

New Curriculum Uses Personal Stories to Teach Immigration

IHRC lessons

Spurred by the current public rhetoric around immigration, teachers have been reaching out to The Advocates for Human Rights for resources that help their students understand how and why people immigrate to the United States and what they experience once they arrive. The Immigration History Research Center (IHRC) collects personal narratives by contemporary immigrants and refugees that can answer those questions. Working together, The Advocates and the IHRC have created a series of lessons, Teaching Immigration with the Immigrant Stories Project. This free curriculum for grades 8 to adult learners helps students learn about U.S. immigration through immigrants’ personal stories.

Storytelling is at the center of Teaching Immigration. Each unit features several digital stories from the IHRC’s Immigrant Stories Project. Immigrant Stories trains participants to create 3-5 minute original videos about a personal or family immigration experience. Students study these stories within the contexts of the U.S. immigration system, U.S. immigration history, and global migration conditions. For example, while learning about the refugee resettlement system, students watch videos by several refugees explaining their experiences navigating this bureaucracy from refugee camps to new schools in the U.S.

The curriculum includes three units. Each unit contains several lessons, and Units One and Two include optional activities. Teachers may choose any combination of lessons.

“Unit One: Understanding Immigration” introduces students to the many reasons and ways that individuals and families migrate. Students study the global conditions that affect migration and examine individuals’ stories to understand how people make decisions in response to these conditions.

“Unit Two: Refugees and Asylum Seekers” introduces students to the U.S. refugee and

asylum systems. Students study these systems through a human rights perspective and compare the experiences of individual refugees and asylum seekers who have come to the U.S. since World War II.

“Unit Three: Youth, Identity, and Immigration” focuses on the experiences of immigrant youth and immigrants’ children. The unit’s themes include identity, culture, belonging, discrimination, and heritage.

Teaching Immigration builds on the third edition of The Advocates’ Energy of a Nation curriculum. It includes lesson plans, classroom activities, worksheets, background summaries, and up-to-date fact sheets. Teachers may also download PowerPoints explaining complex aspects of the U.S. immigration system. The curriculum is applicable to a variety of subjects, including social studies, history, geography, English, media studies, and literature.

The Advocates and the IHRC believe that personal stories are a powerful tool for developing empathy and understanding how national and global conditions affect individuals and families. Teaching Immigration helps teachers meet academic standards while enriching their lessons with personal immigration narratives. By teaching students to connect these stories to a deeper understanding of contemporary immigration, The Advocates and IHRC hope to provide students with the perspectives to combat xenophobia and transform future immigration debates.  Download the free curriculum at http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/teachingimmigration.html

By Elizabeth Venditto, Immigrant Stories Project Manager, Immigration History Research Center

 The Teaching Immigration curriculum is supported by the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts’ Joan Aldous Innovation Fund.  

Featured

Supreme Court orders reargument in indefinite detention case

Child or woman's hand in jailLast week, the Supreme Court ordered reargument in Jennings v. Rodriguez.  The case challenges whether detention for indefinite periods of time without review defies the constitution.  

This year, there could be up to 500,000 people detained in federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers, jails, and private prisonsWhile some are detained a few weeks, others may be held for months or even years while they challenge their removal before the immigration courts and on appeal.   

 

The initial challenge to indefinite detention, Rodriguez, et al. v. Robbins, et al., was filed in 2007 at the federal district courtAlejandro Rodriguez, who had been detained for 3 years awaiting his deportation without a bond hearing, challenged the government’s authority to detain him indefinitely. The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s order requiring the detainees to receive bond hearings after six months of detention and every six months following to address their detainment while pending their deportation proceedings.  

Throughout the Ninth Circuit, Rodriguez hearings have been provided regularly, resulting in the release of people from detention while they pursue their claims to remain in the United States. Following the Court’s order, people detained outside the Ninth Circuit will continue to face indefinite detention until the Court rules next year.

The Advocates for Human Rights recognizes the fundamental human rights of the rights of asylum, due process, fair deportation procedures, freedom from arbitrary detention, family unity, as well as other rights as an approach to immigration.

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

Featured

The Sanctuary Movement Case, 1985

After 19 years of practicing corporate litigation with prominent law firms in New York City and Minneapolis, I was a tabula rasa in what turned out to be important topics for me. I had no knowledge of, or interest in, international human rights law in general or refugee and asylum law in particular. Nor did I have any knowledge of, or interest in, Latin America in general or El Salvador in particular. At the same time I was struggling with the question of how to integrate my newly re-acquired Christian faith with my professional life.

In 1985 all of this started to change.

My senior partner at Faegre & Benson asked me to provide legal counsel to the firm’s client, the American Lutheran Church. The problem: how should the ALC respond to the news that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service had sent undercover agents into worship services and Bible study meetings at Lutheran and Presbyterian churches in Arizona that were involved in the Sanctuary Movement?

