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
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, toldCalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Voters Tell Kamala Harris to 'Fight for Our Future'
"This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Jul 25, 2024
Four youth-led groups on Thursday urged Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to "fight for our future" by pursuing a policy agenda the coalition unveiled in a March letter to U.S. President Joe Biden.
It's been less than a week since Biden left the race and endorsed Harris, who is expected to face former Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), in the November election. Since then, she's racked up endorsements from Democratic members of Congress and progressive groups focused on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
March for Our Lives, which was launched after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, honored Harris with the group's first-ever endorsement on Wednesday, calling her "the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve."
"To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters."
The gun violence prevention organization is part of the youth-led coalition behind the new letter, which also includes the climate-focused Sunrise Movement; Gen-Z for Change, which advocates on a range of issues; and the national immigrant network United We Dream Action.
"You have an urgent and important task. To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters," the coalition told Harris on Thursday, noting that she sought the Democratic nomination during the last cycle. "You should build on your 2020 campaign platform where you put forward a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all."
The groups urged Harris to support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. They pushed her to expand pathways to citizenship, keep families together, end fossil fuel subsidies, and create good, union jobs. They also called on her to prioritize gun violence prevention and investments in public health solutions and green, affordable housing.
"Democrats are at a critical crossroads with young people," the coalition wrote to Harris on Thursday. "Polls showed Biden and Trump neck-and-neck among young voters."
ANew York Times/Siena College poll conducted July 22-24 shows Trump leading Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters and 48% to 46% among registered voters—differences that fall within the margin of error.
Forbesnoted Thursday that "Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Harris than they were Biden, the Times/Siena survey found, with nearly 80% of voters who lean Democrat saying they would like Harris to be the nominee, compared to 48% of Democrats who said the same about Biden three weeks ago."
The outlet also pointed to two other polls conducted by Morning Consult and Reuters/Ipsos since Biden dropped out, which both show Harris with a narrow lead over Trump.
"You have an opportunity to win the youth vote by turning the page and differentiating yourself from Biden policies that are deeply unpopular with us, such as approving new oil and gas projects, denying people their right to seek refuge and asylum, and funding the Israeli government's killing of civilians in Gaza," the youth coalition highlighted Thursday. "You must speak to the economic pain young people are facing from crushing student debt and skyrocketing housing and food prices."
Looking beyond November, the groups told Harris—who could be the first Black woman and person of Asian descent elected to the country's highest office—that "you could be a historic president. Not just because of who you are, but what you can accomplish."
"Young people are energized and ready to organize against fascism and for the future we deserve," they concluded. "This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Video Game Actors Strike for AI Protections
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said one union leader. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games."
Jul 25, 2024
After nearly two years of negotiations with video game giants and no deal that would protect performers from artificial intelligence, unionized voice and motion capture actors who work in video game development announced Thursday that they will go on strike starting at 12:01 am on Friday, July 26.
The performers are represented by Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), which last year won a contract for TV and film actors that included "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation that will protect members from the threat of AI," after the union went on strike for four months.
The union has been negotiating on behalf of video game actors with major production companies including Disney Character Voices Inc., Activision Productions Inc., and WB Games Inc., and has won concessions over wages and job safety—but "AI protections remain the sticking point," said SAG-AFTRA on Thursday as the impending strike was announced.
Unionized actors want protections that would stop video game companies from training AI to replicate actors' voices or likeness without their consent and without compensating them.
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games. That includes the SAG-AFTRA members who bring memorable and beloved game characters to life, and they deserve and demand the same fundamental protections as performers in film, television, streaming, and music: fair compensation and the right of informed consent for the AI use of their faces, voices, and bodies."
"Frankly, it's stunning that these video game studios haven't learned anything from the lessons of last year—that our members can and will stand up and demand fair and equitable treatment with respect to AI, and the public supports us in that," he added.
Sarah Elmaleh, negotiating committee chair for the union's interactive media agreement, said the negotiations have shown the companies "are not interested in fair, reasonable AI protections, but rather flagrant exploitation."
"We look forward to collaborating with teams on our interim and independent contracts, which provide AI transparency, consent, and compensation to all performers, and to continuing to negotiate in good faith with this bargaining group when they are ready to join us in the world we all deserve," said Elmaleh.
The unionized actors voted in favor of the strike authorization with a 98.32% yes vote, said SAG-AFTRA.
The strike was announced as more than 500 workers who help develop the popular World of Warcraft video game franchise voted to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA), with the games publisher, Blizzard Entertainment, recognizing the bargaining unit.
CWA noted that the workers' journey to union representation began with a walkout in 2021 at Activision Blizzard, which was later bought by Microsoft, over sexual harassment and discrimination.
"What we've accomplished at World of Warcraft is just the beginning," Eric Lanham, a World of Warcraft test analyst, said in a statement. "We know that when workers have a protected voice, it's a win-win for employee standards, the studio, and World of Warcraft fans looking for the best gaming experience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular