Ukrainians Eligible for Re-Parole in United Sates

 

Since Feb. 27, 2024, eligible Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members who are physically present in the United States can now be considered for re-parole so they can continue to temporarily remain in the United States. Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members who were paroled into the United States on or after Feb. 11, 2022, can apply for re-parole under this process. As with any parole application, we will consider these applications on a discretionary, case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the secretary of homeland security exercised his discretionary authority to allow certain Ukrainians to seek temporary parole in the United States, as well as apply for work authorization. The extraordinary circumstances in Ukraine that supported the prior exercise... More information https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a5977-Eligible-Ukrainians-Can-Now-Apply-for-Re-Parole.html

The Priorities of Latino Voters in United States

 

UnidosUS, the nation’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, is unveiling a first-of-its-kind Hispanic Electorate Data Hub, which will provide data on the size and growth of the Latino electorate over the last two decades, a chart of 2024 competitive districts with Hispanic voter influence, and dynamic multi-cycle polling results on Latino perspectives and issue priorities. This includes the results of the most expansive poll on the Hispanic electorate this year, providing timely insights into the perspectives and priorities of this electorate a year out from the 2024 elections.

Janet Murguía, President and CEO, UnidosUS said "Hispanics are the second largest group of voting age Americans and a critical factor in the race for the White House, Congressional balance of power, and beyond. Yet, oversimplifications and mistaken assumptions about these voters persist. We have created this first-of-its kind Hispanic Electorate Data Hub to promote an accurate understanding of this fast-growing group of voters, starting with the largest poll this cycle of Hispanic voters’ perspectives and priorities, including the one in five Latino voters who will be will be casting a vote for the first time in a presidential election. In a landscape of close elections, Hispanic voters are difference-makers, and are putting an exclamation point on the need for parties and candidates to meaningfully engage them and respond to their priorities, which are topped by cost of living, jobs, housing, and gun safety concerns."

More information https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a5899-growth-of-the-Latino-electorate-in-United-States.html

Canada announces permanent residence to Ukrainian victims of the war with Russia

 

As Russia’s ongoing, brutal invasion of Ukraine persists, Canada continues to adapt its response to help those fleeing violence. Since its launch in March 2022, the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) has provided temporary safe haven to over 166,000 Ukrainians. Now, we are introducing ongoing support for those who want to come to Canada, and for those who want to stay here permanently with their family.

Further to Canada’s additional support for Ukraine confirmed at the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, announced today a new pathway for Ukrainians to help keep families together.

Starting October 23, 2023, this new pathway will provide permanent residence to those who have fled Russia’s illegal invasion and want to stay in Canada. To qualify, Ukrainian nationals must be in Canada with temporary resident status and have one or more family members in Canada. Those who are eligible include Ukrainian spouses, common-law partners, parents, grandparents, siblings and children or grandchildren of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. More detailed information will be made available closer to the launch of the program in October.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5791-permanent-residency-for-ukrainians-in-Canada.html

All Immigrants and Undocumented Can Get the COVID-19 Vaccine

 Since the start of the pandemic, many immigrants have been left out of federal COVID-19 relief packages. Both undocumented immigrants and some people in mixed-status households have been excluded from stimulus checks, rent assistance, and other financial aid. This has left some questioning whether they qualify for the most important relief yet: the COVID-19 vaccine.

Equal access to the vaccine

Unlike previous aid, the federal government has made clear that anyone—regardless of immigration status—should get the vaccine.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made this clear in a statement released on February 1, just as vaccine production was beginning to ramp up:

“DHS and its Federal government partners fully support equal access to the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine distribution sites for undocumented immigrants. …DHS encourages all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once eligible under local distribution guidelines.”

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5108-All-Immigrants-and-Undocumented-Can-Get-the-COVID-19-Vaccine.html

ICE Says International Students Must Take Classes In Person Or Leave The Country

By: Katy Murdza - www.immigrationimpact.com

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge across the United States, many universities have chosen to temporarily move to online-only classes to protect public health. However, new guidance from the Trump administration will not allow international students to stay in the United States if their classes move online this fall.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversees the program and the data/tracking system schools use to enroll international students. Over one million students participate in the program each year. This allows them to study at K-12 schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, conservatories, and language training programs.

