The Advocates for Human Rights has Special Consultative status with the United Nations, allowing us to bring matters of concern to the attention of the UN human rights mechanisms. Volunteer Veronica Clark presented The Advocates for Human Rights’ statement on racism in the United States at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland on March 20, 2017.
Mr. Vice President:
The Advocates for Human Rights is deeply concerned about the rise in hate crimes and incidents of bias targeting racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in the United State. Hate crimes are recognized and prosecuted in the U.S.under federal and state laws. Yet 5,850 criminal incidents and 6,885 related bias offenses were reported in 2015. Fifty-nine percent of victims were targeted because of a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias.
Further, policies and practices at the federal, state, and local levels continue to disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities. Racial and national origin bias pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, including widespread use of racial profiling and stark racial disparities in arrests, convictions, and sentencing.
The Advocates for Human Rights encourages Member States, including the U.S., to take concrete action to:
Adopt at local, state and national levels comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial profiling;
Collect and publish statistics about police stops, searches, and abuse, to monitor trends regarding racial profiling and treatment of minorities by law enforcement;
Establish independent oversight bodies within police agencies, with real authority to conduct impartial investigations of all complaints of human rights violations;
Provide adequate resources to train law enforcement officials;
Assess the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimum sentences on racial and ethnic minorities; and
Create a national commission to examine police tactics nationwide, including the use of excessive force, militarization of local police forces and policing of protests.
Since 1994, The Advocates for Human Rights has been working to dispel myths about immigration by bringing the facts into the public debate. Guest blogger and board member Steve Carlson, former Deputy Commissioner of Commerce for the State of Minnesota, helps put questions about the impact of immigrant workers on Minnesota’s economy in context.
There is a myth that immigration is hurting our economy. Some say that the 1 million immigrants that have come to the United States each year for more than 25 years are an economic problem. I would suggest instead that immigrants are essential. Without them, our economy would barely grow. It would stagnate.
Without immigrants and their children, the U.S. population would only be growing slightly more than 1 million people per year. With them, growth is more like 2.3 million people per year. Without more workers, our national income (GDP) is unlikely to grow more than a trickle.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in January that GDP growth for the next decade will likely be only 2 percent per year, much below rates from 1946 – 2006. And the CBO assumes that 1 million immigrants will continue to arrive each year. Without them, GDP growth would fall by about a quarter, to 1.5 percent per year. This is substantially less than President Trump’s promise of 3-4 percent. At 1.5 percent growth, Americans would feel economic hardship. Hope for the future would wither.
Here are a few more facts (not myths) to consider:
The foreign born are more likely to be working than native-born Americans. They are 17 percent of the U.S. workforce, but only 13 percent of our population.
Unauthorized immigrants are even more likely to be working than all other U.S. workers. They constitute about 5 percent of the U.S. workforce (8 million).
The U.S. population is aging. People will be retiring from the workforce faster than young people enter it. Forecasters are projecting worker shortages.
Medicare and Social Security are running out of money, as benefits paid out each year exceed contributions. A growing workforce would strengthen both programs.
Unemployment is currently about 4.5 percent. This is close to “full employment” according to the Federal Reserve. Some sectors are already facing worker shortages. Unemployment for college graduates is only about 2.4 percent.
Immigrants are more likely than U.S. citizens to start new businesses.
These are simply a few of the facts which suggest that we need to encourage more immigration for economic reasons. There are of course a few others which might encourage less immigration. One such argument has been concern about reduced income for U.S. workers because of immigration. This is a complex question about which much has been written on both sides.
The question has two parts: 1) do immigrants take jobs away from U.S. workers? 2) would wages rise if there were fewer immigrants?
For the first question, it is difficult to find definitive data that proves immigrants are taking jobs U.S. workers want or could perform. Some of the work immigrants undertake in agriculture, restaurants and health care, for example, are jobs that have often been taken by immigrants for a variety of reasons, including relatively low wages. Other positions require engineering and other technical skills that are in short supply among American workers. These are far from complete answers, but the relatively low current rates of unemployment imply that immigrants are not taking jobs away.
