Proposed Regulation Seeks to Remove Adjudication Deadline, Threatens to Leave Asylum Seekers Without Work Authorization Indefinitely

FeaturedProposed Regulation Seeks to Remove Adjudication Deadline, Threatens to Leave Asylum Seekers Without Work Authorization Indefinitely

Asylum seekers in the United States may not work without authorization from federal immigration authorities. Proposed regulations threaten to leave asylum seekers without employment authorization indefinitely which they await decisions on their asylum applications.

Federal law prohibits asylum applicants from receiving employment authorization unless their applications have been pending at least 180 days. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(2). Current regulations seek to ensure that people with pending asylum applications can work as soon as authorized by statute. The administration has proposed new regulations that would eliminate the regulatory time frame in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must grant or deny the employment authorization application.

Under existing federal law, a person with a pending asylum application may apply for and receive authorization to work while their asylum application is pending. Regulations require an asylum applicant to wait at least 150 days after submitting an asylum application before they may apply for employment authorization. DHS, in turn, must process the application within 30 days of receipt, making the total wait time about six months after applying for asylum. 8 CFR § 208.7(a)(1).

The Department of Homeland Security has flagrantly disregarded the 30-day rule, resulting in a 2018 federal court order requiring DHS to comply with its own regulation and process applications within the required timeframes. Rosario v. USCIS. [1]

Rather than complying with the federal court order, DHS is trying to change the rule. On September 9, 2019, USCIS issued a proposed regulation to eliminate the 30-day processing rule and give the agency an unlimited window in which to process work permit applications.[2]

DHS is currently accepting comments on the proposed elimination of the 30-day processing time, and we encourage those concerned to submit such comments.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The Advocates for Human Rights is concerned that this change will harm clients, businesses, and communities by further delaying the time an asylum applicant must wait to legally work or get a driver’s license while their application is pending. This change will burden private support systems and charities, make it difficult for small businesses to find workers, and could have multiplier effects in terms of destabilizing communities. The Advocates is also concerned that this change represents yet another attack on the part of this Administration, which has consistently attempted to impede the right to seek asylum.

Of particular concern is the proposed elimination of the 30-day rule without providing a maximum processing time. Already, the six-month waiting period places a heavy burden on asylum seekers who were forced to flee, often having to leave behind or spend in transit any resources they may have had.

Asylum seekers today face long backlogs in asylum processing, often waiting years after filing the asylum application for an interview and, even later, a decision. Asylum seekers are often vulnerable, with medical and mental health needs due to their trauma and persecution. Generally excluded from public assistance, asylum seekers must work to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic needs for themselves and their families. Asylum seekers who were forced to leave spouses and children behind must save thousands of dollars to pay for travel expenses. Without employment authorization, asylum seekers are dependent on individual and other private charity.

Indefinitely blocking asylum seekers’ ability to support themselves and their families is an abuse of discretion and an attempt to further deter people from seeking asylum in the United States. The proposed rule comes on top of extreme adjudication delays by USCIS across all types of cases and recent changes in USCIS customer service procedures which make it nearly impossible to follow up on pending cases.

In addition, the proposed rule is part of a pattern of animus towards the right to seek asylum this administration has shown. The justifications contained in the proposed rule are veiled attempts to justify what is an attack on the rights of asylum seekers and a pattern of practice by this administration aimed at breaking the asylum system.

The Administration attempts to justify the proposed rule on the basis of national security and vetting concerns and on administrative efficiency interests. In terms of administrative efficiency, the proposed rule notes the burden that has resulted from shifting staff to timely process EAD applications in compliance with Rosario v. USCIS and claims there will be a cost saving by eliminating the timeline. However, it notes “USCIS could hire more officers, but has not estimated the costs of this and therefore has not estimated the hiring costs that might be avoided if this proposed rule were adopted.”

The proposal also cites vague security concerns which the federal court in Rosario found to be sufficiently low to order USCIS to comply with the 30-day processing deadline. Any need for additional vetting prior to issuance of employment authorization could be addressed by less draconian means than simply eliminating the processing parameters for all applicants.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution. The United States has committed to that principle through the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and the Convention Against Torture. This right has been codified in federal law. Without access to a means of basic support during the asylum process, the United States weakens its commitment to this fundamental human right.

