DOCSLIB.ORG

Antisemitismus in Deutschland – Aktuelle Entwicklungen UNABHÄNGIGER EXPERTENKREIS ANTISEMITISMUS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antisemitismus in Deutschland – Aktuelle Entwicklungen UNABHÄNGIGER EXPERTENKREIS ANTISEMITISMUS UNABHÄNGIGER EXPERTENKREIS ANTISEMITISMUS Antisemitismus in Deutschland – aktuelle Entwicklungen UNABHÄNGIGER EXPERTENKREIS ANTISEMITISMUS Antisemitismus in Deutschland – aktuelle Entwicklungen 121362_Expertenbericht_Antisemitismus_t.indd 3 09.10.18 10:28 121362_Expertenbericht_Antisemitismus_t.indd 4 09.10.18 10:28 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS | 5 Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort 12 Zentrale Forderungen des Unabhängigen Expertenkreises Antisemitismus 14 1 Einleitung 16 1.1 Inhaltlicher Kontext 16 1.2 Der Auftrag: »Antisemitismus entschlossen bekämpfen, jdisches leben in Deutschland weiterhin nachhaltig frdern« 16 1.3 Zusammensetzung des zweiten Unabhängigen Expertenkreises Antisemitismus 17 1.4 Ziele des zweiten Unabhängigen Expertenkreises Antisemitismus 18 1.5 Praktische Umsetzung 18 1.5.1 Reguläre Arbeitstreffen 18 1.5.2 Einholung externer Expertisen 19 1.5.3 Gastvorträge 20 1.5.4 Gesprächsrunden 21 1.6 Internationale Bezge 22 2 Antisemitismus – Begriffsbestimmung und Typologisierung 23 2.1 Anmerkungen zur »arbeitsdefnition« Antisemitismus 23 2.2 Defnition und erscheinungsformen 24 2.2.1 Ideologieformen des Antisemitismus in idealtypischer Sicht 25 2.2.1.1 Klassische Ideologieformen des Antisemitismus 25 2.2.1.2 Neuere Ideologieformen des Antisemitismus 26 Exkurs: »Grauzonen« 27 2.2.2 Besonderheiten antisemitischer Einstellungen und Handlungen 28 3 Antisemitisch motivierte Straftaten 29 3.1 Probleme bei der Erfassung und justiziellen Bearbeitung der Straftaten 30 3.2 Antisemitismus-Monitoring durch NGOs 35 3.3 Entwicklung und Typen antisemitischer Straftaten 38 3.4 Demografsche Unterschiede: Alter und Geschlecht antisemitischer Straftäter und Straftäterinnen 43 3.5 Straftaten im Bereich Hasskriminalität 44 3.6 schutz jdischer einrichtungen 46 3.7 einschätzung der antijdischen hate crimes vonseiten der Betroffenen 46 3.8 Antisemitische Hasspropaganda und Straftaten im Internet 47 3.9 Antisemitische Straftaten im internationalen Vergleich 48 4 Antisemitische Einstellungen in der Bevlkerung 53 4.1 einleitung – Antisemitismus in Bevlkerungsumfragen 53 Exkurs: Zur Messung von Antisemitismus in Bevlkerungsumfragen 54 121362_Expertenbericht_Antisemitismus_t.indd 5 09.10.18 10:28 6 | ANTISEMITISMUS IN DEUTSCHLAND – AKTUELLE ENTWICKLUNGEN 4.1.1 Operationalisierung antisemitischer Einstellungen 55 4.1.2 Messen alle Fragen/Items tatsächlich Antisemitismus? 56 4.2 Aktuelle Bevlkerungsumfragen zu antisemitischen Einstellungen 57 4.3 Befunde zur Verbreitung antisemitischer Einstellungen in der Bevlkerung 59 4.3.1 Ausmaß und Entwicklung antisemitischer Einstellungen 59 4.3.2 Zustimmung zu einzelnen Facetten antisemitischer Einstellungen 60 4.3.2.1 Zustimmung zu klassischem Antisemitismus 62 4.3.2.2 Zustimmung zu sekundärem Antisemitismus 63 4.3.2.3 Zustimmung zu israelbezogenem Antisemitismus 63 4.3.3 Israelbezogener Antisemitismus und »Israelkritik« 63 4.3.4 Antisemitische Einstellungen vor und nach dem Gaza-Konfikt im sommer 2014 64 4.4 Zusammenhänge von Antisemitismus mit verwandten Konstrukten 65 4.4.1 Zusammenhang mit Elementen »Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit« 65 4.4.2 Soziale Distanz 65 4.4.3 Zusammenhang mit Rechtsextremismus und Rechtspopulismus 67 4.4.4 Zusammenhang mit Antiamerikanismus, Kapitalismus- und Globalisierungskritik 67 4.5 Zur Rolle sozio-demografscher Faktoren 68 4.5.1 Antisemitismus nach Alter 68 4.5.2 Antisemitismus bei Ost-/Westdeutschen 69 4.5.3 Antisemitismus und Geschlecht 69 4.5.4 Antisemitismus und Schulbildung 69 4.5.5 Zusammenfassende Analyse sozio-demografscher Faktoren 70 4.6 Antisemitismus der Mitte? 71 4.6.1 Antisemitismus in der sozialen Mitte 72 4.6.2 Antisemitismus in der politischen Mitte 72 4.7 Religionszugehrigkeit und Antisemitismus 74 4.7.1 einfuss der christlichen religion auf antisemitische Einstellungen 74 4.7.2 Antisemitismus unter muslimischen Befragten 75 4.7.2.1 Was ist auf die »muslimische Religionszugehrigkeit«, was auf andere Variablen zurckzufhren? 75 4.7.2.2 Befunde zu muslimischen Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen in Deutschland 76 4.7.2.3 Befunde zu muslimischen Erwachsenen in Deutschland 77 4.7.2.4 Diskriminierung als mgliche Ursache antisemitischer Einstellungen bei muslimischen Einwanderern 78 4.8 einfuss des Migrationshintergrunds auf antisemitische einstellungen 80 4.9 Theoretische erklärungen fr die Übernahme antisemitischer einstellungen 80 4.10 Antisemitismus im internationalen Vergleich 83 4.11 Antisemitische Einstellungen unter nach Europa zugewanderten muslimischen Migranten 88 4.12 Fazit 90 5 Erfahrungsräume und Perspektiven der jdischen Bevlkerung im Umgang mit Antisemitismus 91 5.1 Perspektive von Jdinnen und Juden in Deutschland auf Antisemitismus 91 5.2 Jdische Gemeinschaften in Deutschland: historische Ausgangssituation und Selbstverortung 91 5.3 Perspektivendivergenz 93 5.4 Bisherige Erkenntnisse zu jdischen Perspektiven auf Antisemitismus 93 5.4.1 Subjektive Antisemitismuserfahrungen 95 121362_Expertenbericht_Antisemitismus_t.indd 6 09.10.18 10:28 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS | 7 5.4.2 Ebenen, Formen und Ausdrucksweisen von Antisemitismus unter dem Blickwinkel der Diskriminierung 96 5.5 Beschreibung der in Auftrag gegebenen Expertise zum Thema »Perspektiven von Jdinnen und Juden in Deutschland auf Antisemitismus« 97 5.5.1 Ziel der Expertise 97 5.5.2 Umsetzung der Expertise 97 5.5.3 Anlage und Umsetzung der Studie in drei Teilstudien 98 5.5.3.1 Qualitative Befragung (Teilstudien I und II) 98 5.5.3.2 Quantitative Befragung von Jdinnen und Juden (Teilstudie III) 99 5.6 Ergebnisse der in Auftrag gegebenen Studie 100 5.6.1 Die große Resonanz zeugt vom Bedarf, angehrt und gehrt zu werden 100 5.6.2 Jdische Identität 100 5.6.3 Erfahrungen der Großeltern und Beständigkeit antisemitischer Stereotype 101 5.6.4 Einschätzung von Antisemitismus als aktuelles Problem 102 5.6.5 Einschätzung der Entwicklung von Antisemitismus 103 5.6.6 wie drckt sich Antisemitismus aus Sicht der Betroffenen aus? 104 5.6.7 erfahrung mit Diskriminierung – Befunde der qualitativen Befragungen 105 5.6.7.1 Verkrampftes Verhältnis/»Othering« als subtile Form von Antisemitismus 106 5.6.7.2 Diskriminierung aufgrund verschiedener zugewiesener Merkmale 106 5.6.7.3 Direkte, offene und diffuse Formen von Antisemitismus 107 5.6.7.4 Antisemitismus in verschiedenen Lebenskontexten 107 5.6.8 Erleben von und Sorge vor unmittelbaren Beleidigungen und Übergriffen 108 5.6.9 Wie die Betroffenen mit Antisemitismus umgehen 110 5.6.10 einstellungen zur aktuellen Flchtlingsdebatte 112 5.6.11 Vorschläge fr Prävention 113 6 Medialer Diskurs 116 6.1 Einleitung 116 6.2 Antisemitische Verschwrungs theorien/-mythen, sekundärer Antisemitismus, antizionistischer/israelbezogener Anti semitismus und antisemitische »Hate Speech« 116 6.3 Antisemitismus in Print- und Online-Zeitungen sowie im Fernsehen 117 6.4 Kommentare von Leserinnen und Lesern 120 6.5 Internet und Soziale Medien 122 6.5.1 »Hate Speech« 123 6.5.2 Soziale Medien 123 6.5.2.1 Twitter 123 6.5.2.2 Facebook 124 6.5.2.3 YouTube 125 6.5.2.4 Blogs 126 6.5.2.5 Instagram 127 6.5.2.6 Google+ und andere Netzwerke 127 6.5.3 Themen 127 6.5.4 Akteurinnen und Akteure 128 6.5.5 Verbreitungsgrad in sozialen Netzwerken 128 6.5.6 Gegenstrategien 129 6.6 Fazit 130 exkurs: »Mastermind« – Üstakil 132 121362_Expertenbericht_Antisemitismus_t.indd 7 09.10.18 10:28 8 | ANTISEMITISMUS IN DEUTSCHLAND – AKTUELLE ENTWICKLUNGEN 7 Antisemitismus und Parteien 137 7.1 Das Verhältnis der Parteien zum Antisemitismus 137 7.1.1 Christlich Demokratische Union (CDU)/Christlich Soziale Union (CSU) 137 7.1.2 Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) 137 7.1.3 Bndnis 90/Die Grnen 138 7.1.4 Alternative fr Deutschland (afD) 138 7.1.4.1 Der Fall Peter Ziemann 139 7.1.4.2 Der Fall Jan-Ulrich Weiß 139 7.1.4.3 Der Fall Gunnar Baumgart 140 7.1.4.4 Der Fall Wolfgang Gedeon 141 7.1.4.5 Bedeutung der Antisemitismus-Fälle in der Partei 143 7.1.4.6 Antisemitismus im innerparteilichen Machtkampf 144 7.1.4.7 Zwischenfazit 144 7.1.5 Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS)/Partei Die Linke 145 Exkurs: Anmerkungen zu Antisemitismus-Vorwrfen gegenber der Partei Die linke 146 7.1.5.1 Zwischenfazit 148 7.1.6 Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP) 148 7.2 Stellungnahmen der Parteien zum Antisemitismus 149 7.2.1 Christlich Demokratische Union (CDU) 150 7.2.2 Christlich Soziale Union (CSU) 150 7.2.3 Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) 151 7.2.4 Bndnis 90/Die Grnen (Grne) 151 7.2.5 Alternative fr Deutschland (afD) 151 7.2.6 Die Linke 151 7.2.7 Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP) 152 7.2.8 Antworten im Gesamtvergleich 152 7.2.9 Fazit 153 8 Antisemitismus in politischen Bewegungen und Organisationen 155 8.1 Antisemitismus in der rechtsextremistischen Bewegung 155 8.1.1 Rechtsextremismus als soziale Bewegung 155 8.1.2 Antisemitismus in der Ideologie des Rechtsextremismus 156 8.1.3 Antisemitismus in der Nationaldemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (NPD) 156 8.1.4 Antisemitismus in der Neonazi-Szene 157 8.1.5 Antisemitismus in der rechtsextremistischen Musik 157 Exkurs: Antisemitismus in rechtsextremistischer Rap-Musik 158 8.1.6 Bedeutung der Holocaust-leugnung fr den rechtsextremismus 159 8.1.7 Bedeutung des Antisemitismus im Rechtsterrorismus 159 8.1.8 antisemitische Deutungen beim Diskurs ber die Flchtlingsentwicklung 160 8.1.9 Interne Bedeutung des Antisemitismus im Rechtsextremismus 160 8.1.10 Externe Bedeutung des Antisemitismus im Rechtsextremismus 161 8.1.11 Fazit 161 Exkurs: Reichsbrger 162 8.2 Montagsmahnwachen fr den Frieden 163 8.2.1 Die Entstehung der Montagsmahnwachen 163 8.2.2 Kritik und Skandalisierung rechter Tendenzen
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S
    Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S. Foreign Policy October 2020 Acknowledgments Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan human rights advocacy and action organization based in Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles. © 2020 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S. Foreign Policy was authored by Human Rights First’s staff and consultants. Senior Vice President for Policy Rob Berschinski served as lead author and editor-in-chief, assisted by Tolan Foreign Policy Legal Fellow Reece Pelley and intern Anna Van Niekerk. Contributing authors include: Eleanor Acer Scott Johnston Trevor Sutton Rob Berschinski David Mizner Raha Wala Cole Blum Reece Pelley Benjamin Haas Rita Siemion Significant assistance was provided by: Chris Anders Steven Feldstein Stephen Pomper Abigail Bellows Becky Gendelman Jennifer Quigley Brittany Benowitz Ryan Kaminski Scott Roehm Jim Bernfield Colleen Kelly Hina Shamsi Heather Brandon-Smith Kate Kizer Annie Shiel Christen Broecker Kennji Kizuka Mandy Smithberger Felice Gaer Dan Mahanty Sophia Swanson Bishop Garrison Kate Martin Yasmine Taeb Clark Gascoigne Jenny McAvoy Bailey Ulbricht Liza Goitein Sharon McBride Anna Van Niekerk Shannon Green Ian Moss Human Rights First challenges the United States of America to live up to its ideals. We believe American leadership is essential in the struggle for human dignity and the rule of law, and so we focus our advocacy on the U.S. government and other key actors able to leverage U.S. influence. When the U.S. government falters in its commitment to promote and protect human rights, we step in to demand reform, accountability, and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • March 12, 2021 Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas Hon. Antony Blinken Secretary Secretary Department of Homeland Security Department Of
    March 12, 2021 Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas Hon. Antony Blinken Secretary Secretary Department of Homeland Security Department of State 301 7th Street, SW 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20528 Washington, DC 20520 CC: Esther Olavarria, Domestic Policy Council Roberta Jacobson, National Security Council Katie Tobin, National Security Council Re: Wind Down of the Migrant Protection Protocols Dear Secretaries Mayorkas and Blinken: Our faith-based, humanitarian, legal services, immigration, and human rights organizations and law school clinics welcome the administration’s initial steps to wind down the illegal and cruel Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). We applaud the humane reception of the more than 1,400 asylum seekers brought to safety in the United States to date, the rapid processing of asylum seekers in the Matamoros tent encampment, and reported discussions to expand MPP processing to additional ports of entry. The recent designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela is also a crucial and long overdue measure that will safeguard thousands of refugees from deportation. We write to recommend additional actions by the administration as the process to end MPP continues and to request further engagement and coordination to ensure people seeking refugee protection can find safety in the United States. We urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to immediately extend MPP processing to additional ports of entry and U.S. consulates, quickly expand processing to all individuals subjected to MPP, better coordinate with bi-national humanitarian and legal service providers assisting asylum seekers, provide necessary support for border communities welcoming asylum seekers, and address continued issues with the registration process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis: a Collaborative Approach to International Advocacy
    Davidson and Purohit: The Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis: A Collaborative Approach to International Advocacy Note from the Field The Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis: A Collaborative Approach to International Advocacy Lorna Davidson and Raj Purohitt Over the past several years, a serious human rights crisis has developed in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe employs repressive measures to cling to power. Civil society and human rights groups in Zimbabwe are among those who have come under attack by the government, and they face an extremely difficult challenge in bringing about positive change in the country. This article describes the development of the current crisis in Zimbabwe, focusing on the problems faced by local activists and organizations that seek to promote greater respect for human rights. It further discusses one recent initiative launched by the U.S.-based organization Human Rights First,which organized a consultative meeting of regional civil society groups in August 2003. The article addresses the role that can and should be played by internationalcivil society organizations, which must be sensitive to the contextual dynamics particularto the Zimbabwean crisis and to the region. If they are to be in any way effective, such organizations must act in supportof local actors and stronger regional networks. t Lorna Davidson is a Senior Associate in the Human Rights Defenders Program at Human Rights First in New York, N.Y, and Raj Purohit is the Legislative Director in the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights First. Human Rights First is the new name for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights as of February 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 June 8, 2020 to Members of The
    June 8, 2020 To Members of the United Nations Human Rights Council Re: Request for the Convening of a Special Session on the Escalating Situation of Police Violence and Repression of Protests in the United States Excellencies, The undersigned family members of victims of police killings and civil society organizations from around the world, call on member states of the UN Human Rights Council to urgently convene a Special Session on the situation of human rights in the United States in order to respond to the unfolding grave human rights crisis borne out of the repression of nationwide protests. The recent protests erupted on May 26 in response to the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was only one of a recent string of unlawful killings of unarmed Black people by police and armed white vigilantes. We are deeply concerned about the escalation in violent police responses to largely peaceful protests in the United States, which included the use of rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray and in some cases live ammunition, in violation of international standards on the use of force and management of assemblies including recent U.N. Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons. Additionally, we are greatly concerned that rather than using his position to serve as a force for calm and unity, President Trump has chosen to weaponize the tensions through his rhetoric, evidenced by his promise to seize authority from Governors who fail to take the most extreme tactics against protestors and to deploy federal armed forces against protestors (an action which would be of questionable legality).
    [Show full text]
  • Plenarprotokoll 16/220
    Plenarprotokoll 16/220 Deutscher Bundestag Stenografischer Bericht 220. Sitzung Berlin, Donnerstag, den 7. Mai 2009 Inhalt: Glückwünsche zum Geburtstag der Abgeord- ter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE: neten Walter Kolbow, Dr. Hermann Scheer, Bundesverantwortung für den Steu- Dr. h. c. Gernot Erler, Dr. h. c. Hans ervollzug wahrnehmen Michelbach und Rüdiger Veit . 23969 A – zu dem Antrag der Abgeordneten Dr. Erweiterung und Abwicklung der Tagesord- Barbara Höll, Dr. Axel Troost, nung . 23969 B Dr. Gregor Gysi, Oskar Lafontaine und der Fraktion DIE LINKE: Steuermiss- Absetzung des Tagesordnungspunktes 38 f . 23971 A brauch wirksam bekämpfen – Vor- handene Steuerquellen erschließen Tagesordnungspunkt 15: – zu dem Antrag der Abgeordneten Dr. a) Erste Beratung des von den Fraktionen der Barbara Höll, Wolfgang Nešković, CDU/CSU und der SPD eingebrachten Ulla Lötzer, weiterer Abgeordneter Entwurfs eines Gesetzes zur Bekämp- und der Fraktion DIE LINKE: Steuer- fung der Steuerhinterziehung (Steuer- hinterziehung bekämpfen – Steuer- hinterziehungsbekämpfungsgesetz) oasen austrocknen (Drucksache 16/12852) . 23971 A – zu dem Antrag der Abgeordneten b) Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Fi- Christine Scheel, Kerstin Andreae, nanzausschusses Birgitt Bender, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE – zu dem Antrag der Fraktionen der GRÜNEN: Keine Hintertür für Steu- CDU/CSU und der SPD: Steuerhin- erhinterzieher terziehung bekämpfen (Drucksachen 16/11389, 16/11734, 16/9836, – zu dem Antrag der Abgeordneten Dr. 16/9479, 16/9166, 16/9168, 16/9421, Volker Wissing, Dr. Hermann Otto 16/12826) . 23971 B Solms, Carl-Ludwig Thiele, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der Lothar Binding (Heidelberg) (SPD) . 23971 D FDP: Steuervollzug effektiver ma- Dr. Hermann Otto Solms (FDP) . 23973 A chen Eduard Oswald (CDU/CSU) .
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Sanctions Overview Primer
    FACT SHEET: NOVEMBER 2020 Targeted Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Sanctions – A General Overview Part 1 in HRF’s Guide to US Targeted Sanctions for Combatting Human Rights Abuses and Corruption law in US history. In December 2017, the Introduction to US Targeted Sanctions USG issued EO 13818, which • The United States government (USG) simultaneously implemented the GMA and maintains several targeted sanctions expanded its scope, creating the Global programs to create accountability for human Magnitsky sanctions program. rights abusers and corrupt officials across o EO 13818 gives discretionary authority to the globe. Among the most widely used are the Secretaries of Treasury and State to Global Magnitsky sanctions (for more block or revoke US visas and to block information, see Part 2 of this series), 7031(c) (freeze) all US-based property and visa sanctions (for more information, see Part 3 interests in property of foreign persons of this series), and country-specific programs (both individuals and entities) who have with relevant human rights and anti-corruption engaged in: prongs (for more information, see Parts 4-20 of a) “serious human rights abuse” (SHRA) this series). b) “acts of corruption,” including the • Purpose of targeted sanctions: Targeted transfer or the facilitation of the transfer sanctions aim to encourage behavior of the proceeds of corruption. modification, limit the impunity of perpetrators, o The USG is required by law to involve deter covered crimes, and achieve diplomatic NGOs in Global Magnitsky sanctions goals
    [Show full text]
  • Political Scandals, Newspapers, and the Election Cycle
    Political Scandals, Newspapers, and the Election Cycle Marcel Garz Jil Sörensen Jönköping University Hamburg Media School April 2019 We thank participants at the 2015 Economics of Media Bias Workshop, members of the eponymous research network, and seminar participants at the University of Hamburg for helpful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to Spiegel Publishing for access to its news archive. Daniel Czwalinna, Jana Kitzinger, Henning Meyfahrt, Fabian Mrongowius, Ulrike Otto, and Nadine Weiss provided excellent research assistance. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Hamburg Media School. Corresponding author: Jil Sörensen, Hamburg Media School, Finkenau 35, 22081 Hamburg, Germany. Phone: + 49 40 413468 72, fax: +49 40 413468 10, email: [email protected] Abstract Election outcomes are often influenced by political scandal. While a scandal usually has negative consequences for the ones being accused of a transgression, political opponents and even media outlets may benefit. Anecdotal evidence suggests that certain scandals could be orchestrated, especially if they are reported right before an election. This study examines the timing of news coverage of political scandals relative to the national election cycle in Germany. Using data from electronic newspaper archives, we document a positive and highly significant relationship between coverage of government scandals and the election cycle. On average, one additional month closer to an election increases the amount of scandal coverage by 1.3%, which is equivalent to an 62% difference in coverage between the first and the last month of a four- year cycle. We provide suggestive evidence that this pattern can be explained by political motives of the actors involved in the production of scandal, rather than business motives by the newspapers.
    [Show full text]
  • October 23, 2020 Submitted Via
    October 23, 2020 Submitted via www.regulations.gov Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director Office of Policy Executive Office for Immigration Review 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2616 Falls Church, VA 22041 RE: RIN 1125–AA93; EOIR Docket No. 19–0010; A.G. Order No. 4843–2020, Public Comment Opposing Proposed Rules on Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal Human Rights First submits this comment urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withdraw these proposed rules in their entirety. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would further eviscerate procedural protections for asylum seekers1 in removal proceedings, making it more difficult for refugees to find safety in the United States. The proposed rule would create a 15-day filing deadline for asylum applications for those in asylum-only proceedings, making it virtually impossible for many refugees to obtain counsel or fully develop their asylum claims. The proposed rule would require immigration judges to adjudicate most asylum applications within 180 days of filing with very limited exceptions for continuances, which could block asylum seekers from finding counsel or fully preparing their cases. Further, the rule would require immigration judges to reject asylum applications for even minor errors in completing the application form or for failing to pay an unprecedented $50 asylum fee with no exceptions for detained or indigent persons. Many asylum seekers arrive in the United States with limited financial resources. Finally, the proposed rule would allow immigration judges to submit evidence in asylum proceedings – further undermining their role in fairly developing the record and serving as neutral decision makers – and it instructs judges to consider U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CARIM India Series Developing Evidence Based Management and Operations in India-EU Migration and Partnership (DEMO: India-EU Map )
    CARIM INDIA SERIES DEVELOPING EVIDENCE BASED MANAGEMENT AND OPEraTIONS IN INDIA-EU MIGraTION AND PARTNERSHIP (DEMO: INDIA-EU MAP ) The Indian Community in German Media Reports Daniel F. Schulz DEMO-India Research Report 2015/01 EUI is Partner Institution of ICM Co-financed by the European Union for the DEMO-India Project DEMO-India Developing Evidence based Management and Operations in India-EU Migration and Partnership Research Report Thematic Report DEMO-India RR 2015/01 The Indian Community in German Media Reports Daniel F. Schulz PhD Researcher, EUI This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Requests should be addressed to [email protected] If cited or quoted, reference should be made as follows: Daniel F. Schulz, The Indian Community in German Media Reports, DEMO-India RR 2015/01, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI): European University Institute, 2015. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the official position of the European Commission or of the European University Institute. © 2015, European University Institute ISBN: 978-92-9084-335-1 doi:10.2870/536978 Catalogue Number: QM-04-15-514-EN-N European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/ http://interact-project.eu/publications/ http://cadmus.eui.eu DEMO-India – Developing Evidence based Management and Operations in India-EU Migration and Partnership (DEMO: India-EU MaP) The Demo: India-EU MaP project, co-funded by the European Commission, is a continuation of the Carim India project (www.india-eu-migration.eu) and it examines the multiple facets of Indian migration to the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Human Rights Defense
    International Human Rights Defense Act Supporters: Amnesty International, Council for Global Equality, RFK Center for Human Rights, Human Rights Campaign, Freedom House, Human Rights First, American Jewish World Service, National Center for Transgender Equality, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and Advocates for Youth In 2013, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) equality movement experienced a number of major triumphs, including the overturning of DOMA. Yet, in other countries, the global movement for equality suffered a number of serious setbacks. Russia enacted a ban on arbitrarily-defined “homosexual propaganda,” endangering the position of many LGBT persons and their allies. India’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and reinstated the nation’s criminalization of homosexuality in the world’s second largest country. And Nigeria went even further, passing a law that makes homosexuality a crime punishable by death. Sadly, in 2014 the trend has continued abroad. Uganda passed a similar law to Nigeria’s and Ethiopia has indicated that it may do the same. It is critical that the United States fight for LGBT equality both at home, and abroad. The