For the second question, it is certainly true that if there were fewer workers available to do certain jobs (up to a point), then wages for those jobs should rise (also, up to a point). This breaks down to a sector by sector and job by job analysis. If, for example, a farmer needed more workers to pick strawberries, he might raise wages to get sufficient workers. But if he was obliged to pay workers more than what he might earn from selling strawberries, then he would be better off letting the crop rot in his fields. In that example, the question is whether there are enough non-immigrant workers willing to pick strawberries at a wage the farmer would pay. The same question would apply to a meat-packing plant or any other enterprise.
A different example, however, might involve computer engineers. If a company is employing U.S. engineers at $100,000 per year but can attract qualified immigrants to work at $80,000, it might reduce the pay of its U.S. workers to $80,000. In this example, the immigrants are adversely affecting the wages of U.S. workers.
Again, it is a complex question that cannot be resolved in the same way in all cases — or in this relatively short blog. But what can be said is that if immigration is managed a) so as to fill jobs that cannot otherwise be filled or b) to pay immigrants no less than the existing wage paid to U.S. workers, then the adverse effects could be mitigated. It would be a mistake to miss out on all the productive benefits immigrants could provide because of a politically-charged argument that might be largely resolved through more careful management of the immigration process.
In fact, I believe there are significant worker shortages in specific sectors that could appropriately be filled by more immigrants without harming U.S. workers. Adding those immigrant workers would further boost our economy, beyond the 2 percent GDP growth projected by the CBO.
The Advocates for Human Rights mourns the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case ofUnited States v. Texas, which has blocked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration for nearly two years and put the lives of an estimated 5 million people and their families on hold.
International human rights standards recognize that the United States, like all nations, has the right to control its borders.
But that right is not without limits. The United States also has the obligation to ensure that every person within our borders enjoys the fundamental rights that lead to a life with dignity.
For the millions of undocumented Americans, those most basic rights are denied every day because they lack immigration status. Families are separated. Support for basic needs is denied. Fear of arrest and deportation is exploited.
The fight for administrative relief has been a painful one. Millions of families have deferred their hopes of living a stable and predictable existence, if only for a brief time, while the case wound its way through the courts. Families have been irreparably torn apart by deportations, leaving hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children behind.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Central American refugees have been put at risk by an administration determined to deter them from seeking safety by detaining them upon arrival and prioritizing them for deportation. These wounds can heal, but they will never be erased.
At the same time, this struggle has been a turning point for the movement, which has floundered since 1996 to read the political tea leaves and calibrate the compromises needed to pass “reform” bills that would reinforce, rather than reverse, the fundamental injustices embedded in the current system. Increasingly advocates, activists, and those affected by decades of injustice have united behind a powerful new vision.
National Immigration Law Center’s Marielena Hincapié, whose team has been leading the fight in U.S. v. Texas, tweeted recently, “We believe in a world in which all people can live with dignity.”
That vision is one of human rights. It takes as its starting point a recognition that each of us has the right to fundamental safety and security of the person – including a roof over our heads, food to eat, and health care when we need it. It also means freedom from arbitrary detention, a fair day in court, and the protection of the unity of the family. It recognizes these rights for every person without discrimination and it demands that failure to protect these rights be addressed.
Today, while we mourn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, we do so knowing that our vision is clear – that everyone, regardless of where they were born, has the right to enjoy the fundamental building blocks needed to live with dignity.
By Michele Garnett McKenzie, The Advocates for Human Rights’ Director of Advocacy and an experienced immigration attorney.
*This post, written by Amy Bergquist, a staff attorney with The Advocates for Human Rights, is part of American Constitution Society’s blog’s symposium on the consolidated marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court.
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing a right to marriage equality would make headlines around the world, but the implications for the rights of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) in other countries may be complex.
The Advocates for Human Rights collaborates with partner organizations advocating for LGBTI rights in African countries like Cameroon and Tanzania, where the governments not only criminalize consensual sexual conduct between people of the same sex, but also condone or even participate in discrimination and violence targeting LGBTI people. We know from our partners that government officials, religious leaders, celebrities and the media fuel anti-LGBTI animus by arguing that, in African culture, “homosexuality . . . is considered universally as a manifestation of moral decadence that should be fought.”
Many countries have laws on the books prohibiting sexual conduct between people of the same sex, but Cameroonian authorities aggressively enforce their country’s law; courts convict people simply for acting or dressing in a gender-non-conforming manner. Vigilante groups in Cameroon organize patrols to round up suspected violators and hand them over to the police. Violence and discrimination targeting LGBTI people are widespread.
The complexity of advocacy for LGBTI rights in the international context arises out of the false characterization, in some parts of the world, of LGBTI rights as a “western invention.” In collaboration with our partners in Cameroon, we submitted a report to Africa’s leading human rights body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, debunking this myth. In Cameroon, as in many other African countries, criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct is a legacy of the colonial era. In our report, we quote Dr. Sylvia Tamale, law professor and former dean of the law faculty of Makere University in Kampala, who explains: “There is a long history of diverse African peoples engaging in same-sex relations. . . . Ironically, it is the dominant Judeo-Christian and Arabic religions that most African anti-homosexuality proponents rely on, that are foreign imports.” Indeed, as I’ve argued at The Advocates Post, anti-gay extremists from the United States and Europe attempt to export their animus to Africa and the former Soviet Union.
A decision on marriage equality by the highest court in the United States could spur countries to adopt sweeping reactionary legislation similar to two laws adopted last year: Nigeria’s “Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act,” which not only imposes criminal penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment for entering into a same-sex marriage, but also criminalizes participation in “gay clubs, societies and organisations” and public displays of affection by same-sex couples; and Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, which increased that country’s criminal penalties for crimes such as “aggravated homosexuality,” imposed a penalty of life imprisonment for any person “purport[ing] to contract a marriage with another person of the same sex,” and imposed a punishment of up to seven years imprisonment for any person or institution conducting a same-sex marriage. (Uganda’s law was later struck down on a procedural technicality.) Our partners in Tanzania are already reporting that their parliament is considering a law similar to Uganda’s.
When the U.S. Supreme Court rules on marriage equality, some foreign courts will, without a doubt, cite the opinion ― or the dissent ― as they address challenges to laws prohibiting marriage equality. (Courts in countries with common-law traditions, including Fiji, Hong Kong and India, have cited Lawrence v. Texas in assessing domestic laws prohibiting same-sex sexual conduct.)
In the international context, however, marriage equality is not the end of the road but just one component of a complex set of efforts to ensure equal rights for LGBTI persons throughout the world. In 2006, for example, South Africa became the fifth country in the world to recognize a right to marriage equality. Yet nine years on, anti-LGBTI violence in South Africa is still common. Photojournalist Clare Carter recently documented the practice of “corrective rape” ― oftentimes with the collusion of the victim’s family ― intended to “cure” lesbians and transgender men. The South African government has only recently stepped up efforts to respond to widespread violence targeting LGBTI people. To achieve lasting change, advocates for LGBTI rights around the world need to develop strategies that take into account the local context. The Advocates recently published a toolkit of resources to help.
The African Commission, in an official concluding statement about Cameroon’s human rights record, recently urged Cameroonian authorities to “[t]ake appropriate measures to ensure the safety and physical integrity of all persons irrespective of their sexual orientation and maintain an atmosphere of tolerance towards sexual minorities in the country.” For our partners, these words offer more promise for advancing LGBTI rights in Africa than any ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court ever could.
