Two Border Patrol Agents Charged With Murder Highlights The Need For Robust Hiring Standards

Written by Joshua Breisblatt

In rural communities throughout the United States , immigration has been a demographic lifeline that offsets—at least in part—the dwindling number of native-born Americans. In fact, as a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) explains, there are many rural areas in which schools, hospitals, and businesses would have shut their doors if not for an influx of immigrants . 

CAP analyzes 2,767 “rural places”—characterized as such by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Of all the rural places that fit this definition and are the focus of the CAP report, 68 percent (or 1,894) have experienced a shrinking population since 1990 due to a declining number of native-born residents. Of these 1,894 locales, more than three-quarters (78 percent) would have experienced an even greater population decline if not for immigration. 

Places that are experiencing declines in population size eventually find that they are no longer able to sustain the same level of essential services that they could when the population was larger. As CAP explains, the result can be school consolidations or school closures; hospital closures and reductions in healthcare services more broadly; and closures of various small businesses and public institutions such as grocery stores, gas stations, and libraries. This downward spiral can be avoided if immigration offsets the shrinking native-born population. 

Citing the USDA, the CAP report notes that while immigrants are adding to the populations of rural areas in general, the number of native-born residents has declined due to falling birth rates (a trend also observed in the United States as a whole), the desire among many young adults in rural areas to move to larger cities with more opportunities, and a sharp increase in mortality rates among working-age adults (due in large part to the opioid crisis). Plus, as the USDA also observes, more than 500 rural counties nationwide have been absorbed by expanding urban areas since 1974. 

As the CAP report highlights, the contributions of immigrants to rural areas as a whole go far beyond simply increasing population size. There is no shortage of rural communities in which immigrants provide much-needed labor on farms , open new small businesses , and serve as healthcare providers in medically underserved areas. While it is true that some communities fight against these demographic trends, there are others that treat immigration as a vital economic resource to be managed—not feared. 

For instance, the CAP report singles out one rural place in particular—St. James, Minnesota—as an example of a community that actively seeks to integrate immigrants into its economic and social fabric. When Latino immigrants began arriving in St. James in the 1970s and 1980s to work at the Tony Downs Foods Company, political and business interests crafted a welcoming strategy so that immigrant workers and their families would feel at home. Among other initiatives, these leaders tried to make services more accessible to the newcomers through English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in schools and translation of important documents into Spanish. 

Unfortunately, some rural locales have not followed in the footsteps of St. James in treating immigration as a resource. CAP observes that one of the more notorious cases is that of Hazelton, Pennsylvania , where a local ordinance passed in 2006 fined landlords $1,000 per day for renting to undocumented immigrants and a five-year business license suspension for any employer hiring an undocumented worker. 

The ordinance was eventually struck down by a federal judge and the local government was ordered to pay more than a million dollars in legal fees. In hindsight, even some fervently anti-immigrant residents of Hazleton have reconsidered their positions. Mayor Joseph Yanuzzi, a supporter of the ordinance, came to realize that immigrants were revitalizing the small business community, filling what would otherwise be vacant apartments, and keeping school enrollments higher than they otherwise would have been. 

The CAP report emphasizes that many rural communities can and do devise smart strategies for integrating newcomers into the fabric of their economy and civic life. This speaks not only to the humanity of the native-born population in these locales, but to the economic (and demographic) importance of immigrants themselves. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3905-Two-Border-Patrol-Agents-Charged-With-Murder.html

It Is Legal to Seek Asylum

Written by Royce Murray

As thousands of asylum-seeking parents were separated from their children in recent months, the Trump administration actively portrayed them as law breakers who must be prosecuted and punished for coming to the United States. Left out of the narrative is one well-established fact: it is legal to seek asylum.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs our nation’s immigration law, makes clear that anyone arriving at the U.S. border or within the United States is permitted to apply for protection. U.S. law embraces both international and domestic legal obligations not to return any person to a place where they face persecution on account of one of several protected grounds.

Most everyone can apply for asylum, and where narrow exceptions apply, those individuals can apply for other forms of protection including withholding of removal or relief for those at risk of torture.

For those able to reach the U.S. border, many have been unlawfully turned away by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials who have told migrants that ports of entry are closed or that the U.S. no longer welcomes asylum seekers, at least from certain countries, among other justifications. Faced with no alternatives, many asylum seekers present themselves to Border Patrol between the ports of entry in order to seek protection. Following the Attorney General’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting everyone apprehended between the ports of entry, many asylum-seeking parents were separated from their children for months so they could be prosecuted for entry-related crimes before being given a chance to ask for protection.

