Posts Tagged ‘Immigration Law’

Small But Important Victories for Asylum Seekers in the United States

// September 24th, 2008 // No Comments » // Human Rights, Immigration, Racism

So maybe I am preaching to the choir. Yet I cannot ignore the fact that two DREAMers (this term refers to undocumented students in the United States awaiting passage of the federal DREAM Act) made their grievances known about the U.S. asylum-granting system in the space of two days, albeit over separate cases.

Quaker posts here about how the Department of Homeland Security opposed asylum in the case of three Brentwood children who had been beaten, exploited and sexually abused by family members in their native Honduras. DHS and its nativist lapdogs like Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for [Nativist] Immigration Studies (from now on, we will endearingly refer to it as the CNIS), were set adamantly against this because up until now, asylum was only granted to applicants who showed past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

“It’s unfortunately part of a trend where asylum is expanding to areas it was never meant for.”

Of course, Krikorian is going to be upset. For someone who believes that granting two people in love the right to stay together is ‘extremism’ you cannot expect anything less ignorant from the CNIS.

So, according to Homeland Security, these three children did not fall into the category of people fleeing persecution due to their membership in a “particular social group.” Accolades are in order for Judge Gabriel Videla for breaking from past trends and ruling that as “members of the family who were physically abandoned by their parents,” the children did constitute a social group. However, a long list of asylum seekers based on inter-family violence await certain rejection since this decision does not set any sort of precedent.

‘Damn Mexicans’ writes about Attorney General Mukasey blasting an Immigration Judge for denying asylum to a woman because “her genitalia already had been mutilated [so] she had no basis to fear future persecution if returned to her home country.” From the LA Times, Sept 23:

“To begin with, the board based its analysis on a false premise: that female genital mutilation is a ‘one-time’ act that cannot be repeated on the same women,” Mukasey wrote. “As several courts have recognized, female genital mutilation is indeed capable of repletion.”

He cited a case where an asylum applicant’s vaginal opening was sewn shut five times after being opened to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth.

“The board was wrong to focus on whether the future harm to life or freedom that [the applicant] feared would take the ‘identical’ form,” he added.

But Mukasey’s order does not automatically grant U.S. residency to the woman. Instead, the appeals board must now reconsider its earlier ruling.

I would say I am shocked, appalled, infuriated by the drawbacks in our system but alas, knowing that some U.S. Immigration Judges make their decisions based on wikipedia searches, this sort of (il)logic does not surprise me. And it should surprise no one. Also, see this post here about how the United States is in violation of International Law due to its treatment of asylum seekers as criminals.

Such inconsistencies plague the current system of determining asylum that the decision to grant asylum has less to do with the facts of the case and more to do with which Immigration Judge ends up hearing your case.
(more…)

Welcome to America Part 2 – Immigration Judge Uses Wikipedia to Deny Asylum

// September 3rd, 2008 // 5 Comments » // Immigration

Oh sorry, maybe that should be “NOT Welcome to America” given the recent trend in immigration.

The USCIS is fighting incredibly hard to apply the most restrictive approach to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)–that offers or has the promise of offering relief to children over 21 who age out while awaiting as beneficiaries of a visa petition filed on behalf of them. It has issued 8 memos to clarify the ‘CSPA’ within the past 5 years and all of them come across as unclear, convoluted, highly debatable [I will take this up in a later post in more detail].

Such is the nature of Immigration Law — immigration judges and officers are not clear as to ‘how’ to apply the law. In a system of judicial checks and balances when incorrect applications of law can be overturned later, that ‘may’ be acceptable. Although when the Bush Administration appoints cronies as immigration judges who are more likely to reject asylum bids and deport persons who really should be granted relief, that surely is a problem. [See this graphic]

What is all the more UNACCEPTABLE is using WIKIPEDIA to reject an asylum bid. It’s not acceptable in academic papers in Graduate school (unless your topic is Wikipedia) and it is definitely appalling when a United States Immigration Judge (IJ) uses Wikipedia to determine the validity of identity documents! This is the case:

An Ethiopian woman’s asylum application was initially denied since she failed to establish her identity concretely. Her case was reopened for consideration of a travel document known as a laissez-passer. After considering evidence that included information from an Internet website, the IJ found that issuance of the laissez-passer was insufficient to establish the alien’s identity. The Board of Immigration found that the IJ’s decision was not clearly erroneous, but the BIA stated that it did not condone the use of the website. The court of appeals held that the BIA failed to adequately explain its conclusion that the alien did not establish her identity. The BIA acknowledged that it was improper for the IJ to have considered information from the website, which could be edited by anyone, and the BIA made no independent determination that the alien had failed to establish her identity. It could not be determined whether the IJ would have reached the same conclusion without consulting the website.

