industryterm:immigration law

  • Child Inmates of South Korea’s Immigration Jail

    Helene* had a challenge that no mother would want. She, with her husband, was a refugee in a foreign land with a foreign language, trying despite all odds to raise her children as best she could. If this weren’t enough of a challenge, Helene was in jail, locked up in a 10-person cell with others she didn’t know. The only time she could leave her cell was for a 30-minute exercise time each day. But her task was more daunting still. Her children were locked up with her.

    Helene’s jail was an immigration detention facility, and her crime was not having enough money to begin refugee applicant proceedings. She spent 23 days in that cell with her two sons. Her oldest, Emerson, was three years and eight months old, and her youngest, Aaron, was only 13 months old. She watched their mental health and physical health slowly deteriorate while her pleadings for help fell on deaf ears.

    *

    In June, American news media were shocked by the revelation that migrant children, who were only guilty of not possessing legal migrant status, were being held in large-scale detention facilities. This was something new—a part of President Donald Trump’s ‘tough on immigration’ stance.

    In South Korea, detaining children simply due to their migration status, or the migration status of their parents, is standard practice.

    Children make up a very small percentage of the total picture of unregistered migrants in South Korea. However, as the nation’s foreign population reaches 2 million and beyond, that small percentage becomes a large number in real terms. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) doesn’t keep statistics on the exact number of unregistered child migrants in the country.

    Most unregistered child migrants in South Korea fall into one of two broad categories: teenagers who come alone, and infants or toddlers brought by their parents or born to migrants already living in the country. In both cases, the majority of children (or their parents) come from other parts of Asia seeking work in the industrial sector.

    These children often end up in detention facilities when immigration authorities carry out routine crackdowns targeting workplaces in industrial districts or transportation routes workers use to get to these districts. Authorities, by policy, detain any unregistered migrant who is 14 or older. Younger children are technically exempt from detention orders, but parents are often caught in crackdowns while with their children. The parents can’t leave their children on the street to fend for themselves, and so, left with no other options, they choose to bring their children with them into the detention facilities.

    Helene’s case was different. She and her husband brought their sons to South Korea with them when they fled religious persecution in their home country of Liberia. The South Korean government rejected their refugee applications, and the family only had enough money to begin a legal challenge for one person. Emerson and Aaron, along with Helene, became unregistered migrants.

    How they were detained would be comical if their case were not so tragic. After a trip to a hospital, the family was trying to board a subway to return home. Their stroller could not fit through the turnstiles, and after a brief altercation an upset station manager called the police. The police asked to see the family’s papers, but only Helene’s husband had legal status. The police were obligated to arrest Helene due to her unregistered status and turn her over to immigration authorities. Because her children were very young – the youngest was still breastfeeding – she had no viable option but to bring her children with her.

    *

    Helene and her sons were sent to an immigration detention facility in Hwaseong, some 60 kilometers southwest of Seoul. Inside and out, the facility is indistinguishable from a prison. Detainees wear blue jumpsuits with the ironic Korean phrase “protected foreigner” printed in large white letters on the back. They live in 10-person cells with cement walls and steel bars at the front. Each cell has a small common area up front with tables, a sleeping area in the middle, and a bathroom at the back.

    For detainees, these cells become the entirety of their existence until they are released. Food is delivered through a gap in the bars, and the only opportunity to leave the cell is for a brief 30-minute exercise period each day.

    These facilities were never intended to house children, and authorities make little to no effort to accommodate them. Young children have to live in a cell with a parent and as many as eight other adults, all unknown to the child. The detention center doesn’t provide access to pediatricians, child appropriate play and rest time, or even food suitable for young children.

    Government policy states that education is provided only for children detained for more than 30 days. Children have no other children to interact with, and no space to play or explore. During daytime, when the sleeping mats are rolled up and stored, the sleeping area becomes a large open space where children could play. According to Helene, whenever her sons entered that area guards would shout at them to come back to the common area at the front of the cell.

    Emerson’s fear of the guards’ reprimand grew to the point that he refused to use the toilets at the back of the cell because that would mean crossing the sleeping area, instead choosing to soil himself. Even after the family was eventually released, Emerson’s psychological trauma and his refusal to use bathrooms remained.