As I soon discovered, that Movement was a loose association of Christian congregations that declared themselves sanctuaries or safe spaces for Salvadorans and Guatemalans fleeing their civil wars in the 1980s. The news about the “spies in the churches” was revealed by the U.S. Government in its prosecution of some of the Movement’s leaders for harboring and transporting illegal aliens, some of whom were later convicted of these charges.[1]

In the meantime, the ALC and my own church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), decided to join together to sue the U.S. Government over the “spies in the churches.” Eventually the U.S. District Court in Phoenix agreed with the churches that the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” clause[2] provided protection against certain government investigations.

The court said that the churches “in the free exercise of their constitutionally protected religious activities, are protected against governmental intrusion in the absence of a good faith purpose for the subject investigation. The government is constitutionally precluded from unbridled and inappropriate covert activity which has as its purpose or objective the abridgment of the first amendment freedoms of those involved. Additionally, the participants involved in such investigations must adhere scrupulously to the scope and extent of the invitation to participate that may have been extended or offered to them.”[3]

I should add that the courtroom work in this case was done by two lawyers at the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca–Peter Baird[4] and Janet Napolitano.[5]

This case marked a turning point in my legal career as will be evident in my subsequent posts Becoming a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer  and My Pilgrimage to El Salvador, April 1989.

By Duane W. Krohnke, a retired lawyer, adjunct law professor, and volunteer with The Advocates for Human Rights.

[1] One of the founders of the Sanctuary Movement was Rev. John Fife of Tucson’s Southside Presbyterian Church. He was one of those convicted in 1986 in the criminal case. Six years later he was elected the national leader (Moderator) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)..(Wikipedia, John Fife, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fife.)

[2] “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” (U.S. Const., Amend. I.)

[3] Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. U.S., 752 F. Supp. 1505, 1516 (D. Ariz. 1990), on remand from, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989).

[4] Peter Baird, http://www.lrlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Baird%20Bio.pdf; Phoenix veteran attorney Peter Baird dies, Phoenix Bus. J.(Aug. 31, 2009), http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily19.html.

[5] Napolitano now, of course, is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. (Wikipedia, Janet Napolitano, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano.)

Featured

Cruelty as Policy: Part Two

Child or woman's hand in jailWhat and who are behind the current wave of anti-immigrant feeling, including the cruel policy of “self-deportation” that is the subject of this two part series of articles?

It is important to acknowledge that fear of The Other is a near-universal human condition, and its causes and effects should not be oversimplified. It is also important to acknowledge the existence of elite interest groups which are currently working hard to exploit our fear of The Other and use it to advance their own agenda, an agenda aimed at keeping America a white and Christian nation.

The author of this, the second of two articles reflecting on the cruelty behind the currently ascendant hard-line anti-immigration movement, was raised in Minnesota during the fifties and sixties. Our state was then almost entirely lily white and raised in the Christian tradition. In the author’s high school class of more than 700, there were only two black students and, to the author’s knowledge, two Jewish students. Such an upbringing creates, in nearly every mind, assumptions that become part of an individual’s basic personality: a Minnesotan is automatically thought of as a white person of Christian heritage. People who don’t qualify on one or both counts may be fine folks in their way, but they are different from our concept of a Minnesotan. Carrying such assumptions in one’s mind doesn’t by itself make a person hateful or evil, but it can have consequences on a person’s beliefs and actions that might not be recognized. The assumptions brand our fellow human beings as The Other.

Recognizing that this non-diverse state of affairs once existed in many parts of the country, and still exists in many rural areas and small towns, may help explain the current rise of anti-immigrant sentiment, a recurring wave that has swept the United States several times in its history and has always been regretted afterward. Census data tells us that if current trends continue, the U.S. population will, for the first time, be “majority minority” by 2044. To some people, consciously or unconsciously, this means The Other is taking over, and that can be frightening.

There are elites who seek to whip up such fear, and organize and manage it for their own purposes. In particular, there is a cadre of organizations that are dedicated to a hard-line anti-immigration policy and that promote the cruel concept of “self-deportation” discussed in the previous article in this series. These organizations seek to display the appearance of broad-based support, but in fact were founded by or descended from the efforts of one man, John Tanton, and have been funded primarily by a small number of wealthy donors. (See Intelligence Report, “JOHN TANTON IS THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE ORGANIZED ANTI-IMMIGRATION MOVEMENT,” Southern Poverty Law Center; Jason DeParle, “The Anti-Immigration Crusader,New York Times; and “Funders of the Anti-Immigrant Movement,” Anti-Defamation League.)

They include the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”); the Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”); the Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”); Numbers USA; ProEnglish; U.S.English; the Social Contract Press and, the funding organization, U.S. Inc. Representatives of these organizations frequently lobby legislators, publish “think pieces,” do grass roots organizing on anti-immigrant themes, appear in the media and promulgate agendas for anti-immigrant actions by governments and private actors.

The man initially behind these groups, John Tanton, is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who was president of Zero Population Growth from 1975 to 1977. (See johntanton.org, a pro-Tanton website that describes him as a “Pro-immigrant spokesperson for population stabilization and immigration reduction.”)  His passions moved from global overpopulation to immigration and he founded FAIR in 1979. He was a fan of a 1973 novel by Frenchman Jean Raspail called The Camp of the Saints, an overtly racist fantasy in which hordes of sub-human non-whites overwhelm Europe and North America because liberal pansies in the affected governments lack the will to stop them.  Tanton’s Social Contract Press arranged for the re-publication of this novel in the United States in 1995, with money from Mellon heiress Cordelia Scaife May, who also funded a previous U.S. appearance of the novel. Tanton himself was quoted in the New York Times as having written to a friend, “For European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” 

It is a promising time for the hard-line anti-immigrant elites.  A former executive director of FAIR, Julie Kirchner, is now an advisor to the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Jon Feere, a former CIS policy analyst, now works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  Steve Bannon, strategy advisor to the President, has repeatedly referred to The Camp of the Saints in describing his thoughts on immigration policy.  Their thinking permeates actions and attitudes displayed by the current administration.

In such times, it is more critical than ever that human rights defenders such as The Advocates ceaselessly fight to implement national and international laws protecting refugees, and promote the application of a human rights framework to immigration policy.

To minimize the extent to which fear of The Other exists in this country, and in all the world, would be a mistake. But it would also be a mistake to ignore the wealthy elites who use that fear to support an agenda to keep America white.

Another Minnesotan, a Jew raised in a white Christian town in the northern part of the state, wrote a song after the assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers. It was called “Only A Pawn in their Game.” Bob Dylan caused some controversy with the song, which seemed to mitigate the fault of Evers’ murderer, but Dylan’s point was that the racism of poor whites was being manipulated by elites with an agenda of their own. As is often the case with Dylan, the lyrics sound with considerable force today.

He’s taught in his school

From the start by the rule

That the laws are with him

To protect his white skin

To keep up his hate

So he never thinks straight

‘Bout the shape that he’s in

But it ain’t him to blame

He’s only a pawn in their game

Bob Dylan, “Only a Pawn in their Game”

 

By James O’Neal, volunteer attorney and Vice Chair of The Advocates for Human Rights’ Board of Directors.

Read the first article Cruelty as Policy: Part One here.

 

 

 

Featured

Hate groups, incidents proliferating in U.S., The Advocates tells UN Human Rights Council

The increase in hate groups in the United States and the rise in incidents targeting migrants, refugees, and other groups were the focus of an oral statement made to the United Nations Human Rights Council by The Advocates for Human Rights.  The Advocates for Human Rights’ Deputy Director Jennifer Prestholdt delivered the following oral statement on March 17, 2017 during the Human Rights Council’s debate on racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration.

Mr. President:

The Advocates for Human Rights is deeply concerned about the rise in incidents targeting migrants, refugees, and racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in the United States, as well as the proliferation of hate groups.  Of greatest concern, however, is that some who have actively supported racist and xenophobic positions have assumed powerful leadership and advisory roles in the executive branch, lending an air of legitimacy to those views.

Recent changes to immigration policy raise serious concerns about racial and national origin profiling by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE “deports by attrition” by making undocumented migrants fearful of remaining in the U.S. Indeed, ICE arrests have increased sharply and we have received numerous reports of people being taken into custody outside courtrooms, in vehicles, and at their homes.

Local law enforcement has turned over thousands to ICE following traffic stops or other encounters. To facilitate removal, ICE routinely interrogates these migrants without counsel, intimidating them into agreeing to be deported without a hearing. An estimated 75% of deportees waive all legal rights, including claims to asylum, protection under CAT, and claims based on family unity.

These policies erode trust between immigrants and law enforcement, a trust many communities have worked to build in the interest of public safety.  Yet the administration’s January 25 executive order on domestic immigration enforcement would bar federal funding to jurisdictions that adopt community policing policies.

The Advocates for Human Rights is deeply concerned about the profiling and religious discrimination inherent in the administration’s most recent attempt to ban entry of people from 6 majority-Muslim countries and to halt the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. People who are or are perceived to be Muslim report facing additional scrutiny upon entry into the U.S. and their family members living abroad face an uncertain future.

The Advocates for Human Rights encourages the Human Rights Council to keep this issue at the forefront of its agenda.  Further, we call on all Member States, including the United States, to honor non-refoulement obligations and ensure that national immigration policies, as well as law enforcement practices, do not discriminate based on race, national origin or other status.

Thank you.