So wait, this Immigration Judge referred to Wikipedia to prove that her identification document was insufficient proof and actually thought he could cite it in his reason for rejection AND that it would be acceptable?! Who appoints idiots like these… Oh wait, never mind.
(more…)

Undocumented Teen Commits Suicide in Jail — Cops must be held accountable

// August 24th, 2008 // 3 Comments » // Gender, Human Rights, Immigration

A 17-year-old migrant student of Clear Lake High School who was apprehended by cops after an illegal left turn, committed suicide in jail less than 48 hours later. Excerpts from the Chron.com article follows:

Arturo Chavez’s back was flush against a 7-foot partition for the cell’s shower. A blue blanket was twisted into a noose, with one end wrapped around his neck, the other tied to a shower head. [...]

It may never be known what swept over Chavez, who illegally emigrated from Guatemala four years ago and spent much of his time trying to improve his English and working to send money home.

All he had made for himself in the U.S. seemed to hang in the balance as Chavez was locked up at the police station and awaiting transfer to county jail.At one point, when the holding-cell door was opened, Chavez bolted for freedom, according to a police report.

With officers running behind, the 5-foot-3-inch Chavez made it outside and scrambled up a chain-link fence, but was grabbed by the feet.

The wire atop the fence ripped into his hands.

In the scramble, he was shocked twice with a taser and hit multiple times with a baton, according to police.

Houston attorney Randall Kallinen said the officers used excessive force to apprehend Chavez.

“He had been severely beaten,” said Kallinen, who added that a head injury could bring on suicidal thoughts — a mix worsened by solitary confinement. Results of an autopsy are pending.

Compassion aside, rabid nativists and their supporters are showing their disregard for humanity once again by posting their hateful and ignorant comments in discussions over his death. Consider this one by MsTexass:

Our fine police department did their job and I am thankful to know they are protecting our streets. Being Illegal in America should = NO RIGHTS, NO JOBS, NO NOTHING

Since when is it the job of law enforcement to use excessive force on teenagers, STUDENTS, who are not yet adults? Arturo Chavez was not yet 18, meaning he had not begun to accrue illegal presence in the United States, which by itself, is not even a crime. His fake ID, insurance and evasion from law enforcement does not add up to the punishment of death. And contrary to the wishes and beliefs of anti-migrant nativists, an ‘illegal alien’ has civil rights in the United States. If you want to cite the rule of law at every turn and that ‘illegal is illegal,’ you should also be prepared to hear that “the 14th Amendment is the 14th Amendment.” How redundant?
(more…)

Residency Not Determined by Undocumented Status

// July 18th, 2008 // 2 Comments » // Immigration

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled today that an undocumented immigrant who was injured in Ada County was entitled to medical assistance from that county regardless of his immigration status, stating that “the concept of residency does not distinguish between citizens and those who have entered this country illegally.”

The ruling reversed a board opinion and resembles the approach ten states have already taken to giving instate-tuition to undocumented students. Namely, residency and citizenship are two separate matters and defined differently.

A resident of Idaho as defined as “a person with a home, house, place of abode, place of habitation, dwelling or place where he or she actually lived for a consecutive period of thirty (30) days or more within the state of Idaho. A resident does not include a person who comes into this state for temporary purposes, including, but not limited to, education, vacation, or seasonal labor…”

Following that definition, most undocumented immigrants with the exception of seasonal migrant workers, are deemed residents by the county or state in which they reside. Their immigration status has no bearing on their residency.

The Supreme Court Opinion is here

When Sanctuary equals shooting self in the foot – Protecting undocumented juvenile “crack dealers”

// July 1st, 2008 // 2 Comments » // Human Rights, Immigration

Disclaimer – I LOVE SAN FRANCISCO

The experiment was a noble one — Instead of complying with federal immigration law, city officials in San Francisco would take on the cost of flying juveniles convicted of drug crimes to their countries. That would prevent federal deportation and criminal proceedings against these youth, giving them a clean slate and fresh start.

I have to give it up for San Francisco. It was a truly progressive, forward-thinking idea until 8 Honduran youth escaped from the Southern California group homes where they were being housed prior to their flights back to Honduras. Now, the city is the laughing stock of the country.