President, as well as both Secretaries Clinton and Kerry have affirmed the United States’ commitment to LGBT equality as a critical component of our international human rights objectives. However, our government does not yet have a comprehensive strategy for addressing LGBT discrimination overseas. We do not even have one central individual office responsible for inter-bureau and inter-agency coordination to achieve these objectives. The International Human Rights Defense Act would direct the Department of State to make international LGBT human rights a foreign policy priority and would establish a position in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor responsible for coordinating that effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Statements and Press Releases Issued by Amnesty International During The
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I PRESS RELEASES 1. UN Commission on Human Rights: Time for concrete action (13 March 2003) …………………………………………………………………… 3 2. Nepal: Code of Conduct and the Protection of the Human Rights (21 March 2003) …………………………………………………………………… 4 3. UN Commission on Human Rights: Iraq (26 March 2003) ……………………….. 6 4. UN Commission on Human Rights: Thorough discussion on Iraq essential (27 March 2003) …………………………………………………………………… 7 5. Democratic Republic of Congo: End the use of child soldiers (31 March 2003) …………………………………………………………………… 7 6. Sudan: Urgent need for continued human rights monitoring (joint press release) (1 April 2003) …………………………………………………………………… 9 7. North Korea: Human Rights Concerns (11 April 2003) ………………………… 11 8. 1,526 executed in 2002 (11 April 2003) ……………………………………….... 14 9. Somalia: Amnesty International calls on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to support human rights reconstruction (15 April 2003) ……….. 16 10. UN Commission on Human Rights: Defeat of Chechnya resolution extremely disappointing (17 April 2003) …………………………………………………... 18 11. UN Commission on Human Rights: Universality under threat over sexual orientation resolution (22 April 2003) ………………………………………….. 19 12. Standing Invitations to Thematic Human Rights Mechanisms (joint press release) (24 April 2003) ………………………………………………………………...…. 22 13. UN Commission on Human Rights fails once again to protect victims of human rights violations (25 April 2003) ………………………………………… 23 AI Index: IOR 41/016/2003 Amnesty International August 2003 2 Statements and press releases issued during the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights 14. UN Commission on Human Rights must commit to protect human rights …..….. 27 II ORAL STATEMENTS 1. Oral statement on the human rights situation in Colombia, delivered under agenda item “Organization of the work of the session (Colombia)” …………… 29 2.
    [Show full text]
  • July 21, 2020 Mr. Paulo Abrão Executive Secretary Inter-American
    School of Law Immigration and Deportation Clinic 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 Tel 415.422.6171 Fax 415.422.6433 www.usfca.edu/law [email protected] July 21, 2020 Mr. Paulo Abrão Executive Secretary Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1889 F St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 RE: Request for Thematic Hearing During 177th Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Addressing Systemic Human Rights Violations in the Region Resulting from Measures Implemented by the United States, in Cooperation with Mexico, Impeding Access to International and Humanitarian Protection. Distinguished Secretary Abrão: We, the undersigned organizations represent a regional coalition of 41 organizations that advocate for the protection of individuals seeking asylum at the United States southern border. Collectively, our organizations are based in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and the United States. We submit this request for a multi-country thematic hearing to address the wide-ranging impacts of U.S. migration policy in recent years on migrants, refugees, and unaccompanied children throughout the region, bringing particular attention to the policies enacted since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic that have devastating consequences for access to international and humanitarian protection. A hearing would bring much needed international attention to the human rights violations experienced by migrants in the region and provide the Commission with important information on U.S. immigration measures that were not yet in effect during the Commission’s 2019 visit to the U.S. southern border. More importantly, this request differs from the thematic hearings held in 20191 by 1See IACHR 173rd Period of Session: “Limitations on Access to Asylum and Refuge in the United States for Citizens of the Northern Triangle Countries” September 24, 2019; “Reports of Violations of the Human Rights of 1 also focusing on the unusual and extreme measures enacted by the governments of the U.S.
    [Show full text]