WHAT TO DO

We encourage our volunteers, communities, and supporters—as well as applicants themselves—to submit a comment to USCIS discouraging this change.  Directions for how to do so can be found below, and sample wording is provided. Comments must be received on or before November 8, 2019.

In particular, DHS is specifically seeking comments on the following items.  Therefore, comments by supporters who have specific knowledge or relation to the following topics would be encouraged:

  • DHS also acknowledges the distributional impacts associated with an applicant waiting for an EAD onto the applicant’s support network. DHS cannot determine how much monetary or other assistance is provided to such applicants. DHS requests comments from the public on any data or sources that demonstrate the amount or level of assistance provided to asylum applicants who have pending EAD applications.
  • DHS requests comments from the public that would assist in understanding costs not described herein as relates to the impact on small businesses (referencing the IRFA).

HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENT

You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed rule package, which is identified as DHS Docket No. USCIS-2018-0001, by any one of the following methods:

· Mail: Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Mailstop #2140, Washington, DC 20529-2140. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2018-0001 in your correspondence. Mail must be postmarked by the comment submission deadline. Please note that USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept mailed comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives.

[1] Available at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/litigation_documents/rosario_vs_uscis_order_granting_plaintiffs_motion_for_summary_judgment_and_denying_defendants_motion_for_summary_judgment.pdf

[2] Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/09/2019-19125/removal-of-30-day-processing-provision-for-asylum-applicant-related-form-i-765-employment

Make every day Labor Day

FeaturedMake every day Labor Day

It’s Labor Day in America, a time to celebrate the important labor protections guaranteed to us all. Today, thanks to organized labor, workers by law have a right to various protections, including timely payment, minimum wage, overtime pay, workplace safety, freedoms from harassment and discrimination, and more. Despite these protections, some employers violate these labor rights.

Of particular concern are those violations that constitute labor trafficking—a significant issue that gets far too little attention. Since 2007, the National Human Trafficking Hotline has identified more than 5,000 victims and survivors of labor trafficking. The number of unidentified victims, of course, is much higher. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that there are more than 20 million victims of labor trafficking worldwide—with about 1.5 million in the U.S., Canada and Europe.

U.S. law defines labor trafficking as “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery.” (Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 USC § 7102(9)). In other words, it is a situation in which a person is forced to perform labor or services through threats or use of violence, lies, and other forms of coercion. Labor trafficking can happen across international borders, state borders, or even within one city—movement is not required. Both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens may be victims or perpetrators. And, it’s likely touched your life in some way or another—the food you are eating, the house you are living in, the hotel you’ve stayed at, etc.

While U.S. citizens can become victims of trafficking, many non-citizens are particularly vulnerable. For these folks, trafficking can begin or occur in their home countries, along their journey, or once they have arrived in the United States. Because traffickers prey on vulnerabilities, foreign nationals have significant risk factors due to language differences, cultural connections, community ties, resources, unfamiliarity with the law, and immigration status.

Recognizing these vulnerabilities—and the important role victims play in reporting, investigating and leading to punishment of traffickers—U.S. law has made some efforts to help. U.S. legislation provides special non-permanent status (“T nonimmigrant visa/status”) to victims who are in the U.S. on account of severe forms of trafficking and have been helpful to law enforcement in investigating and/or prosecuting traffickers. Providing this form of lawful status gives many victims the courage to confront their trafficker without fear of being deported, allowing for increased investigation and punishment of trafficking. It also provides a crucial path toward ensuring survivors can leave dangerous situations and have resources to recover and move forward after being trafficked.

Yet, the T visa is too rarely utilized. Federal law provides for 5,000 T-1 visas annually. Since its inception, however, that quota has never been reached. This indicates, in part, the difficulty of identifying victims. However, it also indicates the difficulty of getting a T visa approved. In 2018, there were 1,613 T visa applications; however, USCIS approved only 576 that year—about 35 percent.[1] That same year, USCIS denied 300 applications, and the rest remain pending.[2] By comparison, in 2015, USCIS received 1,040 applications and approved more than half.[3]

The current anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy exacerbates the problem. Workers who might otherwise attempt to leave a trafficking situation or report their trafficker may be too fearful to do so. Employers may use such immigration policies to further exploit laborers, banking on the fact that migrant laborers don’t know their rights or the protections offered by law, and citing increased immigration enforcement as a threat. Additionally, amid the push to ramp up the deportation machine, immigration officers may take less care in determining whether someone is a potential victim or witness of trafficking instead of a deportable migrant.

The recent raid in Mississippi reflects this. More than 600 people were taken by immigration officials. There is no automatic screening for trafficking, despite the fact that these folks have a right to seek protections, and likely have important information that could help stop trafficking or other forms of labor exploitation. Nonetheless, the employer is continuing to operate and was not immediately charged, unlike its non-citizen employees.

In our work, The Advocates for Human Rights seeks to support victims of trafficking by strengthening the legal response to trafficking, conducting community outreach, victim identification, and providing legal services and referrals for support to victims. Since our labor trafficking program started about two years ago, we have assisted nearly 50 clients who are victims of severe forms of human trafficking. Luckily, for each of them, the T nonimmigrant visa allows them some measure of protection and a road to recovery.

Unfortunately, however, this path is becoming more fraught. It is now taking about 18 months for cases to be processed—time in which the vulnerable victim of trafficking must often wait far from family and with little support network. The Trump Administration is also making the path more difficult with increased demands for more evidence, denials of requests to waive fees despite statutory authority, protracted decision making, and greater resistance to providing protections.

Moreover, in the anti-immigrant climate, victims that were already fearful of reporting and interacting with the government are all the more fearful due to the harsh stance on immigration. And, with the government less likely to use mechanisms designed to encourage and support reporting (such as Continued Presence and Deferred Action), many victims remain in precarious situations. Unfortunately, while the federal government remains vocal about ending trafficking and supporting victims in theory, the current anti-immigrant posture of the administration has also meant that foreign national trafficking victims are not seeing that in practice.

As we celebrate this Labor Day, we need increased awareness of those who are being denied their labor rights due to labor trafficking, and are eager for the Federal Government to take greater strides towards preventing and punishing labor trafficking while properly supporting victims, regardless of their immigration status.

Lindsey Greising is a staff attorney in The Advocates for Human Rights’ Refugee and Immigrant Program.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Victims/I914t_visastatistics_fy2019_qtr2.pdf

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

Asylum Under Attack

FeaturedAsylum Under Attack

The current administration in Washington is waging an all-out war on asylum, which it falsely characterizes as a charade or loophole rather than an essential human right. While the war is focused on the influx of refugees at the southern border who flee violence and chaos in Central America, it threatens to demolish protections for refugees all over the world who come to the United States seeking safety. The Advocates for Human Rights deals every day with the desperate ones whose fates are at issue. Since policy affects real people, it is instructive to examine the government’s anti-asylum initiatives in juxtaposition with just one of the many stories in our case files, which is used with our client’s consent.

Maria was 11 years old and living with her family in Guatemala when a 22-year-old man began preying upon her, inducing her to engage in a sexual relationship with him. Her father forbade her from seeing the man, but he coerced Maria into returning to him by threatening to harm her family if she didn’t. The man kept her locked in a room in his mother’s house.

Having failed in the courts with previous anti-immigration tactics, the U.S. government just launched two new attacks on asylum by executive fiat, with other assaults being planned..

At the age of 14, Maria was forced to marry her abductor. She went to the police in Guatemala, but they told her this was a domestic matter that she should “work out” with her husband. When Maria’s husband found out she had gone to the police, he beat her. As time went on, the beatings continued.

First, the administration announced that there would be a great expansion of the use of the expedited removal process, by which immigration courts and asylum officers are bypassed completely and lower-level immigration officials are allowed to apprehend and deport undocumented immigrants with no due process so long as they have not been in the country for two years. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has sharply criticized the expedited removal process, finding that border officials often are biased against asylum claims and fail to take steps necessary to ensure that asylum seekers are protected from arbitrary expedited removal. Nevertheless, the administration has embraced it.