By regulation, academic students (F-1) are limited to one online class or three credit hours per term as part of their full course load. Vocational students (M-1) cannot take any. When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit in March, ICE issued temporary exemptions allowing international students to move to online-only classes during the spring and summer semesters. ICE originally stated that these exemptions would apply “for the duration of the emergency,” but now will not continue into the fall.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4873-International-Students-Must-Take-Classes-in-Person.html 

Immigration “Restrictionists” Hitting Their Stride Under Trump, But We Can Stop Them

By Wendy Feliz www.immigrationimpact.com 

Short-term thinking is inferior to long-term thinking, some argue, because it does a disservice to the future and those who will live it. Two long-term thinkers who have profoundly impacted U.S. immigration policy were recently in the headlines: John Tanton and Cordelia Scaife May.

Both helped give rise to the current immigration “restrictionist” movement in America through four decades of building and funding a network to advance their cause. 

Tanton was a Michigan-based ophthalmologist who recently died at the age of 86. He was also the architect of the modern-day “restrictionist” movement. He founded groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) , Center for Immigration Studies, and the Immigration Reform Law Institute. Each group seeks to severely limit immigrants, and non-immigrants, from entering the United States. 

May died in 2005. However, the New York Times recently unpacked her legacy in print and on its podcast, The Daily. May was a key partner to Tanton, providing the funding to prop up the research and advocacy activities of his restrictionist groups. They left behind a well-financed network.

Since FAIR’s founding in 1979, the network has argued that America needed to “restrict” who came into the United States in order to control population growth and other environmental concerns. However, while the network claims their policies are not animated by racial animus, Tanton’s writings, revealed late in his life, tell a different story. 

In 1993, he famously wrote, “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” He also shared dire warnings of a “Latin” onslaught that needed to be stopped. 

More dangerous than policymaking alone, the network has worked to persuade the public and advance a narrative that the nation is under threat from newcomers through their work in the media and public square. They have played on the public’s biases and fears for decades and encouraged Americans to turn their backs on newcomers and to fear diversity. 

Today, the leaders groomed by this network sit in key offices within immigration agencies and even in the White House. Their long-standing plans for severe restrictions on who can enter the country are beginning to take hold. 

In just the last few years, their acolytes have placed unnecessary and burdensome hurdles in front of newcomers. One of the most recent is the Trump administration’s new public charge rule, which makes it far easier for the government to deny entry to someone based on their perceived economic status. This now means only privileged individuals have a shot at the American dream. 

They have also increased scrutiny and denial of visas and closed many immigration field offices worldwide, making it even harder for an individual to apply for and obtain a visa. They are even discouraging international students from attending U.S. universities by making visas far more difficult to obtain. This is in addition to making it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers and refugees to seek safety in the United States. They are now forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous countries for long periods before they are considered for safe passage. 

They have also unveiled strategies to purge immigrants who are already living in the United States—some for decades—through policies that end Temporary Protected Status for thousands, expand detention, and fast-track deportations by removing court hearings from the process, a program known as expedited removal. 

By mainstreaming their restrictionist views, they have even primed some of the public to accept and even support these restrictive, cruel, and un-American policies. Increasingly Americans see immigration as a problem and not an opportunity. 

What we now see play out every day on immigration policy is no accident. It’s the result of a long-term vision of a nation that strictly limits who may enter. 

All Americans who are concerned with America’s legacy and future must take a step back and assess how we have been countering the restrictionist movement and what new strategies we need to roll back their impact and advance the vision of the America we want to live in. We must act quickly before the United States abandons this legacy and becomes a fundamentally unwelcoming nation. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4420-Immigration-Restrictionists-Hitting-Their-Stride-Under-Trump.html

What We Know About The Harms Of Public Charge So Far

By Emily Ruskin, UnidosUS Immigration Policy Analyst

On August 14, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule on public charge, effective October 15. The rule broadens the ‘public charge test’ immigration officials use to determine who qualifies for a green card (Lawful Permanent Resident status, LPR) or extensions to certain visa classes. The rule expands criteria which count against eligible immigrants in their applications, including having a critical health condition, one’s age, or accessing public benefits, such as Medicaid or SNAP (foods stamps). In essence, the new rule creates a wealth test to block low-income immigrants from obtaining green cards. 

