DOCSLIB.ORG

IACHR.Complaint.2020.09.30 FINAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Before the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Family Members of Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, Jorge Alfredo Solis Palma, Guillermo Arévalo Pedraza, Jesus Alfredo Yañez Reyes, José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, and Juan Pablo Pérez Santillán, Petitioners v. United States, Respondent. COMPLAINT September 30, 2020 Submitted on Behalf of Petitioners by Steve D. Shadowen, Tina J. Miranda, Matthew C. Weiner, Nicholas W. Shadowen Hilliard Shadowen LLP 1135 W. 6th St. Suite 125 Austin, TX 78704 Robert C. Hilliard, Marion M. Reilly Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez LLP 719 Shoreline Blvd., Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Cristóbal M. Galindo 4151 Southwest Pkwy, Suite 602 Houston, TX 77027 Gerald Singleton, Brody McBride Singleton Law Firm, APC 450 A St., 5th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Roberto C. Montiel Roberto C. Montiel Office, PLLC 571 N. Grand Avenue Nogales, Arizona 85621 Luis Fernando Parra, Esq. Parra Law Offices, PLLC 571 North Grand Avenue Nogales, Arizona 85621 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................ 3 II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..................................................................................... 9 A. The United States’ Unlawful Rocking Policy ..........................................................9 1. Background: Economic Opportunism and Nativism ...................................9 2. Background: 9/11 and Militarization .........................................................11 3. The United States’ Acknowledgements of the Rocking Policy ...........................................................................................30 4. The Pattern and Practice of Lethal Force Under the Rocking Policy ...........................................................................................36 5. International Outcry Against the Rocking Policy ......................................51 6. The PERF Report .......................................................................................59 7. The Temporary Halt to the Rocking Policy ...............................................63 8. Mr. Trump’s Renewal of the Rocking Policy ............................................64 B. “[I] Called It a Murder”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca ........................................................71 C. “I’ll Kill You, Mother******”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of Jesus Alfredo Yañez Reyes ...................................................80 D. “Ayudame, ayudame”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of Guillermo Arévalo Pedraza ...................................................................88 E. “His Hands and Arms Were Cradled In Front of Him”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of Jorge Alfredo Solis Palma ......................................................................................................................98 F. “Que Se Muera El Perro”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of Juan Pablo Pérez Santillan ..................................................................100 G. “Shooting an Unarmed Boy”: The United States’ Unlawful Killing of José Antonio Elena Rodríguez ............................................................104 H. The United States’ Unlawful Failure to Adequately Train Border Patrol Agents ............................................................................................107 I. The United States’ Unlawful Failure to Discipline Border Patrol Agents ........................................................................................................113 J. The United States’ Unlawful Failure to Adequately and Timely Investigate Border Patrol Killings. ..........................................................115 K. The United States’ Unlawful Failure to Provide a Judicial Remedy to Petitioners ..........................................................................................117 III. ADMISSIBILITY ......................................................................................................... 125 A. The Commission Has Jurisdiction to Hear This Petition .....................................125 B. The Petitioners Have Exhausted Domestic Remedies .........................................127 C. The Petition Has Been Submitted Within Six Months ........................................128 D. No Related Proceedings Are Pending Before International Tribunals ..............................................................................................................128 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 128 A. The Right to Life and the Imminent-Peril Standard Are Engaged. ...............................................................................................................128 1. The Right to Life Under the American Declaration and American Convention Is Engaged. ...................................................128 2. The Right to Life Under Other International Law Is Engaged. ...................................................................................................131 3. The Right to Life Requires Police Lethal Force to Meet the Imminent-Peril Standard. ..........................................................135 B. The United States’ Rocking Policy Violates the Imminent- Peril Standard. ......................................................................................................139 C. The United States’ Killing of the Petitioners’ Loved Ones Violated the Imminent-Peril Standard. ................................................................143 D. The United States Violates the American Declaration by Failing to Provide a Judicial Remedy for the Border Patrol’s Unlawful Killings ...................................................................................158 E. The United States Violates Other Fundamental International Law by Failing to Provide a Judicial Remedy for the Border Patrol’s Unlawful Killings. ..........................................................165 V. CONCLUSION AND PETITION ............................................................................... 173 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. The Petitioners are the families of victims killed by United States Border Patrol agents along the nation’s southern border.1 The Petition seeks relief from two principal violations by the United States of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (“American Declaration”)2 and of the fundamental principles elucidated in the American Convention on Human Rights (“American Convention”).3 2. First, the United States adopted a policy that permitted its Border Patrol agents to shoot-to-kill civilians who allegedly threw rocks at the agents. By permitting agents to use lethal force regardless of whether the alleged rock-throwing put the agents or others in imminent peril of death or serious injury, the Rocking Policy and the killing of Petitioners’ loved ones violated the Declaration’s prohibition on the unlawful taking of life. Second, the United States has violated the Declaration by categorically precluding the victims’ families, when the victim was killed in Mexico, from obtaining judicial remedies in U.S. courts. The American Declaration requires the United States to provide the victims and their families, among other protections, a fair trial and judicial protection. Thus, the United States violated the Declaration by unlawfully killing the Petitioners’ loved ones and then refusing to provide judicial review of, and judicial remedies for, those unlawful killings and the Rocking Policy. 1 The Petitioners are Jesus Librado Hernandez (father of Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca), Luisa Palma (mother of Jorge Alfredo Solis Palma), Mario Del Socorro Quintero Perez (mother of the minor children of Jesus Alfredo Yañez Reyes), Nora Lam Gallegos (wife of Guillermo Arévalo Pedraza), Araceli Rodriguez (mother of José Antonio Elena Rodríguez), and Amada Carolina Martinez Morales (mother of the minor children of Juan Pablo Pérez Santillán). 2 Final Act of the Ninth Int’l Conf. of Am. States (Pan American Union), Bogota, Colombia, Mar. 30–May 2, 1948. 3 OAS Treaty Series No. 36, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, 9 ILM 99. 3 3. From 2005 through March 2014, United States Border Patrol agents killed at least 44 people along the nation’s southern border.4 Many of the victims were Mexican nationals who were shot by agents for allegedly throwing rocks at them.5 4. These deaths resulted from a Border Patrol policy and practice that allowed field agents to use lethal force against rock-throwers regardless of whether the agent was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. This Rocking Policy permitted agents to treat rock-throwing as deadly force regardless of the particular circumstances, such as the size of the rocks, the distance between the assailant and the agent, and the agent’s ability to de-escalate the confrontation, take cover, or retreat. The policy thereby “justified” agents in responding to rock-throwing with lethal force of their own, regardless of whether a reasonable officer would have feared imminent death or serious injury to himself or another. The policy received the imprimatur of the highest executives within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). 5. The Rocking Policy and its contours were admitted under oath by CBP’s former Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs. He testified that: there was a policy within CBP that in response to rocking or alleged rocking, agents need not back
Recommended publications
  • 24–25, 45 Activism 11, 80, 121, 132 Anti-Immigrant 114 Civic 72

    24–25, 45 Activism 11, 80, 121, 132 Anti-Immigrant 114 Civic 72

    Index AB 540 148 biopower 36, 41, 44–45, 47 ACLU (American Civil Liberties border 5, 54, 114, 117, 127, 130–31, 137, 143, 147 Union) 24–25, 45 agents at the 53, 140 activism 11, 80, 121, 132 city 2 anti-immigrant 114 crossing xi–xii, 7, 9–10, 55, 57–58, 101, civic 72 121–22, 128–29, 138, 140, 168 college 91 and federal government 114 community 8, 26 Mexican xii, 11, 129–30, 139 Dream Act movement 72, 92 Mexico/Arizona 114 Dreamers 86, 94 and NAFTA 4 faith-based 131 north of the 4, 129 in Logan 39 of the Rio Grande 7 social justice 83 in the San Diego-Tijuana region 138 student 93 San Ysidro 128 undocumented students 86n32 securing the 56, 117, 140 activists 22, 42–43, 114, 122 southern 5, 112 anti-immigrant 115 southern Mexico border 56 community 8, 47, 50, 82–83, 167 south of the 126, 140 Dream Act movement 71, 83, 93 at Tijuana xi–xii, 11, 131 Dreamer 70–71, 74, 82, 93 between Tijuana, Mexico, and San immigrant rights’ 22 Ysidro 128 local resident 45 U.S. 58, 121 and scholars 3, 50, 167 U.S.–Mexico viii, 4–5, 7, 51, 74, 87, 121, AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death 131, 138 Penalty Act) 20 See also borders American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) border cities 4 24–25, 45 border deaths 50 American dream 10, 82, 128, 137 border enforcement 53 amnesty 103, 115, 146 border patrol officers 129 Amnesty Program 115 border patrol procedures 54 Anaheim (California) xvii, 1, 146 border patrol processing station 5 deportation 1 border regions 4, 117 West Anaheim neighborhood 119 borders viii, xii, 52, 128, 130, 133–34, 140, 144 angelit@s 146,
  • Appendix 8.2.08 Selections from Immigrants Rising Educational

