December, 29 2009, 02:12pm EDT
United States: End Detention of Refugees for Failure to File Forms
Refugees Detained Arbitrarily for Failing to File for Green Cards After One Year of US Residence
WASHINGTON
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arbitrarily detains refugees
and holds them indefinitely for failing to meet paperwork requirements,
Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. People who have
already been accepted as refugees face an often confusing requirement
to apply for a green card for legal permanent resident status, after a
year in the United States.
The 40-page report, "Jailing Refugees: Arbitrary Detention of
Refugees in the US Who Fail to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status",
examines the detention of refugees for failure to file for lawful
permanent resident status, even though US immigration officials already
put them through a thorough vetting process at the time they were
recognized as refugees. Although only a small number of refugees are
jailed for this purpose, and the number appears to have decreased under
the Obama administration, the detentions continue to be selective and
arbitrary, and therefore a violation of international human rights law.
The report recommends changing US law to close the legal loophole that
allows for detaining these refugees and to give them lawful permanent
residence when the US grants them asylum or admits them to the country
under its overseas refugee resettlement program.
"For the US government to bring persecuted refugees to this country
and then turn around a year later and jail them because they didn't
file immigration forms is ironic to the point of absurdity," said Bill
Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch. "This
mindlessly bureaucratic policy unnecessarily traumatizes refugees and
their families, not to mention wasting the government's resources."
The report is based on interviews with 17 refugees in immigration
detention in Arizona and Pennsylvania and with legal aid providers in
Arizona, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and Washington, DC, all of
whom worked with refugees detained for failure to adjust their status.
Although the Department of Homeland Security informed Human Rights
Watch that the policy is under review, it declined to comment on the
findings of the report because the issue is under active litigation.
Each year, the US government sends officials overseas to interview
thousands of people displaced by persecution and conflict, classifies a
select number as refugees in need of resettlement, and brings them to
the United States. After a year in the United States, every resettled
refugee is required to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR)
status, more familiarly known as a "green card," in a procedure known
as "adjustment."
The government does not formally notify them of the upcoming
deadline and the refugees' limited English, ignorance about the
requirement, confusion over the legal process, and lack of resources
often keeps them from filing on time.
Sebastian Nyembo (a pseudonym) was only 8 when he was resettled from
the Democratic Republic of Congo. He did not know about the
requirement. "I was eight years old," Sebastian told Human Rights
Watch. "My father passed away. When I got older I realized I needed [to
apply for a green card], but I didn't know it was mandatory."
When Human Rights Watch visited him in August 2009 at the remote
Eloy Detention Center in the Arizona desert, he had not spoken to his
two children, ages 7 and 4, since his arrival four months earlier. His
son has sickle cell anemia, which requires expensive medical care, but
Sebastian had been unable to provide for the children since his
detention. "My wife, she been going through a lot," he said. "[The]
house went for foreclosure."
Although the law is not applied uniformly, ICE interprets section
209(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as mandating detention of
all refugees who have been in the US for 12 months who have not filed
to adjust their status, until they have filed for adjustment and their
applications have been adjudicated. In Arizona, where Human Rights
Watch conducted most of its interviews, refugees were sometimes
detained for several months in remote, desert locations, and in some
cases for longer than a year, without being formally charged with any
legal offense.
The majority of resettled refugees interviewed by Human Rights Watch
said that before their detention, they were unaware that they were
required to file for adjustment of status. Most believed that filing
for adjustment of status was optional, and were unaware of any
potential legal repercussions for failure to file after one year.
"These people are no danger to their communities, nor are they a
flight risk," Frelick said. "But detaining them separates them from
spouses and children, interrupts their education and costs them their
jobs - not to mention the new trauma for those with post-traumatic
stress disorder."
The US is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which states that no one shall be subject to
arbitrary arrest or detention (Article 9). This prohibition means that
a person may be deprived of liberty, even if provided for under
domestic law, only to meet a legitimate aim, and only in cases where it
is necessary and proportionate, such as when alternatives to detention
are not possible. An arrest or detention is arbitrary if not carried
out in accordance with domestic law, or if the law is itself arbitrary
or extremely broadly worded.
Failure to adjust immigration status is not a chargeable criminal or
civil offense. So unlike sentences of a specific length imposed for
criminal convictions, the length of detention for resettled refugees is
indefinite. When people are detained for this reason, they are held
until they complete their application and the application has been
fully adjudicated. This may take 4 to 6 months, and in some cases
longer than a year.