The capsize of a ship overloaded with migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean has galvanized attention on what The New York Times characterizes as a surge in refugees from throughout the Middle East and North Africa. With, as The Times reports, “about 17 times as many refugee deaths in the Mediterranean Sea from January to April compared to the same period last year,” the human tragedy unfolding is shocking, particularly to those of us who have never faced such a perilous choice.
Even European leaders who according to NPR’s Sylvia Poggioli have long been “pressed by anti-immigrant parties… are now facing a backlash for having neglected the humanitarian disaster taking place in the waters of the Mediterranean.” Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi struck a new note when he said: “We are asking not to be left alone. Our political priority is not just a security issue. We want to ensure the dignity of human beings and block human traffickers. The new slave traders of the 21st century must not believe that Europe considers this one of the least important issues on its agenda.”
The recognition that migration is more than a border security issue is one the United States needs to take seriously.
Several weeks ago NPR’s Steve Inskeep had a rather horrifying exchange with Simon Henshaw, the U.S. State Department deputy secretary charged with explaining how the United States’ is fulfilling its international refugee protection obligations despite its multifaceted deterrence strategy through a recently-opened process for Honduran children whose parents are permanent residents to enter the U.S. more quickly than the normal visa backlog allows:
INSKEEP: Does it bother you, though, that there may be a young person who asks
for help and then has to go away from a U.S. consulate and go back into the neighbor-
hood where their lives have been threatened?
HENSHAW: Yes, it does. But what really bothers me is the thought that that child
might take a risky journey through Mexico and come to the United States. So what
I want to do is make sure that our program addresses their situation as fast as possible.”
Yes, Mr. Henshaw, La Bestia is dangerous. But even more dangerous is abandoning the fundamental right to non-refoulement – to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.
Last December NPR’s Robert Siegal summed up the Obama Administration’s official word: “if you, a child in Central America, try to come up North, you’ll be put in detention; you’ll be sent back; you’ll be flown back home.”
In a report released this month, Detention Watch Network traced the role of deterrence strategies in U.S. immigration policy, noting that the Obama administration’s “recent reliance on the deterrence justification to rationalize the long-term detention of asylum-seeking families marks a new level of aggressive and inappropriate use.”
The human rights violations endured by asylum-seeking families are numerous. Included in the (very long) list of violations flagged by The Advocates for Human Rights and Detention Watch Network in a joint submission to the UN last year was the growing use of detention to deter asylum seekers from seeking protection in direct contravention of international obligations. We pointed to Central American mothers and children seeking asylum being subject to arbitrary detention in a stated effort by the United States to deter asylum seekers from coming to the United States.
Detention and deportation to deter people from seeking asylum from persecution (in direct contravention of this fundamental human right) is not the only tactic being used by the United States. The Los Angeles Times reports that “under U.S. pressure, Mexico for the first time in many years has launched a wide crackdown on the migrants. More than 60,000 have been deported this year, as many as half in recent months, the government says.” Also on the deterrence menu: increased train speeds.
While the United States’ deterrence strategies violate international law by abrogating the right to seek asylum, the European Union’s shift toward targeting the traffickers is little better. As commentator Kenan Malik writes, replacing the border security narrative with a narrative of criminality is not the answer:
The traffickers are certainly odious figures, recklessly placing migrants in peril.
But what pushes migrants into the hands of traffickers are the European Union’s
own policies. The bloc’s approach to immigration has been to treat it as a matter
not of human need, but of criminality. It has developed a three-pronged strategy
of militarizing border controls, criminalizing migration and outsourcing controls.”
What, then, is the answer? Perhaps an immigration policy that includes the words “ensure human dignity” is a start.
Jose Antonio Vargas painted a stark picture of what it means to live life as an undocumented immigrant when he spoke to a packed crowd at Tuesday’s “Out of the Shadows Immigration Symposium.”
“One of the biggest ironies about being undocumented in this country is knowing that your life is limited by a piece of paper — all the while knowing that your life is way more than a piece of paper,” said Vargas, who at age 12 was smuggled into the United States from the Philippines.
“Are pieces of papers what make someone an American?” he asked.