    Appendix 8.2.08 Selections from Immigrants Rising Educational

    EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE BINDER College Access for Undocumented Students in California INTRODUCTION All of us should have the freedom to pursue our dreams without constraint. When everyone is allowed to realize their full potential, we all benefit. However, every year, too many undocumented young people miss key opportunities to enter and succeed in higher education due to a lack of accurate information. The Educational Resource Binder: College Access for Undocumented Students in California has been created by Immigrants Rising to ensure undocumented students and the educators who serve them can easily access accurate and up-to-date information about attending college, including the CA Dream Act, AB 540/SB 68 & Residency, Scholarships That Don’t Require Proof of Citizenship, Institutional Practices, the Sanctuary School and Safe Zone Movement and more! DEFINING UNDOCUMENTED UNDOCUMENTED Deferred Entered with Entered Action for Currently in Legal Status Vulnerable without Childhood the Process but Immigrants Inspection Arrivals of Legalizing Overstayed (DACA) WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM “UNDOCUMENTED”? We define the term “undocumented” broadly to include all immigrants who reside in the United States without legal status. This includes individuals who: 1. Entered without Inspection (also known as “EWI”) Individuals who entered the United States without presenting themselves for inspection at an official checkpoint to obtain permission to enter the country (e.g. crossing the border without inspection). 2. Entered with Legal Status but Overstayed Individuals who entered the United States with legal status (e.g. student visa) and then remained in the country after their ‘duration of status’ date (found on their I-94) or after their visa expired.
  • Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S

    Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Learning and Teacher Education Education 2019 “Taking the Shackles off”: Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S. Theresa Catalano Andreas Musolff Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. “Taking the Shackles off”: Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S. Theresa Catalano, University of Nebraska-Lincoln ([email protected]) Andreas Musolff, University of East Anglia ([email protected]) Abstract The present paper utilizes (multimodal) critical discourse studies and cognitive linguistics to analyze the verbal and visual metonymies/metaphors found in online news sources that report on unaccompanied youths from Central America and Border Patrol/immigration officials in the U.S. Findings reveal verbal and visual metonymies that dehumanize and criminalize child migrants, while Border Patrol/immigration enforcement discourse creates WAR/WILD WEST metaphors that justify the militarization of the border. The significance of the study lies in showing how underlying conceptualizations of migrants by immigration and border control agencies help us understand the social imaginary which allows the government to garner public support for unjust policies and treatment of migrants.
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOINT APPENDIX (VOLUME 2) NOEL J. FRANCISCO ROBERT ALLEN LONG, JR. Covington & Burling, LLP Solicitor General Department of Justice One CityCenter Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 850 Tenth St., N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 514-2217 [email protected] (202) 662-5612 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioners for Respondents Regents of the University of California and Janet Napolitano (No. 18-587) PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: NOV. 5, 2018 CERTIORARI GRANTED: JUNE 28, 2019 Additional Captions and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Additional Counsel For Respondents THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. MICHAEL JAMES MONGAN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Solicitor General LLP California Department of 333 South Grand Ave. Justice Los Angeles, CA. 90071 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 [email protected] San Francisco, CA. 94102 (213) 229-7804 [email protected] (415) 510-3920 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Respondents for Respondents Dulce Garcia, Miriam States of California, Maine, Gonzalez Avila, Saul Maryland, and Minnesota Jimenez Suarez, Viridiana (No.
  • Arizona's SB 1070 As a National Lightning

    Arizona's SB 1070 As a National Lightning

    S.B 1070 as a National Lightning Rod Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as a National Lightning Rod CYNTHIA BURNS* The passage of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 in 2010, called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, has unleashed a political debate on illegal immigration in our country. This contentious State Bill, SB 1070, authorized law enforcers to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. Anti-immigration advocates hailed the bill for its tough stance on illegal immigration whereas proponents of immigration reform derided the law for its potential to discriminate Hispanic communities. Additionally, the bill created a rift between state and federal government on immigration reform, primarily raised questions about states right to write its own immigration laws preempting federal power. This has resulted in legal cases challenging the constitutionality of the law in the Federal Courts. The legal question raised by Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, was if states, Arizona in this case, had the purview to pass immigration legislation believed to be preempted by the authority granted by the Constitution to the federal government. In a split decision, the United States Supreme Court, in Arizona v United States, struck down three of the four challenged provisions of the bill for interfering with federal policy and remanded one-the provision authorizing police to check alien registration papers- to the lower courts. The Supreme Court ruling garnered national headlines particularly the provision in S.B. 1070’s Section 3 that created a state misdemeanor for the “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document” (S.
  • Immigration Reform: What's Next for Agriculture?