These are the kind of stories that annoy even progressive-minded Americans. Local San Franciscans are angry. Why are their tax dollars being used to fly these youth to their countries when they can be simply handed over to the federal government to prosecute? Well, the city has a sanctuary policy of not complying with federal immigration laws and harboring undocumented residents. Also, law enforcement in San Francisco and Berkeley are generally much more relaxed about drug laws than other places in the country. As a result, we start abusing our SANCTUARY CITY policy to harbor and protect juvenile crack cocaine dealers.

Yes, the alternative is worse from a human rights point of view–we are talking about juveniles after all who probably have no other means of subsistence. The problem is that the battle lines have been drawn and there is no middle ground in our restrictive immigration system. So when stories like these break out, it is tough to defend the “undocumented immigrant” or sanctuary city policies since we are no longer talking about undocumented students, hard-working immigrants who stay out of trouble, or migrant women slaving away in used-clothing factories (re:Houston).

Given by the comments at the SF Chronicle, an overwhelming majority of San Franciscans think the city is absolutely absurd for this sort of behavior. This one is actually in-line with how the city could be more forward-thinking:

Dear Gavin – Please just release them prior to booking, and save us some money. Love, the Taxpayers

Another way of looking at it: Since the 8 Honduran teens escaped the homes, they are now saving taxpayers money by being “productive members of society.”

The problem is not with small-time drug-dealers on the streets; it is with the bigger administration of criminalizing drug use and not attacking the source of the problem. By the same token, the problem does not lie with undocumented juvenile drug offenders, but a neo-liberal globalization that has created dire-enough conditions to perpetuate poverty, crime, hopelessness in many undeveloped and developing regions of the world.

I cannot sit and defend the behavior of the Honduran youth or city officials by providing rationales or excuses. Yet, this does not mean I support federal immigration or drug laws.

What I can do is grin at the goofy policies of San Francisco city officials, some of which have led to great social movements and progress for this state and country.

USCIS director answers questions on processing times

// June 25th, 2008 // 3 Comments » // Immigration

Check out the Acting Director of the USCIS (formerly known as INS) making excuses for the slow, inefficient and bureaucratic mess of the immigration system in this country.

And within a couple days, he is again bombarded with hundreds of questions about processing times and dates. Just how many people are waiting in line for naturalization, legalization and to be united with their families?

It is not completely the fault of the USCIS — they do have quotas and rules to follow, but seriously their communication can be improved. Can we talk to a live person regarding our case on the phone or via email? Their 1800 number is absolutely useless. You enter your decade old petition number on the USCIS website and all it says is “petition approved.”

This one is priceless:

Many of you also asked about the processing times displayed at www.uscis.gov, and why the dates sometimes go backward rather than forward. We estimate those dates based on a formula that calculates, among other things, the number of cases received within a defined period, how many cases we’ve completed during that time period, and how many cases remain in process that our beyond our established processing time goals. Sometimes the flow of cases received and completed changes during a specific period in a way that shifts the date backwards. The processing timeframes shown on our webpage reflect applications just completed. So the page is only a tool for customers to estimate our current processing times.

Perfect, just perfect http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4906/6751rolleyesev7.gif

Afterthoughts on “Deport this Illegal Immigrant” – Confessions

// June 11th, 2008 // 2 Comments » // Immigration

Alright, so I am not particularly pleased with this Rubin Navarette Jr. article IN MY CITY NEWSPAPER about deporting Arthur Mkoyan because he feels AM is getting “special treatment” as opposed to a DREAMer who is of Mexican origin. And I was harsh about it on ADD.

I am the last person who would try to stifle voices that raise the ‘race’ factor in immigration but I have to exercise moderation for posts at ADD. I apologize if I offended anyone with the post at ADD.; the Navarette Jr. article hit me precisely at the moment that I was celebrating the private bill for Arthur.

I admit, I did not for one second think about Arthur’s racial or ethnic background as opposed to that of students like Meynardo Garcia or Tope Awe. It does not matter to me — but maybe Rubin is right — it does matter to your average American. Why is Arthur getting a private bill sponsored for him while Awe or Garcia are not?

It is a sad part of our immigration system, still ridden with racial bigotry. But what is sadder is when I feel compelled to keep quiet about the media and political disparities in treatment, just so we can at least keep one student. It is sadder when I knowingly do not protest how the DREAM Act is written to feed into the migrant-military complex. I get tired of promoting citizenship for “assimilated English-speaking youth” – Please, I could care less if someone spoke English or not.