"Jailing Refugees" urges the US Congress to change the law that
currently permits ICE to detain these refugees and calls on Congress to
grant legal permanent residence to all recognized refugees in the US,
given that their cases have already been considered in depth as part of
the asylum or refugee resettlement process. In the meantime, it also
calls on ICE to stop detaining these refugees and to permit them to
file for adjustment from their own homes and communities.
The experience of being detained often without understanding why or
how to get out of detention can cause great anxiety and depression.
Sebastian Nyembo told Human Rights Watch "I'm a good person, a good
hearted person, but I'm gonna give up. I don't have no fight in me."
Some might argue that the current law should remain unchanged
because it gives US immigration authorities an opportunity to examine
refugees after one year to see if they should be removed because of
criminal behavior. "Jailing Refugees'" central recommendation that
refugees be admitted with lawful permanent resident status would still
allow US immigration authorities to put criminals into removal
proceedings. "Under existing law, US immigration authorities have ample
grounds for initiating removal proceedings against lawful permanent
residents convicted of crimes and for detaining them during those
proceedings," said Frelick.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Next Recession Starts Here': Trump Team Weighs Abolishing Bank Regulators
The president-elect's advisers are reportedly discussing plans to shrink or eliminate key bank watchdogs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dec 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers are reportedly considering plans to weaken—or abolish altogether—top bank regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that members of Trump's transition team and the new Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency have asked nominees under consideration to head the FDIC and OCC if the bank watchdogs could be eliminated and have their functions absorbed by the Treasury Department, which is set to be run by a billionaire hedge fund manager and crypto enthusiast.
"Bank executives are optimistic President-elect Donald Trump will ease a host of regulations on capital cushions and consumer protections, as well as scrutiny of consolidation in the industry," the Journal reported. "But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears."
The Trump team's internal and fluid discussions about the fate of the key bank regulators broadly aligns with Project 2025's proposal to "merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve's non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions."
The FDIC, which is primarily funded by bank insurance premiums, was established during the Great Depression to restore public trust in the nation's banking system, and the agency played a central role in navigating the 2023 bank failures that threatened a systemic crisis.
Observers warned that gutting the FDIC and OCC could catalyze another economic meltdown.
"The next recession starts here," tech journalist Jacob Silverman warned in response to the Journal's reporting.
Eric Rauchway, a historian of the New Deal, wrote that "even Milton Friedman appreciated the FDIC," underscoring the extreme nature of the incoming Trump administration's deregulatory ambitions.
Musk, the world's wealthiest man, is also pushing for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Journal noted Thursday that "Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican from Kentucky and Trump ally on the House Financial Services Committee, has backed the plan to eliminate or drastically alter the CFPB and said he wants to get rid of what he calls 'one-size-fits-all' regulation for banks."
Barr has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector and "introduced many pieces of pro-industry legislation, including significant rollbacks of protections stemming from the 2008 financial crisis," according to the watchdog group Accountable.US.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief Warns of Israel's Syria Invasion and Land Seizures
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the "urgent need" for Israel to "de-escalate violence on all fronts."
Dec 12, 2024
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday that he is "deeply concerned" by Israel's "recent and extensive violations of Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," including a ground invasion and airstrikes carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in the war-torn Mideastern nation.
Guterres "is particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on several locations in Syria" and has stressed the "urgent need to de-escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country," said U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric.
Israel claims its invasion and bombardment of Syria—which come as the United States and Turkey have also violated Syrian sovereignty with air and ground attacks—are meant to create a security buffer along the countries' shared border in the wake of last week's fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and amid the IDF's ongoing assault on Gaza, which has killed or wounded more than 162,000 Palestinians and is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case.
While Israel argues that its invasion of Syria does not violate a 1974 armistice agreement between the two countries because the Assad dynasty no longer rules the neighboring nation, Dujarric said Guterres maintains that Israel must uphold its obligations under the deal, "including by ending all unauthorized presence in the area of separation and refraining from any action that would undermine the cease-fire and stability in Golan."
Israel conquered the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights in 1967 and has illegally occupied it ever since, annexing the seized lands in 1981.
Other countries including France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have criticized Israel's invasion, while the United States defended the move.
"The Syrian army abandoned its positions in the area... which potentially creates a vacuum that could have been filled by terrorist organizations," U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at a press briefing earlier this week. "Israel has said that these actions are temporary to defend its borders. These are not permanent actions... We support all sides upholding the 1974 disengagement agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular