Medical Neglect And Abuse Reported At Atlanta Immigration Detention Center

Written by Tory Johnson

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently uses hundreds of detention centers throughout the country to hold individuals in immigration proceedings. Many of these facilities have a concerning record, with appalling conditions and treatment of individuals under ICE’s custody. A recent report from Project South and Georgia Detention Watch highlights such issues at the Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC), which is governed by the city council and mayor . 

The report Inside Atlanta’s Immigrant Cages reflects 18 months of research, interviews, and facility visits. Drawing on first-hand accounts from individuals held at ACDC, the report documents numerous instances of poor conditions, medical neglect, and abuse. While the facility is temporarily not accepting new detainees from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following a June order from the Atlanta mayor, ACDC is still in operation. 

The report calls for the closure of ACDC , pointing to dozens of accounts with reported violations of detention standards and human rights. Among the serious allegations highlighted in the report are: 

• Improper or limited medical and mental health care; lack of due process.
• An unsanitary environment; rampant use of lockdown and isolation.
• Exploitative labor practices.
• Demeaning or offensive treatment by detention officers.

For example, only five out of the 38 detained immigrants interviewed for the report said they were satisfied with the medical care they received at ACDC. Among the interviewees who reported medical neglect was a man with health complications from diabetes and a surgical infection. According to the report, he sought medical care but had to wait 20 days to even see a nurse. The report describes his experience: 

“…the handle in the accessible shower in his unit at ACDC broke while he was transferring himself out of the wheelchair onto the shower bench. As a result, he fell, hit his head and knee, and re-opened his surgical injury. Despite his screams of pain, no guards came to his aid, and he had to wait approximately three hours for the supervisor to return before he was taken back to the hospital.” 

Two months later, ACDC medical staff took away his wheelchair though he repeatedly presented the hospital’s order stating his need for crutches. 

The conclusions reached in the report, and the documented experiences of those detained, reveal a stark reality that contradicts the “acceptable” rating the facility received in its annual inspection. The accuracy of these inspections—conducted for ICE by a contracted, private company called the Nakamoto Group—has been heavily scrutinized by federal investigators on multiple occasions. 

For example, an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General found major inconsistencies and shortcomings with Nakamoto inspections . The investigation concluded that: 

“…inspections do not fully examine actual conditions or identify all compliance deficiencies… neither the [ICE] inspections nor the onsite monitoring ensure consistent compliance with detention standards.” 

The report strengthens existing evidence revealing persistent allegations of abuses and violations of established standards at detention centers, including disturbing accounts from other detention facilities in Georgia . 

This uptick in alleged offenses is one of the many factors causing some elected officials and leaders to reject proposals for new detention centers or to reconsider existing contracts, which also are a costly burden for taxpayers. Immigration detention—which is civil in nature under the law—should not amount to punishment. 

The concerning conditions at ACDC documented in the report add to mounting evidence of problems at detention centers. Hopefully elected officials and leaders at all levels of government will take this research seriously and make decisions regarding detention that truly reflect the vision and values of our communities and nation. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3888-Medical-Neglect-And-Abuse-in-Immigration-Detention-Center.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 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Regularly Detains Children for Months at a Time

 

Written by Walter Ewing 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is notoriously tight-lipped when it comes to their internal operations. The agency rarely discloses basic details about where their immigration detention centers are located, how many people are detained, or what the cost is to keep these facilities operational. As one of the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement arms, this lack of transparency often makes it difficult to hold the agency accountable on their detention and treatment of immigrants.

Yet in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, ICE has done something it rarely does: publicly release information about how it operates. The information was handed over to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center—which made the FOIA request—and has been analyzed by the National Immigrant Justice Center. 

The data provides a revealing snapshot of the immigrant-detention business in the United States: 


Immigrant Detention Centers by the Numbers

Immigrants are detained in over 1,000 facilities that include not only Bureau of Prisons facilities, but also county jails, hospitals, and even hotels. For instance, thousands of people—including children—have been booked into the Quality Suites San Diego since 2016. The average daily number of detainees at the hotel in 2017 was 22 people, all of whom were classified as “non-criminal” with “no ICE threat level.” 

Within these facilities, a record 39,322 people are being held daily in 2018. This is the second year in a row that ICE has surpassed its previously record-setting detainee population. 


ICE Regularly Detains Children, Adults Classified as “Non-Criminal” 

Children are frequently detained, sometimes for months at a time. Often, they are held not in Office of Refugee Resettlement children’s shelters or even family detention centers—they are housed in juvenile jails under contracts with ICE. At the three facilities where children are held for more than 72 hours, length of detention ranges from 100 to 240 days. 

On average, 51 percent of the daily detained population is classified as “non-criminal”—and 51 percent were also classified as “no threat.” Only 23 percent qualified as Level 1 threats, which encompasses a mix of nonviolent offenses and serious crimes. 


Most Detainees Are Held in Privately Operated Prisons

Private prisons dominate the immigration-detention industry. Roughly 71 percent of the daily detained population was held in private prisons owned by companies such as Core Civic (formerly known as the Corrections Corporation of America). 

Many of these contracts with private, for-profit prison companies were made between local governments and the federal government. As of 2017, more than 15,000 people were held daily in private prisons or jails throughout the country. 


ICE’s Detention Standards Are Unclear

ICE has three different sets of standards governing the detention of adults, yet only 65 percent of the agency’s adult detention facilities are contractually bound to observe any of them. 

Some detention facilities make cryptic reference to abiding by “minimum service standards” or “local standards.” Perhaps this is on account of a 2014 Government Accountability Office report, which found ICE sometimes obtains a facility’s agreement to be inspected using a newer set of standards without actually incorporating the new standards into the contract. 

ICE claims that it inspects all facilities under one of its three sets of standards, regardless of the contract. Yet some facilities have passed inspection despite the deaths of multiple detainees, including some from medical neglect. 

The fact that so much prodding was necessary for ICE to release even this much information about its operations is an indication of the degree to which the agency lacks transparency or accountability. ICE officers—like their immigration-enforcement counterparts at U.S. Customs and Border Protection—are accustomed to acting behind a veil of secrecy. As this new disturbing information reveals, we must continue to push past that veil and hold ICE accountable for what happens within their detention centers.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3781-Immigration-and-Customs-Enforcement-Regularly-Detains-Children.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

The Perils of Expedited Removal How Fast-Track Deportations Jeopardize Asylum Seekers Part II

By Kathryn Shepherd and Royce Bernstein Murray

“I was interviewed by a male asylum officer. He asked me if I wanted to be interviewed by a female officer and I said that I had no preference. At that moment I felt uncomfortable telling the officer that I didn’t want to be interviewed by him. I had been raped in Guatemala and I could not share that entire story with a male officer. But I didn’t feel like I could tell him that I wanted to change officials. If I had a female officer I might have been able to tell her my full story. I felt fear and shame at the interview. I also feared that my husband could find out that I had been raped if I had said it. I can’t tell my husband because he would reject me and blame me. In my culture, if a man does improper things to a woman, most of the time the woman is blamed. My people think that if a man “crossed the line” it is because the woman allowed him to. In the Mam culture, men are the ones who rule and women have to obey their fathers and husbands.” 

These are the words of Valeria, a Guatemalan asylum seeker, who described the difficulty she had sharing critical aspects of her claim to the asylum officer during her screening interview. Valeria fled Guatemala with Idalia, her then 7-year-old daughter, after years of extreme physical violence at the hands of Valeria’s father, rape by her ex-partner, and, more recently, a brutal gang rape by members of a transnational criminal organization (TCO). 

Valeria and Idalia sought asylum in the United States, but were detained and placed in the expedited removal process. They were required to undergo the credible fear interview process—the first step for asylum seekers in fast-track removal processes—before being released from detention and permitted to continue fighting their case in immigration court. During those weeks in custody, the U.S. government expected Valeria to quickly navigate a complex asylum system in an atmosphere that frequently impedes a fair hearing. Valeria was required to overcome the challenges of speaking a rare language and articulating a traumatic story before she could pursue her claim for asylum in a full merits hearing with an immigration judge. 

In years past, Valeria and Idalia might have been given the chance to make their case directly to an immigration judge, providing ample time to seek legal counsel and prepare to tell their stories fully. However, protection for asylum-seeking families like Valeria’s has been more difficult to access since 2014. In response to the dramatic rise in Central American families arriving at the southwest border to seek asylum, the government sought to stem the number of asylum claims by reducing the time and opportunity available to make a claim for asylum. This has been accomplished largely by placing many of these families in remote detention facilities while subjecting them to fast-track deportation processes. These processes involve remarkably complex procedures designed to prevent the unlawful deportation of asylum seekers, yet in practice they create additional barriers for many families. 

Given that very few asylum-seeking families speak English, most have experienced significant trauma in their countries or during their journeys north, and they have no right to government-appointed legal counsel, the bureaucratic hurdles can be insurmountable. The added stress of detention, particularly detention of children, further complicates most mothers’ ability to remain focused on presenting a clear case for asylum. Nuanced legal standards applied by government officials asking difficult questions about a family’s worst fears and experiences threaten to transform what is meant to be merely a preliminary screening process into a full-blown, high-stakes asylum interview. 

For many families, the physical presence of pro bono legal counsel at family detention facilities has made all the difference in their opportunity to seek asylum. But even for those who successfully navigate the process with the help of legal counsel, the challenges are extraordinary. Identifying and categorizing these challenges not only illustrates the high barriers to accessing the asylum system and immigration court, but also demonstrates why attorneys are an essential part of the process. To understand these interconnected issues, the authors drew from thousands of case files of families detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in (STFRC) in Dilley, Texas—the country’s largest family detention center—to identify some of those who experienced challenges in their pursuit of protection. Although many of the families whose stories are highlighted in this report were ultimately able to forestall immediate deportation and will have their asylum cases heard by an immigration judge, in all of the cases the presence of legal counsel enabled the families to overcome the multiple challenges they faced. These accounts from women and children provide a window into how these challenges plague all asylum seekers subjected to fast-track deportations while held in detention facilities throughout the country. 


U.S. “Expedited Removal” Policy and Asylum Seekers at the Border 

Beginning in the spring of 2014, the United States saw a dramatic uptick in arrivals of Central American mothers with children, as well as unaccompanied children, at the southern border in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. While there is always a confluence of factors that drive a wave of migration at any one time, epidemic levels of violence and impunity in the Northern Triangle of Central America (comprising El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) unmistakably drove these vulnerable groups to flee their countries in search of protection. The murder rates in these countries are among the highest in the world. In 2016, El Salvador was the most violent nation in the Americas, while the murder rates in Honduras and Guatemala were among the five highest in the hemisphere. 

Although most victims of murder in these countries are men, there is acute violence against women. In 2012, El Salvador and Guatemala were ranked first and third, respectively, as having the highest murder rates for women in the world. Gang activity is a major cause of the violence that plagues the region. Teenage boys are targeted for gang recruitment under threat of death, while women and girls are forced to become “gang girlfriends” and the “property” of gang members or face a similar fate. These threats are often compounded by rampant domestic violence and threats of political persecution that jeopardize the well-being and stability of many families fleeing the Northern Triangle and parts of the Caribbean. 

The migration routes from many countries to the United States are well-trod; for decades asylum seekers and migrants have made the journey to flee civil wars, poverty, and environmental disasters. Many who are fleeing Central America turn to the United States as a strong option for safe haven, given family and community ties. Most who fled in recent years knew full well the risks and perils they would face on the journey—traffickers, cartels, and bandits prey on migrants along the way— but left anyway. The search for safety was a necessity and remaining at home was no longer an option. 

When more asylum-seeking families arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014, the U.S. government quickly ramped up capacity to detain arriving families with the creation of large detention facilities in Artesia, New Mexico (closed in December 2014); Karnes City, Texas; and Dilley, Texas. Prior to this, only a small residential facility in Berks County, Pennsylvania, was in operation. By the spring of 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had approximately 3,300 beds and cribs to detain mothers and their minor children, who ranged from newborns to near 18-year-olds. 

Most families placed in detention are in a fast-track deportation process called “expedited removal.” A person subject to expedited removal (which, under current U.S. policy, may include those apprehended within 100 miles of a U.S. land border and within 14 days of entry) can be immediately ordered deported by an immigration officer without ever seeing an immigration judge. Those who tell a DHS official that they are afraid to return to their home countries are given screening interviews with an asylum officer to see if they have a credible fear of persecution. If so, they are entitled to a full asylum hearing before an immigration judge. If not, they face swift deportation unless they seek review of the negative determination by an immigration judge, which is generally cursory. 

This process, while complex, is supposed to ensure asylum seekers are not unlawfully deported to a country where they could face grave harm or death. In practice, however, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers do not always adequately screen migrants or ask if they fear return to their home countries. At times agents ignore expressions of fear and summarily deport asylum seekers. Less than 20 percent of the people ordered removed ever see an in immigration judge due to CBP’s use of summary removal processes. 
 
Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3617-Deportations-Jeopardize-Asylum-Seekers-Part-II.html

How Fast-Track Deportations Jeopardize Asylum Seekers

By Kathryn Shepherd and Royce Bernstein Murray

This report shows through the use of original testimony that the government’s reliance on “fast-track” deportation methods, such as expedited removal, in conjunction with detention often results in disadvantaging one of the most vulnerable groups of non-citizens currently in the U.S. immigration system: women and their children held in detention centers in rural, isolated locations in Texas and Pennsylvania. 

Accounts from women and children detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, the country’s largest family detention center, illustrate the many obstacles a detained asylum seeker must overcome in order to obtain a meaningful day in court. The authors drew from a database of thousands of case files to identify families who experienced one or more of the challenges outlined in this paper. 

Although many of the families whose stories are highlighted in this report were ultimately able to forestall immediate deportation with the assistance of legal counsel, all of them faced serious obstacles accessing the asylum process. Detained asylum seekers encounter numerous challenges, including the following problems detailed in this report. 

• High Incidence of Psychological Trauma among Detainees
  Many of the asylum-seeking women and children who are detained in Dilley experience psychological trauma as a result of their past persecution or fear of future persecution. This trauma is compounded by the experience of detention, the limited access to medical and psychological services in the detention center, and other policies outlined below.
• Separation of Family Members after Arriving at the Border
  Current government policy mandates that women must be separated from their spouses, adult children, parents, siblings, and other family members before they are transferred to the detention center in Dilley, Texas. The emotional impact of family separation – and the possibility that a separated family member with the same claim for relief may be deported – may have a profound effect on the ability of a woman or child to testify during their fear interview with the asylum office or before the immigration court.
• Medical Conditions Adversely Impact the Ability to Pursue Protection
  The women and children who are transferred to the detention center in Dilley suffer from a range of medical conditions. The prevalence of medical conditions may affect a worried mother’s ability to tell her story during her interview if her child is ill, or the sickness itself could affect a child or woman’s ability to articulate her story.
• Limited Access to Language Services
  While the majority of families who are transferred to the detention center in Dilley speak Spanish, many do not. The languages spoken within the walls of the detention center in Dilley are diverse. Access to interpretation services is limited, which may present problems for women and children attempting to seek help at the medical clinic, ask questions about their legal cases, and, most importantly, undergo fear interviews with the asylum office or hearings with the immigration court.
• Complexity of the Legal Standard Applicable to Credible Fear Screenings
  The immigration system is notoriously complicated, and the credible fear screening process is no exception. The legal standards to which asylum seekers are held are nuanced and complex, even for well-trained attorneys, let alone lay persons. Many of the factors outlined in this paper, including the prevalence of trauma and medical conditions, may further impede a person’s ability to understand the legal process and articulate a claim for protection.
• Procedural Defects in the Credible Fear Interview Process
  The credible fear interview process is potentially rife with procedural errors. Asylum officers are required to conduct the interview in compliance with printed guidance and law, but occasionally fail to do so. For example, officers must ensure that an asylum seeker feels comfortable, ask sufficient follow up questions to reveal critical information in the person’s case, and evaluate a parent’s claim for protection separately from the child’s (and vice versa). However, an officer may not develop the rapport with the mother or child that is needed to fulfill these obligations. Such procedural pitfalls, and many others, may adversely affect the outcome of an asylum seeker’s claim.

While the voices in this report are predominantly of asylum-seeking mothers and their children from Central America and the surrounding region, the obstacles this population faces illustrate the high risk of error in asylum screenings for all noncitizens who are held in detention facilities around the country during their fast-track deportation proceedings. 

Finally, the report looks at the critical role attorneys play in the cases of those who fail to pass their fear interview in the first instance due to one or several of the challenges highlighted above. The case stories illustrate how these pitfalls place families at risk of being returned to the very countries where they fear persecution.

Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3613-Deportations-Jeopardize-Asylum-Seekers.html