    Immigration Reform: What's Next for Agriculture?

    Immigration Reform: What’s Next for Agriculture? Philip Martin arm labor was a major concern the employer saw work-identification of agriculture in the early 1980s, documents. Employers are not required About 5% of U.S. workers, and over when enforcement of immigra- to determine the authenticity of the 50% of the workers employed on F tion laws involved the Border Patrol documents presented by workers. U.S. crop farms are unauthorized. driving into fields and attempting to There were two legalization pro- This article explains how immigration apprehend workers who ran away. grams in 1987–88 that allowed 2.7 reforms in the past increased the availability of unauthorized farm Apprehended migrants were normally million unauthorized foreigners, 85% workers, allowing employers to returned to Mexico, and many made of whom were Mexicans, to become become complacent about farm their way back to the farms on which legal immigrants. The nonfarm pro- labor. However, federal government they were employed within days. There gram legalized 1.6 million unauthor- audits of employers, and more states were no fines on employers who know- ized foreigners who had been in the requiring employers to use the federal ingly hired unauthorized workers, and United States since January 1, 1982, E-Verify database to check the legal the major enforcement risk was loss of while the Special Agricultural Worker status of new hires, have increased production until unauthorized work- (SAW) program legalized 1.1 mil- worries about the cost and availability ers returned. As a result, perishable lion unauthorized foreigners. of farm workers. crops, such as citrus, that were picked Unauthorized workers continued largely by labor contractor crews to arrive in the early 1990s and pre- included more unauthorized workers sented false documents to get hired, than lettuce crews that included work- that is, forged documents or documents ers hired directly by large growers.
  • IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA

    IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA

    Johnson & Spiro Final.docx (DO NOT DELETE)1/22/2013 5:14 PM DEBATE IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES v. ARIZONA OPENING STATEMENT Preemption of State and Local Immigration Laws Remains Robust KIT JOHNSON† Many people, frustrated with what they believe to be a failure of the federal government to police the nation’s borders, have sought to leverage state and local laws to do what the federal government has not: get tough on undocumented migrants. The primary stumbling block for these attempts is federal preemption as the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). This June, in a victory for local movements against undocumented immigration, the Supreme Court held that federal law did not preempt an Arizona law requiring police to “make a ‘reasonable attempt . to deter- mine the immigration status of any person they stop, detain, or arrest’” whenever they reasonably believe the person is “unlawfully present in the United States.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2507 (2012) (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1051(B) (2012)). The task now falls to lower courts to apply Arizona to the myriad other state and local laws coming down the pike. The en banc Fifth Circuit is presently considering whether a Dallas suburb may use a scheme of “occu- pancy licenses” to prevent undocumented immigrants from living in rental housing within city limits. See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers † Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law; J.D., 2000, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
  • A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J

    A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J

    Marquette Law Review Volume 100 Article 8 Issue 2 Winter 2016 A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J. Pita Loor Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Immigration Law Commons Repository Citation Karen J. Pita Loor, A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience, 100 Marq. L. Rev. 565 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 38800-mqt_100-2 Sheet No. 140 Side A 02/22/2017 09:25:38 LOOR-P.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/16/17 12:32 PM A STUDY ON IMMIGRANT ACTIVISM, SECURE COMMUNITIES, AND RAWLSIAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE KAREN J. PITA LOOR ABSTRACT This Article explores the immigrant acts of protest during the Obama presidency in opposition to the Secure Communities (SCOMM) immigration enforcement program through the lens of philosopher John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience and posits that this immigrant resistance contributed to that administration’s dismantling the federal program by progressively moving localities, and eventually whole states, to cease cooperation with SCOMM. The controversial SCOMM program is one of the most powerful tools of immigration enforcement in the new millennium because it transforms any contact with state and local law enforcement into a potential immigration investigation.
  • The American DREAM: DACA, Dreamers, and Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    The American DREAM: DACA, Dreamers, and Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    The American DREAM: DACA, DREAMers, and Comprehensive Immigration Reform Heather Fathali* “Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation . The his- tory of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.” –Justice Anthony Kennedy, Arizona v. United States1 “A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream to- gether is reality.” –John Lennon2 I. INTRODUCTION In 2011, Maria Gomez earned her master’s degree in architecture and urban design.3 This is an outstanding achievement for any student. For Maria, it was the result of the same hard work and diligence she had practiced since her days as a middle-school honor student, when she first knew that she wanted to become an architect. In high school, Maria excelled in community service, extracurricu- lar, and school leadership activities.4 She graduated tenth in her class with a 3.9 GPA and was accepted by every college to which she applied.5 * J.D. Candidate, Seattle University School of Law, 2014; B.A., Cultural Anthropology, Western Washington University, 2006. My appreciation to Professor Won Kidane and my colleagues at Seat- tle University Law Review for your assistance in the development of this Comment. To husband and my family: I thank you so much for your encouragement, support, and love. 1. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2510 (2012). 2. While this quote was made famous by and is often attributed to John Lennon, it was actually written by Yoko Ono.
  • CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Parents and Students CA Dream Act Background and Eligibility

    CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Parents and Students CA Dream Act Background and Eligibility

    CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for parents and students CA Dream Act Background and Eligibility Q. What is the California Dream Act? Q. Who Can Apply for the California Dream Act? The California Dream Act allows undocumented and nonresident Students who live in California and meet the eligibility requirements documented students who meet certain provisions to apply for and of Assembly Bill (AB) 540 or AB 2000, as well as students who have receive private scholarships funded through public universities, state a U Visa or TPS status, can use the California Dream Act application administered financial aid, University grants, community college fee (CADAA). waivers, and Cal Grants. Q. What is the difference between the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the California Dream Act application? The eligibility requirements based on citizenship are completely different for each of these. See below for more details: 1) You are eligible to complete the FAFSA at https://fafsa.ed.gov/ if 2) You are eligible to complete the Dream Act Application (CADAA) at you are a: www.caldreamact.org if you are a: Person who has a Social Security number who is either: Student who is not eligible to file the FAFSA and you: • A U.S. Citizen • Meet the requirements of AB 540 or AB 2000 and/or • An eligible non-citizen, per the FAFSA definition, or • Reside in California with a U-Visa or • The holder of a T-visa • Reside in California with a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) • A U.S. Citizen, eligible non-citizen or the holder of a T - Visa whose parent is undocumented Q.
  • Integration of the Sudanese Lost Boys in Kansas City Area

    Integration of the Sudanese Lost Boys in Kansas City Area

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by K-State Research Exchange LOST AND FOUND: DIFFERENT INTEGRATION PATTERNS OF THE SUDANESE LOST BOYS LIVING IN KANSAS CITY AREA AFTER RESETTLEMENT. by DANVAS OGETO MABEYA B.A., United States International University-Africa, 1997 M.A., United States International University-Africa, 2001 M.A., Kansas State University, 2004 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2011 Abstract The United States has resettled unaccompanied minors before. In the 1960s and 1970s, minors from Indochina were resettled in the United States. In the 1970s, the U.S accepted 14,000 unaccompanied minors from Cuba through Operation Peter Pan. Many of these Cuban minors, aged five to eighteen, were sent to the United States by parents fearing their children would be indoctrinated in communist schools. In the case of these minors, they arrived in the United States with the consent of their still-living family members. In contrast, about 3,500 Sudanese Lost Boys were resettled in the United States in 2000, and more recently in 2010, 53 “lost children” from Haiti were brought to the United States following a devastating earthquake. This study investigated the integration and assimilation patterns of the Sudanese Lost Boys in the Kansas City area with the purpose of understanding the sociological impact on these Boys from their own perspective. As opposed to previous studies done on these Boys in Kansas and other areas in the United States, the present study used interview-based research and analyzed data using both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.
  • Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP

    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP

    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP Daniel E. Martínez The University of Arizona Josiah Heyman The University of Texas at El Paso Jeremy Slack The University of Texas at El Paso August 24, 2020 CMS Essays, https://cmsny.org/publications/border-enforcement-developments-since-1993- and-how-to-change-cbp/ Executive Summary Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody. This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials. The paper concludes by providing specific recommendations for improving CBP conduct. Its core theme is the need to emphasize and inculcate lessons of appropriate police behavior, civil rights, and civil liberties in training and recruiting agents and in setting responsibilities of supervisors and administrators.