Confusion is triggered, however, by the existence of federal criminal offenses for unlawful entry (a misdemeanor) or unlawful reentry to the United States after having been deported or ordered removed (a felony). While there are many concerns with entry-related prosecutions, it is particularly problematic when asylum seekers are prosecuted while trying to seek protection.

People fleeing life or death situations cannot often wait in their home countries to secure a visa or even use their true identity documents to depart their country and travel onward. Moreover, there is no way to apply for asylum from outside of the United States; overseas refugee processing is only available to select populations in specific locations and in very small numbers. Only 1,500 refugees may be admitted from all of Latin America and the Caribbean in fiscal year 2018; a mere 126 refugees from that region had been admitted as of June 2018.

To be clear, asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum, not to be granted asylum. Once an individual tells a DHS official after being stopped at the border that they are afraid, asylum seekers must be processed and referred to asylum officers who assess an asylum seeker’s claims. Enforcement officers, such as CBP officers or Border Patrol agents, are not allowed to make these determinations.

The Refugee Convention also makes clear that countries are precluded from penalizing individuals requesting protection from persecution or torture in their country of origin. Indeed, in 2015 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General noted that the prosecution of those “who express fear of persecution or return to their home countries” was “inconsistent with and may violate U.S. treaty obligations.”

The United States must stop its criminalization of asylum seekers. Rather than treating them as law breakers, our country must adhere to its legal obligations to afford protections to those in harm’s way.

 

Source: www. immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3852-It-Is-Legal-to-Seek-Asylum.html

Asylum Seeker Files Lawsuit After CBP Officers Falsify Paperwork And Then Deport Him

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Time and time again, immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are never given a meaningful opportunity by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to explain why they fear returning to their country of origin. All too often CBP officers fail to follow the rules designed to protect asylum seekers at the border, and they sometimes insert untrue and nonsensical information into their deportation paperwork. 

An immigrant who was forced through a fast-track deportation at the border involving these unlawful practices sued CBP on Thursday. His deportation was based on paperwork that included fabricated answers, and he was never given the opportunity to apply for asylum. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeks to hold CBP accountable for its negligence and unlawful practices. 

José Crespo Cagnant, a Mexican immigrant who has lived in the United States with his U.S.-citizen partner for more than a decade, was arrested by CBP agents after entering the United States in 2012. Although he was afraid of persecution in Mexico based on his sexual orientation, Crespo was rushed through an expedited deportation process by a Border Patrol agent who couldn’t communicate in Spanish. 

The agent never gave Crespo an opportunity to explain whether he was afraid of returning to Mexico. They also made up inaccurate information about Crespo’s reasons for coming to the United States and his family history. The agent included that fabricated information in the deportation paperwork, pretending that Crespo had provided it. As a result, Crespo was quickly deported without ever getting the opportunity to speak to an asylum officer, which is required by law. 

Still fearful of remaining in Mexico, Crespo eventually returned to his partner—now husband—and sought to legalize his status. As a result, he was arrested and criminally charged with reentering the United States after deportation. 

A federal district court judge later dismissed the criminal case against Crespo, finding that the agent who deported him did not testify credibly about his ability to communicate in Spanish and whether he meaningfully informed Crespo of the charges against him. 

Despite this finding, the Border Patrol agent remains on the job. 

Sadly, these abuses are not unique. In interviews with Mexican immigrants in 2016 and 2017, more than half of those deported from the border reported that they were never asked if they feared return, were not allowed to read their deportation documents before being forced to sign them, or both. 

With this case, Crespo seeks to hold ensure CBP is liable for its officers’ fabrication of evidence and unlawful treatment of asylum seekers. As advocates have documented , CBP rarely takes any action in response to even the most serious complaints of abuse by its officers. Those officers make life-or-death decisions when they turn away individuals seeking protection in the United States from persecution and torture, and their actions in cases like Crespo’s must not go unchecked. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3819-Asylum-seekers-file-suit-against-CPB.html

What Happens When Migrant Children Are Taken Into U.S. Custody?

Written by Joshua Breisblatt 

The glut of stories surfacing about family separation and the increasing number of migrant children being taken into U.S. custody is deeply concerning. In the past, children detained in shelters had arrived at the border without an adult. Now, however, the U.S. government is making children unaccompanied by intentionally separating them from their parents upon arrival.

Presumably the same policies, procedures, and security checks U.S. officials follow when taking custody of unaccompanied children will apply to the children they take away from parents, who are being criminally prosecuted and detained separately. However, these policies and procedures are about to be put to the test. 

The Trump administration’s new family separation policy has already resulted in 658 children being separated from their parents in just a 13-day span in May. This increase in family separations means more children in the government’s custody for whom they must find a new home. 

Currently when migrant children arrive at the U.S. border unaccompanied they are placed in the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Currently, ORR has a network of approximately 100 shelters in 14 states around the United States. 

The government then works to identify parents, other family members, or guardians to sponsor and care for the child while their immigration proceeding continues—proceedings they often face alone with no right to government-appointed legal representation. 

When an appropriate sponsor cannot be located, the child may be placed in foster care. 

An additional wrinkle comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement proposes stricter vetting around the immigration status of sponsors, making it perilous for undocumented parents or other family members to come forward to take custody of a child. 

There is already a rigorous screening process for sponsors, including a criminal background check and sex offender registry check. Additionally, if the sponsor is not a parent or legal guardian, additional background checks are required. 

In 2016, ORR began making phone calls 30 days after placing an unaccompanied child with a parent or other sponsor. Although not required by law or regulation, HHS chose to take this step to follow up on the success of the placement. When sponsors did not answer the calls, however, it was misreported that HHS “lost” almost 1,500 children in 2017. It is quite possible that these families were limiting their contact with the U.S. government, but complying with requirements to check in with ICE or the immigration court. 

In the coming weeks and months, it will be important for Congress and the public to monitor how children in ORR are treated as the number of families separated at the border continues to rise. This self-inflicted crisis by the administration cannot be an excuse for the United States to not meet its obligations to these children. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3813-migrant-children-taken-into-custody-in-US.html 

Parents Risk Prosecution for Helping Children Seek Safety in the United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials recently confirmed their plans to initiate criminal prosecutions and deportation proceedings against immigrant parents and guardians who help bring their children to the United States through the use of smugglers or traffickers. Reports indicate that these enforcement actions are already underway. 

The ostensible goal is to disrupt smuggling networks that sometimes victimize these children by punishing the adults who may have arranged the trip. However, it’s unclear how DHS might assess whether a child’s guardian was party to the smuggling or was aware that their child was intending to migrate at all. Advocates for immigrant children are already observing new questions being asked of children during interviews with government officials including who made and paid for their travel arrangements. 

Whether the government obtains credible evidence that stands up in court remains to be seen. Yet what’s missing from this punitive approach is a nuanced understanding of the impossible choice parents often face: whether to let their child remain in a home country at grave risk of harm or help them embark on a dangerous journey in the hope that their child reaches safety. 

No parent deserves to face harsh punishment for trying to protect their child. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatricscondemned this new enforcement initiative: 

“It is difficult to imagine what it would be like to be a parent who lives in fear for their child’s life, health and safety every day. For these parents, it is not a choice to bring a child to our country, it is a last resort effort to save his or her life. Fleeing violence, persecution and brutality, even if it involves sending the child alone on a dangerous journey, is not a choice.” 

If ICE follows through on these prosecutions, the consequences could be dire with more children left in government custody at taxpayer expense. 

When children arrive at the border without a parent, they are transferred to a shelter run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as deportation proceedings are initiated against them. 

The child remains in custody until and unless there is an opportunity to safely release them into the care of a parent, family member, or other sponsor. For those children who do not have a family reunification option, foster care is explored. 

The immigration status of the sponsor has never been a relevant factor; what matters most is the best interests of the child, which usually calls for reuniting with family who can assist them with recovering from past harm and navigating the complexities of seeking asylum or other relief from deportation. 

Thus the consequences of this policy shift are bound to be profound. If a parent or sponsor is undocumented and at risk of having their immigration status shared by HHS with the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of deporting them or referring them for prosecution on smuggling charges, they may avoid coming forward to care for these children, leaving them to languish in shelters or be unnecessarily placed in foster care. 

The only deterrence the administration will likely accomplish is impeding parents and caregivers from coming forward to take custody of children in need of shelter. 

If a house was on fire, we would never lock the doors to keep children inside. Nor would we punish those who seek to help the victims escape the flames. And while the most important task may be to put out the fire, we wouldn’t make children stay in the house until the fire is extinguished. Why treat children fleeing violence any differently? 

Rather than punishing parents and guardians, the best solution to ending the migration of unaccompanied children from Central America is to address root causes of violence in the region. But while these systemic efforts are critical, they can’t come at the expense of those who need safety now. 

Photo by Giles Douglas 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3659-Parents-looking-for-child-safety.html