Maria became pregnant and told her husband. He continued to beat her, so badly that she lost the baby. She escaped and hid with a family member, but her husband searched for her relentlessly. With no other escape from her situation, and no possibility of help from her country’s government, Maria embarked on the arduous and dangerous journey through Mexico and across the U.S. border.

A second attack on asylum was the announcement of a new rule excluding people from asylum if they failed to first ask for asylum in a country through which they travelled. While this rule would affect all refugees, it is directed mainly at the Central American refugees who cross through Mexico and Guatemala before reaching the United States.

Non-profit advocacy groups promptly sued, challenging the administration’s third- country rule. Among other grounds, they argued that the rule violates an express Congressional prohibition against relying on the asylum procedures of any country unless we have in place with that country a “safe country” agreement, ensuring their asylum procedures provide an acceptable level of safety for claimants. No such agreement exists with Mexico. (On July 26, the U.S. entered into a purported safe country agreement with Guatemala, even though Guatemala does not come close to meeting the standards for a safe country and was in fact the country from which Maria fled due to the lack of any governmental remedy for the domestic violence that threatened her life.)

On July 24, federal district courts on opposite coasts issued opinions concerning the new rule. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in the District of Columbia refused to enjoin the rule, essentially on a finding that the advocacy groups had failed to make a factual showing of standing to make their claims. The very same day, however, Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California issued a lengthy opinion enjoining the rule, finding ample evidence that no reasonable asylum process was available in either Mexico or Guatemala. Appeals in both cases seem inevitable.

Maria found her way to The Advocates for Human Rights. Represented by Program Director Sarah Brenes, Maria won asylum. She is now living safely in the United States, where she is finishing high school and hopes to become a police officer.

Either of the latest attacks on asylum might have been used to deport Maria and send her back to her violent husband and a government unwilling to protect her. Can anyone believe that the United States would somehow have benefitted from that?

A humane asylum system is critical if we are to fulfill our legal and moral obligations to offer succor to the world’s most desperate. As many of us have been asking for some time now, what kind of country are we?

-James O’Neal, Board Chair of the Advocates for Human Rights

Featured

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.

Featured

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.

 

Featured

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

Featured

New Asylum Bar Takes Effect

Statue of Liberty_erik-lindgren-unsplashA new regulation by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice seeks to bar asylum to people who enter or attempt to enter the United States at the southern border if they do not first apply for asylum in at least one other country through which they traveled.  The Interim Final Rule published July 16 took immediate effect and allows only 30 days for public comment.

The new asylum bar is the latest in a series of actions designed to limit access to protection for refugees. The federal government has engineered a crisis at the southern border by starving the system of adjudicatory resources while exponentially expanding the capacity to detain people arriving in search of protection from persecution or torture. The government has used this engineered crisis to change unilaterally and without debate asylum eligibility rules.

The Advocates for Human Rights is deeply concerned about this restriction on the fundamental human right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution. We are reviewing the regulation and monitoring its impact on our clients. Volunteer attorneys should watch for practice guidance and should reach out to The Advocates’ staff or consulting attorneys with questions.

What does the new rule do?

The new rule establishes a new mandatory bar to asylum for people who enter or attempt to enter the United States across the southern border if they did not apply for protection from persecution or torture in at least one third country through which they transited on their way to the United States.

Who does the rule apply to?

The new rule applies to anyone who enters or attempts to enter the United States at the southern border on or after Tuesday, July 16, 2019. This rule does not affect people who entered before July 16, 2019, or who enter or attempt to enter at other ports of entry.

Are there exceptions to the new rule?

There is a very limited exception for people who demonstrate that they are a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons.

How can I help?

Speak out.

Comments to this rule, identified by EOIR Docket No. 19-0504, may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Call your congressional representatives at 202-224-3121 to ask them to protect the right to seek and enjoy asylum.

Volunteer.

We urgently need attorneys to represent asylum seekers. No immigration law experience is needed. You will get the training and support you need. Click here to get started.

Interpreters and translators make representation possible. Click here to help.

Human rights monitors are needed to observe immigration court hearings. Click here to learn more.

Donate.

The Advocates for Human Rights provides free legal help to more than 1000 victims of human rights abuses, including asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and people in detention. We need your help now more than ever. Please click here to give.