    The stress and anxiety of being locked in a prison cell naturally takes a severe toll on children’s wellbeing. Like the adults they’re detained with, they don’t know what will happen to them or when they will be released. Unlike the adults, they don’t understand why they are in a prison cell to begin with. Without any way to alleviate the situation, the stress and anxiety they feel turn into mental disorders. These conditions can include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even increased rates of suicide and self-harm.

    Kim Jong Chul has seen many examples of these symptoms firsthand. Kim is a lawyer with APIL, a public interest law firm, and he’s worked to secure the release of many migrant children held in detention.

    In one such case, May, a 5-year-old migrant from China, spent 20 days in a detention facility with her mother. Over those 20 days, May’s extreme anxiety produced insomnia, a high fever, swollen lips and more. Despite this, her guards never brought a doctor to examine her.

    For most migrants in immigration custody, children included, their release comes only when they are deported. In 2016, authorities held 29,926 migrants in detention, and 96 percent of them were deported. The whole deportation process, from arrest to boarding a plane, typically takes ten days.

    But for children, ten days in detention are enough to develop severe stress and anxiety. Special cases, including refugee applications or a migrant laborer with unpaid wages, can take much longer to process. South Korea’s immigration law doesn’t set an upper limit on migrant detention, and there are cases of migrants held for more than a year. The law also doesn’t require regular judicial review or in-person checks from a case worker at any point in the process. According to Kim from APIL, the longest child detention in recent years was 141 days.

    Existing children’s welfare services would benefit migrant children, but the MOJ opposes any such idea. In the view of the MOJ and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, welfare facilities should be reserved only for citizens and foreigners with legal status.

    Children between the ages of 14 and 18 are yet another matter. The MOJ’s stance is that most of these children are physically similar to adults, highly likely to commit crimes and in general a danger to society, and they need to be detained.

    Kim argues that it’s hard to interpret the MOJ’s stance that migrant teenagers are all potential criminals as anything other than institutional racism. South Korean citizens who are under 18 are considered minors and treated differently in the eyes of the law.

    International treaties ban detaining children, including teenagers, due to migration status, and the South Korean government has signed and ratified each of the UN treaties that relate to children’s rights. It means that under the country’s constitution, the treaties have the same power as domestic law. And yet abuses persist.

    Lawmaker Keum Tae-seob from the ruling Minjoo Party—often called one of the most progressive members of the National Assembly— is fighting this reality. He has proposed a revision to the current immigration law that would ban detention of migrant children, but it has met opposition from the MOJ. Ironically, the ministry argues that because South Korea has signed the relevant international treaties, there is no need to pass a separate domestic law that would ban such detention. This is despite the fact that immigration authorities, who belong to the MOJ, have detained over 200 children over the past 3 years, including many under the age of 14.

    To rally support for a ban on detaining migrant children, APIL and World Vision Korea launched an awareness campaign in 2016, complete with a slick website, emotional videos and a petition. As of this writing, the petition has just under 9,000 signatures, and APIL is hoping to reach 10,000.
    Back in June of last year, another petition received significant media attention. A group of Yemeni refugee applicants—fewer than 600—arrived on the island of Jeju, and in response a citizen’s petition against accepting refugees on the office of the president’s website garnered over 714,000 signatures. A collection of civic groups even organized an anti-refugee rally in Seoul that same month.

    APIL’s campaign has been underway for more than two years, but the recent reaction to Yemeni refugees in Jeju has unveiled how difficult it will be change the government’s position on asylum seekers. A Human Rights Watch report released on Thursday also minced no words in critiquing the government policies: “even though [South Korean president] Moon Jae-in is a former human rights lawyer,” he “did little to defend the rights of women, refugees, and LGBT persons in South Korea.”

    For now, Keum’s bill is still sitting in committee, pending the next round of reviews. Helene’s family has been in the UK since her husband’s refugee status lawsuit failed.

