DOCSLIB.ORG

Delegate Research Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MSC 65th Student Conference on National Affairs Texas A&M University Delegate Research Information Round Table Is the Grass Always Greener? Border Security and Immigration Facilitator: TBD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This delegate research information is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of your assigned round table topic, but rather a starting point to help launch your own personal investigations into the various associated issues. It is encouraged, if not expected, that your policy proposals will be inclusive of aspects pertaining to your round table topic that are not covered in this research compilation. You, your facilitator, your round table host, and your fellow roundtable delegates are all responsible for crafting a policy proposal that takes this into consideration. Terms & Actors Terms Asylum - when a nation offers protection to refugees under political turmoil from another country. Citizenship - the state of swearing allegiance to a country in return for its protection. Closed Border - restricted movement between jurisdictions with limited or no exceptions. Dreamer - describes anyone born in the United States to non-legal citizens. Humanitarian - any situation particularly pertaining to human welfare. Open Border - very little to no restrictions on movement between jurisdictions. Quota System - introduced in 1924, this system set a numerical limit on immigration to this country. Refugee - an individual(s) seeking help from political turmoil in their home country. Refugee Act – introduced in 1980, this legislation set restrictions on who can claim refugee status and how many the United States could take. Undocumented Immigrant - also known as “Illegal Immigrant,” it is used to describe anyone who currently lives in a country without citizenship, a work visa, or otherwise any legitimate reason to legally reside in the country. Work Visa - documentation for someone to work in a country they would otherwise not be a citizen for. Actors Border Patrol – a law enforcement agency under Homeland Security that deals with capturing undocumented/illegal immigrants. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – a branch of the federal government. The primary overseer of immigration. Department of Justice (DOJ) – a branch of the federal government that oversees punishments for undocumented/illegal immigrants. Donald Trump - the current president and one of the leading advocates on enforcing the border. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – a law enforcement agency under Homeland Security that deals with transnational crime. They detail and deport the captured undocumented/illegal immigrants. Mexico - the country that most undocumented/illegal immigrants come from. Venezuela – a country that the United States has seen a surge of people seeking asylum from due to recent political turmoil. William Barr – the current Attorney General and leading advocate of enforcing the border. Analysis Overview The topic of Border Control has always been a rather “touchy” subject. However, this subject really blew up during the 2016 Election Year with the introduction of a certain billionaire into the presidential race: Donald Trump. Everybody remembers that infamous quote in June 2015: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.”1 Some argue that he has a valid point. Others disagree with him; some critics disagree so vehemently they proceed to call the now-president a “racist.” Either way, this man has single handedly re-sparked a national conversation that was once nearly dormant. While citizenship for the United States can date back to as early as 1790, official numeric limits on United States citizenship and immigration started in 1921. The Border Patrol wasn’t formally introduced until 1924, along with the introduction of a “quota system.” Nowadays, the United States uses certain criteria to deem certain individuals eligible to work in the country and eventually become a citizen of the United States, should they choose to. They also have a system in place for refugees, with a worldwide cap currently set at 18,000 (which is much lower than when the Refugee Act was formally introduced in 1980, setting the cap at 270 thousand).2 Now, 18,000 is not a large number in most cases, especially when it applies to illegal/undocumented immigrants. In fact, more than five times the number of people got arrested earlier this year during the month of April.3 Now, a lot of these cases seem to deviate 1 Kopan, Tal. “What Donald Trump Has Said about Mexico.” CNN, Cable News Network, 31 Aug. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-mexico-statements/index.html. 2 Shear, Michael D. “Trump Slashes Refugee Cap to 18,000, Curtailing U.S. Role as Haven.” The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-refugees.html. 3 Herrera, Jack. “The Government's Numbers Show Increasing Border Arrests. Does That Mean the U.S. Is Facing an Illegal Immigration Crisis?” Pacific Standard, 9 May 2019, psmag.com/news/increasing-border-arrests-is-the-us- facing-an-illegal-immigration-crisis. from the usual stereotype of “trying to sneak into the country.” Rather, these immigrants choose to immediately surrender themselves to Border Patrol in order to claim asylum. According to the article, these immigrants seemed to have attempted to enter the country through legal means, however, when that failed (due to the United States’ newfound restrictions on said refugees) they proceeded to enter the country anyway. While some people believed they never intended to claim asylum and only did it to not get arrested, those undocumented immigrants do have a legal right to ask for asylum even when caught illegally. The current administration tried to change this policy in November 2018 unsuccessfully.4 The Trump administration did, however, enforce stricter requirements on who can actually claim “asylum.” In this particular ordinance, the DHS and DOJ are enforcing a rule where you can’t legally seek asylum in the United States unless they first request asylum from a third party country that’s able to take refugees.5 Attorney General William Barr said: “This Rule is a lawful exercise of authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border.” A lot of refugees are seeking to escape the violence from their home countries, however, there is a common misconception among the American public that they bring the violence and crime with them to the United States. Incidents such as the shooting of Kate Steinle are 4 Goldstein, Emily, and Mandi Cai. “What Do Migrants Experience When They Request Asylum at the Texas- Mexico Border?” The Texas Tribune, 22 July 2019, www.texastribune.org/2019/07/22/asylum-seekers-experience- texas-mexico-border/ 5 “DHS and DOJ Issue Third-Country Asylum Rule.” Department of Homeland Security, 19 July 2019, www.dhs.gov/news/2019/07/15/dhs-and-doj-issue-third-country-asylum-rule remembered (the offender was recently acquitted).6 However, the Cato Institute used data from the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2017 to determine that “illegal immigrants were 47 percent less likely to be convicted of a crime than native-born Americans.”7 According to this article, not only were illegal immigrants less convicted of serious crimes (in this study: homicide, sex crimes, and larceny were used), the argument of “immigrant privilege due to letting them go after arresting them” doesn’t even apply here. Texas police arrested over 660 thousand native Americans in 2017 compared to the undocumented immigrants’ less than 30 thousand. The United States is currently at a crossroads. The country wants to maintain its status as a haven for “humanitarian issues” while at the same time maintaining a sense of law and order. Where exactly is that balance, if it even exists? Do we really have “a crisis at the border?” Are these illegal/undocumented immigrants that “harmful to society?” Should the United States stop enforcing a border? What other reasons are there to limit immigration besides national security? 6 Mansell, William. “Conviction Overturned for Undocumented Immigrant Charged in Death of Kate Steinle.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 31 Aug. 2019, abcnews.go.com/US/conviction-overturned-undocumented-immigrant- charged-death-kate-steinle/story?id=653135.. 7 “Criminal Immigrants in Texas in 2017: Illegal Immigrant Conviction Rates and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sex Crimes, Larceny, and Other Crimes.” Cato Institute, 28 Aug. 2019, www.cato.org/publications/immigration- research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-2017-illegal-immigrant. Additional Resources Media Links: ● “Do We Need to Change the Asylum System?” ○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnem4VxlBQ ○ Above the Nation analyzes the US Asylum system and offers their perspective of the potentially flawed asylum system. ● “Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - NumbersUSA.com” ○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE ○ Roy Beck employs the use of gumballs to examine world poverty and the supposedly “humanitarian” reasons the United States uses immigration. ● “Illegal Border Crossing in Mexico” ○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH_Z5BEZ5ts
Recommended publications
  • Fact Sheet: Operation Streamline What Is Operation Streamline? Operation Streamline Is a Program Under Which Federal Criminal Ch

    Fact Sheet: Operation Streamline What Is Operation Streamline? Operation Streamline Is a Program Under Which Federal Criminal Ch

    Fact Sheet: Operation Streamline What Is Operation Streamline? Operation Streamline is a program under which federal criminal charges are brought against individuals apprehended crossing the border illegally. Created in 2005 as a joint initiative of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the program fast-tracks resolution of these immigration offenses, providing for mass proceedings in which as many as 80 unlawful border crossers are tried together in a single hearing, typically pleading guilty en masse. Under federal law, those caught making a first illegal entry may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor (under 8 U.S.C. § 1325) punishable by up to six months in prison, and those who reenter after deportation may be prosecuted for a felony (under 8 U.S.C. § 1326) punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Operation Streamline is a fast-track program: Migrants apprehended pursuant to it are targeted for accelerated prosecution for illegal entry or illegal re-entry.1 Several steps of a federal criminal case with prison and deportation consequences – including initial appearances, preliminary hearings, pleas, and sentencing – are combined into a single hearing that may last only minutes.2 The average prison sentence for unlawful entrants typically varies between 30 and 180 days, depending on whether the individual has a criminal record in the U.S. or has prior reentry convictions.3 Before Operation Streamline, agents with CBP’s Border Patrol agency routinely returned first- time undocumented border crossers to their home countries or referred them to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, ICE’s predecessor agency) to face removal charges in the civil immigration system.
  • Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021

    Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021

    8839 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 86, No. 25 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Title 3— Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 The President Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nation- ality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world, promotes stability in regions experiencing conflict, and facilitates international collaboration to address the global refugee crisis. Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Govern- ment, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in commu- nities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that: (a) USRAP and other humanitarian programs shall be administered in a manner that furthers our values as a Nation and is consistent with our domestic law, international obligations, and the humanitarian purposes ex- pressed by the Congress in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96–212. (b) USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need and the purposes described above. (c) Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.
  • May 2009 a Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3

    May 2009 a Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3

    U.S. Department of Justice http://eoirweb/library/lib_index.htm Executive Office for Immigration Review Published since 2007 Immigration Law Advisor May 2009 A Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3. No.5 Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: In this issue... The Supreme Court’s Decision in Negusie v. Holder and the Misplaced Reliance on Page 1: Feature Article: Fedorenko v. United States Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: The Supreme Court’s by Brigette L. Frantz Decision in Negusie v. Holder ... Page 5: Federal Court Activity t is a difficult issue faced by the immigration courts. An individual appears in immigration court seeking asylum on account of a Page 12: BIA Precedent Decisions Istatutorily protected ground—race, religion, nationality, membership Page 13: Regulatory Update in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Immigration Judge hears testimony revealing that the respondent is fully credible and has, in fact, suffered persecution and appears eligible for asylum. Yet, the Immigration Judge finds that the respondent is statutorily barred from The Immigration Law Advisor is asylum in the United States based on his participation and assistance in the a professional monthly newsletter of the Executive Office for Immigration persecution of others. This statutory provision, more commonly referred Review (“EOIR”) that is intended to as the “persecutor bar,” precludes the granting of asylum to anyone who solely as an educational resource has “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution to disseminate information on of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a developments in immigration law particular social group, or political opinion.” Section 208(b)(2)(A)(i) of pertinent to the Immigration Courts the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
  • CWS Strongly Opposes the RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill

    CWS Strongly Opposes the RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill

    CWS Strongly Opposes The RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill Church World Service (CWS), a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions, strongly opposes the “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” (RAISE) Act. We urge all Members of Congress to reject this anti-family and anti- refugee legislation introduced by Senators Cotton (R-AR) and Perdue (R-GA) and supported by President Trump. The RAISE Act would permanently cap refugee admissions at 50,000 per year, the lowest resettlement goal in U.S. history, during the largest global refugee crisis in world history. Despite the sponsors’ citation of an arbitrary “13-year average”, the average annual resettlement goal between when Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act and today has been 95,000, and the average number of resettled refugees has been 80,000.1 Such a drastic, permanent cut to resettlement would reduce U.S. leadership abroad and tie the hands of the State Department in key diplomatic negotiations to encourage other countries to keep their doors open to refugees and allow refugees to work and refugee children to go to school. Refugee resettlement is a cost-effective form of humanitarian relief that is a lifeline for those who cannot return to their homes or rebuild their lives in a nearby country.2 Refugees contribute meaningfully to the U.S. economy as earners and taxpayers, including more than $56 billion in spending power.3 This bill dishonors the sanctity of families and commodifies the worth of individuals by making family reunification inaccessible and essentially only permitting individuals who have certain education levels, employment, and English-language ability to enter the United States.
  • Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers

    Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers

    Woods: Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Woods camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/18/2020 12:00 PM BORDER MYTHS: HOW U.S. POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CONTROLLING THE BORDER NARRATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CINDY S. WOODS* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 82 I. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL IMPERATIVE ...................................... 84 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES’ APPROACH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS ................................... 87 A. International Law Obligations to Asylum Seekers ....... 88 1. The Non-Refoulement Principle ............................. 88 a. Non-Rejection ................................................... 89 b. Access to Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures ................................................ 90 B. U.S. Interpretations of International Obligations ........ 91 1. Exclusion of the Non-Rejection Principle ............. 92 2. Punitive Measures for Illegal Entrants ................. 93 3. Expedited Removal and the Credible Fear Process ............................................................... 94 III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE BORDER NARRATIVE ............................................................. 96 A. Port of Entry Denials .................................................. 96 B. CBP Abuse at the Border .......................................... 102 C. Increased Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossers ... 107 * J.D. Georgetown University Law
  • Challenging Canada's Participation in the Canada

    Challenging Canada's Participation in the Canada

    SETTLAGE_MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 11/27/2012 1:25 PM INDIRECT REFOULEMENT: CHALLENGING CANADA’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CANADA-UNITED STATES SAFE THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENT RACHEL GONZALEZ SETTLAGE* ABSTRACT In December 2004, the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) entered into effect. Pursuant to this agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe third country in which asylum- seekers are protected from persecution and accordingly requires asylum seekers to request asylum protection in the first of whichever of the two countries they arrive. However, U.S. and Canadian refugee laws are not entirely consistent, and U.S. law and policy does not adequately protect bona fide asylum seekers from refoulement (the return of the refugee to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened). This article argues that U.S. laws and policies that result in the refoulement of bona fide asylum seekers to their country of feared persecution violate U.S. obligations under the UN Refugee Convention. In turn, when Canada refuses to hear the claim of a bona fide asylum seeker arriving from the United States and returns that asylum seeker to the United States pursuant to the STCA, if that asylum seeker is then refouled, Canada is also responsible for violating the UN Refugee Convention. This article then explores a 2007 legal challenge to Canada’s participation in the STCA before the Canadian Federal Court, Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, which was ultimately unsuccessful on appeal. However, in a March 2011 decision, John Doe et al.
  • How REAL ID's Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair

    How REAL ID's Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair

    CONROY_MACRO2 (DO NOT DELETE) 4/20/2009 9:47:08 AM Real Bias: How REAL ID’s Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair Sexual Minority Asylum Applicants Melanie A. Conroy† I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2 II. SEXUAL MINORITIES AND THE LAW OF ASYLUM.......................................3 III. PRE-REAL ID CREDIBILITY AND CORROBORATION LAW AND PROBLEMS..................................................................................................5 A. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Law......................................................... 5 B. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Problems................................................. 7 i. Corroborating the Persecution of Similarly-Situated Individuals ...................................................................................8 ii. Corroborating One’s Sexual Minority Membership ..................10 C. Pre-Real ID Credibility Law............................................................ 11 D. Pre-Real ID Credibility Problems .................................................... 13 i. Airport Statements .....................................................................13 ii. The Social Visibility Requirement: Demeanor, Plausibility, and Consistency .........................................................................15 iii. Social Constructions of Gender and Sexuality: External Consistency................................................................................18 IV. REAL ID: ITS HISTORY, CONTENT,
  • Fulfilling US Commitment to Refugee Resettlement

    Fulfilling US Commitment to Refugee Resettlement

    Texas A&M Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 1-12-2018 Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Nonprofit Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, Public Affairs Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Public Policy Commons, Social Policy Commons, Social Welfare Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions, 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155 (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V5.I1.5 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Texas A&M Law Review by an authorized editor of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\T\TWL\5-1\TWL106.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-DEC-17 8:20 REPORT FULFILLING U.S. COMMITMENT TO REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT: PROTECTING REFUGEES, PRESERVING NATIONAL SECURITY, & BUILDING THE U.S.
  • 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.
  • 6Th Discussion Note on the Private Border Complex

    6Th Discussion Note on the Private Border Complex

    1 The Corporate Lobbying Alignment Project Discussion note no.6 Investor responses to corporate lobbying & public policy capture by Border Industrial Complex companies JANUARY 2021 PREVENTABLE SURPRISES 2 DISCUSSION NOTE NO.6 3 Index 4 Background on the Border Industrial Complex Human rights risks & lobbying by BIC companies 6 Influence & lobbying by BIC companies: opportunities for investor engagement Human rights risks in the Border Industrial Complex require systems-wide investor 10 engagement 11 Appendix 1 - BIC market segments 12 Appendix 2 - Trade Associations PREVENTABLE SURPRISES 4 Background on the Border Industrial Complex The privatisation and militarisation of international borders are well known. So are the associated human rights, reputational, and market risks to investors.1 Global asset owners such as CalPERS and Norges Bank Investment Management have recently made decisions to either engage with or exit their holdings in private prison companies on ethical and financial grounds, indicating the changing risk profile of companies operating in the Border Industrial Complex (BIC). BIC companies include private and public entities involved in border policing, detention, surveillance, and transportation of migrants. Growth in the BIC has been supported by heavy lobbying to enable a system of militarised borders and, increasingly, the criminalisation of migration and the erosion of basic human rights of migrants,2 including the UN Refugee Conventions in the case of refugees.3 Government support for BIC companies as part of global export- led growth strategies for the defence, security software and hardware industries4 and other influence channels show the extent to which these companies benefit from close government relations. The ability to influence government policy on migrant detention and the use of mass surveillance technology at borders speaks to the lobbying power of companies and trade associations across BIC industries.
  • Prosecuting People for Coming to the United States

    Prosecuting People for Coming to the United States

    Prosecuting People for Coming to the United States Overview Over the last two decades, the federal government increasingly has utilized the criminal courts to punish people for immigration violations. Particularly on the Southwest border, federal officials are vigorously prosecuting migrants either for entering the United States without permission or for reentering the country without permission after a prior deportation or removal order (commonly referred to, respectively, as “illegal entry” and “illegal re-entry;” or collectively as “entry-related offenses”). Tens of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers are subjected to criminal prosecution for these crimes every year. Prosecutions for entry-related offenses reached an all-time high of 106,312 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, near the end of the Trump administration,1 before falling to 47,730 in FY 2020 after the government began rapidly expelling most people crossing the border in March 2020 rather than referring them for prosecution.2 The government’s approach to charging migrants with these entry-related offenses imposes heavy costs on both the migrants themselves and the federal government. The prosecution of individuals fleeing persecution or torture harms family members with whom the individual traveled and was apprehended. Spouses are often separated, as are parents from their minor children.3 Lawyers increasingly have observed federal prosecutions of adult family members for entry-related offenses which result in those family members being sent to a federal prison away from their children.4 The children are then placed with federal authorities at shelters for unaccompanied minors or in foster homes, while parents receive little or no information about their location and condition.5 With high conviction rates for these federal offenses, many migrants are subjected to mandatory incarceration in federal prison for months or longer.
  • Rauma at the Border: the Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies

    Rauma at the Border: the Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies

    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS TRAUMA AT THE BORDER THE HUMAN COST OF INHUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICIES BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business OCTOBER 2019 Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson* independent, bipartisan agency established Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chairperson by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: Debo P. Adegbile Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to Washington, DC 20425 discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or (202) 376-8128 voice national origin, or in the administration of justice. TTY Relay: 711 • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information www.usccr.gov in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.