This is by design; according to the Washington Post, Trump aide Stephen Miller “views the public charge rule as vital to his goal of reducing immigration, and he has told colleagues it will have ‘socially transformative effects’ on American society.” UnidosUS warned of the administration’s racially charged shadow war on immigrant families in 2018. 

The magnitude of the rule’s impact is still uncertain. A DHS analysis estimates the final rule will directly impact between 230,000 and 300,000 people in immigrant households due to forgoing or disenrolling from necessary public benefits. Still, the impacts could be broader: the rule gives case officers wide discretion to deny a green card application if they find the applicant “likely” to become a public charge in the future. The chill that criteria as vague and subjective as “likely” casts on immigrant communities will cause pervasive, indirect harm, and DHS knows it. The agency acknowledges the new rule could lead to worse health outcomes, increased rates of poverty and housing instability, and reduced productivity and educational attainment across the country, but does not estimate how far the chilling and spillover effects might reach. DHS’s analysis of the rule also omits the rule’s estimated economic impacts. Perhaps this is because the Fiscal Policy Institute estimates the ripple effects of the rule change could cost the American economy up to $33 billion and 230,000 jobs. 

Nay-sayers may minimize the threat of public charge, pointing to earlier, harsher drafts as evidence that the final rule will have a limited impact. Given the chilling effects mentioned above however, many American children are at risk of losing critical supports: Medicaid/CHIP and SNAP are necessary lifelines for more than nine million U.S. born children in immigrant families. Pediatricians from Harvard warn the spill-over effects of public charge could prevent up to two million children with chronic illnesses and special health needs from receiving the care and nutrition they need; the doctors predict this could cause avoidable lifelong disabilities and even child deaths. The harm to children under public charge is part of a larger assault on nearly six million U.S. citizen children in immigrant families, which UnidosUS exposed in a March 2019 report. 

Historical data back these fears. Following the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, immigrant enrollment in public assistance programs dropped drastically—between 20 and 60%, depending on the program—despite most immigrants remaining eligible for benefits. Confusion and fear were so widespread that U.S. citizen enrollments also dropped 14%. Indeed, chilling effects became so dire, the federal government issued tri-agency guidance to state governments in 2000 to reverse some of the damage. These chilling effects are well documented; in fact, they are published on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. To resurrect such a damaging policy despite robust evidence of its harm indicates that indeed, the harm is intentional. 

Early reports of chilling effects before the final rule was published already suggest the new rule poses a threat to millions of Americans and their families, especially low-income households and people of color. Evidence of chilling effects are especially clear in programs which are explicitly exempt from public charge, such as programs for children. Below are some examples of how the fear and confusion surrounding public charge are already harming families across the United States. 

Negative Health Impacts

• Health Care: Since the announcement of the proposed rule in 2018, researchers have observed drops in Medicaid and CHIP enrollments. Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families found that more than 800,000 (or 2%) fewer children were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP at the end of 2018 than in 2017. Child enrollments have only declined once since 2000, and in fact were up 5% in 2017. While there may be other contributing factors to changes in enrollments, such a steep reversal defies nearly two decades of trends. For now, state-funded health insurance is exempt from public charge. All the same, in 2019, Covered California—the state’s health exchange marketplace—reported disenrollment by members of households where English is not the primary language between 28 to 46%. Enrollment for English speakers dropped only 22% in that same time frame.
• Nutrition: The American Public Health Association noted a 10% drop in eligible immigrant SNAP enrollments nationwide in 2018. The outlook is made grimmer by a March 2019 study, which found that drops in SNAP are rising concurrently with an increase in child food insecurity in the United States, especially in immigrant families. At the local government level, New York City saw a nearly 14% drop in Hispanic immigrant enrollments in SNAP from 2018 to 2019, and a 6.4% drop in Hispanic U.S. citizen enrollments in SNAP. There are also anecdotal reports that immigrants are avoiding food banks out of fear. Despite being completely exempt from public charge, agencies in at least 18 states are reporting drops in participation in the federal nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC), some by as much as 20%.

Other Negative Impacts

• Education: Free and reduced-price school lunch programs are also exempt from public charge, but some immigrant families are still fearful. Not only do students who disenroll miss out on critical nutrition for their development, schools miss out on critical funding. Schools rely on free and reduced lunch enrollment counts for Tile I federal funds: dropping headcounts mean dropping dollars, as a school in Baltimore learned. At the higher education level, U.S. citizen children in immigrant families are afraid to apply for financial aid for fear it might risk their loved ones’ immigration status. As a bitter irony, the unaided cost is deterring some children in immigrant families from pursuing college degrees, which are widely understood to be key components of the “bootstraps” by which Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli would have immigrants and their families pull themselves up.
• Survey results: Researchers at the University of California, San Diego conducted surveys of undocumented immigrants living in the United States before the final rule was published. Respondents with U.S. citizen children were 10% less likely to seek preventive health care services for their children when they were told about proposed changes to the public charge rule. In a 2019 Urban Institute survey, one in seven immigrant adults polled reported they avoided public benefits in 2018. In Hispanic immigrant families and families with children, closer to one in five respondents avoided benefits in 2018.

Critics of public benefits who favor welfare ‘reform’ may tout dropping enrollments as a success. It is hard to imagine a ‘successful’ policy that actively, knowingly harms children. Today, we fancy such callousness to be a relic of a Dickensian past—an old man in a dressing gown, cursing those who cannot afford to live to hurry up and die, “and decrease the surplus population.” But in 2019, it is very much our present, and if we do not stop this rule now, we also risk our nation’s future. 

UnidosUS@WeAreUnidosUS

The lengths that this Administration will go to instill fear and chaos in our community has no bounds. The #PublicCharge puts American children living in mixed-immigration status at risk. Everyone should fight this unjust, bigoted, and counterproductive regulation.

14

4:42 PM - Aug 12, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

19 people are talking about this

Source: www.blog.unidosus.org 
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4417-the-harms-of-public-charge-in-United-States.html

U.S. Citizen Children Impacted By Immigration Enforcement

In the United States today, more than eight million citizens live with at least one family member, often a parent, who is undocumented. Children make up the majority of these U.S. citizens; almost six million citizen children under the age of 18 live with a parent or family member who is undocumented. Consequently, immigration enforcement actions—and the ongoing threats associated with them—have significant physical, emotional, developmental, and economic repercussions on the children left behind. Deportations of parents and family members have serious consequences that affect children and extend to communities and the country as a whole.

This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. citizen children who could be impacted by immigration enforcement actions, the challenges and risk factors that these children face, and the existing mechanisms designed to protect children if a parent is detained or deported. 


Millions of U.S. citizen children have undocumented parents and family members. 

• 4.1 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with at least one undocumented parent according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2009-2013 U.S. Census data).
• 5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2010-2014 census data).
• Roughly half-a-million U.S. citizen children experienced the apprehension, detention, and deportation of at least one parent in the course of about two years, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data between 2011 and 2013).
• As of 2017, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti had an estimated 273,000 U.S.-born citizen children. With those TPS designations terminated, many of these parents will become undocumented by the end of 2019.

Immigration enforcement—and the threat of such actions—can negatively impact a child’s long-term health and development. 

• A child’s risk of having mental health problems like depression, anxiety, and severe psychological distress increases following the detention and/or deportation of a parent. Since late 2016, doctors and service providers have reported anecdotally that they have seen more children exhibiting stress- and anxiety-related behavioral changes, including symptoms of “toxic-stress,” due to fear that a family member will be deported.
• A study of Latino citizen children from 2013-2015 found that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were significantly higher for children who had at least one detained or deported parent.
• A 2010 study of immigration-related parental arrests (at home or worksites) found that the majority of children experienced at least four adverse behavioral changes in the six months following a raid or arrest. Compared to the previous six months, children cried or were afraid more often; changed their eating or sleeping habits; and/or were more anxious, withdrawn, clingy, angry, or aggressive.
• Even before birth, immigration enforcement can put a child’s health at risk. The 2008 worksite raid in Postville, Iowa—the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history—was tied to premature and underweight births, complications that put babies at risk for infant death or long-term health problems. Researchers found that babies born to Latina mothers in Iowa within 37 weeks of the raid were 24 percent more likely to be underweight compared to the previous year. This increased risk was not evident in babies born to non-Latina white mothers in Iowa.

The detention or deportation of a parent puts children at risk of economic instability. 

The deportation, and even the arrest or detention, of a parent or other household family member has significant short- and long-term financial implications. U.S. citizen children and any remaining family members can face substantial economic disadvantages following the removal of a primary provider. 

• An analysis of 2014 median family income estimated that a family’s income would decrease 50 percent following the deportation of a family member.
• A study of immigration enforcement in six U.S. locations between 2006 and 2009 found that families lost 40 to 90 percent of their income, or an average of 70 percent, within six months of a parent’s immigration-related arrest, detention, or deportation.
• The ability to afford housing may become more tenuous following the deportation of a provider, resulting in the loss of a family’s home and more frequent relocations.
• A 2016 study of immigration enforcement and housing foreclosures found that “deportations exacerbate rates of foreclosure among Latinos by removing income earners from owner-occupied households.” Furthermore, the research revealed that counties with 287(g) agreements, which authorize immigration enforcement collaboration between local police and ICE, had substantially higher foreclosure rates among Latinos.

U.S. citizen children may end up in the child welfare system following the detention or deportation of their parent. 

Parents—regardless of immigration status, detention, or deportation—have a constitutional right to custody of their children (unless deemed unfit). While the child welfare system generally recognizes that it is in a child’s best interest to remain with a parent or family member, the intersection with immigration enforcement can negatively impact parental rights and thus a child’s well-being. For example, the lack of coordination between agencies has historically led to prolonged family separation and even termination of parental rights. 

To ensure that enforcement activities did not “unnecessarily disrupt the parental rights” of parents or legal guardians of minor children, ICE issued its Parental Interests Directive in 2013. The Parental Interests Directive was replaced in 2017 with a new Detained Parents Directive. The 2017 policy eliminated many aspects of the 2013 directive, including guidance for the use of prosecutorial discretion in cases involving children and all references to parental rights. The 2017 directive instead instructs ICE agents to “remain cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have” on certain children.

• According to ICE’s 2017 Detained Parents Directive, when certain minor children are encountered during immigration enforcement, ICE agents should “generally accommodate” the parent or legal guardian’s efforts to make child care arrangements before contacting local child welfare or law enforcement to take temporary custody.
• If a parent is unable to arrange childcare or custody prior to detention or deportation, the child may be taken by the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) for placement and case management. The child is usually placed in an emergency shelter; group home; or with a relative, friend, or stranger in a foster home while custody is determined in family court.
• An estimated 5,000 U.S. citizen children in foster care had a detained or deported parent in 2011, according to a national study.
• Children in foster care in counties with 287(g) agreements were 29 percent more likely to have detained or deported parents compared to non-287(g) counties studied in 2011.

There are limited mechanisms to safeguard parental rights, which are incredibly difficult for parents to regain following detention or deportation. 

All parents have the right to receive a notification of custody proceedings affecting their children, attend such proceedings, and receive copies of related court documents. Yet there are few enforceable, permanent policies in place to protect these rights.

• Federal law mandates that parental rights be terminated if a child has been out of a parent’s custody for 15 of the past 22 months. Policies and procedures vary by state, but in order to maintain or regain parental rights, CPS generally implements a reunification plan that requires a parent to have regular contact with the child and participate in family court hearings. Detained or deported parents have historically faced significant barriers to these requirements.
• Parents may request release from detention in order to care for their children while they are in immigration proceedings. However, ICE no longer provides its personnel with guidance for exercising such discretion in cases that involve a child.
• The 2017 directive generally instructs agents to facilitate regular visitation for detained parents and their minor children, though no longer emphasizes in-person visitation. ICE personnel should also arrange for a detained parent's participation in custody proceedings when required by a court.

Significant issues persist for detained parents who may be dealing with both immigration and custody proceedings. Since ICE is not required to inform CPS of a parent’s whereabouts, CPS may have difficulty locating and properly notifying a detained parent; family courts and caseworkers may not understand why a parent is detained and unable to participate in proceedings; and ICE officials may underestimate the impact that enforcement has on U.S. citizen children who are likely to be left behind. 


Parents with a final deportation order must make the difficult decision of whether to bring their children—including U.S. citizen children—with them. 

ICE issued more than 200,000 deportation orders between 2010 and 2012 for parents who report having U.S. citizen children, according to the most recent estimates of government data available. While the government does not track whether U.S. citizen children stay in the United States or leave with a deported parent, both scenarios occur and pose challenges.

• If parental rights remain intact, parents with a pending deportation may make custody arrangements for their children to stay in the United States. ICE is supposed to “accommodate, to the extent practicable,” a detained parent's efforts to make guardianship or travel arrangements for the child prior to deportation.
• If a child’s custody is still being determined after a parent has been deported, the ability of the parent to regain custody or participate in proceedings—even if the court requires the parent’s attendance—is extremely limited. ICE no longer has guidance to consider facilitating the travel of a deported parent back to the United States to participate in proceedings that may result in the termination of parental rights.
• Deported parents have the right to reunite with their children outside of the United States as long as the reunification plan is ongoing, but this requires significant coordination between family members, the parent country’s consulate, and U.S. state and federal agencies. It can be difficult for deported parents to prove that they can provide for their children in a stable and safe environment in the country of deportation, based on many of the same conditions that may have triggered the parent’s migration to the United States

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org  
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4339-Citizen-Children-Impacted-by-Immigration.html

Information About A Secretive Program That Fast-Tracks Deportations

by Emma Winger 

Since the mid-1980s, immigration courts have operated the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP). The program is designed to quickly deport people serving criminal sentences. Despite how long it’s been in operation, little is known about the IHP. With a lawsuit filed earlier this week, advocates hope to shed light on this inherently secretive, newly-expanded program that raises serious due process concerns. 

Under the program, immigration judges can conduct removal proceedings for certain immigrants serving criminal sentences in federal, state, and local correctional facilities. The purported goal of the program is to deport the immigrants as soon as they complete their sentences. But by focusing on expediency, this secretive program undermines the rights of the people it targets for deportation. 

Historical data shows that only a tiny fraction of people facing fast-tracked deportation through the IHP have an attorney. This lack of legal assistance exacerbates other problems with the IHP. Immigrants with criminal convictions—like all immigrants—are entitled to due process in their deportation proceedings. But determining the immigration consequences of criminal convictions is notoriously complicated. Individuals in the IHP are often required to present complex legal arguments without the help of a lawyer to defend against deportation. 

The IHP operates almost exclusively through a video teleconference (VTC) system. This makes the process even more difficult as the system is often plagued by technical failings. These immigrants never have the chance to see an immigration judge in person. Instead, they are often left to defend themselves without the help of an attorney, via a faulty video system. 

It is unclear how or if the IHP protects the rights of those suffering from mental illness. They are entitled to certain safeguards if an immigration judge determines that they are incompetent. Without lawyers or an in-person appearance before a judge, this population is particularly vulnerable to due process violations. 

Despite these concerns, the Trump administration vowed to expand the IHP “[t]o the maximum extent possible.” The need to understand how this program functions has never been more urgent. 

The American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Immigrant Defense Project sued to force the immigration courts to release records and data revealing how the IHP operates, where it operates, and who it targets. Advocates believe this information will bring greater transparency to an expanding, problematic program. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4332-Secretive-Program-That-Fast-Tracks-Deportations.html