    *Helene is a pseudonym to protect the identity of her and her family.

    https://www.koreaexpose.com/child-migrant-inmates-south-korea-immigration-jail-hwaseong
    #enfants #enfance #mineurs #rétention #détention_administrative #Corée_du_Sud #migrations #sans-papiers #réfugiés #asile

  • What’s in A Name? Exploring the Role of Law and Bureaucracy in The Everyday Construction of Holot, an ’Open Detention Facility’ for ’Infiltrators’ in Israel | Oxford Law Faculty
    https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2017/11/whats-name

    Approximately 38,000 asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea currently reside in Israel. All entered Israel since 2005 through non-authorized border points, and most claim to have fled persecution in Sudan or human rights abuses in Eritrea. In 2013, Israel established Holot ‘open detention facility’ in the middle of the Negev desert, approved by the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament). To date, approximately 10,000 people have been detained in Holot. Detainees must report to Holot for a year-long detention, under the 5th amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law. Detainees must be present for head counts in the mornings, evenings and sleep in the facility, while during the day, they are allowed outside the center’s confines. Israel’s Prison Authority runs the facility. Breach of disciplinary guidelines is punishable by sanctions, including removal to a closed facility, Saharonim, located across the road.

    During interviews, three legal terms were frequently used by state employees or legal professionals to describe Holot as a non-punitive arrangement. I expand briefly on each term to trace how a punitive effect takes place, despite the claimed neutrality and administrative nature of these legal terms.

    Administrative detention, which includes the arrest and detention of persons without an indictment, trial or access to judicial review, has existed since the state’s founding in 1948. The early days of Israeli statehood were characterised by the mass movement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had been displaced during the 1947-8 war. Those who crossed the border without the new State’s authorisation were titled ‘infiltrators.’ Increased organized smuggling by militant groups called Fedayeen in the early years of the state, led to the legislation of the Prevention of Infiltration Law in 1954. Since 2012 this law was expanded, contested in court, and amended to regulate asylum seekers who entered the country through non-authorised border points, and enable their detention.

    State employees and legislators insist that administrative detention is not punitive, and therefore does not need to comply with individual criminal law procedures and protections. However, similarities between administrative detention and penal incarceration came under scrutiny in Israel’s Supreme Court and in legislative committees. As explained in the final verdict on detention in Holot by Justice Vogelman: “Long periods of detention cross the border between a ‘disciplinary’ sanction which is largely carried out for the sake of deterrence and a ‘penal’ sanction which is punitive in its essence” (author’s translation). This observation was picked up by scholars, activists and lawyers questioning the legislative aim of detention, its covert and overt goals.

    The blurred or intersecting border between criminal law and immigration law has been vastly explored under the term crimmigration. Juliet Stumpf has written about the ways in which ‘the process is the punishment in crimmigration law’, drawing on Malcolm Feeley’s 1979 work. Stumpf identifies two criteria to ascertain when processes of crimmigration law may become punitive: when those subjected to the process experience it as punitive, and when the process is enacted as a sanction by the state.

  • #9500_Liberty

    9500 Liberty documents the first time in U.S. history that an Arizona-style immigration law was actually implemented—and the surprising grassroots opposition that led to its repeal.

    Racial tension and threats of violence erupt when Prince William County, #Virginia adopts a law requiring the police to question people who appear to be undocumented immigrants. Supporters of the law ride a wave of hysteria to an election victory. But many reconsider when the local economy feels the impact of a sudden exodus of workers, consumers, and business owners. Despite fears of reprisal, a group of concerned citizens launches a “virtual resistance” using social media, setting up a final showdown with the law’s -ferocious advocates.

    https://vimeo.com/128386646


    #film #documentaire #migrations #USA #xénophobie #racisme #racial_profiling #profilage_ethnique #Etats-Unis #résistance #sans-papiers #réseaux_sociaux

    Le site de #help_save_manassas :
    http://www.helpsavemanassas.org
    –-> #délation :

    Intéressant, autour de 1 heure après le début du documentaire, on montre les répercussions économiques (#économie) de cette loi anti-immigrants, quand un grand nombre de migrants ont quitté la ville... Résultat ? Maisons vides, enfants qui perdent la majorité des amis, restaurants sans clients, etc.

    • #Mexicans_Without_Borders

      Mexicans Without Borders (Spanish: Mexicanos Sin Fronteras) is a Washington, D.C.-based rights group that has been active against what it sees as the growing harassment of alien workers. The group also seeks to address the broader social and political roots of immigration.

      The central objectives of MSF are permanent residency for all illegal aliens residing in the country and the establishment of legal channels for future waves of aliens.

      The committees of undocumented folks that now form the organization first came together in 2001. Its organizers claim that giving permanent residency to the 11 million workers and families in the country illegally would greatly benefit all workers. They have stated that they support all reforms that benefit aliens, but are looking for a more thorough reform that provides solutions to the phenomenon of immigration at a structural level, not just at the level of legality.

      The group has organized mass demonstrations in the Virginia and Washington D.C. areas to protest local laws that they claimed targeting aliens. They also document and record cases of alleged discrimination and racial profiling in order to build civil lawsuits in federal courts.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicans_Without_Borders

    • #Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

      The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt organization in the United States that advocates changes in U.S. immigration policy that they believe would result in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal. It reports a membership of more than 250,000 members and supporters,[1] and has been called to testify before the United States Congressional committees on immigration bills.

      FAIR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded on January 2, 1979, with seed money from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Its founding chairman was John Tanton, a leader of many anti-immigration and environmentalist groups, including Zero Population Growth and the Sierra Club’s population committee.[2]

      FAIR’s first executive director was environmental lawyer Roger Conner. Other co-founders included University of California, Santa Barbara, history professor emeritus and author Otis L. Graham, Jr., feminist Sharon Barnes, and the late former Gulf Oil president and board chairman Sidney Swensrud.[3][4] Dan Stein has been president of #FAIR since 1988.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

      site de FAIR :
      http://www.fairus.org

    • #Anti_BVBL

      AntiBVBL was formed in February 2008 in response to an anti-immigrant sentiments which surfaced in Prince William County, Virginia. The blog ceased official production in February 2010 but a spin-off blog formed and can be found at Moonhowlings.net

      Prince William County citizens united against these measures which have been declared unconstitutional in other localities, further vindicating their efforts for a tempered approach on the issue.❞

      http://antibvbl.net

  • How #History has been distorted to justify the Dominican deportations
    http://africasacountry.com/how-history-has-been-re-written-to-justify-the-dominican-deportatio

    Over the past two years, a legal nightmare has grown in the #Dominican_Republic. Taking aim at Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent, the Dominican Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling in.....

    #LATIN_AMERICA_IS_A_COUNTRY #Haiti #immigration #law

  • The New Face of Italian Immigration Detention: A Retreat from the Criminalisation of Migrants

    At the end of 2014, the Italian Parliament approved Law no. 161, a law that mandates the reform of immigration detention, thereby representing a radical change compared with the previous Italian immigration policy. Indeed, this reform constitutes a new starting point for Italy in its migration policy, but it’s also an important model for the whole European Union, where, in recent years, the use of detention for reasons of immigration law enforcement has increased enormously, both in asylum and in removal proceedings. This reform, which to-date hasn’t received adequate attention by media, scholars, or members of the public, should be recognised for its practical impact as well as its symbolical value: after practices of criminalising migration that have produced an uneasy intertwining of criminal and administrative regulation, for the first time, a reform has occurred in the opposite direction.

    http://bordercriminologies.law.ox.ac.uk/the-new-face-of-italian-immigration-detention
    #migration #asile #réfugiés #Italie #détention_administrative #rétention #CIE #criminalisation #politique_migratoire

  • A note on terminology : U.S. current immigration law enforcement regime is one of “mass deportation.”

    My forthcoming book is tentatively titled “Mass Deportation and Global Capitalism.” People sometimes ask if “mass deportation” is an appropriate way to describe the current moment. I think it is. Here’s why.