And what stabs me the most is the part about “these students being American and belonging to America.” I, Prerna Lal, who writes subaltern history, histories of alternative nationalisms and critiques of the nation-state form, am caught promoting national identity with pride. Let me make this clear–I could care less about any ‘American’ traits I may possess and refer to myself as ‘Islander Girl.’ I don’t see the erosion of national identity and nationalism as a bad thing especially in a world where capital is growing increasingly borderless and more people live outside their country of birth than ever before. Why should someone be compelled into identifying with a nation-state where they reside against their will? Even if you are born a citizen of the United States of America, what difference does it make whether or not you love your country? Being proud of your country of birth or national identity is stupid — no one chooses where they are born or brought up. By the same token, why would someone fight so hard to gain citizenship in a country where s/he will always be second-class? From where I stand, nationalism is a bigger ISM than racism in the immigration debate (of course they are not mutually exclusive).

That is my dialectical conflict. The struggle would never end for me and maybe that will keep me on my toes. I suppose I should follow my either/or advice and not be compelled into choosing. After all, we can critique something and still support it for the greater good, right? So for me, it is not about writing a frustrating article advocating the deportation of a DREAMer just to prove a point about systemic racism. I will still write about systemic racism but not demean or disparage any student youths–documented or undocumented. I think that is what bugged me about the Navarette Jr. article — he did not have to call for Arthur’s deportation, even if it was tongue-in-cheek, just to make a point about our racism.

No one should call you or me a hypocrite for supporting Arthur Mkoyan while writing about the racism in promoting AM over all our other students. And I expect the same rule to apply when critiquing U.S. foreign policy and actions while advocating for our DREAMs.

Deportation Delayed for Arthur Mkoyan

// June 11th, 2008 // No Comments » // Immigration

It really wouldn't come down to this last minute gamble, if Congress had demonstrated some leadership and enacted the DREAM Act.

Arthur Mkoyan and his family are no longer being deported thanks to Senator Feinstein who filed a private bill on their behalf. Yet, their immigration hurdles are far from over.

Rubin Navarette Jr. does not seem thrilled with all the hue and cry over Arthur Mkoyan's deportation. This is part of what he wrote in the SF Chronicle:

 

I wonder why more of them – including Tancredo – aren't making a fuss over Arthur Mkoyan. The fact is, Apodaca didn't get nearly the amount of public sympathy that Mkoyan has received up to now. Why the double standard? I believe it's because, while Mkoyan may not have a leg to stand on legally, he at least has the benefit of not being Mexican. Much of the immigration debate is fueled by a fear of a changing culture, competing languages, an altered landscape, and what loopy Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist calls the "colonization" of the United States by Mexican immigrants. Arthur Mkoyan isn't considered a party to any of that. For some people, that makes all the difference. And, in some respects, that's the saddest thing about this story.

No, the saddest thing about this story is reporters trying to play racial exclusionary politics with it. Whether or not Arthur Mkoyan received more sympathy based on his non-Mexican national heritage can be debated later at some conference or symposium. Now is not the time.

When we, the DREAM Act students, try to garner support for Arthur Mkoyan or other students like Tope Awe or Meynardo Garcia facing deportation, their racial or ethnic identity is not a motivating factor in our cause.

Navarette Jr. should consider letting the subaltern speak instead of drawing conclusions about experiences where he is an 'outsider-looking-in.' It is up to the individual undocumented youth students to decide whether they believe racial politics is a factor in protests and efforts to stay their deportation.

Right now, I am more concerned about Arthur and his ability to stay in the United States, where he belongs. If he is getting "special attention," I would rather take advantage of it to promote our cause and prevent his deportation, instead of sitting on the sidelines making divisive comments and pondering about why his case is so special.

Ultimately, I believe we are all special and deserve to stay in the United States if we have beaten the odds and graduated from high school in the least. Lets not play racial politics with the lives of undocumented students.

 

This does not mean I advocate marginalizing or stifling out a very important element of the immigration debate, which is race and the otherizing of difference. I just do not believe in writing an article about deporting a DREAMER (no matter how tongue-in-cheek) to prove a point about systemic racism. We can do both–we can recognize the biases in the system while trying to protect our students–regardless of certain social/political characteristics–from deportation.

What can happen with the Private bill?

After it passes the scrutiny of the House and Senate, the private bill would be referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. If it passes that test, than the private bill would be put on a private calendar  for floor consideration where it would face more hurdles.

Needless to say, private bills have an extremely low success rate. Only 151 have been approved in the past 12 years and none in the past 3 years.

We wish Arthur Mkoyan and family all the best in their efforts. 

Learn more about private bills here.

Click here to request that our next President takes action on the DREAM Act, which would grant conditional residency to undocumented students like Arthur Mkoyan so that they can pursue higher education in the United States. 

« Older Entries