    The term “mass incarceration” has been deployed to explain how and why the United States locks up a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country as well as much more than in the past. The term “mass deportation” draws from the conceptual logic of “mass incarceration.”


    http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.nl/2014/08/a-note-on-terminology-us-current.html

    #terminologie #déportation #migration #déportation_de_masse #renvoi #expulsion #USA #Etats-Unis #visualisation #vocabulaire

  • New Home Office guidance on deportation

    The Home Office have updated their Chapter 13 Immigration Directorate Instruction guidance on deportation cases. It makes interesting reading for anyone interested in immigration law or human rights but it is essential reading for lawyers representing people in deportation cases. It not only gives insight into the approach of the Home Office, it also tells us about the evidence that is necessary in deportation cases in order to avoid an appeal where people do meet the stringent rules.

    It discloses some interesting possible arguments about the scheme of the statutory considerations on human rights and includes some really quite astonishing propositions even by Home Office standards.

    http://www.freemovement.org.uk/new-home-office-guidance-on-deportation

    #lignes_directrices #déportation #expulsion #renvoi #migration #asile #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre

  • Un peu de médiatisation sur le traitement des immigrants à la frontière états-unienne…

    Detention of Ukrainian Woman in Texas Is Questioned
    http://www.voanews.com/content/detention-of-ukrainian-woman-in-texas-is-questioned/1965645.html

    The weeklong prison detention of a Ukrainian woman who is married to a U.S. citizen in El Paso, Texas, has shed light on the difficulties of enforcing U.S. immigration law at a time when border agents are overwhelmed by a surge of migrants from Central America. While some immigrants are released to await a hearing, many others languish in detention.
    (…)
    But instead of keeping her in the processing center, which was overcrowded, the border agents sent Bronova to a prison used for hardcore criminals.

    “I wasn’t expecting to be in a maximum security prison and be forbidden to call. So the whole week I was there I was not able to make any calls and nobody could call me,” said Bronova.
    (…)
    The first thing Bronova did after being released, according to Price, was pull out a list of names and numbers her Central American friends had given her before she left prison.

    When she left, the first day-and-a-half she spent calling these people’s families in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, letting them know where their family members were,” said Price.

    Et pour finir, une déclaration dans le plus pur style israélien…

    Officials of the U.S. immigration agency, known as ICE, cannot comment on specific asylum cases, but an ICE spokesperson in Houston told VOA that every effort is made to provide a fair process for anyone seeking asylum and a safe, secure and humane environment for those who are detained.

    cc : @CdB_77

  • Does detention increase removals and decrease asylum claims?

    Yesterday I gave a short talk at an event organised by the Campaign to Close Campsfield as part of Oxford Refugee Week. It was an excellent, well attended event in a packed room at the town hall and I’m grateful for the chance to have spoken.

    My first demonstration was as a student in 1998 at Campsfield. Like the migrants detained there, my first ever experience of immigration law and practice in the UK and our horrendous treatment of refugees was at an inhuman, miserable, isolated detention centre. I could not see the detainees to allow me to humanise them. They could not see me to be welcomed. That my first contact would be at a distance, through barbed wire without sight of an actual human being other than the burly security guards is just how the government then and now wants it, both for us on the outside and for them on the inside – out of sight, out of mind.

    As preparation for the talk, I checked on the latest official migration statistics (to March 2014). I thought it might be helpful to visualise some of the data as a sort of follow up my previous attempts at infographics here and here.

    http://www.freemovement.org.uk/does-detention-increase-removals-and-decrease-asylum-claims

    #détention #rétention #renvoi #requêtes_d'asile #statistiques #visualisation #graphique #détention_administrative #infographie

  • Sweet home Alabama no more | Maribel Hastings (The Guardian)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/sweet-home-alabama-no-more?intcmp=239

    “What’s important is not to be afraid,” said the deacon of a Catholic church, which has, like others throughout the state, turned into an orientation center for an immigrant community terrified by Alabama’s new immigration law, HB56. Here, immigrants can learn their rights and find out what options they have if detained by police. But as the deacon spoke to the hundreds of immigrants who had crowded into a room in the church building, their fear and distrust were palpable – and showed in the questions they asked. The most common questions: what happens if I get detained by police? (...) Source: The Guardian